Vaughn Palmer
In Victoria
It has become a common ritual during Bill Barisoff's tenure as Speaker of the B.C. legislature.
The New Democratic Party Opposition introduces a draft bill, translating party policy into legislation. No expectations that the measure will make it beyond the tabling stage. Merely a for-the-record addition to the legislative order paper, showcasing what might happen if the Opposition became government.
Then, within a few days, Barisoff announces to the house that he has reviewed the proposal, found it to be a violation of the standing orders of the legislature and is therefore ruled out of order.
The most recent instance of Barisoff's use -- some might say "abuse" -- of his powers unfolded last week around a proposal from NDP leader Carole James to toughen up conflict-of-interest legislation.
James would tighten the definition of conflict and expand the scope to cover ministerial staff, advisers and deputy ministers. She would require ministers, parliamentary secretaries and senior bureaucrats to place their assets in a blind trust.
"The Opposition has put forward similar legislation in the past," noted James in tabling the bill late last month. "However, given recent events, it seems timely to introduce it again in hopes the government will finally take action."
Not likely. But there sat the bill on the order paper for anyone curious as to how the New Democrats would do things differently. Two weeks later, along came Barisoff rendering his verdict.
"The bill seeks to impose a penalty" -- namely fines of up to $50,000 -- "and therefore is out of order," he announced to the house May 4. Henceforth, the James measure would be carried on the order paper with a red asterisk, signalling "ruled out of order" by the Speaker.
Those designations, rare in the past, have become commonplace since Barisoff assumed the chair in 2005. Two years ago, he set a dubious personal record by finding a fatal flaw in a dozen NDP measures, including bills that dealt with campaign finance reform, access to information, home inspections, residential tenancy, heritage protection, mineworkers safety and regulation of farm workers.
His grounds in each instance were similar. The bills, if enacted, would impose a spending obligation on government, or levy a tax, fine or some other requirement that was, strictly speaking, only within the power of cabinet to implement.
His rulings drew on the authority of the standing orders (rules) of the legislature, No. 67 of which reads as follows:
"It shall not be lawful for the house to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue" -- spending -- "or of any tax or impost" -- fines and other levies -- "to any purpose that has not been recommended to the house by message" -- meaning a bill submitted by the premier and his cabinet.
So say the rules. But note that the standing order says the house shall not "adopt or pass" such a measure, not that such a thing shall never be tabled in the first place.
For many years, the practice was to allow such measures to proceed to the preliminary stage of debate (second reading) on the clear understanding that any actual discussion would be, at most, perfunctory.
Not for Barisoff an approach that he dismissed as "somewhat benign" in one of his rulings. Instead he reached back into the history of the legislature for the precedents that would allow him to rein in the practice of allowing flawed bills to sit unmolested on the order paper.
"On a number of occasions," observed Barisoff, "Speakers in this house have ruled that the bill in the hands of a private member which concerns prerogatives of the Crown is out of order."
His citations told all. One dated back 50 years to the era of premier W.A.C. Bennett, who ran the legislature without a Hansard, without a question period, or any independent watchdogs like the auditor-general. The other derived from the 1880s.
Readers may wonder whether the Speaker's antiquarian rulings matter, given that those "out of order" measures weren't going to do more than lie fallow on the order paper in any event until the party that drafted them wins an election.
But it should be noted that when Barisoff was in Opposition in the 1990s, he and his B.C. Liberal colleagues indulged in a number of similar measures. The Balanced Budget and Debt Reduction Act. The Truth in Budgeting Act. Education as an Essential Service Act. And so on.
None was ruled out of order by the New Democrats who served as Speaker in those days. All were allowed to languish on the order paper without the added humiliation of one of those little red asterisks.
The Speaker's word on these matters is law, as Barisoff didn't hesitate to remind the house: "It is the Speaker and the Speaker alone who has been given the authority and the responsibility to rule the bill out of order on procedural grounds."
No argument there. But in this particular exercise of authority, Barisoff reveals more about his own petty, quibbling judgment than about any of the measures he is judging.
vpalmer@vancouversun.com
