PDF
| Alberta
| British Columbia
| Northwest Territories
| Ontario
| Quebec
| Saskatchewan
| House of Commons
|
Ontario
The overriding issue during the Ontario
Legislature's Fall sitting was the Government's purchase of 25 per cent of
Suncor Ltd., the Canadian subsidiary of Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania, at a
cost of roughly 5650 million.
The Liberal Official Opposition criticised
the purchase repeatedly, arguing that, despite Government assurances to the
contrary, it failed to secure the province's oil supply and did little to
stimulate employment in Ontario since Suncor's principal holdings are in
Western Canada. The New Democrats were supportive of the principle of
Government ownership in the resource sector, but argued that it would have been
far better to acquire ownership of large Ontario-based resource companies; they
also questioned the strategic value of ownership of a minority of the company's
stock.
As the debate unfolded, the question of the
circumstances surrounding the acquisition came to almost the same prominence as
the issue of the purchase itself. The Government refused, despite a continual
barrage of opposition criticism, to make certain background studies and
documents on which the decision to buy Suncor was partially based. In this
demand for information, the two opposition parties were in total accord.
Almost every day, the Suncor deal and the
background papers were the subject of heated exchanges in Question Period. In
addition, an emergency debate took place on November 12 respecting the briefing
given the government caucus by certain Minister of Energy staff and by outside
consultants. During the debate, Energy Minister Robert Welch agreed to permit
the same persons to appear at open caucus meetings of both opposition parties.
The most dramatic episode of the Suncor
controversy occurred when the opposition staged a filibuster and delayed the
passage of interim supply for several days. Basing his action on the tradition
right of "the people to seek redress of their grievances at the time the
government seeks supply," Opposition Leader Stuart Smith refused to let
the motion for interim supply come to a vote until the background studies were
tabled. Since the motion was necessary for the authorization of government
expenditures after October 3 1, the delay in its passage meant that most
government cheques, including civil servants' paycheques and certain public
assistance cheques, could not be sent out. The debate on interim supply.
continued for three sitting days until, late on November 2, Mr. Welch moved
"the previous question," thus ending the debate. This was the first
use of "closure" by an Ontario Government in a major debate for many,
many years perhaps for as much as a century.
Legislation and Committee Work
Perhaps the most controversial piece of legislation
before the Ontario Legislature in the Fall sitting was an amendment to the
Highway Traffic Act put forward by Solicitor General Roy McMurtry.
This was something of an omnibus bill,
touching on police chases, the powers of police officers to conduct spot cheeks
and the problem of drunk drivers. The most contentious feature of the bill
created what Liberal critic Murray Elston called "the offence of being
almost drunk." The legislation authorizes police officers to instantly
suspend for 12 hours the licence of drivers with a blood alcohol level between
.05 and .08 (.08 is the legal definition of impairment under the federal
Criminal Code).
Spokesmen for the Liberal party argued
vociferously that if drivers with a level in excess of .05 are dangerous then
the Criminal Code should be properly amended, and that the bill represented a
serious infringement of civil liberties by vesting in the police the powers of
prosecutor, judge and jury. The New Democrats admitted unease over certain
provisions in the bill, but supported it as an important step towards improved
highway safety (NDP transport critic George Samis, however, opposed the bill on
civil-libertarian grounds).
The Liberals forced the bill out to the
Standing Committee on the Administration of Justice for clause-by-clause
review. In the Committee, Mr. McMurtry accepted a number of opposition
amendments, which went some way towards assuaging the opposition criticism,
although the Liberals voted against the bill at Third Reading. The bill
received Royal Assent on December 18, in time to be enforced during the
Christmas season.
When the House prorogued on December 18, a
number of government bills died on the Order Paper, while several others were
the subject of committee consideration, including a major revision of the
Planning Act and important amendments to the Business Corporations Act.
Until prorogation of the House, most
Committee activity was in the realm of estimates review. During the winter
recess, committees were extremely busy, as is typically the case in Ontario
when the House is not in session. The Select Committee on Pensions met
extensively, as did several others, including the Justice, Public Accounts and
Ombudsman Committees; during the last week in January, the Procedural Affairs
Committee visited the House of Commons at Westminster.
Among the more noteworthy committee reports
was the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Company Law on Accident and
Sickness Insurance. This report is the last in a series of very bulky and
highly influential reports on various aspects of the province's corporation law
issued by this Committee, which was first established in 1965.
Motion of Censure
On November 16, a debate was held which was
entirely without precedent in the Ontario Legislature – a motion of censure of
the Speaker. The motion, brought forward by veteran NDP Member Donald
MacDonald, was:
That this House has lost confidence in the
Speaker's capacity to exercise the responsibilities of the chair with adequate
competence and impartiality, thereby resulting in frequent infringement of the
privileges of individual members and jeopardizing the orderly conduct of
legislative business. Therefore this House ( 1) urges the Speaker to resign and
(2) establishes a committee made up of the House leaders of each party which
would report back with an acceptable list of nominees for election by members
of the Legislature of a new presiding officer.
In speaking to his motion, Mr. MacDonald
stated that although "no motion of censure on a person whom one respects
personally is a tasteful thing, "motions of censure in the Speaker are
rare but acknowledged element of parliamentary procedure. Mr. MacDonald's
comments were not so much directed to criticisms of the Speaker as to attacks
on what he termed the Government's "rubberstamp" approach to the
Legislature.
Liberal Leader Stuart Smith told the House
that his party would not be supporting the motion. "We take that matter
extremely seriously. We believe the present Speaker has weaknesses, but we
believe there is only one kind of deficiency, one defect that would justify
this resolution being passed by the House. That would be deliberate
partisanship. If there were deliberate partisanship we believe the resolution
would then be justified. It is our view that such deliberate partisanship is
not to be found in the present Speaker, and that is basically the reason we
will not vote for the resolution... On a personal level, we think he is a very
fine human being and we like him as a person, whatever we may think of certain
decisions he has made as Speaker."
Dr. Smith also said that he thought
censuring the Speaker would only deflect attention from the real problem in the
conduct of House affairs, which, he maintained "stems entirely, from the
unparalleled arrogance of the government of Ontario since it gained
majority."
The Dean of the House, Mr. Osie Villeneuve
(PC, Stormont. Dundas and Glengarry) who was first elected in 1948 spoke
against the motion. Mr Villeneuve said that the Speaker, like an umpire, cannot
be held responsible for the quality of play. that "the players themselves
control the calibre of their performances." Mr. Villeneuve also defended
the Speaker on a personal level: "the record attests to the fairness
even-handedness and tolerance of the (Speaker). He has been unfairly harassed
by Members of the Opposition from the time he assumed the position. Yet he has
never responded in anything other than a gentlemanly way."
Former Speaker Jack Stokess (NDP, Lake
Nipigon) remarks concentrated on the unique problems faced by the person
occupying the Speaker's chair, and the difficulties encountered by Speakers in
being fair, firm, impartial, non partisan and consistent. Mr. Stokes, who did
not support the motion, concluded by urging "all honourable Members not to
take their frustrations out on the chair."
Premier William Davis also spoke in the
debate. The principal thrust of his comments was that legitimate opposition
disagreement with the policies of the government and with the process by which
the Speaker was selected should not be transformed into an unwarranted attack
on the Speaker. The Premier also said that "in terms of your sensitivity,
decency, integrity and judgement, I have every confidence in you as Speaker of
this Assembly."
The motion of censure was defeated by a vote
of 86 to 17.
Graham White
Clerk Assistant
Ontario Legislative Assembly
Toronto, Ontario
Senate and House of Commons
Two issues received the lion's share of
attention during the period under review (November 1981 – January 1982). These
were the budget of November 12 and final passage of the federal government's
constitutional charter in December. Since both have already been well
publicized in the press, each will be described only briefly since there were a
number of other interesting developments during this period.
The Budget
Finance Minister Allan MacEachen's second
budget was intended to overhaul the personal tax system, primarily by closing
loopholes of greatest benefit to those in the upper tax brackets. For example
company cars, interest free loans and other job benefits would henceforth be
taxable. Mr. MacEachen predicted a decline in the overall deficit from thirteen
to ten billion dollars through a program of "intensive restraint" by
the federal government. Federal payments to the provinces were cut by nearly
six billion dollars although some of that will be made up through increased
income tax receipts from provinces under new agreements with Ottawa.
The Progressive Conservative financial
critic, Michael Wilson, said the measures were far short of what was necessary
to stave off a recession. Bob Rae, of the New Democratic Party agreed, pointing
out that the government was adding more tax dollars to its coffers but did not
plan to use them to stimulate the economy or to produce jobs.
Shortly before the Christmas adjournment Mr.
MacEachen unveiled a number of changes which, while leaving the general fiscal
pattern of the budget intact, constituted a substantial retreat from the
massive loophole closing originally outlined in his budget.
The Constitutional Resolution
Following the Constitutional Conference of
November 2 to 4 at which the federal government and all provinces (except
Quebec) agreed on changes to the constitutional resolution, the amendments were
put before Parliament. The key change was the so-called
"notwithstanding" clause which allows federal or provincial
governments to expressly state that an act affecting fundamental freedoms,
legal rights, or equality rights may remain valid even if it conflicts with the
charter. However such acts will have to be reviewed and renewed every 5 years.
The charter passed the House on December 2 by a vote of 246 to 24 and the
Senate on December 8, by a vote of 59 to 23.
Committee Activity
Outside the glare of publicity surrounding
the budget and the constitution many members went about the day to day work of
attending committee meetings, and drafting reports, several of which were
tabled before Parliament adjourned for Christmas. The Standing Committee on
External Affairs and National Defence presented an interim report of its
subcommittee on Canada's Relations with Latin America and the Caribbean,
chaired by Maurice Dupras. The report had four objectives, to establish the
importance of this region in overall Canadian foreign policy, to identify
significant policy issues, to outline an agenda for further work and to address
the E] Salvador crisis in particular. Another subcommittee, chaired by Maurice
Harquail, examined the status, capability and role of the armed forces
reserves. After outlining the historical background, Canada's military
obligation. the current role of the reserves and the capability and state of
readiness in case of an emergency.. the subcommittee made a number of
recommendations. It called on the government to upgrade the military
effectiveness of the reserves to make them a viable component of the total
defence force. The committee said primary. reservists should be offered
financial incentives, preferably a tax exemption, while supplementary
reservists should be paid a modest annual retainer. Another recommendation was
that any reductions in reserve programs by, the Department of National Defence
should be clearly identified and brought to the attention of Parliament by the
Department.
The Standing Committee on External Affairs
and National Defence was given a new reference on December 18. It is now
empowered to examine security and disarmament issues with specific attention to
the United Nations Special Session devoted to disarmament scheduled for
June/July 1982.
On November 23 the Chairman of the Public
Accounts Committee Bill Clarke presented a report on the "tax gap"
and the need for improved Electronic Data Processing (EDP) security measures.
The report noted a disagreement between the Auditor General and the Department
of National Revenue on the best way to reduce non-compliance by individuals and
corporations. The Auditor General wanted improvements to the present system of
scrutiny based on a random sample of all categories of tax payers but the
Department felt a different system, based on new use to its computer system,
would be more effective. The Committee disagreed with the Auditor General and
recommended the Department abandon its present random sampling techniques of
collecting tax gap information, and proceed with adoption of new methods making
better use of computers.
A second report presented on December 13
dealt with the reform of the estimates. The committee commended the Comptroller
on the new format made in response to criticism by many members of the House,
the Auditor General and the Royal Commission on Financial Management and
Accountability. The estimates are now presented in three separate books: The
Government Expenditure Plan which provides an overview of total government
spending; the Estimates, which form the basis upon which Parliament grants
spending authority to the government and the Program Expenditure Plans which
provide further details of the departmental programs and activities. The
committee noted, however, that parliamentarians had not been sufficiently
informed about the new documents. It called for the preparation of a guide to
assist users.
The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations
and Other Statutory Instruments brought the attention of Parliament to two
regulations which it said violated criteria established by Parliament for the
scrutiny of regulations. The first, an order under the National Transportation
Act, relating to the reduction of the railway passenger network in Canada is a
particularly complicated matter which raises the question of definition as to
what is a "regulation" and a "statutory instrument". The
matter has been raised several times previously by the committee but until the
Statutory Instruments Act is amended the scrutiny of delegated legislation is
unlikely to advance beyond the present point. The other report, on December 16,
centred on Treasury Board Claim Regulations and the Committee's contention that
certain provision of the regulation were objectionable from a procedural point
of view. The President of the Treasury Board said the regulation would be
reviewed but gave no undertaking to remove the objectionable aspects of the
regulation.
A more positive example of a minister
responding to initiatives of a parliamentary committee is to be found in the
case of the Special House of Commons Committee on the Disabled and the
Handicapped. Following publication of its major report Obstacles last February
an inter-departmental committee was established to produce a co-ordinated
government response to its recommendations. The Minister of Health and Welfare
tabled a list of recommendations with which the government was willing to
proceed immediately. Then, on December 7, the Prime Minister gave
responsibility to a Minister of State, Gerald Regan, to oversee the implementation
by federal departments, agencies and crown corporations of the recommendations
contained in the committee report. Mr. Regan tabled a further response to the
committee's recommendations on December 17, 1981. The same day the Chairman of
the Special Committee, David Smith, presented another report dealing with the
problems of the handicapped among the native population. A final report
reviewing and assessing what the committee has accomplished during the year of
the disabled will be presented before its mandate expires at the end of the
present session.
Ruling by the Speaker
On November 4, Speaker Jeanne Sauvé gave a
ruling on a question of privilege relating to the right of committee chairmen
to answer questions in the House. The issue originated in a question addressed
to the Chairman of the Standing Committee of Transport, Maurice Dionne,
concerning the status of discussions to convene the committee and to widen its
mandate. The reply was given by the President of the Privy Council, Yvon
Pinard. A subsequent question was put to the chairman as to whether he had
asked for a reference on the via rail question. Both the chairman and the
minister rose but the President of the Privy Council answered. This gave rise
to the question of privilege. The Speaker ruled that the right of committee
chairmen to answer questions regarding procedural matters is well established.
However, she said if the President of the Privy Council wants to interpret the
question as being related to the business of the House, it is not for the Chair
to say otherwise. She noted that she had not recognized one over the other but
that Mr. Dionne had deferred to the minister. In any event as Mr.
Dionne did subsequently respond to the
question in the House. She found no breach of parliamentary privilege in the
matter.
The Editor
Alberta
The fall sitting of the third session o The
Nineteenth Legislature was the lengthiest in Alberta's history, extending from
October 14 to December 15. On October 26, the six opposition members launched a
filibuster sparked by a leaked management letter written by Auditor General
Douglas Rogers to the Treasury Department. In the letter, the Auditor General
expressed concern over certain management practices in the handling of Alberta
Heritage Savings Trust Fund investments. Through the filibuster, the opposition
sought to focus attention on the subject of government accountability for the
fund. Opposition members placed substantial emphasis on the lack of information
that had been provided on a $60 million loss sustained by the fund during
certain bond transactions. The Provincial Treasurer, Lou Hyndman, explained
however that these losses resulted from investment decisions deliberately taken
and must be seen in the context of the $1.6 billion gain realized by the fund
over the previous three years.
Accountability for the management of the
fund was also the thrust of An Act to Amend the Auditor General Act, proposed
by the Leader of the Opposition, Ray Speaker. This bill would require the
Provincial Treasurer to table all management letters of the fund in the
Assembly. The government argued that the provisions of the bill would seriously
compromise the control system used to ensure proper management of fund monies.
A motion to have the bill read a second time was declared lost on a division.
On December 7, after the opposition's
tactics to delay the Heritage Savings Trust Fund capital development
appropriations had continued for several weeks, the Attorney General and
Government House Leader, Neil Crawford, introduced a motion of closure or
technically, a motion to limit debate. Following lengthy debate, which included
an all night sitting, the motion was passed.
Halfway through the filibuster, on November
25, the opposition put forward a motion that challenged a ruling made by the
Speaker of the House, Mr. Gerard Amerongen. It arose from a point of privilege
which charged the Premier with inconsistencies between statements he made to
the legislature concerning inter-basin water developments and documents that
had been leaked to the New Democratic Party. On November 24, the Speaker had
ruled that Grant Notley, Leader of the NDP, who sought to raise a point of
privilege, would have to wait until Premier Peter Lougheed was present to
defend himself. The opposition challenged the Speaker's ruling directly from
the floor of the House, contrary to parliamentary practice. The following day,
the opposition put forward a formal motion challenging the ruling of the
Speaker. On the motion by the Government House Leader, the House unanimously
agreed to debate the point of privilege without waiting for the expiry of the
usual minimum notice of 48 hours. Prior to debate, the Speaker chose to leave
the House. The Deputy Speaker replaced him for the duration of the debate. A
division was called and the challenge to the Speaker's ruling was lost, 51 to
4.
One of the more significant bills to receive
Royal Assent during the session was the Petroleum Incentives Program Act, an
Act to establish a fund for petroleum exploration incentives. In addition, the
Natural Gas Pricing Agreement Amendment Act, authorizing the Alberta Petroleum
Marketing Commission to make payments to the federal government pursuant to the
energy agreement of September 198 1, received Royal Assent. Another Act
receiving Royal Assent was the Electric Energy Marketing Act, which will
establish an agency to purchase, pool, and resell electric energy produced in
the province. The agency will also serve as an agent for electric energy
imported into or exported from the province. The Legislature also considered
the Transportation of' Dangerous Goods Control Act, which complements federal
and other provincial legislation concerning the adoption of uniform standards
applying to the transportation of dangerous goods. This bill received second
reading, before the Christmas adjournment.
Two other bills of potential import were
introduced. Mr. Notley presented The Public Information and Personal Privacy
Act, which would guarantee the right of the public to obtain public information
with respect to the operation of government. Mr. John Gogo, MLA for Lethbridge
West, introduced An Act to Amend the Alberta Evidence Act, which would provide
that communications with an M LA pertaining to his role as a member of the
Legislative Assembly, would be privileged.
The Report of the Select Committee To Review
Surface Rights was tabled in November. The Committee recommended that the
current system for determining levels of compensation to landowners be improved
by requiring that operators give "an up-front payment to the landowner in
recognition of the force-take aspect of the operator's activities." The
Committee members also identified sections of the Alberta Surface Rights Act,
which in their opinion, required amendments. These sections included assignment
of compensation, settlement of disputes, and right-of-entry. The Report of the
Select Committee on the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act was tabled in
November. Among its recommendations were suggestions to have the investment
committee explore ways in which the fund could be made available directly to
Albertans, to increase communication with Albertans on the operation of the
fund and to debate the Committee's Annual Report.
Shannon O'Byrne and Karen Bardy
Legislative Interns
Alberta Legislative Assembly
Edmonton
Northwest Territories
During the sixth session of the ninth
Council of the Northwest Territories some twenty ordinances were enacted
including changes in the NWT Elections Ordinance and a new Council Retiring
Allowances Ordinance.
Among other things the new election law now
provides that proxy voting be extended to include every elector who is away
from his polling division in the course of his regular employment. Certain
election documents must now be translated into the Athabascan (Indian)
languages as well as the two forms of Inuktitut. Disabled voters will be able
to vote by means other than proxy since returning officers must provide, where
possible, level access to polling stations. For the same reason the ballot box
may now be taken to the door or curb.
Several changes were made to the pension
provisions of NWT legislators. For example the base upon which contributions
can be made was expanded to include annual indemnities, per diem indemnities and
salaries. The age at which one can receive benefits was reduced from 60 to 55
years. Members will now be allowed to buy back previous service by way of
instalments over a period not exceeding 15 years.
On November 12, 1981 a special committee of
the Legislative Assembly tabled its report The Impact of Division of the N WT.
It dealt with the prospect of separating the NWT into two distinct territories,
one in the east and one in the west. The report presented four alternative
boundary proposals, examined the cost of establishing a second territorial
capital. It also looked at the potential consequences for economic growth and
the evolution of responsible government in the north, but did not deal directly
with issues of native land claims, resource ownership or the devolution of
power.
Subsequently the Assembly adopted a
Plebiscite Ordinance which provides for both the holding of a plebiscite on the
specific issue of dividing the Territories, and offers a general framework for
the holding of future plebiscites in the Territories. The Ordinance provides
that there is to be held, on a date determined by the Commissioner, a
plebiscite that will ask the following question:
In response to a proposal to create a new
territory in the eastern part of the Northwest Territories, the Legislative
Assembly has agreed to hold a plebiscite.
If a majority of the voters agree that the
Northwest Territories should be divided, the Legislative Assembly will request
the Government of Canada to divide the Northwest Territories and create a new
territory in the eastern part of the Northwest Territories.
If the Government of Canada agrees to divide
the Northwest Territories, the Legislative Assembly will also request
that a federal boundaries commission be
appointed to consult with the people of the Northwest Territories and to
recommend the exact boundaries of the new territory. On these terms; Do you
think that the Northwest Territories should be divided? ... Yes ... No
With respect to future plebiscites, the
Commissioner will be able to initiate a plebiscite on any issue that he feels
is of importance to the Northwest Territories. Canadian citizens over the age
of majority who meet the residency requirements, and who are not otherwise
excluded under the Ordinance, will be able to vote at a plebiscite. The
residency requirement for the question of dividing the Territory will be three
years of ordinary residence immediately prior to April 14, 1982, the date set
for the plebiscite.
The Editor
Quebec
Members of the National Assembly had to
attend two special sittings after adjournment for the Christmas holidays, to
bring an early settlement to the strike paralyzing the Montreal Urban Community
transit system.
Called for the first sitting on Friday,
January 15, 1982, the members unanimously passed Bill 47, aimed at resuming
negotiations with a conciliator and ordering the strikers back to work at one
minute after midnight on January 17.
When the striking MUCTC – employees defied
the special legislation the ministers and MNAs were recalled on January 20 for
what turned out to be a very brief sitting. The House suspended its work almost
immediately to await the results of a back-to-work vote being held in Montreal.
Rumour held that the government planned to introduce a bill stripping the unions
involved of their certification. When the sitting resumed. it was only to hear
the Speaker adjourn the assembly. Until February 23. Since the striking workers
had voted to return to work no bill was tabled.
These two sittings were a continuation of
the third session of the 32nd Legislature, which opened on November 9, 1981.
While the constitutional issue returned to the Order Paper, the debates focused
primarily on the budget submitted by the Minister of Finance, Jacques Parizeau,
and some of the government's administrative measures.
The Opposition conducted two filibusters,
the major one on Bill16, transforming Hydro-Québec into an equity-funded
corporation with authorized capital of $5 billion divided into 50 million
shares with a nominal value of $100 each. Under the new act, these shares would
remain in the public domain and would be assigned to the Minister of Finance.
The government could declare dividends in the thirty days after the corporation
submits financial information on the surplus available for distribution. No
dividend could be declared, however, when the payment of that dividend would
reduce Hydro-Québec's capitalization rate to less than 25 per cent at the end
of the fiscal year.
The Liberal MNAs charged that the government
wanted to take advantage of Hydro-Québec's good administrative record and force
the corporation to pay dividends to the government and bolster its budget after
approving rate increases, which would become a form of hidden taxation. They
argued that before changing Hydro-Québec's status, the government should call
an election on the issue, as the Lesage government did in 1962 before
nationalizing the private electric utilities. The opposition dragged out the
debate on second reading as long as possible, and opposition members continued
to block the bill during the detailed study in committee. The bill passed only
after another debate on a motion by Government House Leader Claude Charron
calling on the committee to report back to the House so the text could be moved
through the final stages before adjournment.
As a compromise move, the government agreed
to let Bill 39 die on the Order Paper. The opposition had been citing this bill
as evidence that the government was overburdening taxpayers, who were already
facing economic hard times. This bill emerged from the budgetary statement on
the government's 198182 fiscal policies. The Minister of Finance had announced
certain changes to the system of duties and taxes on liquor, to personal income
tax and to the fuel tax. This was sufficient cause for the opposition to launch
a running battle to block passage of a bill containing such measures, as an
increase in the fuel tax from 20 to 40 per cent; inclusion of the sale of beer
(except in taverns) under the 8 per cent sales tax; a reduction in tax
deductions from 5 to 3 per cent for 1982.
Mr. Parizeau explained that the most recent
federal budget coupled with a series of events over the past six months had
forced him to adjust the budget framework more closely to the requirements of
the day. He claimed that Ottawa was showing an increasing determination to
de-stabilize the position of Quebec's public finances.
The constitutional issue resurfaced in the
House during this session, which opened only days after the end of the
conference on repatriating the Constitution, held in Ottawa. Premier René
Lévesque introduced a motion, which was carried, stating that the National
Assembly could only accept the proposed repatriation of the Constitution under
certain conditions, one being that Quebec retain the veto it had exercised over
the federal resolution on repatriating the Constitution. The Opposition voted
against the motion, but did join the government in passing Bill 43, turning to
the Court of Appeal to have this right of veto recognized.
Paul-Emile Plouffe
Chief, Revision Section
Journal of Debates
National Assembly Quebec
British Columbia
The provincial economy dominated the thrust
of the Throne Speech which opened the fall session of the legislature on 23
November 1981. Members were! asked to approve budgetary measures to counter the
anticipated slow down in real economic growth. Wage restraint and privatization
of select government activities were two specific proposals referred to in the
Throne Speech. In the field of housing the government promised to introduce
measures to restore the existing housing stock and to increase the supply of
multiple unit accommodation. The disposition of appropriate Crown Land for
housing will be accelerated, and a residential land supply strategy for every community
in the province will be put in place. The Speech promised special emphasis on
first-time buyers to be incorporated in these measures by promoting rent-to-own
programs.
Legislation to expand the Labour ministry to
include employment is also planned for this session. The objective behind this
proposal is to strengthen the ties between vocational and apprenticeship
training programs and the job market. Moreover, in recognition of the large
number of women in the provincial labour force, the government promised to set
an example for other employers to follow by appointing a deputy minister
responsible for women's opportunities within the soon to be renamed Ministry of
Labour and Employment. The recent appointment of Jill Bodkin as the first woman
deputy minister in this province was noted in the Speech and the government
indicated that other similar senior appointments could be expected.
The government also called for a review of
election legislation this session "... to improve the accuracy and
timeliness of our voters list and streamline other aspects of election
administration." A motion by Frank Howard, NDP member for Skeena,
following the Throne Speech prolonged the traditional Opening Day ceremonies.
He wanted to establish a 9th Select Standing Committee on fair election
practices but the motion failed to win government support.
Opposition criticism during the 6 day debate
on the Throne Speech centered on the lack of government planning to improve the
long term economic prospects in the province. On 23 November 1981, Graham Lea,
NDP member for Prince Rupert, moved an amendment to the Speech, seconded by
Colin Gabelmann, NDP member for North Island, which read as follows:
The amendment is that this House regrets
that the Speech of His Honour fails to recognize that the economic policies of
the government have resulted in economic stagnation, and further, fails to
provide proposals for strengthening the economy of the province so as to
provide full employment opportunities for all our people.
The opposition criticized government plans
to incorporate a lease-to-own housing plan on the grounds that a buyer
purchasing land at a set interest rate the first year of the plan would still
face a purchase price at current market value when the plan expired.
Furthermore, although Mr. Gabelmann, the opposition housing critic, applauded
the government for increasing the provincial second mortgage loan by 55,000 to
a total of 510,000, he argued that $10,000 on the $100,000 price for an average
home would still leave home ownership inaccessible to most prospective
first-time purchasers. The House divided on the amendment and it was negatived
30 to 21.
A motion to fix a time for the House to
reconvene following the approval of the Throne Speech was debated extensively.
It resulted in an all night sitting which lasted until 9:48 am on Wednesday,
November 25. Throughout the night the opposition argued on economic issues. The
House is expected to resume sitting in March to consider a new budget.
Nine government bills were introduced in the
fall session, including the pro forma Bill 1. The government party Whip, George
Mussallem, Social Credit member for Dewdney, introduced the only members bill
on the agenda entitled Dangerous Health Practices Act. All bills remained at
the first reading stage when the House recessed 1 December 1981. Six of the
government bills were amendments to existing legislation, among them the
Assessment Amendment Act, 1982, introduced by Hugh A. Curtis, Minister of
Finance, and the School Amendment Act, 1982, introduced by Brian R.D. Smith,
Minister of Education. The two new government bills, are the Geothermal
Resources Act, introduced by R. McClelland, Minister of Energy, Mines and
Petroleum Resources, and the Land Use Act, introduced by William N. Vander
Zalm, Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Land Use Act is expected to generate
lively debate when the House resumes sitting in March. The Act provides for the
establishment of regional co-ordinating committees comprised of persons
appointed by the Environment and Land Use Cabinet Committee. The regional
committees are to develop official land use plans at the regional and municipal
levels of government for approval by the minister. Opposition to the plan stems
from the concentration of power the Act places in the hands of the provincial
government.
On Wednesday, 25 November 198 1, Charles
Barber, NDP member for Victoria, rose on a matter of privilege relating to an
incident which had occurred during Opening Day ceremonies. The incident
involved a guest seated on the floor of the House who had directed the
following remarks to the member, "Why don't you shut up. He didn't
interfere when you were speaking." The member stated that he had not
pressed the matter earlier because he had attributed the remarks to an
uninformed guest who was unaware of the special privileges accorded to members
of the assembly. His reason for bringing the matter to the attention of the
Chair now was that he had discovered the previous day that the person in
question was not a member of the general public, but a public servant with the
rank of deputy minister in the Office of the Premier. In delivering his
reserved decision on 26 November 198 1, Mr. Speaker Schroeder ruled that
because the member had failed to raise the matter at the "earliest
opportunity" the Chair had no authority under the existing rules to permit
the matter to proceed without notice. He added, however:
There is no doubt
that the onus on the Member raising a matter of privilege is a heavy one but
the Chair has no authority to relax these rules, even though the Chair may well
be satisfied a prima facie case exists.
Elaine N. Dunbar
Administrative Assistant
Office of the Speaker
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
Saskatchewan
On November 26, 1981, the fourth session of
Saskatchewan's Nineteenth Legislature was opened with the reading of the Speech
from the Throne by The Lieutenant Governor C. Irwin McIntosh. The Speech dealt
with the Saskatchewan Government's role and participation in the recent negotiations
for and achievement of a federal-provincial constitutional accord. It also
referred to the agreement signed between the province and the federal
government relating to the oil and gas industry in Saskatchewan, and indicated
that a variety of legislation would be introduced in the session dealing with
the areas of agriculture, transportation, justice, environment, health,
education and culture.
After completing the requirements of the
Address in Reply the House turned its attention to the consideration of
legislation. Before the Assembly recessed some twenty-nine individual bills
were introduced, by far the most controversial of which was the Home Owners'
Protection bill. Intended to assist home owners confronted with high-interest
mortgage renewals, the bill was the subject of an emotional debate in the
Assembly and has received wide attention throughout the province. It was the
only piece of legislation to be passed into law, as The Home Owner's Protection
Act, prior to the House's adjournment on December 10.
David Mitchell
Clerk Assistant (Procedural)
Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly
|