1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 6, 1998

Afternoon

(Part 1)

Volume 11, Number 12

[ Page 9465 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we're going to depart somewhat from our standard procedures this afternoon in order to allow the House to pay respects to a former Speaker and New Democrat MLA, Emery Barnes, who died on July 1 in Vancouver. I recognize the member for North Coast, the Minister of Energy and Mines and Northern Development.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I think I speak for all members of this House but particularly for my caucus when I note that Wednesday, July 1 -- Canada Day -- was indeed a very sad day as much as it was a day of celebration for Canadians, in that a distinguished member of this House, Emery Barnes, who was a friend to many of us, passed away. Emery leaves his spouse Janet and four children.

Words are difficult at these times, hon. Speaker. I did look at some historical documentation on Emery Barnes. Looking at some of the issues that he championed, we were delighted in 1974 when as a backbencher Emery Barnes successfully spearheaded the drive to remove South African wines from B.C. liquor stores. He was delighted, as the Speaker in 1994, to toast the reintroduction of South African wines back into B.C. liquor stores at the end of apartheid.

He was in some ways ahead of his time. I chided my colleague from Saanich South that he was far more progressive . . . . I noted that in the seventies he was lobbying the Speaker for showers to be installed in the legislative precincts for MLAs who rode their bikes to work, a cause which has been taken up by my colleague from Saanich South.

He had an interest in many things -- a very rounded individual. He was a director of the Vancouver Symphony -- he was an elected director in 1978 -- and, according to one of my colleagues, was a passable piano player. He was not afraid to undertake difficult and sometimes controversial things. He lived for a month on welfare in 1986, and he was criticized for doing that. But he did it, I think, because he believed very strongly in the people he was elected to represent and in the plight of the people in the downtown east side, who were being impacted by developments at that time. He's a member of the B.C.

Sports Hall of Fame. The list goes on, really, of the small ways in which Emery Barnes did his job as an MLA in British Columbia. He really was a gentle man. I remember sitting and talking to him many times about his early career in football and how he came later to decry the violence associated with that sport. He was truly a very gentle man. To use a phrase that's not used very often today, he was a true gentleman. Hon. Speaker, these are a few words to mark the passing of someone who was truly a magnificent man and a magnificent British Columbian and Canadian.

T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, I feel a great deal of emotion as I speak about my predecessor today, a man whom I greatly admired and came to understand as a friend. Indeed, he was a gentleman and a gentle man. Yet he was an enormous man. All of us, I'm sure, will remember him coming up behind you, giving a good slap on the back and practically sending you right through the room. That was just kind of a friendly tap for him. He also had enormous hands. In fact, he's the only man that had the same size of hands that I do; I happen to have large hands. We used to measure hands. But when he gripped your hand, you knew you were shaking someone's hand very firmly.

He was an individual who was loved in my riding, Vancouver-Burrard. We've had a tremendous outpouring of emotion and calls to my office following his death -- and before, of course, when people knew he was ill. He was someone who was concerned with the ordinary person, concerned with the marginalized and concerned with the poor, and people responded to him that way. He made people laugh. He was a person who made you at ease in his company and an equal in his company.

He was also a great friend of the gay and lesbian community, and the community remembers him very well. In that, he went through his own evolutionary process. When he and I talked about this on a number of occasions, he said that he started off in a position of little understanding. After some time, thinking and meeting the community, he began to change. He did not remain fossilized in his old position. He came to see homophobia as the same as racism and fought homophobia as he fought racism in our society.

He had a great love for this House and, of course, was in your position for a time, hon. Speaker, which he really, really enjoyed. In fact, the funeral on Friday afternoon was his request. He didn't want to interrupt our House; he didn't want to have the House adjourned. He felt that our business was too important, so he requested that it be on Friday afternoon.

He's going to be deeply missed by the constituents in Vancouver-Burrard and deeply missed here. It's a great loss for us, but he served us well.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I recognize now the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I rise to join with the previous speakers in recognizing Emery. I should say that my first memory of Emery is not of him sitting in the Speaker's chair or of his being an elected representative or even a social worker. My first real, tangible memory of Emery is him rushing across the scrimmage line with his arms waving around, as he sacked Jackie Parker and 30,000 people rose and cheered him.

He was truly an exceptional person. As a social worker, he was very closely and deeply involved with the community. When I served as mayor of Vancouver, Emery was the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard and was always willing to work with the city to serve his constituents, to speak on their behalf and to look for solutions that would work for everyone. He wasn't someone who hived people off by labels. He didn't say: "You're this and you're that, so I'll deal with one group and not another." He reached out, and he used those big arms to embrace the entire community.

I think the example he set is something that was reflected in this Legislature. It was something we all felt when, as Speaker of the House, Emery would remind us all of standing order 47, I think it was, which he used to refer to on a regular basis.

Emery was someone who set an example for all of us, and his example and his legacy is of public caring and public service. Certainly everyone on this side of the House will miss him. I know that all British Columbians will miss the example that he set. We're pleased to join in sending our condolences to his family and in celebrating his record of public service and his exemplary reaching out to everyone, to make the community a better place for all of us to live in.

[ Page 9466 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I recognize the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: For all of us who had the privilege of serving in this assembly with Emery Barnes, I think it is important to recognize the great character that he brought to this House. To me, it was his dignity and humour and the understanding that you could be on different sides of an issue and still be friends. I think that's an important lesson for all of us to learn. The great dignity that he brought to this House and to the debates of this House was truly worthy of consideration and examination; he set an example that all of us should follow.

He was an inspiration to me because he had the ability to deal with an issue with passion, commitment and dedication -- but without anger. Those of us who serve in this House could learn, will learn and have learned a good deal from him.

[2:15]

He also understood that it could be fun, that you didn't have to be deadly serious all day long. He would have a little glimmer in his eye, and he would go like this with one of those long fingers, and one understood, in his role as Speaker, that you'd come close to the line -- and he also understood his responsibilities in that area.

He'll be greatly missed: a man of enormous dignity, a man of enormous heart, someone who has done great service to this province and to the people that he represented.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, members. Truly heartfelt words, and well said, every one of you.

You may be aware that the memorial service is indeed Friday afternoon at 3 p.m. at the Baptist church on the corner of Burrard and Nelson in Vancouver. Of course, you're all welcome.

He was indeed a man with a big heart; he filled this big chair -- big shoes to fill for the current Speaker and others who have followed him. We take much to heart his words and his doings in the community, in this chamber and in the province, and how he reached and touched everyone. I thank you for all your good remarks.

I think now we'll catch our breath and move on to the next item that usually follows: introductions by members.

Hon. D. Miller: A couple of special guests are seated on the floor of the Legislature today. They are here participating in the northwest transportation and trade corridor stakeholders' session. The group is looking at ways in which the governments of Alberta and British Columbia and now Saskatchewan can enhance trade and the interests of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, particularly through our ports. They are the Hon. Judy Bradley, Minister of Highways and Transportation from Saskatchewan, and the Rt. Hon. Don Mazankowski, who has very kindly agreed to chair our working sessions. Mr.

Mazankowski obviously needs no introduction, as a member of the Privy Council with seven consecutive terms as a federal MP and having had, I think, virtually every portfolio at the federal level. We are delighted to have Mr. Mazankowski assisting us in this process. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: It is my pleasure today to introduce one of the participants in the rally out front, one of the folks that are coming to Victoria from all up and down the coast of British Columbia, to bring focus and light to their plight. I'd like to introduce Bev Young from Parksville-Qualicum. Please make her welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'd be remiss if I didn't add my welcome to the former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, "Maz." I've asked him many, many questions in the House.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Every one but that one. [Laughter.]

I would like the House to welcome the new chair of the Arts Council of British Columbia. She is now a resident of Cortes Island but is known to all British Columbians as a distinguished singer, songwriter and performer. Would the House please welcome Ann Mortifee.

G. Campbell: I'd like to join in welcoming Ms. Mortifee to her new responsibilities. She has enlightened British Columbians and has been a strong advocate for cultural activities in the past. I wish her well in her new endeavours.

H. Giesbrecht: This is one of those rare occasions when I have somebody from my constituency visiting here. Living up in Terrace, I'm not familiar with the expression "when it rains, it pours," but we have 11 people here from the village of Gitanyow, known to many of you as Kitwancool. We have with us today Glen Williams, Lloyd Milton, Abel Campbell, Edgar Good, Greg Rush, Herb Russell, Debbie Good, Sally Gibson, Barb Petzelt, Rose Milton and Ken Russell. They are all here because they have some concerns about how a Nisga'a treaty might affect some of their lands.

The members will be familiar with the overlap issue in that area and how it affects the Gitanyow. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

J. Smallwood: I'm very pleased to introduce two guests who are very special to me. Given the fact that our friends opposite make a great deal of noise about people moving to Alberta, I thought it was important to make the point that my guests have come from Alberta. They are my sister Norma Beech and, as of Saturday, her new husband, Doug Biers. I would like the House to make these two people welcome to B.C.

E. Gillespie: I have two visitors from my constituency today. Joan Nygren and her daughter Julie are here supporting B.C. fishermen and their families. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Robertson: Here with us today from Sointula we have Ron Minshall, Theresa Randsom and Bruce Burrows. These are the people we speak of when we speak of people involved in fishing communities. I ask the members of the House to please make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is Mike Rosten. He is a business representative and organizer for District Council 38 of the Painters, Glaziers, Drywall Tapers and Finishers and Affiliated Trades of Vancouver Island. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have two other introductions. I remind the hon. members opposite that there is no heckling in introductions.

[ Page 9467 ]

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: See, I shouldn't have said that.

I'd like to introduce two guests from Vancouver. Helene and Orest Minishka are very active in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. Helene is president of my riding association -- that's very important -- president of the Community Educators of British Columbia and is active in the Sunset Community Centre. Orest is a good friend and worker. It is always an honour to introduce people who fully participate in their communities like these two people do. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Conroy: My partner in the cattle business is in the House today. He is also a member of the Canadian Automobile Workers Union. He is here for the rally. Would the House please make Murray Gore welcome.

Ministerial Statement

PACIFIC SALMON TREATY

Hon. D. Streifel: I rise in the House today to talk about the Pacific Salmon Treaty, a fair fishing deal with the United States, and the fishing families who depend on fisheries. Today people from communities all along the B.C. coast travelled for hours to Victoria because they're concerned about conservation of the fish stocks and about their own future as fishing families.

I've been talking to a lot of fishermen since the federal government started work on this year's fishing plan and the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations. What I'm hearing is that they don't see much that's fair in the deals that have been announced so far. Everyone agrees that conservation must come first. The provincial government budgeted $150 million for fish protection and habitat restoration last year, but we also want fairness and equity.

We want to harvest the Canadian fish that originate in B.C. rivers, and we want the United States to share the burden of conserving and preserving vulnerable chinook and coho stocks. Conservation is and will always be the top priority for fishermen. They depend on fish like no one else in the province, and they're prepared to do what they have to in do order to protect vulnerable coho and chinook stocks.

Madam Speaker, these fishing people are on the lawn of the Legislature today, trying to make their voices heard. I urge all my colleagues to take a few minutes to meet with and listen to them.

J. van Dongen: Over the past few months, the federal government has announced a series of conservation initiatives and international agreements. The provincial government has protested all of these initiatives vigorously, claiming that they are insufficient, treasonous and a sellout. Actions that the provincial government has taken include recalling B.C. representatives from the Pacific Salmon Treaty talks in Oregon, only to immediately send them back after an inconsequential briefing.

The provincial Fisheries minister failed to alleviate possible illegal activities by fishermen, stating: "Anything could happen." We had a leaked memo from the provincial Deputy Minister of Fisheries, falsely claiming that Canada's lead negotiator, Don McRae, was being left out of the negotiations by Anderson. We had the Premier make a headline-grabbing proposal for a $700 million provincial takeover of west coast salmon management -- $700 million of taxpayers' money that the Premier didn't have. We have heard condemnation of all the initiatives and agreements announced by the federal government.

The federal initiatives and allocation agreements with Washington State are not perfect. We would have liked to have seen British Columbia get a larger percentage of the harvest, as would everybody. However, these deals do reduce the risks of overfishing and have important provisions for conservation. It is time to end the jurisdictional squabbling. The government must stop playing politics with fish.

The recent job protection commissioner's report on the salmon industry points out that the only way for the industry to reach its potential is to have leadership that sets aside the adversarial stances and institutions. We must begin to think about the future economic development of our coastal communities. Additional opportunities do exist in fish and shellfish farming, tourism and the revitalization of our primary industries, such as forestry. It is time that the provincial government took action to make these opportunities a reality.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Oral Questions

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF URBAN TRANSIT PROJECTS

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Environment. This weekend the rapid transit project office announced that they would seek exemption from the environmental assessment review for the SkyTrain project. This has created a lot of uncertainty in the community, as I'm sure the minister is aware. Can the Minister of Environment inform the House if she has received a request for such an exemption? Has she, in fact, provided it?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to have the opportunity to speak about SkyTrain, because in fact it has great environmental benefits that will accrue to the lower mainland in particular. The members opposite are quite aware, I'm sure, of the federal agreement in Kyoto related to greenhouse gas reduction and the huge impact that transportation has on the generation of greenhouse gases, particularly in the lower mainland -- 75 percent overall. The decision to move forward with SkyTrain is very environmentally sound.

On the question of whether or not there has been an application for an exemption, I have received no such application.

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

G. Campbell: The issue before us with regard to any major project in the province of British Columbia is that under this minister's own act, she requires that those projects go through an environmental assessment -- an environmental review. I understand that many people have said that this act is too unwieldy and too bureaucratic, but the fact is that everyone who is engaged in a major project in the province must go forward with that environmental review.

My question to the minister is: does she intend to ensure that the SkyTrain project, or any other major urban transportation project, goes through an environmental review process?

[ Page 9468 ]

[2:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: I would certainly invite the member opposite to come to my estimates and talk generally about the question of environmental assessment and the legislation under which environmental assessment occurs. But on the question of SkyTrain, there has not yet been an application to the environmental assessment office which I am aware of.

FUNDING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS DAY CARE IN SURREY

C. Clark: On a different matter, I want to ask the Minister for Children and Families about a letter that she wrote just seven days ago to special needs parents in Surrey, in which she promised them again that there would be no cuts to the funding for their day care in Surrey. Two days after she wrote that letter, she sent an official to meet with those parents, telling them that their funding would be cut by $175,000. That means that 20 children will not have a place to go to school in the fall; it means that six teachers will be out of work.

When they came to this Legislature and stood in this gallery, she promised them that there would be no cuts. How can she justify sending out a letter that said there would be no cuts, sitting here telling them that there would be no cuts, and then sending in her officials to wield the axe and tell them that 20 children are going to be out of day care for next year?

Hon. L. Boone: It looks like the member opposite didn't get any time off at all.

Hon. Speaker, the funding for special needs day care is not being reduced. What the member is talking about is a particular organization, and that organization was told in February that they would be having their funding cut because those spaces were being taken up by the school district. Those services had been provided earlier, cost-shared between the school district and the ministry, with the space provided by the school district. The school district is now taking up and providing the funding and services for ten children.

That leave us, as a ministry, with an extra $100,000 to provide services elsewhere, and we anticipate that we will be providing services to between 30 and 50 additional children in the Surrey area.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: The minister is quite right: I need a break. I need a break from a government that can't stand up and tell people the truth about what's going to happen. When they stand in this gallery and this minister says there will be no cuts, she should make sure that what she's saying is the truth. She stood in this House six times and said that there would be no cuts to this day care. She wrote a letter to these parents and said that there would be no cuts to this day care. She stood here and promised them directly that there would be no cuts to this day care.

How can she justify sending out a letter to these parents telling them that there would be no cuts to this day care and then only two days later sending in an official to tell them that her promise isn't even worth the paper it's written on?

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: One of my colleagues says that we need a break from her, and I think that's probably truer.

I indicated that there would be no cuts to special needs day care. That was something I said, and that is something that I've stood by. What I did say to those individuals from that particular group was that there would not be further cuts. Now you are wanting to go back to tell us that we are not going to carry on with the cuts that we actually had in place prior to my commitment. That is not happening. We actually have the ability now to provide more services to more children in the Surrey area, and that, I think, is a good use of taxpayers' dollars.

S. Hawkins: My question is to the Minister for Children and Families as well. She stood up in this House -- not once, not twice, but six times -- and promised that there would be no funding cuts for special needs kids in the Surrey area. She has received letters. I've got a quote from one, written to the minister by a very concerned parent: "You and the government of B.C. promised on several occasions that funding would remain the same. I must admit that I was naïve enough to believe you.

How silly of me to believe that a promise is something that you keep." My question, again, is to the Minister for Children and Families: will the minister do the right thing today and reinstate the funding for those special needs kids?

Hon. L. Boone: Let's make this clear: there is no cut in funding for special needs kids. In fact, we now have the ability to provide more services. We have ten spaces that are now being provided through the school district and which were previously cost-shared by the ministry and the school district. That leaves $100,000 extra . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Hon. L. Boone: . . . for this ministry to provide services in the Surrey area.

We as a ministry and I as the minister made a promise to those individuals when they came to meet me that we would maintain their funding. That means maintaining their funding at the level of when I spoke to them. I had no intention of going back two months to give them money that they already knew was not going to be there, because they knew that those programs were going to be provided by the Surrey school district.

The Speaker: The member for Okanagan West on a first supplementary.

S. Hawkins: I have a letter in my hand written by a manager at Children and Families. It's dated July 2; that's only four days ago. Perhaps the minister doesn't check her mail and see what's going out, but this letter clearly says: "The ministry's contract with the Surrey Association for Early Childhood Education will be" -- now listen carefully -- "decreased by ten spaces and the applicable funding."

You know what? This minister has been receiving a lot of letters from parents. Here's another one; let me quote from another concerned parent: "I may be naïve, but . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Come to order.

[ Page 9469 ]

S. Hawkins: This parent says: "I may be naïve, but I truly believed that once the minister became aware of the situation when it was raised June 4, the situation would be rectified. I foolishly thought that . . .

The Speaker: The hon. member will . . . .

S. Hawkins: . . . once you saw what was happening, you would understand . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member . . . .

S. Hawkins: . . . the impact of this decision on children in Surrey."

I ask the minister again, because I think, after listening to the letter, that it is a cut. A cut is a cut. This is about protecting kids and funding for kids. Will she do the right thing, stand up today and reinstate that funding for those special needs kids?

Hon. L. Boone: I want to make sure that you understand: there is no cut in funding to special needs children. There may be a reduction in services at that particular agency you're talking about, but there are 64 spaces being provided by SAECE. Ten of those have been taken over by the school district. They were in fact cost-shared by the school district and the Ministry for Children and Families. That still leaves 64 spaces. It leaves us with $100,000 that we can put into additional spaces in the Surrey area -- up to 30 to 50 children . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. L. Boone: To my way of thinking and in any way of looking at it, that looks like additional spaces for children in the Surrey area, not a reduction.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

JOB LOSS IN FOOD-PROCESSING SECTOR

B. Barisoff: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. A recent report prepared for the SM5 Marketing Group documents a massive exodus of food processors out of B.C. in recent years. At a time when the Alberta and Saskatchewan governments are taking active steps to attract B.C. processors, the report indicates that there is a lack of interest on the part of this provincial government. How many more food-processing jobs have to leave British Columbia before the minister acknowledges the destructive impact that seven years of NDP mismanagement have had on the agrifood industry?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. A question has been asked.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Most people get to start talking before the heckling starts.

It's true that 1,200 processing jobs have gone to Alberta in the last five years. It's also true that 3,000 new processing jobs have started in different industries in B.C. over the same time period.

Hon. member, the ending of feed grain assistance has, as you know, changed the operating environment for agriculture. Our job is to work with those industries that have growth potential here in B.C. and make them grow.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Okanagan-Boundary.

B. Barisoff: That really has nothing to do with the agrifood industry and processing. The same report documents higher labour rates, labour militancy, environmental regulations and bureaucracy as some of the reasons that food processing is leaving B.C. Does the minister understand that if farmers have no place to process their goods and their produce, it won't be long before thousands of them join the exodus of British Columbians, who are leaving British Columbia and the NDP-created recession?

Hon. C. Evans: It seems to me that my first answer was quite cordial. The return question . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members!

Hon. C. Evans: . . . suggests, however, that the hon. member didn't listen to my answer. If the opposition Agriculture critic actually cared about the supply-managed industry, perhaps when they invited him to the opening of their new building -- and every commodity group was there, even from across Canada -- he would have showed up. Not only . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Hon. C. Evans: . . . did the good gentleman fail to go, but even the MLA for Abbotsford, sitting right next to him, failed to show up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order.

Hon. C. Evans: When this government went into Cloverdale and saved the processing jobs in the lettuce cooperative, and then invited the MLA from Cloverdale to make the announcement, she didn't even show up.

Hon. Speaker, I can go on down the line, except that you're going to get on my case.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, hon. members.

C. Hansen: It's too bad that the minister didn't listen to the question; he may have been a bit more relevant in his response. What we're rapidly approaching is a day when every ham sandwich made in this province is going to be made with ham that comes from Alberta or from the Prairies. This report says that . . .

[ Page 9470 ]

Interjections.

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

C. Hansen: . . . agriculture processors are abandoning British Columbia at an alarming rate. If I can just quote from this report for a second, hon. Speaker, it says: "Agriculture and agrifood sectors are providing good, stable employment to thousands of persons in neighbouring provinces, jobs that in many cases were formerly in this province, here in British Columbia." I would like to ask the minister: why is he sitting by, when the policies of his government, the cabinet table that he sits around, are driving jobs out of this province, driving food producers into neighbouring province and jeopardizing the future long-term stability of the agriculture industry in this province?

Hon. C. Evans: You know, one of the best days we had this year was when, for the first time in ten years, this government filled these galleries with agriculture producers for Agriculture Day. The Minister of Finance sat with their delegation, and they . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

[2:45]

Hon. C. Evans: . . . applauded the reductions in fuel tax in this budget and other changes. Then, somewhat with the opposition folks not present, this government travelled to Nanaimo for agrifood policy consultation and then to Kelowna and to Dawson Creek and to Creston and to Abbotsford. Did the hon. members show up? I think not.

The Speaker: Minister, wind up.

Hon. C. Evans: This would be the first government in this decade to actually pay attention to the industry -- and good on ya, folks.

Petitions

G. Plant: I have a petition signed by 17 people who happen to be the board of directors of the B.C. Automobile Association and some of the members of their senior management, calling on the government to take action to introduce assessment and rehabilitation programs for impaired drivers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I ask for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the Speaker's gallery is the Minister of State, Industries and Elections from the state of Punjab, India, Mr. Sucha Singh Lengah, with several friends from the lower mainland of British Columbia. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this House, I call Motion 52, sitting in the name of the Attorney General. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Motions on Notice

RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL COMPENSATION REPORT

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to rise on this motion. Let me read the motion so that we all know what we're talking about. This motion is with respect to the 1995 report on compensation for our provincial judiciary. The motion reads:

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to

section 13 (13) of the Provincial Court Act, the Legislative Assembly respond to the 1995 Judicial Compensation Report in the form tabled by the Attorney General on June 29th, 1998, and entitled "Response of the Legislative Assembly to the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee Report."]

I will speak very briefly on this.

We are, of course, voting on this motion to adopt a response to the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee report. As members are aware, we are reconsidering the 1995 report pursuant to a recent Court of Appeal decision. It is our belief that the decision in 1995 to reject the salary and benefit recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee was appropriate. The decision was based in part on the recognition that judges had received a substantial salary and benefits increase in 1993 and that their salaries and benefits were appropriate for the ensuing years.

Since 1995 there has been a Supreme Court of Canada ruling which underscored that. Although the provincial governments must have ultimate control of the public purse, the independence of the judiciary must be affirmed and maintained in the determination of judicial compensation.

I submit that in the Legislature accepting the recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee's 1998 report, the provincial judiciary's independence has been reaffirmed. It was never in doubt, but it has been reaffirmed, and I believe that the judiciary is now appropriately compensated. I would ask the members of this House to bear this in mind as I call on them to support the motion before them. As the hon. members are aware, they may have received the document that was tabled with the motion, which is a detailed response that would form part of the record.

G. Plant: The opposition will be supporting this motion. Let me just spend a minute or two putting it into context, although the Attorney General has done that.

We have before us a resolution with respect to the 1995 committee report on judicial compensation for Provincial Court judges. That resolution is made necessary because the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, in a recent decision, essentially told us, as the Legislative Assembly, that we had to revisit and rethink the resolution that this assembly passed -- I believe unanimously -- in 1995, in which the assembly had rejected the report that was made by the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee. So we now have before us the task of doing that which the Court of Appeal has asked us to do.

That gets put into this context, though: there has now been a new committee, the 1998 Judicial Compensation Committee, which has made certain recommendations with respect to the salary to be paid to Provincial Court judges and some other aspects of what you might call their compensation package.

The way the Provincial Court Act works is that the recommendations of that committee become law automatically

[ Page 9471 ]

or by operation of law, unless there is a resolution introduced in this House to set them aside -- either in whole or in part. There is a timetable within which that resolution has to be passed by this House, if the recommendation of that committee is to be set aside.

Some time ago, the government introduced the report of the 1998 Judicial Compensation Committee, which made recommendations for salary increases to judges and for other aspects of the compensation package -- salary increases that will roughly amount to a 21 percent increase in the salary of Provincial Court judges over the course of the next year and a half. The government did not introduce a resolution calling into question or setting aside, either in whole or in part, any part of the report of the 1998 committee, with the result that the recommendations of that committee automatically became law some days ago.

I would not want this moment to pass without drawing the attention of the House to the fact that I placed on the order paper a notice of motion which would have rejected in part the salary recommendations of the 1998 Judicial Compensation Committee. That resolution, of course, could not be debated unless the government brought it forward for debate. The government did not bring it forward for debate, so my resolution in effect died by operation of the Provincial Court Act.

The other point that I want to make is that in attempting to support his resolution -- the one that's before us now -- which calls upon us as a House to reject the 1995 committee report, the Attorney General has tabled a document which is a draft response of the Legislative Assembly to that 1995 report. It's about nine pages long. Obviously it is intended that we as members of the assembly look at that as a statement of the reasons why the 1995 committee report should once again be rejected -- this time, hopefully, on a rational basis that will sustain any judicial review that might be brought.

I must say, having read this document, "Response of the Legislative Assembly to the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee Report," that it is a powerful argument for the rejection of the 1998 Judicial Compensation Committee report. That is to say, the arguments made in it about why the 1995 recommendations should be rejected as being unfair and unreasonable are arguments that I am attracted to in terms of thinking about what we should have done here with the 1998 report.

I have to refer hon. members to the

summary on page 6 of the response to the salary-related recommendations. Some of those points made are, I think, worthy of putting on the record here. The author of this document points out that the 1993 salary increase that the judges got -- of 10.7 percent -- if averaged to the end of 1997, provides for an annual increase of 1.8 percent, which is more than the increase over that same time period for others paid from the public purse. That's a situation which hasn't changed much since the end of 1997, just a few months ago.

The author of this report also points out that British Columbia's economic outlook in 1995 was poor, and the provincial government was in a period of fiscal restraint -- an observation that I think applies with equal vigour to 1998.

The author of the document points out that B.C.'s Provincial Court judges were receiving the third-highest salary in the country. That observation, from the information in the rest of the report, looks to me to be as true today as it was a while ago. Then the author of the report goes on to point out: "It is government's responsibility . . . to make decisions that represent responsible and fair management of the public purse. For no matter how important the job, government must still be cognizant of the costs."

I respect entirely the independence of both the 1995 committee, whose recommendations are now before us, and the 1998 committee, whose recommendations have become law by reason of the process I discussed earlier. I also respect entirely the arguments made by both committees in support of the recommendations for salary increases that they put forward first in 1995 and then in 1998. But it remains my view that the recommendations that were made by the 1998 committee, taking into account all of the factors which we are required to take into account by

section 13 of the Provincial Court Act, were both unfair and unreasonable. I would not want, as I say, the moment to pass without recording that observation.

Having said that, though, and having observed that the 1998 report has become law, it seems to me to be self-evident that the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee report must now be rejected, quite properly, for the reasons set out in the response document which the Attorney General has tabled. For that reason, as I say, we will be supporting, and we do support, this motion.

The Speaker: I see no further speakers. I recognize the Attorney General to close debate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My hon. friend the critic, the member for Richmond-Steveston, has made a number of points. My position with respect to the 1995 report is obviously before the House in the form of the response that I referred to earlier. With respect to the 1998 report, which is already law -- as the hon. member referred to earlier -- my comments in the public domain are already well known.

[3:00]

In conclusion, I think it's important for us to recognize that the issue of maintaining and enhancing the integrity and independence of the judiciary is a very complex one. Having rejected the 1995 report and intending to do that over again, it was important for us to consider whether rejection of the 1998 report -- either in part or as a whole -- would have undermined the working of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court of Canada in the P.E.I. reference case has made it very, very clear that unless exceptional circumstances exist, the Legislature should not interfere with the recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee. Looking at the P.E.I. or the Manitoba reference, the court also determined that the British Columbia process was the fairest process in the whole country in terms of determining in an independent way the appropriate remuneration for judges.

Having considered all of that and having come to the conclusion that it is a very difficult and complex issue, the government determined not to interfere with the findings and recommendations of the commission, regardless of the fact that obviously there is fiscal constraint and that we are conscious of all of the factors the hon. member referred to, which are found in the response as well. I just want to say in conclusion that this was a very, very difficult decision. It's a complex issue.

There is a very fine line between dealing with these issues in a fiscally responsible fashion and maintaining and enhancing the integrity and independence of the judiciary. I want to submit to you that the government made the right decision, both in rejecting the 1995 report and in accepting the 1998 report.

Motion 52 approved.

[ Page 9472 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to call Motion 50 on the order paper under the name of the Minister of Finance. I believe the debate was adjourned by the member for Richmond-Steveston.

REINSTATEMENT OF BILL 26 ON ORDER PAPER

(continued)

G. Plant: I'm pleased to return to the debate on Motion 50, the purpose of which is to restore Bill 26 to the orders of the day. I will endeavour, as I have endeavoured thus far in my remarks, to confine myself to the technical merits of the reinstatement of the bill to the order paper. I spoke on the motion some days ago; I suppose it was last Tuesday, before the holiday and our brief time away from this pleasant place. I outlined a number of factors which I think are relevant to a determination of the question of the technical merits of the reinstatement of Bill 26. I intend to return to those with some comments, with my views on those matters as I continue my remarks.

I want to respond, though, to one of the arguments. In fact it really is virtually the only argument made in support of the resolution by the Government House Leader. She said that the matter of the circumstances by which Bill 26 was dropped from the order paper was a technical which could be -- and ought to be -- resolved by the process which we're now using. I should observe first that it's not much of a defence, and it's not much of an argument in support of a motion.

I meant what I said when, at the beginning of my remarks, I said that this was a point where I thought I was ready to be persuaded by the arguments made in support of the motion by government. I'm still ready to be persuaded, although -- for present purposes, at least -- I have pretty much made up my mind that I will not be supporting the resolution.

When we say that something is a technical matter, we don't always do justice to the way that we're governed, the way that our legal system works -- and the way that politics works, for that matter. There are some important things in our legal political system and our government system that are technical in nature. In our democracy we make a lot about rules of process. How things are done is often as important as what it is we're doing.

Rules -- the technique of how we choose to allow bills to be debated, how we sequence bills, how we call them forward, how we drop them off the order paper -- are sometimes the main bulwark that protects minorities from the abuse of power by majorities; they protect our democracy.

It's not a complete explanation of the problem before us to say -- as the House nearly did in support of this motion -- that this was simply a technical matter. Sometimes, as I say, technical matters are actually the vehicle through which we can express issues that are profoundly important to us. I'm trying to think through the point by reasoning by analogy. The writ of habeas corpus, which is perhaps one of the most important foundations of our system of civil liberties, is in fact a very technical rule of process about bringing someone before a superior tribunal.

It's a rule and a process that is overladen with hundreds of years of tradition, and it is, singly and both at the same time, highly technical and highly important to our democracy. Almost all of the causes of action in civil law are descended from particular writs that were themselves very technical. That is really the foundation of our civil law system in common-law jurisdictions. There are a bunch of things that are very technical. When I look at those two examples of our legal, judicial and political history, I find things which, at first blush to students and scholars, are very technical.

They are overladen with rules, but they are nonetheless very important in the functioning of our democracy.

When the House Leader says that this is a technical matter, that what happened when the adjournment motion was put was that there was simply a technical slip and that it should be cured this way, I say that there may be more going on here than that. I want to respond to the government's motion in a way that is mindful of those other larger issues. I think that implicit in what the Government House Leader said in saying that the matter was purely technical was some sort of comment about the legitimacy of the process. Sometimes when we say that someone is making a technical point, we mean to demean them for that.

We mean to say that it is only a technical point; it's not a substantive or important point. It doesn't go to the heart of the matter; it's purely a matter of form. "Let's dispense with form and allow our sense of substance to be our guide -- and how petty it is of you to be so concerned with the technical aspects of things."

I've thought about that. I heard the House Leader say that, and I wondered if that was kind of the subtext of her remarks. I acknowledge that she acknowledged that there had been an error made, but it seems to me that at that moment it becomes entirely appropriate that we as the opposition do our job and do it in the fullest sense of taking advantage of the opportunities that circumstances present to deal with a lapse that at first glance appears to be technical but that I think is more than that.

My colleague the member for Matsqui, in his remarks last week on this motion, made reference to his desire to know what it was that parliamentarians in the past had said about some of the issues before us. I have done a little bit of research in that regard, because I'm trying to get a sense of what would be appropriate for us to do as opposition in responding to the motion that is before us and, frankly, of the larger question of how we have responded to the whole problem presented when the Government House Leader and the members of the government present in the assembly ten days ago acceded to the adjournment motion.

I don't want to be in a situation where we are accused, as opposition, of not doing our job as it should be done. I also don't want to be in a situation where it can be said of us that we have been acting in a way that is unreasonable or unfounded or that in some way questions the legitimacy of what we have done in responding to this problem. I found a couple of passages from early parliamentarians and students of parliament in the past about what it is that opposition should do, what the function of the opposition is. I certainly don't intend to read all of them or indeed very many of them.

Well, hon. Speaker, I don't know. That's not a bad statement of what the opposition should be doing.

Interjection.

[ Page 9473 ]

G. Plant: I see we have the attention of the Minister of Advanced Education, and I'm sure he'll take his turn to speak on this important question when that turn arises.

It does seem to me that the views of Professor Dawson, as expressed in this textbook, argue for us in opposition now to take a strong position in opposition to the motion brought before us by the Government House Leader.

I've got another extract from another textbook, by Alpheus Todd, On Parliamentary Government in England , where he sets out the functions of opposition at some length. I'll read just one sentence: "It is the function of an Opposition to state the case against the administration; to say everything which may plausibly be said against every measure, act, or word of every member of the ministry; in short to constitute a standing censorship of the government, subjecting all its acts and measures to a close and jealous scrutiny." Hon. Speaker, that also, I suggest, is a good road map for our task here.

[3:15]

I did discover some useful statements by Stanley Knowles, who of course was a student of Parliament and was someone whose entire career as a parliamentarian would have been served in opposition, and some remarks from the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker on the role of opposition in Parliament. I won't read them now, but they're good statements about the duty of an opposition to be vigilant, to take advantage of the weakness, the flaw in the armour, of the government that may present itself from time to time.

There's one sentence from John Diefenbaker's passage that I think is good and deserves to be repeated: "If Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, [His Majesty's Loyal Opposition] must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them, the preservation of our freedom is assured." Well, those are high-minded words, but I certainly get some guidance from them in trying to figure out how it is that I will eventually respond to the resolution before us.

When the Government House Leader stands up and says that the matter is a technical one, she also, I think, implies that what happened was some kind of accident, and so we're here just to repair the consequences of that small accident -- that slip, as I think I called it last week. Well, I don't know about that. The government has control of the agenda of the House: it's the government that decides what business it's going to call, when we debate certain bills and when we don't debate them and how we move through the estimates and that sort of thing.

I've read the transcript of the proceedings of the morning, which is about ten days ago now, when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved the motion that adjourned the House before adjourning debate. There is a kind of presumption that operates in other contexts where . . . . I think it's a rule of statutory

interpretation that says that parliament is presumed always to be speaking, or something like that, and I suppose that by analogy you could contend that the government is presumed to have acted deliberately. I mean, they have the resources available to them to ensure that accidents don't happen. They have a whole two rows filled with people who are cabinet ministers, all of whom serve as House Leader from time to time, and of course, they have the House Leader. They have experience; they know the rules of the House.

I'm not sure that what happened that day was an accident, a mere slip. I must confess I'm confused about the agenda which may have lain behind any intentional decision on the part of the government to allow the matter to simply drop off the order paper. But I'm . . . . It may well be that the government in fact wanted this delay in order to allow more time for the public to consider the bill and to consider the issue presented by the bill . . . .

An Hon. Member: Don't take up detective work.

G. Plant: The minister encourages me not to take up detective work. Let me say this: while I have attempted to construct a theory that presumes the possibility or leads to the conclusion that what happened during the course of that motion was in fact part of an intended plan by government, I think that would presume too much on the part of government -- too much in the way of intelligence and planning, too much in the way of organization. So I'm inclined to reject that theory. I thought it was worthy of mention and worth putting before the House so that we could examine it, because the ways of a government -- and the ways of this government -- are mysterious, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

G. Plant: One never knows. But I think that theory is not right. I think that probably what happened was an accident. So now we're here looking at the reasons why we might, as a House, pass a motion that would undo the accident.

Some of the principles which I enumerated last Tuesday when I began my remarks are the principles that should guide us -- at least, speaking for myself. They're the principles that should guide us in deciding whether or not to support the motion.

The first is to ask ourselves about the importance of the matter which is sought to be brought back to life. Is it essential? How urgent is it? Here I have only the government's word for it. The government says Bill 26 is a very modest initiative. I would have thought that if indeed that statement or characterization were true, the government would not be so concerned about having the motion brought back for debate.

The other aspect of that is: how urgent is it in the context of the other business that we have? There is lots of other business that we can debate, and I look forward to that debate. There are a number of bills and there are estimates that remain to be debated. So it's certainly not . . . . It doesn't seem to me to be all that urgent. Members who spoke in favour of the bill have talked about how it's a matter that's been out there for a long time, that this reform of the labour relations legal regime is something that's been out there for a long time.

Well, I don't know that I've heard any of them say or offer any reason why that reform has to be made this week, next week, this month -- or next year, for that matter. Certainly the bill wasn't all that urgent a week ago Thursday when the government allowed it to drop from the order paper.

Well, is it controversial? Although the government would like us to believe that Bill 26 is a fairly modest initiative, I'm not persuaded that it is. It certainly is controversial. Maybe it's sufficiently controversial that what it should do is hang around out there in the public for a while. Thinking about all of these reasons, hon. Speaker -- and there are more -- I regret very much that time does not permit me to continue. I must yield the floor to others, and I look forward to their contribution to this debate.

C. Clark: Before I start my remarks, I'd like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 9474 ]

C. Clark: Earlier in the gallery -- and I neglected to introduce him before question period -- and certainly still within the precincts is Henry Kancs, who is a well-known labour leader in British Columbia, who was head of the Grain Workers Union for many years -- a warm, kind gentleman who I'm proud to call my friend and who's now entered into retirement. I hope the House will make him welcome today.

The Speaker: Now, on Motion 50, I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know that in my remarks today I need to heed your instruction that I should speak directly to Motion 50. Should we allow the government to reinstate their bill, Bill 26, to the order paper? I'm conscious of the fact that I should not be speaking to the substance of Bill 26 when I do this, but there are a number of issues with respect to Motion 50 that I think need to be canvassed. We need to ask ourselves as a chamber: should the government be given the opportunity to reinstate their bill on the order paper? That's what this debate is about. Should the government be allowed to reinstate that bill with Motion 50?

On this side of the House, quite a number of speakers have gotten up and talked to that motion. On that side of the House, no one has gotten up to speak to that motion, to explain to us and to British Columbians why we should let the government's motion go through. No one has stood up to offer their comments with respect to that motion, stood up to try and persuade us about why Motion 50 should be passed in this Legislature -- no one, with the exception of the Government House Leader, who is the only person who is obliged to speak to the motion.

So I want to start my remarks with a question: if Motion 50 is such a good idea, if it's something that this House should pass, then why isn't any member of the government speaking to it? It's the government that introduced the motion to the House. It's the government's idea to reintroduce Bill 26. It's the government's intention to try and find a way around the rules of this House so that they can get their Bill 26 back on the order paper; it's their idea.

It's not the opposition's idea. You wouldn't have heard a peep from the opposition about putting Bill 26 back on the order paper if the government hadn't raised the motion in the first place. You wouldn't have heard a peep, because we have stood in this House -- person after person, member after member -- opposing the bill. We have spoken clearly and loudly in opposition to the bill. If it fell off the order paper today, there isn't a single opposition member on this side of the House would be unhappy about that. If it fell off the order paper today and was never reintroduced into this House, there wouldn't be a single member of this opposition who would be opposed -- not a single one.

It's the government that wants this motion to go through, that wants to put that bill back on the order paper. So if the arguments are so great, persuade me. Get up, give me some good arguments in favour of it, and I might be persuaded that it's a good idea. But so far, not a single one of them has been able to come up with any argument in favour of reinstating it, other than the hon. House Leader, who was obliged to speak in favour of the motion when she introduced it, who was obliged to say something. She had to say something; she couldn't just introduce it and sit down.

She can rarely resist standing up without speaking, and she took the opportunity. But she's the only one. Where are the other members in this debate? Why aren't they standing up and trying to persuade the opposition that we should pass Motion 50 -- that it's worthwhile? Where are they in this debate?

On this side of the House, some of the arguments that have been made have been very persuasive. They are arguments like these: there are other alternatives for the government if they want to introduce this bill; maybe the government shouldn't introduce the bill at all; and the fact that the opposition has a duty to stand up and oppose the directions of this government when they're not good for British Columbia. These are arguments that say the opposition has a duty to scrutinize government legislation and to oppose government legislation that's bad for British Columbia -- arguments like that. Those are good arguments.

When the opposition stands and opposes legislation, we don't just talk. We sometimes use the procedural rules that are at our disposal. The opposition has a little toolbox that we can use to try and oppose the government, and it is not very big. Particularly in the B.C. Legislature, the rules are not expansive. They don't allow us a lot of opportunity to try and oppose the government. But we found one.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson found one. He stood up and adjourned debate on Bill 26. Guess what: the government was asleep at the switch; they allowed the motion to pass. He stood up and deliberately made a motion that he knew would kill the bill. He planned it. The way we know he planned it is not just because he tells us he planned it. If the government needs more proof of that, all they need to do is look to the fact that it was the second time he'd tried it. The first time he tried it, the government was awake enough and paying attention enough to not allow the motion to pass. The second time he tried it, it went through.

So the government says today: "Well, it was an accident; it was just a technical error. We should put the bill back on the order paper, because it was just an . . . . " It wasn't an accident; it was thought out. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson tried it once, and he tried it twice, and it worked the second time. It's a procedural rule that the opposition used.

I'm sorry to tell the government this, but there isn't a

part in the rule book that says: "Gee, if the government is really sorry about making a mistake, you should just let them get ahead with their legislative agenda." There isn't a

part in the rule book that says that. Nowhere in the rule book does it say that if the opposition uses one of the tools that are legitimately available to it in the rule book to defeat a piece of government legislation that it believes would be damaging to the economy of British Columbia . . . . There isn't a

part in the rule book that says that the government can just mow everybody away, put the legislation back on without debate and just go ahead as it was before.

[3:30]

The Government House Leader made a good point. She said that there have been instances in the past when both the opposition and the government have accommodated each other when mistakes were made. When procedures have been forgotten about, the day progresses and nobody notices. Then the two sides agree to put something back on the order paper, put something back on the floor to debate. But this isn't one of those cases; this is a case where the opposition legitimately and intentionally did its best to waylay the bill.

One of the government members suggested that the opposition was conniving -- conniving by using the rules in the rule book. Is it conniving when the government makes the Legislature sit until midnight and into the summer, so that they can try to exhaust the opposition and get their bills through? Is that conniving?

[ Page 9475 ]

An Hon. Member: No.

C. Clark: The minister says it's not conniving. Is it conniving when the government refuses to call its committees together to go out to listen to British Columbians, because they might not like what they hear? Is that conniving?

Interjection.

C. Clark: The government doesn't think that they do that. They don't even think that's conniving. Is it conniving when the government uses every procedural rule, uses its control of this House and uses its majority to whip its members into line, to force them to vote on bills that they may or may not agree with, to force them to sit down and not express their opinions on bills that they may not agree with, to never allow them to get up and ask a question in the House, to never allow them to get up and oppose the government executive council? Is that conniving on the government's part?

Is it conniving for the government to use their majority in that respect? Is that conniving? I wouldn't characterize that as conniving, but I'd certainly characterize it as the wrong way to govern British Columbia. Committees should meet in British Columbia. The Legislature should meet more frequently in this province. Government members should feel free to sometimes vote against their government when there are issues important to their constituents. That would be the right way to run the Legislature. That would be the right way to make sure that British Columbians are represented.

The government has all those tools at its disposal. The Premier likes to present this Legislature as totally irrelevant -- we know that. He calls the work of this chamber irrelevant. You get the Minister for Children and Families regularly expressing her feeling that she wishes she didn't have to come to this House at all. She wishes she didn't have to engage in debate. She wishes she didn't have to go through the estimates process or question period or any of these troublesome, nasty, awful things that we have to do here.

Well, I've got news for the minister, and I've got news for all the ministers: those are the rules of this House, and those rules exist for a reason. We have question period for a reason. We have estimates for a reason. We have debates on bills for a reason. That reason is that the public needs the opportunity to scrutinize what the government is doing on a daily basis. That's why we have those rules. So when the government calls us together and says that it is going to operate according to the rules, we expect that they'll do that.

We expect that they will meet their basic obligations to follow the rules in this chamber. It's the government that's in the position to make sure that that happens. It is the government, by virtue of its majority, that is in the position to make sure that we follow the rules.

Where were they during that debate? They weren't here. Two members of cabinet were here, one of them being the House Leader. Where were they that day, when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved his motion? The government didn't vote against it, but that's the rule. He moved a motion. He was well within his rights to do that. He caused a bill to fall off the order paper, and now the government has to come crawling back to this chamber to ask that it be reinstated -- to ask the opposition that it be reinstated.

We in the opposition will take every opportunity to make sure that this government learns its lesson: that it has to live by the rules. Those rules are there for a reason, and they're built, let's remember, on hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition. I won't go back to quote the precedents that my colleagues have quoted, but it's hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition for this chamber. It's going back to the mother parliament in Great Britain. We rely on those rules to make this House operate.

The government says: "We don't necessarily want to pay attention to those rules." Well, I've got news for the government: we're going to make sure you pay attention to those rules; we're going to make sure that the government learns its lesson from this debate, because it is an important debate. It is an important principle -- that the opposition has a role to play in this parliament.

There are those who believe -- and sometimes even I have said it -- that there isn't much that the opposition can do all the time. Sometimes even I get frustrated, and I think maybe the role of the opposition is just to get into government. But this debate over Motion 50 should tell all of us that that isn't the case, that the opposition can do things to stop the government. The opposition can stand in the way of the government even on legislation that the government now says is absolutely urgent. "It is so important for the future of the province, it must get through.

We must have Motion 50 come before this House, and we must have it approved," the government says, "because that legislation is so critical to the future of the province."

The government has options. I have to assume that the government thinks this legislation is urgent; otherwise, why would they bring in this motion to force this bill back onto the order paper after it has been deliberately and legitimately put off the order paper? The government must think this is urgent. What other options does the government have? Why doesn't the government hold the bill over? Why don't they wait for the public to have some input on the bill? That would be a good idea; there's an obvious option for the government. Why not . . . ?

The opposition has raised its concerns about this again and again and will continue to do so in second reading -- no question. We will use every procedural rule at our disposal to try and stop this bill. That's how concerned we are about its impact on British Columbia's economy, on the working families of British Columbia. We will use every opportunity that we have to do that. But, you know, the government can avoid all that if they just hold the bill over. Why not take this bill, withdraw this motion . . . ? Why not withdraw Motion 50? Give it up and say: "Okay, the opposition got us this time.

Yeah, we're embarrassed." The Government House Leader was asleep at the switch. The member for Coquitlam-Ottawa was asleep at the switch. The Minister of Agriculture was very, very hungry. The other government members weren't necessarily paying as much attention as they normally do. So the bill fell off the order paper. The opposition did that deliberately.

If the government really cared about public input and about the quality of this bill and improving it or changing it or maybe listening to people and withdrawing it, what they would do is hold it over. They don't have to reintroduce it after Motion 50 is finally debated, assuming Motion 50 passes. They can wait; they can hold it over. Why not hold it over? Why not give small business people an opportunity to have input on the bill? Why not put together a committee that could travel and talk to people? Why not do that?

Why not give MLAs the opportunity to hold town meetings in every single constituency, specifically to hear about this bill? Why not go out and have a formal process of consultation with business people -- small business people, medium-sized business people -- working people, unionized people and non-unionized people? Why not go out and give those people the

[ Page 9476 ]

opportunity for some input? That would not just be an opportunity for the government to save itself a little embarrassment; it would also be an opportunity for the government to get some input from people. That shouldn't be a novel idea.

I would like, in the course of this debate today, to see some government members get up and explain why that isn't a good idea. The Minister of Advanced Education doesn't think it's a good idea. He's shaking his head. He thinks public input on this bill would be a bad idea apparently.

Hon. A. Petter: We already have it.

C. Clark: He thinks there's been enough public consultation. Well, I don't know. Not in my community. The small business people, the chambers of commerce, the working people that fax me and write me and phone me every day don't think there has been enough input on this bill.

The government should know that. There has been enough protest and enough controversy attached to these massive changes to the Labour Code that this government can't deny that there's a problem with it. They cannot deny that British Columbia's economy is going to be hurt by it. When they hear from the job creators in British Columbia that there is a problem, they can't deny . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, you're getting close to the wire in terms of relevance to the reinstatement motion.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm speaking to the options that are available to the government. One of those options is to hold the bill over. One of the opportunities, by holding the bill over, is to go and seek input from the public. What I'm hoping, in pointing this out to the government, is that I might be able to persuade them that we should abandon Motion 50, that we should vote against it, because then the labour bill will not be reintroduced to the House this session. Then the government can take the opportunity to go out and listen to people and talk to people and find out what this bill will mean for British Columbia. That's the opportunity that they are presented with here.

I know there is a downside to that for the government. The upside is that they could perhaps walk away a little bit shamefaced, a little bit embarrassed about what they did, about the mistake they made, about getting caught by the opposition. They could perhaps be a little bit embarrassed, but they could walk away. The downside for the government, and the reason the government wants to pass Motion 50 today, is that they believe there is a political price to be paid for listening to people.

They are absolutely convinced that if they go out and talk to British Columbians about what this bill will mean for them, they won't like what they hear. That's why they didn't consult on the bill in the first place. That's why they don't intend to consult now. It's a political price that the government's frightened of paying.

It's not just the political price that the Minister of Finance, the House Leader, has to bear for falling asleep at the switch and forgetting what was going on in the House. It's not just the political price that the Minister of Agriculture has to pay . . . . I made this point when the Minister of Finance moved a motion to recess -- that really the Minister of Agriculture has given a whole new meaning to the motion for recess, hasn't he? We can all think back to elementary school where we had recess. What did recess mean? I thought back to what recess meant to me when I was in school, and you know what?

My mother would frequently pack a little piece of cheese or a little cheese sandwich for me at recess -- just a little bite to eat for recess. I think it's appropriate, you know, that this whole debate might have redefined that word. The motion for recess will mean something different for us when we debate it in this Legislature. We'll all hark back to the days we were in school, when sometimes you got a packed lunch, when sometimes there would be a cheese sandwich in it . . . .

Maybe the Minister of Agriculture wasn't thinking about that. We know he certainly wasn't thinking about the motion to adjourn. He wasn't thinking about the business before this House. By his own admission he was thinking about going down and getting a bite to eat. I think he's been called the minister for drive-through, the minister for the vote-and-dash special down in the dining room -- $6.99 this week. In and out really quick, we promise.

Now I'm straying from the point a little bit here, but the Minister of Agriculture was in the House when this motion to adjourn was raised, and he didn't vote against it. The Minister of Agriculture sat there, listened to the motion and voted in favour of it. I don't need to remind members of the government that this minister is the man who ran second in the leadership to become the Premier of British Columbia.

Only a quirk of fate stopped him from succeeding in becoming our Premier, sitting across there, leading the government, managing the day-to-day affairs of British Columbians, managing the agenda of the House and making sure that things moved along in a speedy manner. Only a quirk of fate saved him from that fate -- or saved the current Premier from perhaps being defeated. Who knows? I wasn't at the NDP convention.

But this man -- the person who allowed this motion to go through -- is the man who could have been Premier; the man who could have sat in the big chair, making the big decisions every day; the man who could have been running the province of British Columbia, making the day-to-day decisions of government and deciding the business of this House.

[3:45]

That's the man who voted in favour of adjourning this House and in favour of dumping Bill 26 -- something that the government is trying to reverse today with Motion 50. That's the man who did it. It wasn't some member of the government back bench who, presumably, the Premier hasn't decided has the stuff to cut it in cabinet.

It was somebody the Premier chose, handpicked, to sit in cabinet in an important portfolio; someone the Premier ran against; someone who challenged the Premier for his chair in the House; someone who is prominent enough in the New Democrats not just to challenge the Premier but to live to tell about it, as my colleague says. He lived long enough to have another ham sandwich. He lived long enough just for another bite to eat.

So we are here today . . . . When we debate Motion 50, we are confronted with the fact that important and knowledgable members of this government put us in the position we're in today. They are the ones who allowed this to drop off the order paper. Now, suddenly, the government has changed its mind, and they want us to put it back on the order paper. I suppose it's no secret, but I need some convincing to vote in favour of Motion 50. I don't understand why the government would allow this bill to fall off the order paper if it was so important to them and so urgent for British Columbians. Why would they let it fall off the order paper?

We all know that the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture is well schooled in the rules of this House. I know that federally they use a slightly different set of rules in their chamber than in this chamber, but the Minister of Small Business has never led us to believe that that's been a problem for

[ Page 9477 ]

him. In fact, when he first came to this chamber, I'm sure members will recall, his nickname was the member for the point of order. He was up so frequently, pointing out the rules for us and making sure that everybody stayed on track, jumping out of his seat to make sure that everything was in order and all the rules were observed. He was the man who the government led us to believe was the keeper of the rules in this House, the man who would make sure that everything was on track, and he never led us to believe any differently. When he votes in favour of allowing this to fall off the order paper, what are we supposed to believe?

You've got the Minister of Agriculture on that side, a man who sought the NDP leadership and came second -- the man who could have been Premier -- voting in favour of it. You've got the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- a man who is a minister, no less -- voting in favour of it. He's a man who claims to know the rules so thoroughly that he can quote them off the top of his head, a man who probably believes he never even has to refer to his Standing Orders , a man who would lead us to believe that he is so well schooled in the rules of this House that he can't be challenged.

Interjection.

C. Clark: Well, I mean, if he'll stand up . . . . If allowing this bill to fall off the order paper is okay with him, if it's okay with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour . . . . Isn't it the job of the Minister of Labour to shepherd his legislation through the House? That's his job. He would lead us to believe that this is an important piece of legislation today, that it is in fact urgent that we approve Motion 50 in this House so we can get back to the business of doing Bill 26. He would lead us to believe that.

He would also lead British Columbians to believe that this is a key part of his legislative package as the Minister of Labour. Well, if that's true, where was he to vote against the motion to adjourn? Where was he when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved a motion which clearly would have led to this bill being dropped off the order paper? Where was he? He didn't vote against it. And that's all it would have taken: the Minister of Labour voting against it, calling a division, getting the government members in.

They could have brought their legislative majority to bear and made sure that the opposition motion didn't pass. That's what they normally do, for goodness' sake! When there have been bills before this House that the government has deemed to be less important, they bring in their majority, they trot in all the back bench, and they keep them here sometimes until midnight so they can have enough numbers in this House to make sure that legislation passes. Where were they that day? Where were they on Thursday before lunch?

I strongly suspect that the government members were all here in this building somewhere. They were all prepared and ready to come in for a vote. All they needed was to be notified that a vote was required. But what happened instead was that the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Small Business and the Minister of Labour -- the man whose very responsibility it was to make sure that this bill went through the House . . . . None of them stood to vote against this motion.

Even though they claim that it's probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that they're bringing before this House, even though it's something that they are so prepared to hang their credibility on that they withdraw it once and then have the gall to reintroduce it . . . . It's so important to them that even though they got burnt once, they're prepared to get burnt on it again. That's how important it is.

You have to speculate about the government's motives with respect to the bill. Why is it that this is suddenly so urgent for them? Why is it that the government has to get this through in this session of the Legislature? As I've said before, I can't tell what's going on in their heads, and I can't divine their motives. I don't know why what wasn't urgent a week ago Thursday is suddenly urgent today.

But I will say this: this government has an opportunity, which has been provided to it by the opposition, to take a break, to step back, to allow for some input on this bill and to go out and speak to British Columbians about what this will mean to them, to their local economies, to their jobs, to their families. They have an opportunity to hold this bill over. The opposition has presented them with that opportunity. I would urge the government members to take the opportunity that we have presented them with, because it is important that British Columbians get their say on this bill.

It is important that this bill be scrutinized, be talked about, that this bill be something that the public gets an opportunity to have input into, and it's important that the government have an opportunity to listen.

R. Coleman: I too am pleased to stand today to speak to Motion 50. First of all, I think what we have to understand is that we're not here by accident today; we are here because we want to be here today. We're here because we have an opposition that was opposed to a particular piece of legislation. They were so opposed to that piece of legislation that they would go to any extreme whatsoever that was within the rules of this chamber to get that piece of legislation removed from this House -- in this session or in any other session in the history of this province.

The reason we felt that was because we saw it as something that was important to our constituents, and it was important for us as legislators to stand up for those constituents.

Ten days ago, on a Thursday before noon, proudly -- from my standpoint -- a member of my caucus stood up and made a motion to adjourn this House. He made that motion to adjourn this House not because he wanted to go for lunch, as the Minister of Agriculture wanted to do, and not because he wasn't paying attention, like the Minister of Small Business and Tourism was doing, but because he wanted to kill a bill. At that point in time we thought the bill was killed. Now, why would we have thought that?

Over the period of time that we were waiting for the opportunity -- we had tried to use it the night before and during that day -- we had actually canvassed this issue with people that were supposedly experts in parliamentary procedure and with the Clerks of this House, and we took their advice. We spoke to them, and we were told . . . .

The Speaker: Sorry, hon. member. It's not appropriate to make reference to the Clerks or to any contribution they may have made. So it's just information received.

R. Coleman: Sorry, hon. Speaker. We felt that we could rely upon the information received. From the information, we were of the opinion that by making such a motion, it would remove the bill from this particular session of the Legislature, and it would have to come back during another session. That was how we were informed. We made that decision because we wanted to remove the bill. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson had the temerity and the planning and the thought about making the move at the right time so that we could kill the bill. I'm disappointed that some of those people who may have informed us have misinformed us or that other precedents have taken place.

[ Page 9478 ]

I want to talk about precedents for a minute. First of all, I want to quote a comment from my own House Leader last week . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I beg to interrupt. I'm wondering whether there is some imputation in the remarks you have just recently made in reference to the Clerks. I would suggest that you ought to withdraw those remarks.

R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, I didn't refer to the Clerks after you warned me the last time. I just said that I thought we'd been misinformed about some information. I didn't say by whom or from where. It could have been a parliamentarian from outside the House.

The Speaker: Well, I appreciate that clarification. There was concern that the implication was different than you have now clarified it to be.

R. Coleman: Under no circumstances do I mean to impugn the Clerks.

The Speaker: I appreciate that remark very much. Thank you.

R. Coleman: Basically, we have sought advice from a variety of people with regards to this, prior to the motion that was made by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. That advice, which we thought we were working with, didn't prove to be entirely true or entirely what we thought would be the result of the motion we brought forward to adjourn the House.

To move on, I want to quote my House Leader, who spoke relative to this particular issue last week:

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

In fact, the Clerks just took it upon themselves to put the item in the order paper, and so it went . . . . When one looks back at the precedents, one can't find enough precedents to fill one hand. There aren't even a handful of precedents for a situation like this. In fact, there is probably only one instance that matches directly what occurred on Thursday."

Having said that, in the history of parliament, precedents are created by action being taken by those in leadership or by those who rely on precedents for

interpretation. It was and would be my hope that after this debate, everybody in this House will recognize that we have the opportunity to set a precedent ourselves. That precedent is basically that this assembly should adjourn the debate on a contentious bill and no longer deal with that bill until another session of the Legislature. It should be done that way so that we as parliamentarians in this Legislature set a precedent saying that you have to be aware of what's going on around you and that if you sit as a member in this House, you have to understand the procedures of this House and the effect of your decisions.

When we adjourned the debate, we were after the ability to remove a bill. As many people have said, it's one of the tools in our toolbox and one of the very few left to parliamentarians in this province. I think it's dangerous that we bring this back during this session of the Legislature and remove one last tool for opposition and also remove one last opportunity for us to set a precedent on an issue like this.

I've spent hundred of hours over the years doing seminars, training organizations in how to run effective meetings and on procedures. All of those procedures have been based on parliament. The way we run meetings and pass motions and most of the ways that discussion takes place out in the general public with our constituents -- whether it be in a service organization or a hospital board or whatever -- rely on a set of procedures that allow us to go forward and operate and manage our organizations.

They do that through proper management and training, and they do that in a manner that effectively reflects the people who are in their organization, as to what their wishes are from their community.

[4:00]

We as a parliament also follow certain rules of procedure that allow us to reflect our constituents and operate in an effective and proper manner. So what is the motion before us today? Motion 50 simply says that the order for the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, be reinstated to the orders of the day. We don't want it reinstated to the orders of the day; we oppose that. Why would we oppose reinstatement of that particular bill to the orders of the day?

First of all, when you look at a piece of legislation, and you look at the province and at your constituents -- the people we're here to represent -- you have to say to yourself: "Is it urgent?" It wasn't urgent when it was represented to this House by the minister, when the bill in question was introduced to the House. I'm not debating Bill 26 here today, but when it was introduced to this House it was not laid out as being an urgent piece of legislation. So one has to wonder what the urgency is today.

At the time of the motion to adjourn, which caused Motion 50 to be made, was it urgent? There were only two members of the government in the House. Neither one was interested enough to be aware of the motion to adjourn, and they basically got caught, and the bill died. In the House at the time we had two members of cabinet -- members of the executive council -- and they made an executive decision to support adjournment, which killed the bill. So why should we be debating the fact that they be allowed to bring it back at all? Why should it come forward at all?

Representatives of the cabinet of the province of British Columbia were in the Legislative Assembly when the debate was adjourned, and that's when the bill should have died. They should have to bring it back to another session of the Legislature.

Is it urgent? Well, it's urgent from our perspective to not see it come forward. It's urgent because of the loss of private sector investment. It's urgent because our constituents tell us it's urgent. Our constituents are telling us to debate Motion 50 and to not allow that bill to come back to the floor of the Legislature: "Debate it as long and as hard as you can, because it's important to us. It's important to the economy.

It's important, in that we don't want to lose any more jobs in this province, and you as a legislator have to stand up and say that you don't support bringing back Bill 26 through Motion 50, because frankly we don't want that." So we have a job to do for our constituents.

In addition, the minister himself has said that the bill was never that important at the beginning. He's never stood in the House since then and debated it in such a vociferous manner. In recent memory, not one member of the government has stood up in this House and said why Motion 50 should come forward, what the importance is of this motion, what the importance is of placing this bill back on the order paper. Not one statement whatsoever as to what the importance is, so why not wait . . . ? Why not do the intelligent thing and say:

[ Page 9479 ]

"Well, we'll accept the decision of the two members of cabinet who were in the House and who accepted the motion to adjourn from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. We'll lift the bill. Maybe we could actually do something novel like refer it to a parliamentary committee that never sits" -- most of them don't in this Legislature -- "or maybe we could go ahead and realize that we could have more consultation and bring the bill back to the floor of this Legislature at the proper time -- not bring it forward because of a motion like Motion 50."

The other interesting thing about standing order 34, which is the standing order that actually deals with this particular issue . . . . I want to read standing order 34. It says: "A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) shall be always in order; but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceedings shall have taken place."

I can't find the real definition of intermediate proceedings. The interesting thing to me is that it was so urgent, but very few intermediate proceedings took place other than during the period of time that the scramble took place to decide whether this motion should come forward at all. There were some proceedings that took place in this House then.

But the fact of the matter is that the definition of intermediate proceedings could be something as simple as to refer it to a committee. It could be something as simple as: "We'll bring it back in the next session of the Legislature, during the next sitting." It could be something as simple as: "You know, we'd better take a look at this. If the opposition is that determined to hoist a bill or kill a bill by making such a motion, maybe we should look at it, look at public consultation and look at how we're dealing with this particular piece of legislation." Maybe intermediate proceedings should have gone on a lot longer than they did so that we weren't here speaking today.

I think the bottom line is that we're sitting here with a piece of legislation that someone wants to bring back to the order paper in this session, and we as opposition are opposed to that. We are opposed to it to the point that we actually made the motion to adjourn debate to get rid of it, and the government dropped the ball, wasn't paying attention and allowed us to do so. That was our self-discipline and not theirs. But I don't think the people in British Columbia should suffer as a result of the lack of discipline on the part of the government.

The government did not see it to be important enough to have the proper members in the House; did not see it to be important enough to be paying attention to when we decided to adjourn. Obviously, if it's not that important, it shouldn't be brought forward through a motion like Motion 50.

The motion that's before the Legislature in this particular circumstance is one to bring back an adjourned debate. We adjourned it; we don't want it back. So why would we ever agree to bring it back?

The government has to be on top of their game. The government has to be committed to its legislation, and the government has to be ready to deal with the business at hand. But they dropped the ball on this one. Since that time, I've seen no rush to the mikes by the members of the government to stand up and say why -- tell us why -- Bill 26 should come forward again. Tell us why this motion to adjourn should be accepted by this House. Tell us why you don't believe that it's a damaging piece of legislation for the economy of British Columbia. Tell us why you don't think it's a job-killer.

Tell us why you think it's important when I'm talking to constituents of mine to say that this is the last major job they're going to do in this province because of this legislation. You tell me why you should be allowed to bring this legislation back through this motion. But not one member of the government will do that. Not one will stand up and tell us why, or tell us what they think is so good about this bill that they weren't paying attention to, that they allowed us to adjourn because we wanted to kill the bill.

Why all of a sudden is it worth the effort to bring forward a separate motion to debate so that you can bring it forward again and we can debate it all over again? Tell us why you won't go out and do the consultation before you bring it back. Tell us why you won't refer it to a parliamentary committee. Tell us why you won't put it into another session of the Legislature.

What we did last Thursday was what we are here for. We did the vigilance of opposition. The vigilance of opposition is to be focused and disciplined and to stand up for its constituents, just like members of the government are supposed to do for their constituents. We wanted consultation. We wanted you to check with the public, and we wanted you to get the input. We wanted you to do a cost-benefit analysis when the legislation was before the House. That wasn't done. We wanted you to do that, and because you didn't do that we took that little tool out of our toolbox and made the motion to adjourn, to kill your legislation so that you would have to take a sober second thought.

This motion before us today . . . . It has not been long enough for you to take that second thought. It has not been long enough for you to go and look and find out how come people in this province are opposed to your bringing back this piece of legislation. I know why they're opposed to it: because they're out of work. I know that they can't pay their mortgages. I know that you're killing the economy.

But you're the people -- as government -- that should be going out and telling people, or trying to convince me, why Motion 50 should bring back the piece of legislation that you weren't even interested enough in to have enough people in the House to have a quorum or to pay any attention to what was going on -- so that we could adjourn debate and kill the bill.

It's important that we realize that we're sitting on the edge of a precedent -- a precedent that is very important to the future of parliamentarians. Members of the government have not articulated any good reasons why Motion 50 should pass. Members of this government were not paying attention when the bill they want to bring back was before the House. The opposition used a tool of parliamentary democracy that they wanted to use to remove a piece of legislation from the floor of this House.

Not one of them will give me one reason -- by standing at the mike and telling me -- why Bill 26 should come back to the floor of this House, why they couldn't take some time to have some consultation, why it couldn't come to another session of the Legislature -- like we see that it should do -- and why they can't pay attention to that.

Precedents are the lifeblood of parliament. The right of free speech is the right of members of this Legislature. I would welcome the members on the government side to exercise their right of free speech, to stand up, to tell us why Motion 50 should be considered by this House, to tell us why they want to bring back this piece of legislation, to tell us why they think there has been enough background put into this legislation and to tell us why, frankly, there is any reason whatsoever that we should support them being allowed to bring Bill 26 back before us.

[ Page 9480 ]

Before I go to my closing remarks and sit down, I want to emphasize that if I left any impression earlier that any officer of this House misinformed any member of the opposition with respect to the application of our standing orders, then I withdraw those remarks, and I apologize unconditionally. Although I did apologize earlier, I want to make that clear, because it was not the officers of this Legislature that I was speaking of. I made a Freudian slip relative to identifying the people I've had discussions with, and for that I apologize.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I think it's important to realize that before us today stands an opportunity to set a new precedent for parliament. We have the opportunity to set the precedent that governments should be paying attention to the proceedings; that governments should be doing their job; that members of government, when they're sitting in the Legislature, should be doing their job and paying attention to the proceedings; and that when the opposition uses the minimal tools they have in order to hoist, lift, adjourn or kill a bill, those precedents are allowed to stand. Without them, we have no conscience of government. We have no conscience that will stand with us to hold the government's feet to the fire.

The reason a parliamentary democracy works is because these tools are available to members of this Legislature in order to do their jobs. It's important that we realize that we used one of those tools, and not one member of this government -- as I said earlier -- has, for one second, explained why they should be allowed to bring Bill 26 back to the floor of this Legislature through Motion 50.

They haven't explained what it does to the economy; they haven't explained the reason they think the bill is so good; they haven't explained why they weren't paying attention, why they didn't think it was important enough to pay attention, and why they didn't care at the time of adjournment, and why all of a sudden, today, they do. We know why: they don't know. They don't know, because they never did the work in the first place.

The bottom line here is that we as the opposition will use this motion or any other motion to stop a bill like Bill 26 from destroying the economy of British Columbia. We will not allow this government to easily bring damaging legislation to the floor of this Legislature. That's what we used ten days ago, on Thursday. We will use every vehicle at our disposal, because there is going to come a time when this government has to justify what it's doing.

Justification doesn't just come in the form of a piece of legislation; it comes in the form of the quality of the legislation, the background to it, the consultation, how it will affect the economy, a means test to see how many jobs it will destroy or create. Those are the types of things we're looking for from this government, and we're not receiving them.

[4:15]

That's why Motion 50 is before us today -- because we didn't see it in Bill 26. We didn't see that thought; we didn't see that research. But we did see an opportunity to slow down the process, to give the government a chance to have a sober second thought about this legislation. That's what we did: we used the tool. I'm disappointed that since we used that tool, not one member of the government has once stood up in this House and told us why Motion 50 should go ahead. That is a huge disappointment to myself.

Given the people I spoke to at events over the weekend, it's a big disappointment to the constituents of the ridings across this province. They don't understand why, once we as opposition used the vehicle because we felt it was that important, the government can't take a step back, do some consultation, spend some time and take another look at this legislation.

What do we end up with? We end up with a motion before us that simply says they want to bring back a bill. I oppose that. I oppose that, as is my right as a member of this Legislature; I oppose that as a British Columbian; and I oppose that on behalf of my constituents. They don't want this bill brought back to the floor of this Legislature.

When I was a member of different service organizations, we knew the rules. We played by those rules, and we didn't break those rules. As I said earlier, those rules came largely from histories of parliaments as they were laid down through rules of order. In this House, we should play by those rules too. Those rules include the opportunity for the opposition to make a motion, like we did, which would kill a bill.

Even though the precedents are not totally clear, the precedent-setting opportunity for this House -- and I stand by it again -- is this: we as a Legislature solidify the ability of oppositions to hold government's feet to the fire, which is the job they are elected to do in a parliamentary democracy, and it's the reason that democracy works.

We in opposition believe that this motion to bring Bill 26 back before this House should not be on the order paper, let alone be debated, and certainly it should not be passed by this House. This government should accept the fact that they didn't care, they hadn't done the work, they weren't paying attention, and they didn't really want this legislation in the first place. They might as well accept the fact that they blew it.

Take it away, spend some time on it, have some consultation, take a look at what it will do to the economy of this province, and then bring it back, either before a committee of this House or to another session of the Legislature. But don't bring it back in this session, because British Columbians are telling you that they don't want Motion 50 to come forward, to bring Bill 26 back to the floor of this House.

British Columbians are very clear on the fact that they don't want a bad piece of legislation -- a damaging, job-killing piece of legislation -- brought back to the floor of this Legislature by Motion 50 or by any other motion.

The fact is that we did something; we did it intentionally, and we did it because we thought it was important for British Columbians. The fact is that they weren't paying attention, and they didn't care. The fact is that they hadn't done their research to begin with, and they weren't prepared to debate the legislation on the level that it should have been debated in the first place. The fact is that not one member of the government will debate with us the motion we have before us today, because they are afraid to stand up and try to explain why a motion to bring in a damaging piece of legislation, which was hoisted by us through a motion to adjourn should even come before this House again.

The fact is that we sit here today knowing that we sit in a legislature that has a great opportunity for setting a precedent. I call upon the members of the government, along with the opposition, to set that precedent and defeat Motion 50, so that Bill 26 has to go out for consultation, has to go out for thought process, has to go out for some litmus test as to its value to the province's economy and be brought back to this Legislature at an appropriate time for an appropriate debate.

This legislation is bad for British Columbia. That's why this motion is here today, and that's why members of this government should stand up and explain their position. They haven't done it. There is a time when you have to do it, and

[ Page 9481 ]

today's the day. Today's your opportunity to stand up and explain why you think Bill 26 should come back to the floor of this Legislature when all we know and all we hear from economists, job creators and investors is that it is a job-killing, bad piece of legislation. So why bring this bill back to the House through Motion 50? Tell us; have the members of the government stand and speak to this House. Don't hide behind the fact that you got caught. Don't hide behind the fact that your two members that were in the House, even though they were members of the executive council, weren't paying attention.

Accept the fact that they made a decision that day to adjourn debate and that the legislation should be dead. Accept that; stand up and be counted. Vote against Motion 50 and deal with this legislation in a proper format, in the proper way it should be done, with the proper precedents. Set something for future parliamentarians in all of the empire, relative to how we will operate in the future, and allow the parliamentary system to function in the manner in which it should. Stand up and show your courage.

Show your courage by voting against Motion 50, like I will, because Bill 26 has no business on the floor of this Legislature in this session this year.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Point of order, Hon. Speaker. I've deliberately waited until between speakers. I would just like to raise the point, under standing order 40, that throughout his speech, the member continually imputed false motives to members of this side of the House in terms of why we do or don't do what we do. I would simply ask the advice of the Chair that the members opposite . . . . I know they think they're omniscient and know what everybody over here is thinking, but what they're saying is clearly against the rules of this House and also completely and patently false. So I'd ask the Speaker to advise members to stick to the truth.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Matsqui rises on the point of order?

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I think it would be much easier to respond to the hon. member's submission to the Chair if she would particularize her claim and submission. In addition, she suggests at the end of her submission to you that the member -- I presume she's referring to the member who just spoke -- made false statements.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, then she has suggested that more than one speaker has made false statements. I would ask her to withdraw those remarks unless she's prepared to back them up by being particular about them.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair would just advise members to be mindful of what is said in the House. I think both sides can continue the debate with that in mind -- that we're not here to impugn any members of the House.

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise this afternoon and offer my comments on Motion 50, a motion to reinstate to the orders of the day the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998. Firstly, I would emphasize that we did not adjourn debate on second reading of Bill 26. In fact, what occurred was that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson adjourned the House on Thursday morning, June 25, 1998. That gave rise to having the effect of closing debate and thereby stopping Bill 26 from proceeding.

I believe it is important that this distinction and this clarification be made, so that we understand the purpose and relevancy of Motion 50. Only then can we begin to proceed with discussion on the merits of this motion and why it is not supportable.

Having recognized that what occurred was not a technical error but in fact was a deliberate strategy, that should indicate our intent to the government members opposite. From the beginning, our intent has been quite clear. What we chose to do was to apply a seldom used and often unavailable tool to stop a contentious piece of legislation. Having succeeded in that attempt, it would be contrary for the members on this side of the House to support Motion 50, a motion that would reverse the opposition's result and that would remove one of those few, small tools an official opposition has access to.

It would be a bad idea to support Motion 50 and ultimately reinstate Bill 26. Placing Bill 26 back on the order paper is clearly inappropriate, given the circumstances that gave rise to its temporary demise, as I outlined earlier. Why would government members expect that we would allow Motion 50 to pass unchallenged, particularly since it was one of our members, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who caused the result that this motion is attempting to undo?

So what is the purpose of this motion? It is not just about reinstating second reading of a bill that the opposition members oppose. It is about democracy, and it is about upholding the rules of the Legislature which are a fundamental right of the official opposition. The members opposite have called the actions of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson a prank or a trick, because they are in denial. They cannot accept the fact that they were ill-prepared for the procedural rules regarding debates.

But as I indicated earlier, what happened on Thursday morning -- 11:31 a.m. on June 25, 1998 -- was not a trick but rather a strategy that the official opposition intended to exercise at the most opportune time. Now that we on this side of the House have moved a procedurally correct motion, this dictatorial and bullying government is attempting to stop it and step in and counter our strategy with a motion to stifle our actions. That is deplorable, it is contemptible, and it is arrogant.

If those members opposite were here -- if those government members were on this side of the House as opposition -- and were able to achieve what we've just done, they would be relishing that, and they would be outraged if the then-ruling government were to attempt the action in Motion 50.

Why is it that Motion 50 is supportable? Members on this side of the House certainly don't feel so. If we were to allow Motion 50 to pass, it would mean that all of us here, all of us in this chamber, believe that the quote from the Minister of Forests -- and we've heard it several times before -- that "government can do whatever it wants" is a valid statement. I for one do not accept that. Certainly a government can try to do whatever it wants, but it is incumbent upon the official opposition to hold the government to account when it becomes that arrogant.

The constituents that I represent have expressed their concerns to me regarding that landmark statement made by the Minister of Forests. Those constituents that I represent expect me to stand up to a government that imposes its will without allowing for a democratic process. Contained within that democratic process are certain rules and procedures that must be allowed. Clearly the motion on that Thursday morning was a procedure that was appropriate, and it was a procedure that was allowed. It was a part of the democratic

[ Page 9482 ]

process. So for government to attempt to reverse the actions of what this opposition was successful in achieving is totally unacceptable -- not only to the members on this side of the House but also to all British Columbians. Just because government members failed to do their job, which is to pay attention to the debates on their legislation, why is it that we, the official opposition, are being penalized? It doesn't make any sense at all.

[4:30]

For those members of the public who are following this debate, it makes no sense to them either. Quite often it has been said that few people pay attention to what goes on in this Legislature, in this chamber, especially when it comes down to the minute details of procedures or rules. That may be true. However, people do pay attention when there are substantial issues of concern or when some particular matter occurs here which becomes newsworthy. I assure you, hon. Speaker, that as a consequence of that Thursday morning motion by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, this particular matter, Bill 26, has in fact become very newsworthy.

What has happened is that it has allowed many constituents to take note of what the opposition has been doing on their behalf. During these past two weekends, I was continually questioned about whether Bill 26 was in fact gone. When I attempted to explain to constituents the mechanics of what occurred on that Thursday morning and what I expected the government would do to revive Bill 26, many of those constituents were appalled. They found it odd that a procedurally correct action should be reversed.

It wasn't a question of whether they agreed or disagreed with Bill 26; rather, it was a question of whether the government had the right to exercise such an outright travesty of democracy. Yes, hon. Speaker, to support Motion 50 would be outright treachery, and I do not intend to condone any kind of treachery in this House.

As I indicated earlier, several constituents have queried me on the proceedings of Thursday morning, June 25. They were subsequently thrilled that the official opposition was able to use what small tools we had to stand up to the arrogant, top-down, do-whatever-it-wants government. The people in the constituency I represent and the people of this province expect the official opposition to stand up and protect our province from all the harm and damage that this government is inflicting on families and on communities. The people of this province expect us, the official opposition, to do our job.

They expect us to use whatever means we have available to do our job. Well, we did do our job. In fact, one member, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, did an outstanding job.

Why would members on this side of the House support Motion 50? It violates the good work done by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, and it violates a principle of democracy. I think it is appropriate to quote from an

article in last weekend's Vancouver Sun . I rarely quote from any news article, but this particular comment caught my attention. It was in Mr. Vaughn Palmer's column, and as we all know, Mr. Palmer is a highly regarded newspaper journalist. Mr. Palmer writes: " . . . the Legislature and its procedures represent one of the few limitations on the power of government in our political system." That statement is very telling and very important. What he is saying is that government has power, and seldom can anyone stand up to that.

I would like to offer an analogy for what has occurred and what is about to occur. It's like tale of David and Goliath. Government is Goliath, the giant, and the official opposition represents David. David, in assessing his adversary, looks into his small pouch to find whatever tool he has to bring down this huge Goliath. David finds it in the form of a motion to adjourn. David brings out this tool, and just at the right time he introduces it and flings it across to Goliath. Lo and behold, success.

Interjection.

I. Chong: The member for Skeena wants to call it sneaky, but he still doesn't understand that it is strategy. I believe we all know the results of that biblical fable. The giant Goliath, being government, was toppled. The opposition, being David, was able to walk away with success. Because the opposition has very few tools to hold government accountable, we cannot remove those tools. We must not allow Motion 50 to pass.

Hon. Speaker, as I stated earlier, we cannot allow Motion 50 to pass. We cannot allow that to happen, because Motion 50 is about removing a tool. It is about reinstating Bill 26 to the order paper, and that is tantamount to changing the rules to favour government -- when government already has so many resource