1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 4

[ Page 9453 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

R. Kasper: We are joined in the gallery by 45 grade 11 students from Brentwood College School. They are here with their instructor, Mr. G. Lilly. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am pleased to rise today in the Legislature to introduce the four legislative interns who will be working with the Liberal official opposition caucus for the remainder of the session. I'd like the House to help me welcome Lisa Dumbrell, Wayne McIlroy, Kim Chan, and our newest intern, Caroline Welling. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, it has just been brought to my attention that yesterday was a member's birthday. As you know, it's quite appropriate to stand up in the House not to sing birthday greetings but to at least acknowledge the member. That member is now an independent member, I believe. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, was, I believe, 40 years old yesterday. I would ask all members to wish him a happy birthday.

Introduction of Bills

LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT 1994

D. Schreck presented a bill intituled Lobbying Disclosure Act 1994.

D. Schreck: This bill provides for the registration of professional lobbyists, the

summary disclosure of their activities, regular public reporting of registrations and reports and enforcement by the conflict-of-interest commissioner in the Legislature. The bill requires semi-annual reporting of who lobbyists meet and the subject matters discussed.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

WHISTLE BLOWERS' PROTECTION ACT

C. Evans presented a bill intituled Whistle Blowers' Protection Act.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, the purpose of this bill from the government's perspective is to advance the government's agenda to get tough on polluters. I'd like to say, from my personal perspective, that it gives me great joy to introduce it, because I've always felt that the people who care for this land are the people who work this land. This bill is to give those people the power to speak up and defend their work, their livelihood and their earth while they're making a living.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO ELECT THE SPEAKER BY CLOSED BALLOT

D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled

An Act to Elect the Speaker by Closed Ballot.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, this is the third consecutive session that I rise to give first reading to this bill. It's a bit of unfinished business of this parliament. This bill proposes a modest but very important reform to the procedures of this Legislature. The bill proposes to change the way we elect the Speaker and to do so by a free vote and by closed ballot. While this would not be a new procedure for our House, it would be an important reform. It's one that's been used in a number of other parliaments in Canada, including the House of Commons and the legislatures of Saskatchewan, Ontario and the Northwest Territories. The advantages of this kind of reform are readily apparent.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. I regret to interrupt you, but the two-minute statement must be on the purpose of the bill and cannot enter into debate on the bill.

D. Mitchell: Agreed, hon. Speaker.

The advantages of this kind of reform are readily apparent in that it provides a more democratic process for the election of the Speaker. This would not be a difficult reform to adopt, and it would send a signal to our fellow British Columbians that this assembly is truly interested in reform of the proceedings of this House.

With those few words, I am pleased to move and recommend to all members of this assembly that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

The Speaker: Before we take that second motion, hon. member, we need to vote on first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you repeat your second motion now.

Interjections.

D. Mitchell: I sense a groundswell of support, hon. Speaker. With those few words, I'm pleased to move that this bill be placed on orders of the day and be given second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT

Hon. M. Lord presented a bill intituled Public Participation Act.

M. Lord: Strategic lawsuits against public participation -- or SLAPP suits, as they are commonly called -- are lawsuits in which powerful interests, typically in the form of a corporation, seek civil damages for criticisms expressed against them in a public forum. The purpose of this bill is to curtail the use of SLAPPs, thereby reaffirming the fundamental rights of citizens to freely participate in the process of government, public discourse and debate.

[ Page 9454 ]

Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

RETAILING OF INSURANCE ACT

Hon. N. Lortie presented a bill intituled Retailing of Insurance Act.

N. Lortie: The purpose of this bill is to allow B.C. credit unions to enhance financial services to their members through an amendment to the Financial Institutions Act. It will remove barriers to insurance retailing, thereby permitting credit unions to compete on an equal and fair basis in the insurance retailing industry. Given that there are more than 1.1 million members of credit unions through 287 branches, and that a credit union is the only financial institution in over 30 B.C. communities, it is clear that the Retailing of Insurance Act will be of great benefit to a large number of British Columbians.

Bill M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO DESIGNATE A PROVINCIAL HERITAGE SITE

AT THE INAUGURAL PLANTATION AT GREEN TIMBERS

S. Hammell presented a bill intituled

An Act to Designate a Provincial Heritage Site at the Inaugural Plantation at Green Timbers.

S. Hammell: The Green Timbers forest plantation consists of trees planted from seedlings in the first attempt at reforestation in British Columbia, which took place at the inaugural plantation ceremony on March 15, 1930. It's my pleasure to introduce this bill, which recognizes the importance and history of forest stewardship in the province of British Columbia.

Bill M206 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LIBEL AND SLANDER ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

L. Krog presented a bill intituled Libel and Slander Act Amendment Act, 1994.

L. Krog: This bill would amend the Libel and Slander Act in order to limit the liability of newspaper publishers for defamation as a result of a letter to the editor, where the content is not endorsed by the publisher nor is the writer's belief in these opinions known to the publisher. This will extend the defence of fair comment, hon. Speaker. It's a progressive piece of legislation that I know will be appreciated by the publishing industry in this province.

Bill M207 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

COST OVERRUNS AT B.C. HYDRO

G. Campbell: Yesterday in this House the Premier defended the spending practices of B.C. Hydro, particularly with regard to furniture, construction and moving costs. Today I've come into possession of a confidential interoffice memo by a B.C. Hydro executive, dated April 8, 1992. In the memo he explains how to manipulate the media on expenditure and cost overrun questions, the majority of which he regards as trivial. My question to the Premier is: does the Premier agree that accountability on these multimillion-dollar expenditures of taxpayers' money is trivial?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, it is not trivial at all. That's why the Crown corporations secretariat was set up; that's why the Minister of Finance is bringing forward guidelines and will be bringing forward some initiatives through the Public Sector Employers' Council in order to make sure that there is more accountability for the Crown corporations.

G. Campbell: Two and a half years into the mandate is a little late to be worried about accountability, it seems to me. The Premier's lack of concern for frivolous spending is indicative of the lack of respect for B.C. taxpayers' dollars. Estimates provided in the secret memo suggest that cost overruns may run into tens of millions of dollars. Twenty-four hours later, is the Premier more prepared to answer questions today than he was yesterday with regard to cost overruns at B.C. Hydro?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes. As a matter of fact, from the first moment that we were elected our government dealt with some of the Crown corporations that were totally out of control. Under the previous government ICBC was running up deficits of $100 million to $150 million. We've stopped that and brought that into the black. We have made sure that there is more accountability in the whole question of Crown corporations, municipalities, hospitals, universities and colleges. That's why the Korbin commission was established; that's why the Public Sector Employers' Council is now operating. For the first time we are bringing accountability to the Crown corporations in the public sector.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Attached to the memo is a list of questions which, it is suggested, should be avoided. For example, it says: let's have answers on how much it costs for the furnishing of the chairman's office, how much it costs for the furnishing of the chief executive's office -- both very good friends of the Premier, I'm sure -- and how much it costs for the vice-president's office. This memo was prepared over a year ago. I think the Premier should answer today what those costs are. How much did it cost to furnish his friends' offices at B.C. Hydro?

COST OF GOVERNMENT PLANNING "RETREATS"

[ Page 9455 ]

this House today that all future government retreats and meetings be held in the most cost-effective manner?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is certainly yes.

M. de Jong: Supplementary to that, I have in my hand a letter to the Premier dated March 14, 1994, from a Mr. John Gow of the Canada West Ski Areas Association. He states that he has concrete information that as a result of the Premier's edict, at least one group, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, relocated its meetings from the Tigh-Na-Mara Resort to a Vancouver hotel at a 50 percent cost increase. We assume that the Premier has acted quickly on this information. Does the Premier have an answer for Mr. Gow's concerns?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I've just received an urgent letter from other resort owners saying to use them in the shoulder season so that there can be business available for the smaller resorts and for the smaller communities around this province -- they say there is great concern that a number of meetings have been cancelled throughout the province.

We are saying that the best place to meet is closest to home, unless you are out doing the public's business in various areas of the province that are outside where you live and meeting with the people in that area. Those guidelines have been very clearly laid down by my deputy minister in my instructions to all members of the public sector.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: There are questions the people of British Columbia want answered, Mr. Premier. How many of these retreats were held over the past year? What did they cost? How many have had to be cancelled as a result of your edict?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can certainly get that information for the hon. member. But it's a little surprising coming from the Liberal caucus. One of the first things your previous leader did was look for larger office space when he got here.

HIV COMPENSATION PACKAGE

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last night was the deadline for individuals infected with HIV through tainted blood to accept this province's compensation package. The deadline was completely artificial. On humanitarian, compassionate and reasonable grounds, will this Minister of Health extend this inhumane deadline?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No one in this House has a monopoly on compassion. We have dealt in a compassionate and thoughtful way with people who are suffering from HIV and who need assistance. The deadline for acceptance of the compensation and assistance package has indeed passed. As other ministers of health have indicated, if there are exceptional circumstances -- a request for inclusion of that package that has gone astray, or something else -- that will be considered. But this is the end of that offer.

L. Reid: Ms. Doreen Millman of North Vancouver indicated that she accepted this province's package while under undue stress. She was not in a position to make a reasonable decision. When you have AIDS you are not in a position to make a reasonable decision about a compensation package. Will this Minister of Health respond to the unreasonable situation this government has forced upon British Columbians?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The package that was put together to assist victims of HIV who contracted the disease through the blood supply had several parts: it had tax-free financial assistance for those suffering from the disease; it had assistance for their families; it also had a wide range of assistance from the federal and provincial governments, from the Canadian Blood Agency, from the Red Cross, and from the private fractionators. Part of this agreement was a period for consideration of this package and a time line for that consideration. All those parts fit together. Take parts away, the package falls apart.

L. Reid: This government cannot have it both ways. It cannot put on the appearance of compassion while forcing HIV individuals to accept a package without a reasonable time line. Will the real Minister of Health -- in fact, the current Minister Finance -- agree to extend this arbitrary and artificial deadline for HIV compensation? Surely there's someone on that side of the House with some compassion.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm puzzled by the member's assertion that this package and this offer of assistance lacks compassion. What would be more compassionate? Would it have been more compassionate to require everybody tragically infected with HIV through the blood system to seek redress through the courts -- a timely and costly process -- while they are suffering and need financial assistance, or would it be better to do as this government has done to make sure that assistance is there in a timely way for people suffering from HIV?

ROYAL ROADS MILITARY COLLEGE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain why his government would refuse the offer of a lease at Royal Roads college for $1 when 30,000 students in British Columbia were turned away from post-secondary education this year because there were no spaces for them? Why in the world would the Premier not accept that offer and put those students into facilities next year?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm astounded that a vintage and new member of the Reform Party would want to see the only training facility for young Canadians to attend officers training west of Kingston closed down. Well, we don't. We want to make sure that Royal Roads stays open for western Canadians -- young people in particular -- to get an education in the military.

[2:30]

J. Weisgerber: Obviously the federal government has made a decision, whether we like it or not. It's silly to hide your head in the sand and turn down the offer. Will the Premier not reconsider and take advantage of this opportunity to put kids into a good facility and avoid the capital costs of building new schools?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Well, I can see why the new member of the Reform Party, who used to be with the Social Credit Party, would want to continue the view of Social Credit, which is to agree to more deficit and more off-loading by the federal government. This New Democratic government is going to stick up for British Columbians and not see more off-loading and dumping of the federal deficit onto the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 9456 ]

J. Weisgerber: It's alarming to think that the Premier would save British Columbians any money by turning down a one-dollar lease on an existing facility and then turn around and build new capital structures to house students, which, surely to goodness, he plans to do one way or another. Would the Premier not acknowledge that there is an asset there that can and should be used to house and train students, and will he not commit to do that today?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It is housing students. It is working with the University of Victoria, and the federal government is paying for it. Why does the new member of the Reform Party now want the people of B.C. to pick up the tax bill?

CRIME RATES IN B.C.

J. Dalton: My question is for the Attorney General. Recently in the news we learned of eight-year-olds who are trafficking in heroin and ten-year-old boys who have been repeatedly arrested for car theft. The government's response on Monday was that crime is a growing concern in this province. Well, we all know that, hon. Speaker. In addressing some Surrey students last month, the Attorney General indicated that he had no specific remedies for this growing issue. Would the Attorney General indicate what discussions he has had with his federal counterparts on the Young Offenders Act amendments?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Those conversations with the federal Justice minister will take place next week.

J. Dalton: We're all anxiously waiting for next week's news.

Let me refer back to an internal report of the Attorney General's ministry in January which reflected unfavourably on the crime rates in this province compared to the rest of Canada. Would the Attorney General tell this House why he was not prepared to release this report when he indicated last week that he didn't find the facts reported in it disturbing?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Draft work had begun on comparing statistics between British Columbia and other provinces. That work was in process. I had not seen results of that work when there were calls for me to release it. As soon as I had a chance to see it, I made sure that people who wanted to see it could have a copy, including the hon. member.

VLC CASINO PROPOSAL

Hon. M. Harcourt: I rise to respond to the questions taken on notice yesterday from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. You will recall that the member asked two questions within his question. The second question requires a much briefer response. Neither I nor members of my government, its officials or its agents have had discussions with Mirage Resorts.

As for the member's first question, in December 1992 the Ministry of Finance conditionally agreed to purchase $15 million in common shares of VLC Real Estate Corp. I was provided with the above information on March 30, 1993. On April 26, 1993, the investment was completed through the B.C. Endowment Fund. Just over three months after the investment, I was first informed of VLC's intention to participate in a proposal call from the Vancouver Port Corporation. This was during a breakfast meeting in Victoria with George Ford and Linda Baker, who were then my deputy minister and principal secretary.

The meeting was also attended by B.C. Federation of Labour president Ken Georgetti, VLC chairman Jack Poole, VLC counsel Keith Mitchell and Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Union president Nick Worhaug.

Hon. Speaker, in his question the member made reference to "the government's partnership in a gambling, profit casino." The member should be aware that nowhere in the Criminal Code, provincial statutes or regulations is there provision for a for-profit casino, nor will there be. No government can license a private interest to conduct, for profit, games that are typically associated with a destination resort casino. Only a provincial government may own such a casino. The governments of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec already have, or plan to create, such casinos. The public, not private interests, owns the net revenues of those operations.

I'd like to also add that VLC isn't the only proponent of a casino project that has approached the provincial government or myself. I have been approached, as have other members of the government, by aboriginal leaders and other entrepreneurs about comparable proposals: people like Chief Joe Mathias; Murray Pezim, a newfound Liberal, who, I'm sure, either himself or through his lawyer, has been in touch with members of the Liberal caucus; and John Hoegg of Great Canadian Casino. So proposals have been made in other areas of the province.

It's because of that plethora of proposals that the government is currently embarked upon the development of a comprehensive policy on gaming, of which casinos is only a small part. We anticipate that that review will be concluded this autumn.

Hon. E. Cull tabled the report of the inquiry into the Vancouver Stock Exchange and its market participants.

D. Mitchell: I rise under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of definite and urgent public importance: namely, the confidence of this assembly in the Chair. Advance notice has been given for an emergency debate under practice recommendation 8.

Our assembly cannot meet to conduct the business of the House without public confidence in the presiding officer. For some weeks there have been suggestions outside our assembly that confidence is lacking in the Speaker. Intimations have also been made that the executive seeks to interfere with the Legislature by removing the current occupant of the Speaker's office. The government has given notice of a motion dealing with the procedure by which this House shall in future elect its Speakers. It is now vital that our assembly have an opportunity to debate the issue of confidence in the Chair.

It is crucial that members on both sides of the House have a chance to place their support of the Chair, or lack thereof, on the record.

The Speaker: I must call the member to order. The member has advised the Chair, quite properly -- and I do appreciate that -- that he wishes to raise a matter for emergency debate under

section 35. But the subject matter that the member has brought forward is on the order paper, and therefore the Chair has great difficulty accepting that submission under standing order 35.

I would call the member's attention to

section 35(10)(d): "The motion must not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House, or with respect to which a notice of motion has been previously given and not withdrawn." On that basis, hon. member, I cannot accept your motion for a discussion under

section 35.

[ Page 9457 ]

D. Mitchell: Point of order. I've listened carefully to the Speaker's remarks. I would just draw to her attention that while I haven't made my statement yet, I can assure her that I'm not anticipating a motion on the order paper dealing with the election of the Speaker in any way. My motion is dealing with the issue of confidence in the Chair, which is entirely separate from the motion on the order paper in the name of the hon. Premier.

The Speaker: I appreciate that the member has made a distinction here, but the member will also be aware of our standing orders. There are provisions in our standing orders to deal with the issue of confidence; unfortunately,

section 35 is not one of them. I regret, hon. member, that that is my ruling on your point of order.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a second point of order.

The Speaker: A new point of order, hon. member, but it must be a new one.

D. Mitchell: I believe the proceedings on standing order 35 are very clear. Upon giving notice to the Chair, which has been given, a member has the opportunity to make the case for an emergency debate, after which the Chair will make the decision. I have almost concluded making my case, after which I would be pleased to have instructions from the Chair. But I have not had an opportunity to make the case, which clearly does not anticipate any other motion on the order paper. I assure you this has been given careful consideration.

The Speaker: I'm sure the hon. member can appreciate the position in which he is putting the Chair. I have been very clear on the ruling, and I've read the significant portion from the standing orders related to anticipation. I have heard the hon. member on the issue of confidence and ruled that there are other procedures to deal with that. I have ruled on those two matters and on your points of order. I cannot conceive where the member is going to go from here that would be safe ground for him, but I will allow him to say one more sentence at least.

D. Mitchell: I will conclude the statement very briefly. I recognize that this request for leave to make a motion for adjournment of the House offers a special challenge to the Chair. I recognize that because the Chair has the responsibility for making that determination. However, I ask that this request be considered only under the strict guidelines of standing order 35. Under those guidelines, I believe it is obvious that there is now a need for an emergency debate on this subject.

The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, I cannot accept it under 35, and I cannot accept it under your points of order. Next order of business.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order, hon. Speaker. Upon listening, I feel that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi may have a point that this House should address. I would move, under standing order 37, that the member do now speak.

The Speaker: Having consulted the standing orders and refreshed my memory on that matter, hon. member, and the Chair having ruled the application under

section 35 out of order, there is no provision to allow the member to now use standing order 37 to allow him to speak. Regrettably, that ends the matter.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the House to move a motion of confidence in the Chair.

The Speaker: That was raised at another time, and unfortunately a member cannot ask leave unless we are in the business of motions. We are not in the business of motions, so I cannot accept the member's request to ask leave of the House.

J. Tyabji: The last time leave was requested for a motion of confidence in the Chair, we were in a pro forma day, which was the ruling of the Chair. However, if it were the unanimous consent of the House for leave for a motion of confidence, I believe the standing orders allow for that.

The Speaker: I will clarify one more time for the hon. member. A member can ask for leave to move a motion without notice only when we are in the business of motions on notice. We are not in that business because that business has not been called. Therefore, regrettably, hon. member, I cannot entertain your point.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call Motion 1 on the order paper standing in the name of the hon. Premier.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER BY SECRET BALLOT

The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan East is rising on what matter?

J. Tyabji: Is this the part of the procedure at which I can move an amendment to the motion?

The Speaker: The motion has been called, and the mover must first be allowed to speak to that motion. Then, of course, all members would be available to debate this motion.

[2:45]

D. Mitchell: I rise on a point of order. The motion that the hon. Premier is about to speak to is clearly out of order. Earlier today a bill in my name --

An Act to Elect the Speaker by Closed Ballot -- was appointed for the consideration of this House at its next sitting. The subject matter of that bill is virtually repeated in this motion by the hon. Premier. Clearly the rules of this House state that a motion cannot anticipate any matter dealt with in a bill appointed for the consideration of this House.

I would refer the Chair to the nineteenth edition of May, at page 371. I would like to quote a citation from there for the Chair's reference: "A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House...." Furthermore, Sir Erskine May says on page 371 that a bill is more effective than a motion and takes precedence over any motion. Furthermore, it says that a motion is out of order if it anticipates a notice of motion for leave to bring in a bill that includes the subject proposed to be dealt with by the motion. "A matter already appointed for consideration by the House cannot be anticipated by a motion." It's very clear

[ Page 9458 ]

in all of the parliamentary authorities. I quote Sir Erskine May. I could quote several others, but it's very clear that the motion about to be moved by the hon. Premier is out of order.

The Speaker: I congratulate the hon. member in finding those references in Sir Erskine May. It is certainly a substantial book in which to find anything, as I have discovered. However, I must remind the hon. member that the motion that has been called is on the order paper and available for debate today. The bill that the hon. member has moved first reading of today -- and this House has agreed that it's available to be brought forward for second reading at the next sitting of the House, of course -- is not on the order paper today. On that basis it is therefore in order for this motion to be called.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. I want to refer to the Premier's motion, but I must commend the Chair on her job today. If she can make it through today, she's more than able to sit in that chair for as long as she wishes.

I wish to draw the Speaker's attention to the motion of the Premier, which calls for an amendment to standing order 11. In the Standing Orders of this House, standing order 11 no longer exists.

The Speaker: The member is quite correct; there is at present no standing order 11. The Chair can only interpret that the motion is a proposal to insert a standing order 11. That is my ruling, hon. member.

C. Tanner: Point of order. The first line of the motion that the Premier wants to put to this House reads: "The House at its first Session of a Parliament and at any other time as determined pursuant to standing order 11...." There is no standing order 11.

The Speaker: In response to the point of order that has been raised by the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the Chair is concerned that we are actually getting into debate before the hon. member has had a chance to move the motion. If the member will read carefully the first lines to which he has referred, it refers quite clearly in the Chair's mind to standing order 11(2) of the motion that is before you. I have ruled on the matter of standing order 11, and I would now proceed.... Is this a new point of order?

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I realize that you read part of the notice of motion, but you didn't read the first sentence. The first sentence says, "That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows..." and then it refers to

section

Section 11 does not exist. It says here: "Standing order 11 is repealed."

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members are venturing into an argument with the Chair on this matter. The Chair has ruled on a former point of order regarding the number of the standing order. I cannot entertain any further points of order relating to the matter of standing order 11.

On Motion 1.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I move the motion in my name. This motion takes the choice of Speaker out of the hands of the Premier and places the election of the Speaker in the hands of the Members of this Legislative Assembly. This is a reform that our federal Parliament and the legislatures of Ontario and Saskatchewan have adopted and implemented with some success.

In reviewing some of the changes in the Legislature in the last while, we have to remember when Dave Barrett introduced Hansard in 1972, and when Bill Vander Zalm introduced TV into the assembly three years ago and launched the broadcasting of legislative proceedings and debates into the living rooms of the province.

There have been other significant changes that are your accomplishments, hon. Speaker: you have strengthened the management and cost-effectiveness of the legislative operations. Your strong interest in environmental issues has overseen the greening of the Legislature and the recycling of the endless paper in this place, and has made sure that biodegradable soaps and detergents are being utilized. Those are just some of the innovations that you have introduced in a number of environmental actions in the precinct.

As well, you have promoted a Buy B.C. policy, as we can see very clearly in the Legislature restaurant, with the buying of B.C. food products and a B.C. menu. I think that has been appreciated by guests who come here and see those innovations taking place in this precinct.

You have also introduced improvements in the televising of these proceedings.

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, despite finding the Premier's motion and his efforts distasteful, I would remind him of the point of relevancy. Your good record in this House is not relative to the election of another Speaker after the Premier has removed you, and I would ask the Premier to stick to the items in the motion.

The Speaker: I would invite the hon. Premier to continue with the debate, and I trust that he will bring his comments within the scope of the motion before us.

[3:00]

Hon. M. Harcourt: They are in the scope of reforms and improvements to the Legislature, and I was just going to conclude with the remark that the introduction of improvements in televising these proceedings by including closed captions for broadcasts has been welcomed by many British Columbians. These are all changes that have been introduced to make the Legislature a more open place, where there are greater opportunities for members of the Legislature and members of the public to have a say and to have greater access.

The election of the Speaker by this assembly is an opportunity for all members to embrace a reform that has been debated and recommended by government and opposition members over the years. As a matter of fact, for the first 500 years of parliaments based on the Westminster model, that is how Speakers were chosen. With the introduction of political parties over the last 150 years, that has changed so that the Speaker is now put forward on the recommendation of the government.

The election of the Speaker is an important change among a number of changes that members of the Legislature have put forward, so I ask members to carefully consider this motion -- not to use it for partisan political purposes but to be consistent today with their demands of the fall and over the last few years, and to support this very important reform.

F. Gingell: Had this motion come forward on the last day of the thirty-fifth parliament, it would have received my unrestricted and unquestioned support. We have to ask: why

[ Page 9459 ]

does this motion come forward on the first Wednesday of this sitting? I guess it's because we happen to have got past March 15, the Ides of March. That would have been just a little too much for the members on the other side of the House to face, so I question its timing.

I think we all believe that a secret ballot -- a proper process -- is supported by everybody. We all know that secret ballots are the basis of democracy. This government doesn't happen to think that's true when it comes to the unionization of the employee, but they happen to think that it's good enough for the Speaker. I think we should give some thought to this issue, because we are really discussing the question of the ability of the executive to interfere in the fair and open operations of this House, if what follows after this motion is passed by the majority on the other side of the House and takes place.

How did the office of the Speaker start? Parliaments always needed someone to chair their meetings, rule on their deliberations and carry back their messages to the king. The Speaker of the Commons has clearly become the guardian of the powers, dignities, liberties and privileges that have been won by this institution over some seven centuries. The Speaker was always chosen by fellow members, but in the early days was subject to the approval of the king. That, of course, is the way it has carried on in this House to this point.

One often wonders what happens to a Speaker who loses the confidence and support of the king. Later on, while I'm speaking to this motion, I will tell you what has happened to many of those Speakers.

In 1994 we really believe that the role of the Speaker is inviolate, that there should be no interference from government. At the appropriate time, when a motion is made, when the standing orders are changed or when a bill such as that which has been brought forward by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is debated in this House, they should clearly have provisos that they would become effective only at the commencement of the next parliament. Because when we elected our Speaker, it was for the thirty-fifth parliament -- all of it -- from the beginning to the end.

The early history of the Speaker is somewhat shrouded in the mists of history, but William Trussel is credited with being the first Speaker, I believe because of some references made on his gravestone in Westminster Abbey. The first recorded Speaker was Sir Thomas Hungerford, but there are many questions about whether he really operated in the normal role of the Speaker as it was then. The first clearly established Speaker was elected 600 years ago this year. On January 27, 1394, Sir John Bussy, a crony of King Richard II, was elected Speaker.

There has always been a show of reluctance by Speakers who are elected to take the Chair. This evidently started in 1381 when Sir Richard Waldegrave was appointed the Speaker. I think that was during the reign of Richard II. Sir Richard Waldegrave anticipated some disputes with the king, and he wasn't very comfortable about taking his place as Speaker, so he tried to avoid it. He wasn't able to and did serve as Speaker. Sir John Bussy was elected in 1394, as I said, and he did get into trouble with King Richard II. The House over which he presided passed a petition condemning the extravagances of the king.

Whereupon King Richard II, in his wrath, came to the House of Commons and demanded of Sir John Bussy who was the instigator of this petition. Sir John Bussy snitched. He pointed the finger at Thomas Haxey, who was immediately arrested, brought in front of the House of Lords, tried for treason and condemned to death. He was not actually executed, but he nearly got to the gallows through the actions of Sir John Bussy.

Sir John Bussy got his own in due course. When Harry Hereford, also known as Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, took the surrender of King Richard II at Bristol in 1399, included amongst the King's entourage was Sir John Bussy. In King Richard II, dealing with this particular piece of history, Shakespeare puts the following words into the mouth of Bolingbroke, describing this man -- who is called Bushy, but it's clearly the Speaker of the House of Commons -- as "a caterpillar of this commonwealth I have sworn to weed and pluck away." And so he did. Bussy was beheaded outside the walls of the city of Bristol, without trial, in 1399.

As we all realize, this period of Richard II and Henry Bolingbroke, who was to become King Henry IV, was the start of the War of the Roses. On Monday, all the members on the other side of the House were wearing a white carnation, and we on our side of the House were wearing a red carnation. The white carnation or the white rose represents the House of York. Clearly, the Yorkists, the party of King Richard II, were the people who put Sir John Bussy into the chair; the government made their choice and elected a Speaker.

It was the Lancastrians, wearing the red carnations, that did in that speaker outside the walls of the city of Bristol. But I want to assure you, hon. Speaker, that we on this side of the House, wearing our red carnations or our red roses, have no intention whatsoever of doing any harm to our Speaker.

Many things have happened to Speakers over the years. I'm sure this House wants to know that in the year 1540, Speaker Winfield was committed to the Tower of London by King Henry VIII for advising Sir John Skelton on how to avoid the Statutes of Uses. I presume that the Statutes of Uses, for which I was not able to find any reference, was some form of taxes. There may be a message for the Minister of Finance or the Attorney General in this. From that day on it was clearly no longer appropriate for the Speaker to advise people on how to avoid taxes.

Who else has paid the supreme price for fulfilling the role and responsibilities of the office of Speaker? William Tresham was murdered in 1450. Thomas Thorp was beheaded in 1461. Sir John Wenlock was killed at the Battle of Tewkesbury in 1471. Sir Thomas Tresham -- you know what happened to his father -- was also beheaded at the same place. William Catesby, another Speaker, was beheaded after the Battle of Bosworth, and Empsom and Dudley were led to the scaffold in 1510.

Sir Thomas More, perhaps the most famous of all Speakers because of the power of Hollywood, also finished with his head on the execution block, although we appreciate that at the time he was the Lord Chancellor and not the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Lord Chancellor, hon. Speaker, as you are probably aware, is the Speaker of the House of Lords.

It has been important and clearly established over the years that the Speaker represents, stands up for, and defends the rights and liberties of this House. In 1642 Speaker William Lenthal stood up against Charles I, who came to arrest the five dissidents. When they hadn't turned up that day -- the Whip hadn't done a particularly good job -- and it was demanded of the Speaker where they were, he said: "May it please Your Majesty, I have neither the eyes to see nor the tongue to speak but as this House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here. I humbly beg Your Majesty's pardon that I cannot give him any answer other than this."

[3:15]

The role and importance of the Speaker has become established because of the commitment to their responsibilities that these fine people have made. In my

[ Page 9460 ]

research I was able to find only one Speaker who was literally expelled. That was in 1695, when Sir John Trevor was expelled from the House and from his office for taking bribes.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century the role of Speaker developed more and more, primarily because of a gentleman named Arthur Onslow, who was the longest-serving Speaker ever. He served from 1728 to 1761 and is credited with being the first Speaker to realize the supreme importance of the independence and impartiality of the Chair. His predecessors, who included an uncle and his great-great-great-grandfather, were always expectant officeholders.

But he, showing the right sterling stuff which current Speakers are made of, gave up his lucrative position as treasurer of the navy and contented himself with a fee of 100 shillings a year, I think, and small fees that he used to charge for putting through private bills.

Well, we all know what is really the purpose behind this resolution. As I said when I first started to speak, were this motion clearly enunciated to take place only at the commencement of the thirty-sixth parliament or were it to be held on the last day of this parliament, I would have supported it. We all, on both sides of the House, are in favour of improving and reforming the accountability of this House. We're all in favour of making the standing orders work better for us.

Seeing that this motion deals with the issue of standing orders, I would like to make an amendment to the motion in the following manner: "And that the standing orders further be amended by adding to standing order 68: '

(3) In addition to other powers conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the said Committee may: (

a) appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee; (

b) sit during any period in which the House is adjourned during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House; (

c) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and (

d) retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee'."

Speaking to this motion and its relevance at this point, this government has opened up the standing orders for the clearly stated purpose of making them work better and to ensure that democracy....

J. Tyabji: Point of order, hon. Speaker. As much as I respect the right of anyone to introduce an amendment, I'm having a hard time understanding the relevance of the amendment to the motion before the House for debate.

The Speaker: Thank you for that point of order, hon. member. The Chair has just received a copy of the amendment and is just now reading the amendment. I have to agree, hon. member, that in the view of the Chair, the amendment is not relevant to the motion. Therefore it would be out of order. But the member may continue to speak on the main motion.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I think that we should take every opportunity to improve the standing orders. When this government brings forward some matter which we would certainly like to see dealt with, but when we believe that there are matters that are clearly far more pressing and far more important.... I'm sure the government will be pleased at the opportunity to make this House work in a more responsive and democratic way. I was very hopeful that members of the government caucus would support my amendment, but....

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. I was just waiting to see what direction the hon. member's comments were taking. The Chair has ruled the amendment out of order, and I must encourage the hon. member to address his further comments to the main motion.

F. Gingell: I shall close by just repeating that this is an important issue. I think we all believe that the role of the Speaker is critical to the fair operation of this House -- an important figure, an important part of the clear separation between the Legislature and the executive. It is critically important for us to ensure that the executive do not in any way influence the free will of all 75 members of this House. If an amendment were made to this motion calling for it to take effect on the first day of the thirty-sixth parliament, it would be clearly supported.

Because I haven't prepared such an amendment, I will trust one of my friends on the other side of the House, whom I know are interested in fair play and democracy, to bring one forward. If they don't, I will understand it -- well, I won't understand it, but I'll accept it -- and I'll try to find some other friendly member to make such a motion.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, it would be a pleasure and a privilege for all members of this assembly to be speaking in favour of a motion to elect a Speaker. I don't think there is anyone in this assembly who doesn't recognize that in the progression of events in parliaments, and in the reform of parliament, an election of a Speaker is a timely and desirable event. If indeed the motion before us were to reflect the intent of the last amendment proposed by the last speaker, then I believe we would have a very short debate and, I expect, unanimous support for a motion to elect a Speaker.

The question that's troubling me, and, I believe, many members of this assembly, is: why at this time has the Premier seen fit to introduce this amendment to the standing orders? Why indeed has the Premier decided to bring forward an amendment that not only sets out a process for electing a Speaker -- actually quite a good process, I think, although I would argue that there may be some ways to make that move a little more quickly than this would seem to anticipate if there are a number of members who decide to stand for the office.... But what troubles me, hon.

Speaker -- and I understand fully how difficult this situation must be for you -- and the problem that we're having is that the standing order appears to anticipate a vacancy in the Chair, and that's deeply troubling to me and to many members in this House, because it undermines the independence, if that's the case, of the office of the Speaker, about which my friend spoke eloquently.

There needs to be a clear understanding of the independence of the Speaker's position and of the confidence that all members, particularly members in opposition, have in the Speaker's chair. So if this motion were in fact to deal with an election for the Speaker of the next parliament, we could finish this business up very quickly. There would be very little debate in the Legislature, I expect. Even if that were the case, one would wonder why in

section 11(a)(2) the Premier has seen fit to insert a requirement that during the election of a Speaker, the Clerk shall not permit any question of privilege or point of order. Why indeed would the government set about to put those kinds of restrictions in a standing order? When I read this motion -- this amendment to the standing orders -- it seems to me that there is an enormous amount of anticipation put into events that may unfold shortly after the passing of this motion, and that troubles me deeply. It troubles me because I think we see not

[ Page 9461 ]

only the possibility but the probability of manipulation and coercion that may have gone on leading up to the introduction of this motion and the events that will follow.

Let me give notice now, hon. Speaker, that if there is a resignation by you and a decision not to seek re-election, then I will bring forward a motion of privilege. I say that now because I'm not satisfied, given the wording of this motion, should it pass, that I would have another opportunity to raise a motion of privilege. So I would like you to know -- and I'd like this to go on record now -- that if there is a resignation of the Speaker in this sitting of the Legislature and if the incumbent Speaker doesn't seek re-election in that process, then I will present to you a motion of privilege.

I do that because I believe that we have an obligation as members of this assembly to protect the independence of the Speaker. Indeed, to date the Speaker has been appointed by the Premier. The Premier has had total control over the decision of who to appoint to the Speaker's chair. If indeed a Premier were willing to undermine the Speaker of his own choice, what confidence could any member in the House have that the next Speaker elected by secret ballot wouldn't find themselves faced with another motion, perhaps next year, because the Premier didn't like the way the election went or didn't like the independence asserted by that elected Speaker?

So there's something very fundamental here -- and, I think, worthwhile protecting. I understand that while the Premier was the Leader of the Opposition he didn't spend a lot of time in this House. Perhaps it's the lack of time, the lack of space and the lack of attention that he gives to this assembly that cause him to make the kind of decisions and manipulation that appears to be evident in this motion.

[3:30]

Hon. Speaker, your position, as you know, is one of enormous importance in the process that we're in in this Legislature. Indeed, those of us in opposition depend on you. Those of us in the minority depend on you to protect us from the rule of the majority -- the tyranny of the majority. But what we're seeing here is a case where the majority is exerting their tyranny. Despite some very good arguments about even the presentation of this motion, they have forged ahead. Obviously the government is very determined to have this motion and these changes to the standing orders in place very quickly.

If indeed there wasn't something more than we see here today, why would the Premier not simply allow this motion to stand down? Why would he not allow the proper procedure to be followed? What's the hurry here? What's the rush? We've heard all kinds of rumours and innuendos, and they trouble us deeply. We don't want to see what we fear is going to happen in fact occur.

I am deeply concerned that once we've passed this motion, we are going to be powerless to do anything about it; that we are not even going to be allowed to entertain any question, as the motion suggests; nor are we going to have the opportunity to raise a point of privilege or point of order. I find myself in the position of having to guess what's going to happen. There has been a great deal of speculation -- some of it pretty distasteful -- of unhappy, unhealthy kinds of activities that we think have gone on here.

With that, hon. Speaker, I want to encourage you to protect the independence of the office of the Speaker, recognizing the 600-year history of the British parliamentary system and the institutions we are in, and not let the government's expediency overrule one of the basic fundamentals of this Legislature.

Hon. J. Smallwood: It's an honour to enter into this debate. As I listened to the two previous speakers, it gave me some real impetus to talk about a different type of history. Where the two previous speakers talked about the history of parliament and the sanctity of the Speaker and the role of the Speaker in the House, that was very much a male history, and very much a history of a House that has traditionally been the bastion of male privilege.

The opportunity that this debate gives me is not only to talk about a reform initiative, but to talk about it from a perspective of those women who are on the forefront of reform and change. The reform motion that the Premier has brought forward references the changes that many of us have talked about, and speaker after speaker in previous sessions have demanded: a Legislature that was more accountable to all members, that was more democratic, that gave every member of this House an opportunity to have their names stand.

All of these members, as in the motion, will not only have an opportunity to let their names stand, but to vote and to take their place in this House and put their perspective forward.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Smallwood: This is my time and my place, and I would ask you to respect that.

The Speaker: I must remind the House that everyone will have a chance to debate this motion, but at this time the hon. minister has the floor. I ask the House to extend that courtesy. Please proceed, hon. minister.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I know that many members are new to this House and don't have the kind of experience that many of the Social Credit members have. They've had the opportunity to learn how other Houses functioned. As a member who is sitting for a second term, I want to share with new members a little of what our first House was like in '86.

When I first came to this House in '86, there were some seven women members. We've come a long way; we now have 15 women members, and it does make a difference. But let me talk to you a bit about my personal experience. When I first came to this House, I was met by one of the stalwarts of the press gallery. That gentleman offered me a book about the history of the Parliament of England, about the many strong Speakers and about the way that parliament operated.

C. Serwa: On a point of order, I'm not really interested in listening to the member's personal experience. We're debating a motion on the order paper. I would be pleased if she would pay attention to the matter of that motion.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for raising the point of order. The Chair has already allowed some latitude with previous speakers on this motion. I think all members would agree that some latitude is appropriate, but I'm sure that the hon. minister who has the floor will take the comments under consideration.

[ Page 9462 ]

Hon. J. Smallwood: Thank you, hon. Speaker. We heard a very male history. I'm talking about women's history, and who better to speak of women's history than a woman who has been in this House, albeit a short time. I have a relevant message during this debate. The history we heard is one of men, recorded by men, and I want to talk about the history of women in parliament and in the Legislature of this province. I'm going to talk about a book that was shared by a student of the parliamentary process.

As a new member at that time, I read that book and thought: where is my place; where is my history; how can I relate to this new institution that I have been elected to? I thought about that, and I balked against that history.

At that time we had a number of senior members who helped to guide new members in that history and tradition, and I was quite grateful for that. But while tradition and history are important, and we must learn from them, we also have to recognize that this is the era of modern democracy. People are calling for a more open government that allows for all members of this House to feel ownership in that process. I want to talk a little more about....

Interjections.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure that many of these members, while engaged in very partisan debate, will themselves enjoy the benefit of some of the experience of other more senior members, who have some experience in the parliamentary process and, through that, understand that the reform we are embarking on as a government is not only long overdue but respects a tradition of reform.

Hon. Speaker, I want to reflect a few moments on the very exclusive club that you are a member of. In the reform that women have brought not only to the parliamentary system but to the electoral process, I think it's important for us all to recognize the achievements and to recognize the fact that you are the second woman to take that chair in this province. Back in 1941, Nancy Hodges was the first Speaker to take a chair in a Commonwealth Legislature. That has been followed in a number of different provinces. In Manitoba, Ms. Phillips was elected for the first time in 1981.

In her second term, she took the Speaker's chair in July 1986. In New Brunswick, Ms. Dysart was first elected in 1974, was Minister of Education in 1987 and was the first female Speaker in that province in 1991. In Prince Edward Island, Nancy Guptill was first elected in 1987 in a by-election, served as Minister of Tourism in 1989 and was the first woman Speaker in Prince Edward Island in April 1993.

In the federal Parliament, Mme. Sauve was first elected in 1972 and served as the Minister of State for Science and Technology. She took the chair in 1980 and followed in the prestigious role of Governor General of Canada. Mme. Sauve has followed in the steps of many strong women chairs in this country. I think it is important for us at this time to recognize the role women have played in reform, not simply in protecting tradition -- the bastion of male privilege that the House of Commons has historically been -- but instead bringing about and shepherding reform.

The reform movement for women has included a number of different initiatives throughout history. It began in western Canada. The women of British Columbia won the right to vote in the provincial election in 1917 and the right to run for provincial office that same year. Canadian women won the right to vote in federal elections in 1918 and the right to hold federal office in 1920.

L. Stephens: Standing order 40(3) states: "No member shall be irrelevant in debate." I would ask the Speaker to direct the minister to be relevant.

The Speaker: Thank you for that point of order. As I have commented previously, I think that we have allowed some latitude in this debate. But I would encourage the hon. minister to bring her comments into closer context with the motion.

[3:45]

Hon. J. Smallwood: I will remind the previous member that this motion deals with the reform of this Legislature, and I think it's absolutely appropriate to talk about reform and the role women have played in the reform of parliament and in the electoral process here in British Columbia and in Canada.

Between 1919 and 1970 there were 134 federal and provincial elections. Of the 6,845 legislators who were elected, only 67 were women. Remarkable reforms have been brought forward not only by women represented in provincial legislatures but also in the federal House. These reforms have been brought forward by the numbers of women who have taken leadership roles. At this time, when we are moving a motion to reform this Legislature, I think it's important for us to embrace and recognize that history as well.

Finally, I want to wrap up by talking about the issue of who records our history. Who speaks for women and how is their history recorded? I want all of us to recognize that in the past this House has represented a very exclusive bastion of male privilege. Many new members in this House enjoy a privilege that, prior to their taking a seat, has been bestowed on them by the women who fought for their places. By recognizing the increased number of women in this House....

L. Stephens: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, I would again ask you to remind the minister that under standing order 40(3) the member shall be relevant in debate.

The Speaker: The Chair has just dealt with that point of order. The Chair would remind all members at all times in debate to address their comments to the motion before us. But we also appreciate that sometimes debate needs a little bit of lead-up. I again ask the hon. minister to take the point of order under consideration in the remainder of her remarks.

Hon. J. Smallwood: In the lead-up to this debate, there has been much discussion, both in the popular media and, I imagine, among many of the members of this House. Again, I want to challenge members that at a time when we are dealing with such a significant and historical reform that provides, and I'll repeat....

L. Stephens: The most cowardly act in this Legislature.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Hon. Chair, I was reminded to speak to the motion. When I try to speak to the motion, I am drowned out by the heckling on the other side.

I want to remind members that what we're talking about is the democratic functioning of this House. This motion before us provides for every member of this House to run for election and to have a vote. It is the end of a very privileged few making decisions and using the power of the majority.

We're talking about who is recording history. We've talked about the history that has gone before us, and it is a

[ Page 9463 ]

great history. It is a history of democracy. We owe a great deal to our ancestry, but that does not excuse any of us. For now we have an opportunity to take our place in the reform of a modern democracy and enable every member of this House to stand and vote.

I want to talk a little bit about who records our history. At this time it is particularly important for us to recognize not only the reform and the role that women bring to that reform, but it is also a time to challenge those who record our history. I want to quote, for Hansard, a couple of notable recorders of history. First of all, Patricia Graham, the former editorial page editor for the Province, who is now the senior editor of the Vancouver Sun, said that female politicians can expect to face a sexist press. "The media are not much different from other institutions," she said.

"Patriarchal values, judgments, will dog you. You'll be judged more harshly than men. If you are too quiet, the media will ignore you. If you speak up, you are hectoring and nagging."

A quote about MP Sheila Copps being grilled about her child care arrangements, when no one reported on her male colleagues' child care arrangements....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I am going to call the minister to order. I appreciate that there may be a point that she wishes to make in this debate, but I must ask again that the minister address her comments to the motion before us. Please proceed, hon. minister.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I saw the recording of our history, not only for this House but also for women, to be just as relevant as the previous speaker speaking of instances where parliamentarians were beheaded. Quite frankly, I think our current history is more relevant to this debate around the reform of this Legislature and the role that women play in that reform.

I want to speak just briefly about one other notable recorder, and that notable recorder is a member of this press gallery and a friend of women. Mimi Robertson, a former president of the Victoria Status of Women, works now in radio news and, as we all know, is a political correspondent for this Legislature. She spoke about....

Interjections.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I understand very clearly that the members are uncomfortable because it's not....

The Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm very interested in hearing the minister's stories on history, but this isn't the venue for it. Despite the great contributions women have made to parliamentary democracy throughout history, it has absolutely nothing to do with the disgraceful motion by the Premier that's on the order paper. I wish she'd speak to the disgraceful motion instead of trying to clothe herself in some feminism that will alleviate her from all responsibility for this distasteful act.

The Speaker: Is this on the point of order, hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain?

T. Perry: Yes. I heard the hon. Minister of Housing speaking on the voice box in my office, and I came in to listen to her. I'm finding it almost impossible to hear her, because the real squawking is not on the so-called squawk boxes out there but coming from the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. I'd like to be able to hear the speaker on the government side.

The Speaker: Is this on the same point of order, hon. member for Okanagan East?

J. Tyabji: I've been listening to all the speeches so far, and I fail to see that the minister's speech is any less relevant than the speeches that preceded it. I too would like to be able hear it, as I'd like to hear all members' speeches. In fact I find the subject matter of her speech very relevant to this Speaker's role and the debate before us.

The Speaker: Thank you for the submissions on the point of order. I must remind the hon. member who has the floor that the Chair has reminded her, in response to points of order, on the relevance.... She has now heard the input on the latest point of order, and I again must request the hon. minister to conclude her comments, in keeping with the motion before us.

Hon. J. Smallwood: For those members who are so uncomfortable with a reform message and women's role in that forum, that link is very simple. We are in a time of change, not only in this Legislature but in this province. This government is committed to bringing about change that respects the insistence of not only members of this House but of the people of this province that they are looking for a more accountable, more open and more democratic process.

The motion before us provides every member of this House with the opportunity to run and to vote, and it also provides us with a time to celebrate the reform and the role and changes of this House.

I'm saddened by the fact that members of this House don't understand the history that has gone before them and don't understand the history....

The Speaker: I will recognize that this is a point of order, but if it is the same point of order, I will not take further points of order of a similar nature. I have asked the minister to conclude her comments in relation to the motion, and I trust that she is doing that.

C. Serwa: Certainly it's not similar to the points that have been proposed. The point of order is simply that the charade has been carried out. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain came in here and said he wanted to listen to the hon. member speaking, and he's absent from the chamber.

The Speaker: The hon. member well knows that it is not the practice of the House to comment on the presence or absence of hon. members. I ask the House's indulgence to allow the minister to conclude her comments.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would encourage the member to look behind him. He would notice that the member he was referencing is indeed still in the House and still very interested.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Smallwood: In the best tradition of debate, hon. Speaker, I am encouraged by the interest that members are showing in this debate, and I also encourage them to put

[ Page 9464 ]

their thoughts on the record and take their place in doing so. At this time, when we are embracing democratic reform in this House, I am not prepared to take my place without recognizing your role in that very exclusive club of women who have taken Chairs across this province, in moving on to embrace change, and to bring about the kind of democratic reform I heard many of the members talk about in previous years.

To embrace that reform, we're not talking about more of the same privilege. Instead, we are recognizing that the measure of success is in knowing that by your involvement in your sphere of influence, and by serving the people of this province, you have indeed made life better for all of us as members. Women, in the long history of reform, have made a difference.

[4:00]

Perhaps you can't measure it on a score card. Much like the male Speakers that the previous member talked about, and the history that has evaluated the men that have gone before us, we cannot and do not have the same score card -- because by our very presence we are reform. By women's presence in this House, we represent a changing time. We embrace that change. The opportunity for all of us to vote and participate in that change must be embraced.

I want to recount one other story for the Speaker. This is a personal story. Many years ago I was at a candidates' workshop. The Speaker was there in her role.... They talked about what it was like to be an elected representative. My reference to her at that time was: by the very nature of the fact that you are a woman, you are a reform candidate; regardless of your politics, by the very fact of your femaleness in this sphere that we have chosen, you are a reform candidate. It is a time that we should all be proud of. We should recognize our accomplishments, embrace reform and insist that reform moves forward.

V. Anderson: One of the opportunities that we have as members of the Legislature is the opportunity to have a graduate and a post-graduate education. Today we've had a number of historical presentations, and I appreciated the one from the minister who just spoke. However, it has raised a question in my mind that was not there previously when I looked at the reason for this particular legislation at this time.

As I listened to the hon. Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services, I was very much aware that she stressed that this is a time of change and reform. Apparently in her mind there is also dissatisfaction with much of the process that has been going on in this House not only over the generations but recently.

One thing that came to my mind, which may explain part of the reason for this act is that the minister has been unhappy -- not with the person who was appointed -- but with the manner of the appointment that took place when this sitting of the Legislature began. It sounds as if the power that resided in the hands of the Premier, or perhaps in a male-dominated executive that arranged for the nomination of the present Speaker, was not to the liking of other members of the government caucus or the present executive. It sounds to me like we've had a power brokering within the government itself.

Because the government was not able to resolve the powerbrokering internally, it took the opportunity to resolve it externally, by a secret vote, in order to assure us that not only the men but the women within the caucus are exercising their power and to make sure that the public is aware of changes taking place within the government, not just within the Legislature.

If so, I think this is an unfortunate use of power within this Legislature. Because it's in the Legislature, it is not the place to be fighting the power structures within the executive branch or within the government or to be bringing that executive powerbrokering into the Legislature when we're supposed to be dealing with the throne speech. It seems to me that the relevance of this timing is what leaves us with a great deal of questions as to its purpose.

We heard in the throne speech where we were going to go as government. We understood that those items which were presented in the throne speech were of critical importance for this province. If that is the case, why have we interrupted the throne speech for this motion at this particular time? That in itself leads us to a very suspicious appreciation of the reason behind it. Perhaps it's to cover up the throne speech; perhaps it's to say that the throne speech wasn't relevant after all and that there are other things more relevant than that which was presented in the throne speech.

The presentation that we just heard by the Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services is one that opens my mind to a whole host of reasons behind this particular act.

I have no problem -- in fact, I am delighted -- with hearing the history of the contribution that women have made within our legislatures in this country. It's a very relevant, important and long overdue contribution that they needed to make. However, I was confused by the minister saying that as senior minister she had more understanding and ability and should be listened to with all wisdom,

whereas the younger inexperienced ministers should be bowing and scraping and listening to their wiser counterparts. At the same time, she commends the Speaker for the position that she has been taking.

The Speaker came in most inexperienced, like so many of us. Having come in as a new MLA at the same time as the Speaker, I would like to commend her for the growth factor that she began to show almost from the very first day. She has done an excellent job. If her inexperience is part of the reality she brought to this particular position, I think it has been an experience which started anew, which was learned in the very process and has brought a refreshing and consistent leadership to our House. I want to commend her as much as I possibly can. That doesn't mean that I always agree with the Speaker.

I live with four women in my family, and we don't agree all the time either; that's part of a relationship when we're working together in things that are important.

One of the special contributions that I think the Speaker has brought to this Legislature is the very essence of what we're discussing today. She has brought to her position an awareness that she is responsible to the total legislative process. She is not a person who is responsible to one part of the process -- to the executive branch, to the government or to one or another branch of the opposition. She is a person who is neutral, fair and unbiased.

She is there to protect all of us and the ongoing credibility of this House -- to stand in the community on our behalf as the very respected person who represents the credibility of the Legislature itself. That's a message that needs to be carried very strongly and forcibly into our communities, because there is a lot of suspicion about the Legislature, MLAs, government members and the executive branch. In order to have the fairness that our Speaker represents to the community, it's fundamentally important that her credibility not be taken away or misplaced in any shape or form.

I am afraid that the discussion that has gone on in the newspapers and in public, this suggestion of powerbrokering made by the minister who spoke before me,

[ Page 9465 ]

undermines the credibility not just of the Speaker but of the whole legislative process. The motion itself and the manner in which it has been brought forth have done more to undermine the credibility of this Legislature than anything we have collectively done for some time. And I'm talking about all of us, because this is something that all of us need to think about. In the election of the Speaker we are not to be voting as party members or as government and opposition; we are to be here as individuals representing each of our constituencies, as they have elected us to do.

We talk about being able to speak and vote individually. Nowhere is that more true than when we vote for the Speaker of this assembly.

When we first came to this particular parliament, we had that opportunity. We took that opportunity, and we voted in and affirmed the present Speaker. We did not do that for a short period of time; we did that for the full length of this parliament. That credibility is now before us. This is part of the tradition that we have maintained and which we share with our community.

The Youth Parliament met in this Legislature during the Christmas season. They elected their Speaker and discussed among themselves the credibility and neutrality of the person they were electing. That person was brought forward reluctantly, because they understood the responsibility of that position. They understood that regardless of the pressure put upon them -- and I stress that word regardless -- they had a responsibility to make decisions to benefit the Legislature and the people of British Columbia, not the government and not the opposition.

Unfortunately we are left with the impression that the Speaker is being intimidated into making a decision that is not necessarily of her choosing and is not necessarily for the well-being of the Legislature or of our service to the people of the province. That is unfortunate, because once that suggestion has been brought forward, it makes it extremely difficult -- perhaps almost impossible -- for the Speaker to show the fairness that she or he would wish to.

It will leave the clear impression that the Speaker has been forced into whatever action he or she might wish to take, and in the history and credibility of our government here, that is extremely unfortunate.

[4:15]

We have to be aware that what we are doing here is watched with great interest by the people of this province. In what we are undertaking here, the very credibility not only of the Speaker but of every member of this Legislature is in question. It is the ability of this Legislature to operate as one unit, not as sections, that is at stake in the election of the Speaker. We are in agreement -- and I believe we'll probably be 100 percent in agreement by all 75 members in this House -- that the Speaker, when it is time for the next parliament, should be elected quite properly by a secret ballot of everyone in the Legislature.

That is not the point in question. The point in question is whether at this particular time it is appropriate to do so. If this particular bill had simply said that this would come into effect at the beginning of the next parliament, we could have dealt with it very quickly and been unanimous in doing so. That has been left out, and included in this bill are these very dangerous words that this government has unhappily included again and again in the bills they bring forward. It's that open-ended catch clause, in case they forgot something in the process.

I would like to bring your attention to a very important clause within this bill: "Where there is, or is to be, a vacancy in the Office of Speaker whether at the opening of a Parliament, or because the incumbent of that office has indicated his or her intention to resign the Office of Speaker, or for any other reason, the House shall proceed to elect one of its members to be Speaker." That's the open-ended phrase that discounts every other part of this bill. How can you be more wide open?

How can you leave the door completely open to be misunderstood, to be misrepresented or to damage the credibility of this Legislature? That is a phrase that we cannot have in such a bill if we are to maintain our credibility.

Therefore, hon. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment, seconded by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove: that

section 11(2) of the motion before this Legislative Assembly be amended by the deletion of the words "or for any other reason," and the insertion of the following therefor: "the Speaker has passed away or the House has passed a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker." I so move this amendment.

The Speaker: I will allow debate on the amendment while the Chair considers the amendment.

On the amendment.

V. Anderson: As I indicated earlier, if we want to have credibility in this motion, and if we want to understand it and the reason for it, we cannot have this clause "or any other reason". Because a person is too old, too young, because they're not of the right background or the right culture, or any other reason, just leaves it so open-ended that it can be misinterpreted and misused again and again.

The credibility of the Speaker is to be considered in this motion, and this undermines that credibility. It means that any pressure, intimidation or force can be brought against the Speaker at any time, for any reason, by any person. This is not the kind of definite, clear, concise legislation that we can approve. We must have this change, but even with this change there will be questions about the appropriateness of this act at this time in this Legislature, and about its reason and purpose.

We will soon discover the reason for and purpose of this motion, and the people of British Columbia will be the final judge of its credibility. The people of British Columbia will understand what happens with this motion and how it is used, and the intent and purpose of the executive branch of the government that brought it forward. I want to highlight that one thing the Premier and the minister were both trying to convey to us was the righteousness of this government in putting forward this very righteous and proper motion at this time.

One thing about righteousness is that it it will come back to haunt you. If you're not righteous, particularly when you say you are, it will very quickly come back to haunt you. It is a boomerang that comes around very quickly. In raising these questions, we want the government to be sure they are on credible ground, because not only will they be damaged when that reality comes back to them and the boomerang hits home but we will all be damaged, and that's the critical part. If they're damaged by their righteousness, they deserve it.

But the credibility of the Legislature should not be damaged by the government that has been given trust by the people of this province. We must make that change so that "for every other reason" cannot be left in, and at least it can be as concise, clear-cut and realistic as possible.

The Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands, speaking on the amendment.

C. Tanner: I'm speaking to the main motion. I didn't hear your ruling as to whether the amendment was acceptable.

[ Page 9466 ]

The Speaker: The amendment is in order, so I can confirm that we are now debating the amendment.

C. Tanner: I rise today to talk to the amendment as introduced by my colleague concerning a motion put in this House by, of all people, the Premier -- the chief executive officer of this province. It is noted that today we had government bills introduced by backbenchers. Obviously the government is either too lethargic or is using these introductions to teach the backbenchers something that they want to learn -- I assume it's how to start their apprenticeship towards cabinet ministership. Whatever the reason, what sort of school is being practised here by our chief executive officer, the Premier?

What sort of example is the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant giving to his backbenchers when the election of a Speaker is subject to discussion in the midterm of this parliament?

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I will not be here should a vote on the Speaker's motion or the amendment take place, and I want this House to know my feelings about this Speaker. First and foremost, fellow members, the Speaker is ours. The Speaker's position is ours. The 74 members of this House -- not the government, not the opposition, not any group, not any group of members -- have chosen the member for Burnaby-Willingdon to be their Speaker. She's our individual representative in the chair of this House. The Speaker does not have any power that is not given to her by each member of this House.

We, collectively and singularly, asked this member to be our Speaker -- ours; not of the members opposite, not the members who are my friends on this side of the House, but ours. Each and every one of us chose to give up some of our authority, our individual freedom, to the Speaker.

Our members' handbook talks of the Speaker's duty to maintain order and decorum and to enforce those standing orders which the assembly has made for itself. It goes on to say that the Speaker does not participate in the debate or engage in partisan activities. We, the members, can; the Speaker can't. But while the members can be partisan in all things, there must surely be one subject in which we cannot be partisan, and that is the treatment of our chosen Speaker. We must, when dealing with that officer, be as impartial as we expect them to be in the fulfilment of their duties as Speaker.

When the Speaker enters the House, we rise out of respect for their position and their stature. We acknowledge their authority, given to them from all of us. The Sergeant-at-Arms, in placing the mace upon the table, symbolizes the authority of the House and, through the House, the Speaker. After an election, no matter what political party we were nominated, ran and were elected for, each of us here are elected to a dual role: firstly, to represent the approximately 40,000 people who are our constituents; and secondly, to act in concert to conduct the business of this province.

Obviously we all know and understand that the largest like-minded group of members, those in the majority, make most of the decisions. However, there is one important decision we make as a group, and that is the selection of our Speaker. So members must ask themselves: why has the government attempted the unusual step of changing Speakers in midterm? Are they acting in the members' best interest?

If so, fellow members, I wasn't asked for my opinion of this Speaker. If I had been, I would have told this House what my experience has been with this Speaker. This Speaker, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, has, I believe, acted in an impartial and non-partisan manner since her appointment. I have expressed that opinion to her privately, more than once, and to my caucus, to the public and to my constituents. I have heard criticism of her rulings from members of both sides of the House. That tells me that this Speaker is doing the job she was elected to do.

It's an old axiom of negotiating contracts: if both sides complain of the result and neither side is completely satisfied when a reasonable settlement has been found.... So too in this matter. I sincerely believe this House has been well-served by this Speaker who has shown particular favour to none and impartiality to all.

Sitting in this particular seat on this side of the House admittedly has its hazards. I have been in and out of it several times -- in fact, almost as many times as we've had changes of cabinet. That apart, there are a couple of assets in sitting in this particular seat: it's easy to make unobtrusive entrances and exits, but, more importantly, it's easy to catch the Speaker's eye. Come to think of it, that has a double-edged advantage because it also means being under the sometimes baleful stare of the Speaker when, in her judgment, we are not acting as we should. Nevertheless, this seat on this side of this House is the best one to judge the actions of the Speaker close up.

Fellow members, I appeal to you in your individual constituency-representing role to support your chosen Speaker not for partisan advantage, not for gender oneupmanship, not for petty settlement of perceived grievance, but simply because this member from Burnaby-Willingdon has been a good Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I move the following amendment.

[4:30]

The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, we are already on an amendment, and we can't have two amendments. If the member has finished his comments, I will invite further comment on the amendment.

A. Warnke: At some later point in the debate I hope to enter into a general discussion, but perhaps by the time we finish discussing this amendment the government will have finally come to its senses. The amendment that has been put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara essentially strikes at the very heart of an issue that is critically important in the functioning of parliament and the functioning of this Legislature. Essentially, what is being advocated by the member for Vancouver-Langara is that the words "or for any other reason" be deleted. I would say the removal of a Speaker "for any other reason" is one of the most insidious things in the history of parliament.

The member for Delta South touched on a history which from time to time has been criticized by other members opposite. That history is critically important to understand how parliamentary democracy has evolved. If one does not understand the basic elements of how parliamentary democracy evolved, then they have forgotten what the nature of democracy is all about. It is so important to get that fact across to the members opposite.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to those of the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands, who eloquently spoke about your contribution to this chamber. I echo those comments as well. But I would like to stick to the particular principle here, which I believe is so paramount in this political system. In this particular case it really does not matter who occupies the chair.

Anyone from this chamber who is elected to your chair, Hon. Speaker, has the prospect of being intimidated by the very phrase that we're trying to delete with this amendment. In my view, it is so strong and insidious as to interfere in the parliamentary process. In my judgment, the election of a

[ Page 9467 ]

new Speaker will not have the confidence of the remainder of this parliament. If we pass this silly thing, the Speaker may not even have the confidence of a new parliament, and that's the reason we have to oppose this so strongly. It is a very clear example of how the executive interferes and intimidates in the Legislature, not only with the hon. Speaker but with every member of this chamber, every member of the parliamentary process. I have not heard of nor have I seen such interference in the legislative process as I have seen with this motion that has been brought forward by the Premier. How insidious!

It undermines the independence of the Speaker, and it also undermines the rights and privileges of every member in this chamber.

For that reason, it is extremely important to cast a history lesson to the other side. How insulting of the member for Surrey-Whalley to even dare to entice us by saying that anyone could get elected to this great job! How dare she insult all members of this Legislature!

We must understand what we are doing in this chamber. We are fundamentally changing and undermining the rights and privileges of legislators, not just reforming and changing for the sake of change because we're tidying up some part of the legislative process. I have seen a bit too much, especially of this government, but we have seen patterns of it elsewhere. We have mentioned before how the executive branch of government interferes with the legislative branch. We have seen that pattern, and that's the reason why we're very suspicious of the motion brought forward by the Premier.

It is so critically important to resist any effort by the executive branch of government to undermine, intimidate and interfere with the legislative branch.

The reason we need a history lesson is that in the British parliamentary tradition, the real executive branch of government was the Crown, and the Crown did interfere with the legislative branch. Therefore, over time, each and every member of parliament who resisted and fought for the rights of parliamentarians fought and resisted so as to express, articulate and lead the national interest each and every time. That is the why the formal executive branch of government, the Crown, has, over time, accepted the fact that it ought not interfere with this chamber.

Unfortunately, the real executive, where the real government is, is still trying to interfere in this place. That has to be resisted at all cost.

There is a way to deal with this matter. First of all, pay attention to the motion brought forward by the member for Vancouver-Langara, because it specifically addresses the most objectionable part of the motion that has been brought forward by the Premier. It's extremely important. Hence, I have to emphasize to each and every member in this chamber, who should be jealously guarding the interests of legislators and the power of the legislative branch of government: pay attention to what is really the motive behind the motion brought forward in this place by the Premier.

Whatever the rationale supposedly is for electing a new Speaker -- and it's cloaked in the rhetoric of reform and all the rest of it -- one must look at the motives.

What is the intent behind this motion being brought forward? It's extremely important. Even in a court of law you have to essentially look at a case in terms of intent. But the intent here is very clear indeed. As has been pointed out by the member for Delta South and the member for Peace River South, if we truly want to reform this institution and elect a Speaker, there is an appropriate bill to be brought forward in this House at the appropriate time. There is a way to express that in language that is not antagonistic to the legislative process.

There is a timing involved here as well that intimidates not only you personally, hon. Speaker, but intimidates each and every Speaker that follows after this moment.

I would like to suggest, in support of the amendment put forward by my colleague for Vancouver-Langara, and to emphasize in the strongest terms possible, that this government and this Premier take away the motion that has been placed before us, chop it up into all sorts of shreds and take a cold, hard historical but real lesson from it as well.

Well, when I hear those government members who dare to laugh about protecting the rights and privileges of members of this chamber, I say: how contemptuous of those members opposite! What are they really trying to prove? It is a sad day when some members apparently do not understand the rights and obligations to protect the independence of the office of the Speaker. It's a very sad day when some members of this chamber support the tyranny of the executive against the rights, privileges and obligations of every member of this chamber. What shame, indeed.

The member for Vancouver-Langara has made it very explicit that there is one phrase in particular that is so objectionable because it reflects the intent to intimidate. As the member for Peace River South put it, we elect a new Speaker this year. If we leave in the clause, "for whatever reason," who is to say we won't have a new Speaker next year, then the year after -- or the next month, for that matter? A Speaker can be removed for whatever reason.

I urge the members to come to their senses and to say to the Premier that enough is enough, in terms of interference of the executive branch of government in the legislative branch of government. If we really want to change, you change by essentially elaborating the powers of a legislative branch of government. I will tell you, hon. members, that if you allow the executive branch of government to encroach, encroach and encroach and to spread their power, pretty soon you won't have power, authority, rights or obligations in this chamber. It's so easily done.

An inherent part of the parliamentary process -- whether in Britain or, for that matter, even in America -- is the idea to separate the executive and the legislative branch of government, which is sometimes difficult in this chamber. We're all reasonable, but when we're dealing with the institutions of government, where the executive enhances its powers, rights and privileges at the expense of members of the Legislature, then that is a sad day indeed. I do see this trend; I do see this pattern.

Manipulation, coercion and intimidation are words that have been used by previous Speakers; all of those words are quite correct in describing the intent of the phrase that we on this side of the House are trying to remove.

That's only part of the problem. The essence of the problem is a motion that has been brought forward by the Premier himself. Somehow that is so symbolic. The Premier brings in a motion whereby the head of the executive branch of government says: "I'm going to usurp the powers, rights, duties and privileges of every member of the Legislature, and I'm going to intimidate the office of the Speaker."

That is the core and essence of parliamentary democracy, and I cannot think of an idea so objectionable. Henceforth, it really does warrant every member of this chamber to have a sober second thought about what we are doing in terms of preserving the independence of the Speaker.

The member for Delta South mentioned a number of names. They are not just men. The good parliament of 1376 ushered in a new era, which was the beginning of the independence of your place, hon. Speaker. The succession of the parliament of 1377 brought forth the person Sir Thomas

[ Page 9468 ]

Hungerford. It's possible to look at his basic personality and say whatever you want to about it, but the reason it's so important to point out his role is that he symbolizes the independence of your office, hon. Speaker, and from whence we came. The phrase "Monsieur Thomas De Hungerford, Chevalier, qui avait la parole pour la Commune" is symbolic of what you stand for, hon. Speaker. It is why every member of this chamber must support you, in sharp contrast to what is being proposed in the motion by the Premier.

[4:45]

Hon. Speaker, I suppose you would not be alone in fighting the executive branch of government and suffering the consequences. My friend from Delta South referred to Sir John Bussy. In fact, William Tresham, Thomas Tresham, Thorp, Wenlock and Catesby were all Speakers who met violent endings, including assassinations.

These are not names that just appear in history books; these were living human beings who occupied the seat of Speaker. They lost their lives. Every member of this Legislature would be well reminded to reflect on them and why they lost their lives, what they have done to contribute to parliamentary democracy and what democracy really means throughout the world. What a tremendous contribution these people have made, and yet we are supposed to absolve our memories of those people and say: "Well, they belonged to a distant past." Hon. Speaker, they stood up for your office. They stood up for the rights and privileges of parliamentarians. We should do that as well.

D. Mitchell: I am in support of the amendment moved by the member of the official opposition. I would also like to support the main motion, because it represents a reform that I have supported and advocated for some time. However, I deplore the circumstances with which this reform is coming forward. It makes it difficult -- and challenging, at the very least -- to support the motion by the hon. Premier, much as I would like to, and hope to be able to. With some amendments to the motion during this debate, we might be able to make it more acceptable to the House. That doesn't change the circumstances by which it's coming here today.

Hon. Speaker, I know this is a very difficult and challenging debate for you to be presiding over, because so many of the comments have extended beyond the normal latitude that would go towards discussing a motion. And they have extended to personal comments geared toward the issue of confidence in the Chair, which is something that has been ruled out of order during the last few days in the House, and yet we've gone into that debate in any event.

I don't intend to go into that issue in my comments on this amendment, but I do wish to speak to the office of the Speaker, which is clearly a little-understood office outside of this chamber. For many members of the general public, it might be assumed that the office of the Speaker is a ceremonial one, but it is not appreciated how significant the duties are that go with the office of Speaker and how it holds a key role in our parliamentary system of government. We all know that it's much more than a ceremonial position.

Not only does the Speaker preside over all the debates and proceedings in this House, but also performs a very important administrative function in our House as chair of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee; that's an important function to all members in this assembly. In addition, the Speaker performs a very important protocol function for the province of British Columbia. In total, we ask a lot of our Speaker, and it's not an easy job.

We ask something very important of our Speaker that must be difficult for any elected politician to fulfil, because we ask our Speaker to shed her or his partisanship when assuming the office. That must be an extreme challenge for any member of this assembly. We ask the Speaker to be the servant of all members of this assembly. Clearly it's not an easy task.

Hon. Speaker, sometimes I think back to when you took the chair on the very first day of the first session of this new parliament. I was very proud on that day to be one of the seconders of your nomination. I remember very well when the Government House Leader and I escorted you to the chair, and you resisted slightly. Maybe now some of us -- thinking about the difficulties of the past and the job you have fulfilled so far during this parliament -- understand why you resisted slightly. Maybe we understand the difficulties that go with the job and some of the history that's been recited today about previous Speakers and previous parliaments.

It's not an easy job, because even though you are the Speaker, you cannot speak. I know that must be frustrating, because I believe you must want to speak in this debate in particular, yet you are prohibited from doing so. Perhaps collectively, through all the members who will participate in this debate, you will find the words you might want to speak as well.

It's not an easy job, and the motion that this amendment is seeking to modify slightly has come forward amidst rumours outside of this assembly that there may be a change in the speakership. That creates a very awkward situation. Some of the comments, including those made by the hon. Premier when he moved his motion, really sounded more like a eulogy for the current occupant of the chair than an address to the motion he was actually moving, which was on the order paper.

The motion seeks to reform the procedures by which we elect the Speaker of this House -- to move away from the old-fashioned style, where the Premier simply appoints someone as part of the spoils of an election to serve in the chair -- to a procedure where all the members invest in the occupant of the chair the powers, authorities and responsibility that goes with the office. That's a reform that I think all members of this House would support. I don't believe for a moment that there is one member of this assembly who would not support that modest but important reform.

It's a reform that has worked very well in other parliaments.

Yet if we think back to the start of this parliament not much more than two years ago, the government had an opportunity at that time to bring in this reform. The reason I can speak to that is that I know that at the time, while I was serving as Opposition House Leader, we had dialogue with the government, the House Leader and the Premier. We encouraged the government to bring forward a procedure to have a Speaker elected by secret ballot in this Legislature. The government could have used that procedure at that time, and it chose not to. I refer to my own records from that period.

I have in my hands a letter dated March 9, 1992, which I wrote to the Premier after previously discussing this matter with him -- more than two years ago, before this House ever sat, before the first session of the first parliament of this Legislature. In the letter I said:

"Further to my conversation with you last week, I would like to formally propose that we elect the Speaker of our Legislature by a free vote and secret ballot. Such a fundamental and democratic reform of our traditional procedure will both encourage greater respect for the office of Speaker among all members and send a signal to British Columbians that we are serious in our mutual objective in restoring the self-respect of the Legislature."

I go on in the letter, from which I won't cite any further, to talk about the actual techniques and procedures that could

[ Page 9469 ]

be used, which subsequently were embodied in a private member's bill that I introduced in the House in three consecutive sessions, and which, coincidentally, the government has brought forward in a motion remarkably similar to the proposal I made in my private member's bill. Just for the information of the members of the House, I would like to table this letter. I think it should be on the record that the government had an opportunity to bring forward this kind of procedure before the first session of this parliament.

The Speaker: Order, please. Before the hon. member does that, leave would need to be granted to table this letter.

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: I thank the members for allowing me to put that on the record of this House.

The government had the opportunity to bring in this reform previous to this parliament ever sitting, yet they chose not to. The Premier decided to use the old technique. We had some concerns about that missed opportunity to embrace that reform -- a simple reform to implement. We also had some concerns, hon. Speaker -- and this is no reflection on you whatsoever -- about a new member assuming the chair. I think it's acceptable for us to discuss this in the context of this wide-ranging debate, because all members in this House know that in this parliament, more than two-thirds of the members are brand-new.

Very few had experience in the proceedings of this House, so in a brand-new House, with the majority of the members being rookies, having a new Speaker serve in the chair was a daunting task. Hon. Speaker, for what it's worth, if I can express a personal opinion, you've done a remarkable job. [Applause.]

Hon. Speaker, I don't think you should let that go to your head.

Speaking of heads, we know that previous Speakers have lost their heads. The relationship between the executive and the legislative branch is a very sensitive issue, as the previous speaker, the member for Richmond-Steveston, referred to. I won't go into the history of previous Speakers, like the member for Delta South did today, which I think is such an important part of this institution and the office of the Speaker. That's on the record and has been very well said. The Speaker must not only be the servant of the House but must help to preserve the dignity and independence of this institution, which we are all members of.

There were previous debates in this Legislature during the election of a Speaker when members put their concerns on the record about the executive possibly interfering with the legislative branch. One member spoke in a debate in 1976, when the first session of that parliament was meeting after a general election. He was clearly one of the outstanding parliamentarians to serve in this House; his name is Gordon Gibson. At that time he said: "Parliament was set up as a protection against tyranny. We must never forget that.

The tyrant was, and the potential tyrant always is, the government of the day, of whatever stripe." I think what Mr. Gibson was getting at -- and it has been alluded to indirectly in many of the comments in this debate today -- is the fact that the executive, which is the successor of the early kings in the early parliaments, must not and should not ever be able to interfere with the independence of this institution, which we are so proud to serve.

When the Premier brings in the motion that he's brought in today amid the rumours outside this House concerning changes to the Speaker's office because of disgruntlement in the governing party, we're all concerned.

We all share a deep and very grave concern about the interference of the executive in the legislative branch. There is deep skepticism that it's a blatant attempt to intimidate the Chair. That's a very serious issue affecting the privilege of Members of the Legislative Assembly. If the executive should seek to intimidate the Chair, forcing the Speaker from office, that would be a serious matter that would reflect on all of us and on all British Columbians. We can only hope and pray that that is not the case. Some of the comments today sounded more like a eulogy than a tribute, and I hope that is unnecessary.

The Minister of Consumer Services made some interesting comments earlier about the role of women in British Columbia and about your role, hon. Speaker, as the second female Speaker in the history of British Columbia. She missed a few points that she could have referred to in terms of the role of women. There has been wide latitude in this debate, so just for the record, and speaking of the history of women in British Columbia, the very first female MLA in Canada, Mary Ellen Smith, was elected in the 1920s as an independent, subsequently serving as a Liberal.

She was elected as an independent Liberal, interestingly enough. Some might note that the trend today seems to be going in the other direction. Mary Ellen Smith went on to become the first female minister of the Crown in the British Commonwealth.

In the 1940s Nancy Hodges served as the first female Speaker of this House. She was also the first female Speaker in the British Commonwealth -- another first for British Columbia. In 1991 British Columbia had the first female Premier in Canada, Rita Johnston. In 1993 British Columbia had the first female Prime Minister of Canada, Kim Campbell. So there are a number of firsts that we can all be proud of, hon. Speaker, and you follow in that tradition as a female Speaker of this House. I was pleased that a member of the NDP women's caucus -- if I can refer to them that informally -- paid tribute to you.

I hope she'll continue to support you in your continuing efforts to ensure the dignity and independence of this Legislative Assembly.

[5:00]

Hon. Speaker, I indicated earlier that I was proud to support your nomination as Speaker. I hope that you are going to remain vigilant, that you continue the tradition and that this amendment will go through. But maybe I could close my remarks on this amendment by citing my favourite poet, the Welshman Dylan Thomas, who said: "Do not go gentle into that good night." Hon. Speaker, I hope you will not. Please persevere. Hang in there.

L. Reid: Speaking on the amendment, members of this Legislature know that I am absolutely passionate about process. Yet again this government has defied common sense. It saddens me to stand here today and to participate in a debate that is not sensible for the future of this Legislature or for British Columbians. Frankly, taxpayers watching this today would not be reassured by the care that this government would extend toward them, based on their complete and utter disrespect for the rights of individuals.

The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands talked about this Speaker as our Speaker -- the Speaker for the thirty-fifth parliament. The hon. member for Peace River South talked about parliamentary reform and how important it is that each of us stand behind that. This caucus, the official opposition in the province of British Columbia will stand behind reform. This caucus will not stand behind activities that are mean-spirited or deceitful or not the genuine article;

[ Page 9470 ]

this is not the genuine article. The independence of the Speaker is the issue for this parliament; it must be the issue for every single parliament in Canada and every single parliament in the Commonwealth.

Anyone who has attended a Commonwealth conference or who understands anything about democracy will see this for the sham that it is. This is not a respectable process; it's not decent; it's not the high road; it's not humane. Frankly, I'm not surprised at the inhumanity that this government extends, based on the comments of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health earlier today. This government is inhumane in terms of respecting, acknowledging and protecting the rights of the individual in society. It has to come forward in this chamber.

This is where British Columbians look to see the tone and to see what kind of guidance is going to issue forth. They don't look here to discover deceit; they don't wish to have their tax dollars going to that.

I am offended by the process that we're currently engaged in. I'm not proud of the action that the Premier has taken. I'm not proud of the pathetic defence by the Minister of Housing, who suggests that this is a feminist debate and that we must stand behind women in politics. That is a pathetic defence for a process that sacrifices people. This process will sacrifice someone who is integral to the process of what a democracy should stand for in the province of British Columbia.

I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that I have participated in parliamentary conferences, and I have been proud of the people who have come forward to fight for something they believe in. They have come to the parliamentary process as first-time elected members of new democracies in countries such as Africa.

They have come forward and said: "It's important enough for me to defend the process that I would stand here today and tell you that I entered this debate as a freedom fighter and as someone who is prepared to fight for my country." Those are the words we heard from parliamentarians in different parts of the world; those are the words that are important in respecting a democracy. We've lost that here today, and each and every member of government who stands up and attempts some feeble defence of a lack of process....

Again, I speak directly to the amendment, because the motion suggests that somehow you can disregard process and humanity when you somehow decide that you have a better approach. This is not a better approach; let me assure you of that. We've seen this government go full circle on issues and come back to where they should have started. We saw it on the auditor general's selection committee, and I believe we are going to see it here today. I believe that if this government wishes to see a win-win situation, this Speaker who we see in the chair today will be reinstated into this position.

That is the only opportunity for this government to respect some kind of process and not to sacrifice humanity.

I need very much to see some demonstration that this government understands what the issues are. I need to see that; I trust that we can see that today. I'm not convinced that the motion is sincere or genuine. If this is a genuine direction of this government, this debate would have been advanced prior to the first session of the thirty-fifth parliament, not during the third session of the thirty-fifth parliament. This is not an opportunity to somehow change course.

Again, I refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands. This is our Speaker; we took

part in this election. We believed in the process, and we'll stand by the process. We don't believe it's appropriate at any time to sacrifice any individual. That is not the message this government should be sending to British Columbians; it's not a message that this official opposition can support. Liberals believe in the rights of the individual. That is not to say that parliamentary reforms that have been discussed -- whether it be a free vote or the lengthening of question period -- are not significant; they are. But they can't be proceeded with if this entire situation is somehow drawn into disrepute.

The function of today's debate is to question the integrity of this government. Frankly, I question that, if you can toss out someone who has made a reasonable attempt to understand what motivates members on the government bench and who has given a superb demonstration of her abilities to come forward into this chamber and bring some sense into the debate.

I started the discussion this afternoon speaking about the independence of the Speaker; that is the issue. Today we need to come forward and understand the intent of the amendment. The amendment calls for the independence of the Speaker. If the

section that reads removal "for any other reason" is left intact, that will simply be another opportunity for this government to jerk somebody's chain, to somehow suggest that they can interfere with the direction this House needs to take. Again, I wish to be proud of the decisions taken in this chamber. I wish to see us do it with some kind of high-road approach to problem-solving. That is our role. As parliamentarians we are here to problem-solve on behalf of British Columbians. We're here to set some standards. If we can't abide by and believe in the standards of democracy, I fear for other British Columbians who would seek any reasonable treatment from this government.

This speaker stands in defence of human rights, and this is an issue of human rights. I have tremendous fears in terms of what this government understands about human rights. Their bill of last session left much to be desired in terms of who they wished to protect