1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, JULY 21, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

415 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3). Second reading.

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. McGeer ––

Mr. Blencoe ––

Mr. D'Arcy ––

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is with a great deal of sorrow that we

learned this morning that our former Sergeant-at-Arms, Denny as we all

affectionately knew him — Ashby, died. Mr. Ashby had an extremely

distinguished career in British Columbia. After he completed a 30-year

term with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, he served for some 25

years as a magistrate and a provincial court judge in Saanich. I see

from the Journals of the House that he was appointed the

Sergeant-at-Arms of this assembly on December 7, 1956. He served for 16

years, until January 20, 1972. Those of us who recall Mr. Ashby in the

House, I'm certain, will agree with me that those 16 years that he

spent here were years of excellent, professional and devoted service.

I do feel that British Columbia has lost an outstanding citizen, and

this assembly a very good friend. We would greatly appreciate it, Mr.

Speaker, if you would convey to his wife and family all of our deepest

and most sincere sympathy. Mr. Ashby — or Denny, as I stated — for whom

we all have a great affection, will be long remembered.

MR. COCKE: On behalf of the opposition, we share the feelings

of the House Leader and the government. Mr. Denny Ashby was a fine

gentleman. I wasn't here long when he was, but long enough to remember

that he loved people, antiques and flowers, in that order, as I recall.

In any event, he is a loss to our province, and we certainly send our

sympathy to the family.

MR. HOWARD: I didn't know the late Judge Ashby, but I do know

members of his family. I'd like to express my own personal feelings to

the family of the late Judge Ashby and join in the sentiments expressed

by the government House Leader and the member for New Westminster.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, the Chair will undertake the appropriate steps on behalf of the assembly.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading, once again, of Bill 3.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, you will recall....

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, the Provincial Secretary, who is

responsible for this bill, is not in the House. Could the Speaker assure the

House that the current speaker is not designated as the Provincial Secretary

to close the debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if that were the case, as I

indicated the other day, I would forthwith inform the House. Anything

other than that would be an unacceptable motion and would not be

accepted by the Chair.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Provincial

Secretary will soon be in the House, but if it is the wish of the

House, I'll continue with some of the remarks that I was making last

evening. Of course, it is disappointing to have the opposition not

present during debate except for a foursome there who might well be the

ones without tee-off times on this particular day. We have had that

difficulty in scheduling of the House in past sessions, and I take it

that this is the main motivation behind the many adjournment motions

that we've had placed before us.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, I just wanted to correct the record.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, will you get some order over there? My point of order is that there are five opposition here, not four.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: It had been my profound hope that in the

interim between the sitting concluded last night and this morning our

colleagues from the opposite side of the House would have had an

opportunity to reconsider their stance and their tactics. The reason,

of course, is that there is a bill of fundamental importance before the

House which needs to be dealt with, not — as the New Democratic Party

wishes — at some mythical time in the future, but now. It needs to be

dealt with now, Mr. Speaker, because there is an inequality in British

Columbia today. That inequality exists between the private sector,

which generates the income for government and for those who live from

taxes, and the public sector, which is the beneficiary of those taxes.

Over the years, as my colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) has reported in his budget speech, the pendulum has swung from

a position where we had a robust private sector paying generous taxes

to government and placing us in a position where we could provide for

our people some of the most luxurious public sector benefits of any

jurisdiction in the world.

Now what has happened this past year, Mr. Speaker? Corporation

income in the form of taxes is down from $580 million in 1981-82 to

$180 million in 1982-83. What does that reflect? It reflects such

things as Endako Mines laying off 600 at their molybdenum mine. We had

no debates in this Legislature about tenure for those workers. The

market wasn't there, and they had to do without their jobs. It reflects

that drop in corporation income tax. The income from forests dropped

from $106 million to $85 million. MacMillan Bloedel — our largest

private sector company in British Columbia — laid off 1,373 salaried

employees and 2,841 hourly employees. There was no debate in this

Legislature, Mr. Speaker, about tenure for those people. In this period

of time there was no recession. We heard great defence of our

[ Page 416 ]

physicians in this province — who were living from

our Medical Services Commission — by the New Democratic Party, and we

heard official spokesmen for the B.C. Medical Association saying that

things went better with Cocke. But if one looks at the expenditures

this past year, things went very well for the physicians in British

Columbia. One, a Dr. Demco, earned $684,119 last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How much?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, $684,119 billed to the Medical Services

Commission, where payments in this particular profession went up last

year by over 18 percent.

There was no recession in the teaching profession last year.

Provisional budget increases were for 21 percent, and when the proposal

was put forward by the government, prior to the election, that in a

time when the private sector was hurting maybe 17 percent should be

enough, the answer from the BCTF, who supported the New Democratic

Party in the last election, was: "That is not enough." In a time of

recession, 17 percent was not enough. How many teachers ran as New

Democratic Party candidates in this past election?

[10:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Maybe 23.

HON. MR. McGEER: Twenty-three. There was no recession in the universities, when the grants provided by the government went up by 9.8 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: How is your tenure?

HON. MR. McGEER: We're going to come to that in a moment, my friend.

But that 9.8 percent wasn't enough. All the newspaper headlines across the country were: "Cuts of $12 million."

MR. BLENCOE: How's your tenure?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's been 20 years.

HON. MR. McGEER: Now we're going to speak. Since our friends

opposite, Mr. Speaker, want to know about these things, I would say

this: because of the things they stand for and because they support

special interests and not the public as a whole, tenure is short for

New Democratic Party members in this Legislature. That's why you were

defeated in 1933; that's why you were defeated in 1937; that's why you

were defeated in 1941; that's why you were defeated in 1945; that's why

you were defeated in 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966 and in

1969; that's why you were defeated in 1975; that's why you were

defeated in 1979; that's why you were defeated in 1983.

There is a reality out there, and that reality was stated by the

public on May 5 this year. If there are to be demonstrations by the

minority which does not accept the judgment of the mainstream thinking

in British Columbia but find their place on the Legislative lawn, with

the support of the party that does back special interests in this

province, maybe what we ought to have in 1983 is another election so

the people over there will get the message. I tell you this: if there

were to be another election today, based on this budget and on this

bill, none of you would come back. This bill stands for equality in

British Columbia; it doesn't stand for special privileges for the few.

It says that in a time of restraint, when the pendulum has swung so far

from the private sector to the public sector that it is a myth to

defend the privileged, those people who are voting in a government and

attempting to pay taxes in a time of layoffs and recession want

consideration from their government and fair treatment for all.

That is what the New Democratic Party rejects. They've always

rejected fair treatment for all. They have done so when in opposition;

they did so when they were in government. That's why this province got

into such difficulty when you were government: because you were for the

labour movement, not for all the citizens of British Columbia; because

you were against the resources industries of the province, upon which

our wealth depends. As long as you are for one special group and

against the broad majority of people who pay the taxes, you'll never be

government. That's why we said to them when they went to Regina:

"Reform. Repent." We asked you last night to do that, but no. They come

into this House day after day supporting these special interests,

attempting to adjourn the House so that they can discuss those special

interests on the golf course.

MR. BLENCOE: What about landlords? You're selling out tenants by the thousands.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Be quiet. This is his maiden speech. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it is the same speech

[laughter], but they're slow learners over there. I'm just hoping the

drip, drip, drip of water.... I'll tell you this: when they were in

power it was the Chinese torture for the people of British Columbia,

and they knew that. Never again.

What this House must do is get down to the business of restoring

equality and fairness in British Columbia, because when that is done,

the economic health of this province will be coming back as it never

has before. That's when we will have real prosperity, and we'll be able

to supply services and prosperity to all of the people of British

Columbia, including the special interests which the New Democratic

Party supports.

MR. BLENCOE: Good morning to my colleagues on both sides of

the House. What a start to the day from the minister across the way who

talks about special interests and special, select groups. If there's

anybody in this House who has defended special-interest groups,

it's.... His position as a tenured professor — and he continues to wish

extension of that tenure.... It's sheer hypocrisy from that minister,

and I think most British Columbians recognize that. We've heard that

speech over and over again. There's nothing new in it, and it's not

really believable.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak this morning in favour of the hoist

motion. We, in our generosity, in our kindness, in our fairness, in our

understanding for the people of British Columbia, who are indeed irate

and upset and wonder where this province is going with this government,

want to give you a chance to repent. We want to give you a chance to

rethink your modus operandi. We want to give you a chance to rethink

what you're doing to thousands of British Columbians. We want to give

you a chance to say to British Columbians that you support the

principles and your own constitution — and I'll read some of that

later, Mr. Speaker. We want to give you a chance to support some of

your very own principles which you have endorsed for a number of years.

[ Page

417 ]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: At the convention in 1982.

We want you to rethink your own principles. You tell thousands of

British Columbians that you support them and that you have honesty in

those convictions.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has provided deep concern to thousands of

British Columbians. We are attacked by the other side; they say all

we're doing is supporting working people and the unions, but I can tell

the other side that the coalition that is forming from the groups which

are opposing this government represent an incredible cross-section of

this province: not only labour but church organizations, mental health

organizations, numerous community associations, consumer groups, human

rights groups and even former Socred candidates. Think about that. A

number of your own candidates in various parts of this province are

saying the legislation that you have introduced in Bill 3 is something

they could never ever support. That's got to reflect badly on this

government. Your own candidates are saying to you: "Please reconsider

what you're doing." Mr. Speaker, what we are giving the government the

chance to do with this hoist motion is to think upon what not only

former Socred candidates are saying to this government but what

thousands and thousands of British Columbians are saying.

Many people — certainly on this side — have wondered where the Premier has been during this debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where's the lame duck?

MR. BLENCOE: I would remind those cabinet ministers that the Leader of the Opposition has already spoken to this bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where is he?

MR. BLENCOE: The facts are that the Premier of British

Columbia disappears to his bunker every time there is an opportunity to

debate this bill.

In the last few weeks I have had the oppo rtunity

to talk to some serious-minded, rational, intelligent Socred supporters

in this community. Many of them have phoned my office, or the office of

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), and said: "We never thought

they would ever do this. We didn't vote for this. We didn't support a

Premier who distorted what was about to become reality with this bill."

Mr. Speaker, they say that they have been misled, that they have been

sold a bill of goods by a corrupt and very evil government. I would

have to say evil because the impression is gathering out there. They

feel alienated and let down and they feel they have been cheated. Those

Socred supporters feel that the very principles they recently endorsed

at the 1982 convention of the Socred party have been sold by their own

government. There's great dissatisfaction and alienation by non-Socred

supporters out there. It's incredible. Mr. Speaker, when it starts to

come from their own supporters and their own candidates, there's got to

be a message there.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The Premier, the leader of the Social Credit Party, has yet to speak to this

bill. Every time it comes up he disappears. He doesn't have the guts, the

determination, the sense of forethought or the ability to tell British Columbians

why he believes in Bill 3. Every time it comes up for debate he scurries to

that door over there and disappears. He knows very well what's happening

out there. He knows that his party is in disarray and that thoughtful, caring

Social Credit supporters are indeed distressed with this bill.

[10:30]

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of this province should

immediately come into this House and tell the thousands and thousands

of British Columbians why he wishes to fire them without cause, why he

wishes to remove fairness and equity in the workplace and introduce

legislation that belongs in jurisdictions that you find in El Salvador

or in Poland or in post-war Italy. Why doesn't he come into this

Legislature and tell British Columbians why he's doing what he's doing?

Does he believe in this bill, or is the Premier waiting for his hired

information officers, Mr. Heal and others, to tell him the results of

the polls which you are currently doing? That's how you run government

these days. You don't run it based upon long-term thoughts or what's

good for the province. You're running it on polls, and we all know

that. That's why the Premier is not in this House. He is trying

desperately to find out — and he will find out — that the majority of

British Columbians oppose this bill 100 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Baloney!

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, you may say "baloney, " but the storm that

you are going to reap — the deep mistrust of the people's government of

British Columbia, the lies and untruths that you told British

Columbians before the election — things that you would not do. Now you

come in here with this kind of legislation, and others, and the Premier

cannot even have the decency to come here and tell people why he is

doing it. We know why. It's indefensible, because deep down somewhere

those members know that the firing without cause or without reference

to fair hearing, a tribunal, equity or due process under the law — the

removal of those rights — violates the basic principles of a democratic

system, a system that we have defended and fought for, and one that all

British Columbians hold in high esteem. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Premier

to come into this House today and tell British Columbians why he is

doing this.

Neither the Finance minister nor the Premier have tabled the

financial savings from these acts. We haven't had any statements of how

much money they're going to save. We know how much more money they're

going to spend on welfare because of all the thousands of people

they're about to fire. We know that the unemployment ranks in British

Columbia, because of the actions of this government, are going to get

higher and higher, and the disillusionment, mistrust and lack of vision

is creating a feeling of hopelessness in this province. The Premier of

this province has a responsibility to tell British Columbians why he is

removing basic democratic principles that all British Columbians

support. Even in the heart of the Premier's country the Central Okanagan Capital News ,

in a serious editorial, has asked this government to rethink what

they're doing. I could understand if this came from an area which does

not necessarily support this current government, but this is from right

in the heart of Socred territory. On Saturday, July 16, 1983, the

headline in the editorial was: "Jackboot Politics." The opening

statement said: "Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to ze era of jackboot

politics. May you enjoy ze garden party." This particular act

[ Page 418 ]

is not a garden party for British Columbians. It's

a basic suspension and eradication of democratic rights that all

British Columbians support.

I mentioned earlier that I was going to quote from the

constitutional bylaws of the Social Credit Party of 1982. When I last

spoke on this bill I had a copy of the constitution — which was very

difficult to get, Mr. Speaker; your own caucus didn't have any.

MR. KEMPF: We don't have any money....

MR. BLENCOE: You don't have any principles. That's why you

don't have copies of your principles. You don't have them anymore.

You've thrown your principles out the door.

Here is something I found that is even more dramatic and has even

more impact on this government. This is what you tell British

Columbians you support. The Social Credit Party is dedicated to "expose

and oppose any attempts to weaken the democratic institutions of the

people by means of increased centralization of power, and to oppose any

attempt to spread or implant the seed of racial discrimination." We

know that this bill will indeed open the doors to discrimination of all

sorts. It goes on to say that they oppose class hatred or religious

prejudice among the citizens of the province of British Columbia. Your

own principles say you oppose the weakening of the democratic

institutions of the people of British Columbia by means of increased

centralization of power.

When a party violates its own principles for political gain and

political ends — not restraint, but political gain and political ends —

it has reached the depths and it has lost its principles. That is what

many Socred members who are calling me are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes, they are saying that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: They're not Social Credit if they're calling you.

MR. BLENCOE: The constitution also says that the individual

is the most important factor in organized society, and it has certain

inalienable rights which must be respected and preserved. It's another

of your four basic principles.

MR. REID: That's it and we believe in it.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, since the second member for Surrey

says he believes in this then he should vote against this legislation.

This government is violating its very own principles.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: They are yours, the ones you tell people.

They're gone. I believe the Premier should come back into this House —

if you say you're not violating your principles — and say that he

supports these principles. Because of the incredible response to this

bill and others you're bringing forward, he and, indeed, the rest of

his party should repent and reaffirm their support for their own

principles. They "expose and oppose any attempts to weaken the

democratic institutions of the people by means of increased

centralization of power." You are creating an incredibly centralized

power. You're removing the.... You're ordering municipalities that they

can fire now without cause. You're saying that police officers, when

investigating delicate cases that might have political significance or

might upset a well-known family in our province.... Through this

legislation that police officer can be fired without cause.

MR. REID: Nonsense!

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes! That's what the act says. You can fire

a police officer who in the course of his or her duty is investigating

delicate issues....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, that is very significant. This

government is jeopardizing law and order and the basics of a free and

just society. Yes, you are. You can now fire a police officer without

cause.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. BLENCOE: It's right there in the legislation, Mr.

Speaker, and the member for Surrey and all those other members over

there know it's very true.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about police officers and people being able

to be fired without cause — and there are hundreds and thousands of

them in British Columbia who can be fired without cause, without any

fair hearing — I'd like to quote.... I referred earlier to postwar

Italy, and I'd like to quote a dispatch put out in Rome on December 24,

1925. I think there are some significant overtones here for this

government. This was following Mussolini's takeover. I think those

members have been reading some of those dispatches. This is the law on

the discharge of public servants in postwar Italy. Let me read it:

"Article I " — and I want those members to reflect on

this — "Law on the discharge of public servants. The government is

empowered up to December 31, 1926, to discharge from the service

official employees and agents of every civil and military grade

belonging to any administrative body of the state who by reasons of

acts in or out of office do not give full assurance of faithful

performance of their duties or who place themselves in a condition of

incompatibility with the general political policies of the government."

Mr. Speaker, reflect on that dispatch of 1925.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: That's an incredible analogy to what this

government is doing with Bill 3. That's why we want to hoist it:

because thousands and thousands of British Columbians believe that what

you're doing is allowing to fire if public employees do not give full

assurance of faithful performance of their duties or place themselves

in a condition of incompatibility with the general political policies

of the government.

[ Page 419 ]

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows those members and that government over

there to make out lists of people — because you can now fire without

cause — who do not support this government, and they can fire them at

will with no recourse. In my opening speech on this bill, I quoted from

the United Nations charter of rights. I'm going to quote again, because

I think it's got to sink into this government that not only British

Columbians are offended by this bill; it's achieving international

attention for its eradication of basic human rights that millions of

people support. Mr. Speaker, the General Assembly proclaimed in the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Article 7.... I ask those

members again if they will stop talking among themselves and listen for

a change. They might learn something.

MR. REID: What year was this, 1929 again?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey has no

inkling of what human rights means. He claps every time more people are

fired. He claps when human rights go out the window. He claps and

pounds his desk because he doesn't believe in democratic principles

like the rest of his colleagues.

Article 7: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any...."

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe in human rights, and I'd like the Speaker to know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. You will be allowed to participate in this debate, if you wish.

MR. BLENCOE: If that member indeed supports human rights, I'll fully expect him to vote against this bill.

MR. REID: The hoisting? I will. I won't. I will, I won't. I will not vote against the hoisting. Talk about the hoisting.

MR. BLENCOE: You'll vote against this bill. Are you going to

vote against this bill? He won't vote against it, because he's had his

orders from the Heal and Kinsella ministry of information.

MR. REID: I got my orders from my constituents — 37,000 voters told me what to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the second member for Surrey once again to come to order. No interruptions, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps you should ask him to leave the chamber, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: Keep your speech relevant.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to start again on

article 7, because many of those members of the government opposite were not listening, as usual:

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any

discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection

against any discrimination and violation of this declaration and against any

incitement to such discrimination."

Public servants in this province are being discriminated against.

They are to be the scapegoats for this government in creating fear and

turning British Columbians against each other. They're creating fear.

Article 10 is an important one; I hope the members will listen to it:

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and

public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the

determination of his rights and obligations...."

A fair and impartial tribunal. That's why we're asking this to be

hoisted. We're asking these members and this government to consider

such charters of rights and basic declarations.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The member across says they don't exist. They certainly no longer exist in this province, not with this bill.

I attended a rally the other night in the Memorial Arena, and 7,000

to 8,000 Victorians, British Columbians, attended that rally. I would

like to tell those members across the way that many of them were not

public servants. They were concerned British Columbians — young people,

older people, retired people — who were there because they are deeply

concerned and seared about the things you are doing. They see that with

one swoop you can eradicate the human rights branch, tenants' rights

and some of the rights that we've all accepted as the normal and

natural part of a democratic system.

They were there, and they sent a message. The message is that the

Social Credit Party may be in government, it may have the mandate of

just under 50 percent of all British Columbians, but it does not have

the mandate to sweep away basic rights that we all endorse, and that

all British Columbians accept as facts. You don't have that right and

you're going to find that out, because people are angry. Even your own

Socred candidates are angry that you could have the audacity to bring

in legislation such as this. There were 7,000 to 8,000 people there,

all waiting to see what the Premier is going to say on this bill, how

he's going to defend it. They demand from the Premier of this province

an explanation of the government's course of action.

The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) asked me not to

be so negative. It's extremely difficult not to be negative with this

government.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right. It's interesting that you should

mention that. That's a very good point, because what they are doing is

symbolic of the old practice of the divine right of kings to divide and

conquer and turn British Columbian against British Columbian; that says

to keep your job you have to tell stories and innuendo about your

fellow workers.

In my maiden speech I referred to the actions of this government as

a return to the old feudal days, to the old divine right of kings. I

discovered a very interesting quote from George III, which I think is

very significant. This could be applied directly to the Premier of this

province in his actions and in the legislation he's bringing down.

George III said: "I desire what is good; therefore everyone who does

not agree with me is a traitor." That's the course of action this

government is taking. It believes that if you're a public servant, and

if you speak up against this government in terms

[ Page 420 ]

of its actions and therefore require a human rights

branch and human rights commissions, you're some sort of traitor. There

is an attitude across there, which is going to spread further and

further, that if you disagree with this government you're going to be

considered a traitor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true!

MR. BLENCOE: Absolutely!

That's the reason why, without tabling financial figures or showing

how they are going to save money, they are eradicating some very

fundamental institutions in this province. They have not shown us where

they're going to save money. We know there are going to be incredible

increases in certain ministries — for welfare — and we know why. They

are forcing people out onto the street, without rights, with no

recourse to a fair tribunal.

We urge this government and this Premier to seriously consider what

they're doing with this particular act. As I said, it violates the

United Nations Charter of Rights.

AN HON. MEMBER: It does not.

MR. BLENCOE: It violates the international labour charter, and you'll hear about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just the NDP manifesto, that's all.

MR. BLENCOE: It is an offence to thousands and thousands of British Columbians, and it violates their very own principles.

When I attended that rally there were many people there who voted

for this government. They were asking: "How can they do it? What right

do they have?" They will continue to ask. Editorials across the country

will continue to be written about this government.

We would urge the government and the Premier to reconsider their

position. A hoist motion endorsed unanimously would indicate to British

Columbians that the Social Credit government indeed is having the

decency to reconsider its position. They are demanding it.

I would like to read a little more from this editorial from the

Premier's country. It's important because it comes from the heart of

Social Credit territory. This is from Okanagan territory:

"Yes, we can now cease casting our glances over to

Chile or Poland to make those superficial cluckcluck noises. Sit back,

sip your tea and coffee. Enjoy one of the worst attacks on human rights

and freedoms ever mounted by a democratically elected government in the

western world — right here in our own backyard. Movie rights to be

negotiated. Is Rod Stirling available?"

[11:00]

In all seriousness, this government must reconsider its position.

You cannot fire people without cause. You cannot suspend or eradicate

years and years of deliberation on labour law, arbitration proceedings

and seniority rights, because what you're doing is creating chaos in

the labour field. You have nothing left. The reason there are

collective agreements and arbitration procedures is that it brings a

sense of sanity and rational thought to the labour field. This

government is removing that sanity. It is going to reap an incredible

storm that it will not know how to get out of, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I urge this government to reconsider its position on Bill 3,

support the hoist motion and allow some sane discussion on how to deal

with the problems of restraint.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 32

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm so pleased to note that in the

gallery today are two outstanding citizens from my constituency. They

have been such great community workers, particularly with our Vancouver

aquarium and with the botanical gardens in our constituency. I would

like to ask the House to welcome Dr. and Mrs. Watson MacCrostie.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For a minute I thought perhaps I was invisible to you.

We are dealing with a motion on Bill 3 that will allow the

government to reconsider its actions in tabling this piece of

legislation. We know, of course, that the Premier believes that it's

all right to fire 25 percent of all the people working for Crown

corporations, municipal governments and the B.C. government without

cause. According to him, they're not doing their jobs.

We had some interesting references here earlier. I see the minister

for tenured scientists and technocrats has left the chamber. It was

interesting that that member made an allegation that he felt some

people in the Legislature were not doing

[ Page 421 ]

their job. It's kind of curious to note, Mr. Speaker, that a very quick perusal of the Votes and Proceedings

of this chamber since it convened on June 24 show that on recorded

votes there have been three government members absent for every

opposition member, on the average. So who is not doing their job by

being out, allegedly, as the minister says, playing golf? It would

appear — not appear, it is certain; there is absolute proof in the Journals of this House — that it is the government members.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing from people across the way who haven't

the nerve and the guts to get on their feet and defend this bill. I'm

sorry, Mr. Speaker, I know you are a gentleman and we're not supposed

to call people "gutless wonders, " so I won't call anybody that. I

might refer to them, though, in my more histrionic moments as

"eviscerated marvels." However, we would certainly like to see some of

them get on their feet and defend this bill, instead of just yacking

from the comers.

We constantly hear from this intermittent caterwauling across the

way that what this province needs from the government is good

government and leadership. First of all I would like to note that 51

percent of the people in this province voted against the Social Credit

Party. What have they given us, this good government and good

leadership which they claim to have — their version? Well, their

version has given us a dropped credit rating, a $14 billion debt in

seven and a half years of office. The Socred version of good government

and good leadership has given us record bankruptcies in this province,

200,000 unemployed people — and this Bill 3 threatens to add perhaps

another 20,000 to the unemployed rolls, and that possibly is a

conservative estimate — and a negative growth rate of 7 percent in

1982: a 7 percent drop in real per capita income and real economic

activity after you discount for inflation during 1982. That's the

Social Credit version of good government and good leadership. God help

us, Mr. Speaker, if we ever had what they thought was a bad Social

Credit government!

What is really going to happen in this province if the government

does not reconsider this bill? Let's assume they go ahead, ram it

through the House and impose it on the public of British Columbia,

including the 51 percent who didn't vote for them. Will the B.C. Hydro

corporation function with 25 percent of its employees sacked? Will

British Columbia Rail function with 25 percent of its employees

cashiered by this government? Will municipal government and the

hospitals of this province function when Social Credit has summarily

fired 25 percent of the employees? Will ICBC function with 25 percent

of its employees down the road?

We've heard speakers across the way fatuously and facetiously argue

that we don't need tenure in this province. I agree. We don't need

tenure in the universities and in the public service. But we do need

fairness, decency and some sort of rational system of retrenchment in

government. There is, of course, a very sound reason why we need

retrenchment in the public service and in the Crown corporate service

in British Columbia. We need it because we've had 28 years of Social

many Crown corporations, too many employees. Who has created what they

call an inefficient, administrative, overweight public sector? Social

Credit mismanagement has created it.

[11:15]

When I was in high school in the 1950s, the national and

international.... Unfortunately it was a joke, but we were sort of

taught to realize that the province of Quebec was somewhat backward,

that they had a Union Nationale government and a Premier named Maurice

Duplessis who indulged in certain repressive measures. In fact when

this rather autocratic, authoritarian, centralist Premier of Quebec —

this was way back in the 1950s, 25 or 30 years ago — fired people

without cause and put his friends on the payroll, and was asked by the

press how he could justify that, he said: "Do you think I should hire

my enemies?" That's the approach of Social Credit. They want their

friends on the payroll, and we've seen that by the Tozerization of the

government agencies in this province. There were other parts of the

Duplessis government which were internationally an embarrassment for

this country. Does anybody here remember the padlock law? Mr. Duplessis

did not like Jehovah's Witnesses, so he simply passed a law which,

fortunately for our human rights credibility in the world, was

eventually overturned by the federal authorities. The Quebec government

under Duplessis had a padlock law where if they didn't like somebody,

for example Jehovah's Witnesses, they simply locked up their property —

seized it, confiscated it.

MR. HOWARD: It happened to Jack Davis.

MR. D'ARCY: Well, that was my next point. It was bad enough

when they did that to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, but the

government of B.C. has imposed a padlock law on public servants in this

province for no crime whatsoever, no belief, no religious convictions,

simply because they happen to have taken a job with the Social Credit

government in good faith. They no doubt heard the Premier speak a year

or so ago, when he said: "Where I come from in Kelowna we don't need to

write things into contracts, because a deal is a deal, a handshake is a

handshake." How many people in the last few months have found out what

a handshake from the Premier means? How many doctors or public servants

have found out? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, how many business people, who

innocently supported the Social Credit mismanagement team during its

re-election bid, found out that they were faced with tax increases,

royalties and additional impositions on the mere fact of doing business

in this province. These aren't taxes on profits, and governments have

so many ways of getting money out of successful businesses. We've seen

a government which has moved in every way it could to prevent a

recovery in this province and to prevent the growth of a thriving

private sector economy.

We have not heard a single justification on a cost-benefit analysis

basis for the measures that have been taken to remove public services

in this province under Bill 3. Of course, the government doesn't have

the right to remove those services as yet, but they've done it in

anticipation of using a majority to jam unpopular legislation through

this House.

We have heard spokesmen for both tenants and landlords in this

province. Let it be know that they believe their costs are going to go

up due to the cancellation of the rentalsman's office. Sure it's true

that honest, decent and respectable renters don't need the rentalsman.

It's also true that responsible landlords don't need the rentalsman's

office. But we're going to have a field-day for the tenant who

deliberately damages property and the landlord is faced with perhaps up

to a year, and a very expensive year at that, in getting a court

[ Page 422 ]

eviction notice. We are going to have a field-day

for those few landlords who wish to take advantage of people in some of

the hideous and nasty ways by which a few irresponsible landlords have

attempted to take advantage of people in this province in the last few

years. The rentalsman's office is gone. The net result is going to mean

an increase in the cost of living and in the cost of doing business in

this province.

We have heard spokesmen for the government say that rent controls,

even these selective patchwork rent controls which we've known in this

province since 1973 or 1974, depress the supply of rental units. The

fact is that over most of that time what the rentalsman's office and

rent controls have done is create a situation whereby when there is a

vacancy rate, and there has been one over most of that time, the tenant

finds himself or herself with a real free market in rental

accommodation. They can shop around and find a good unit at a

reasonable price. That has been one of the factors in keeping rents

reasonable in this province. A 4 percent vacancy rate does not mean 4

percent overall; it means a zero percent vacancy rate in controlled

suites, and perhaps a 12 or 15 percent vacancy rate in uncontrolled

suites. What the government obviously doesn't like is tenants in this

province being able to take advantage of a free market situation in

finding low-cost accommodation. They would rather see a situation where

there are no controls — even selective controls — or even rent review.

I want to go on record as saying that arbitrary rent controls, even on

a selective basis, do leave something to be desired, but there is a

great value in rent review.

Interjection,

MR. D'ARCY: You get on your feet and get into the debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the member is debating

a variety of issues that are not related to the motion which is before

the House. He is discussing the questions of rent review, rent control,

the rentalsman and landlords. I don't see anything in the motion before

the House that has any relationship to the issues which he is

attempting to debate. We're not in the throne speech or the budget

speech. There will be ample opportunity to discuss those issues at a

later date, but right now I think you should stick with the motion

before the House.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express an opinion

to Your Honour on the point of order raised by the Provincial

Secretary. I want to submit to you that the motion before the House is

that the bill be read a second time six months hence. The arguments put

forward to postpone it must, of course, relate to the reason we don't

want the bill read now but later.

The bill contains provisions that permit the minister and the

government to fire people without cause, thus reducing their income.

Those who are renters and public employees, and are tossed out in the

street by this government, will find themselves in the position of

being at a second disadvantage because of the removal of the

rentalsman. I want to submit that the argument being put forward by the

member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) is perfectly on the mark, and

the minister is just trying to toss red herrings in the way to distract

our attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his logic. The

Chair did not find that the speaker was being irrelevant, I would just

like to remind the hon. member from Rossland-Trail, who's obviously

aware of the rules, about relevancy. If he would continue, please.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been my

observation in this House that it is members such as yourself who are

relatively new here who have the best knowledge of the rules. As for

those other of us, such as the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr.

Chabot), with each succeeding year that we are in the House, we seem to

have less knowledge of the rules that are traditional here.

Of course the bill applies to the rentalsman's office, because the

people who were there have all been fired under authority which the

government hopes to receive through this bill. Sections of this bill

have also been used to fire people from the consumer affairs offices in

this province.

I found rather interesting the minister's statement regarding

employees in the consumer affairs offices: "We wouldn't want to

stigmatize honest business people in the province because we chase down

the few who are not responsible in terms of dealing with their

customers." The consumer affairs offices did a tremendous service to

business in this province, because honest business people were

protected from being stigmatized by the dishonest people who attempted

to rip off consumers. To state that we wouldn't want to characterize

some people as being wrong is rather like having the Attorney-General

of this province make a statement that he didn't want to chase after

murderers, because after all most people weren't murderers and we

wouldn't want to have guilt by association by having attention paid to

the fact that some people committed manslaughter. It's an absolutely

ridiculous statement by the minister.

What about the testing station people who have been fired under

authority in this bill? What happens to car repairs and health costs in

this province? What happens to the people who are injured or damaged

because of accidents created by vehicles that are not properly

maintained? Once again, straightforward people who keep their motor

vehicles in good shape don't need the testing stations. When they take

their vehicles to the testing stations they pass. The people who need

the testing stations, or need the protection provided by the testing

stations, are those who would not, without a flunk sticker, voluntarily

keep their vehicles in good shape. Once again there is no cost-benefit

analysis to show the effect on the cost of living, or the cost of doing

business, of the laying off of people in the testing stations. While it

may be true that the government has no responsibility or knowledge, or

doesn't even care about the cost of living in this province, I always

thought from their pious pronouncements that they did care about the

cost of doing business; they did care, since we're export-oriented, how

competitive our economy was with other provinces and other countries.

But it seems that everything done under this act, and everything said

and done in this session of the Legislature, would lead to increasing

the cost of living and of doing business in this province. No wonder

Moody's decided that we in this province were not as trustworthy as

they once thought, in terms of credit rating.

We have, under the guise of good government and leadership as

exemplified in this bill, seen more and more authoritarian centralism

in this province. The member for tenured university scientists and

technocrats gave us his speech number one again this morning about how

he feels that some

[ Page 423 ]

people don't deserve to be in government. It's

interesting that where we have had Social Credit-type conservatives in

office in various countries of this world, what has happened is that

just as in British Columbia, real growth has gone down and debt has

gone up. The justification for Bill 3 that we have heard from over

there is that the government needs to decrease its expenditures. The

government's expenditures are up because of the crushing debt that

Social Credit mismanagement has put on this province. It has been

Social Credit-type economics or, as some writers have called it,

"Socred supply-side monetarist or neo-classical economic model

followers," that have resulted in resource-rich countries such as

Mexico, Brazil and Chile facing a situation where they may have to

default on their international debts. Is the member for Vancouver–Point

Grey going to come in here and defend his monetary theories and

economic policies, as they have been followed by those countries?

[11:30]

What's happened in Great Britain under these policies? Economic

growth has completely disappeared, and we've had several years of

negative gross national product in Britain, along with an increasing

debt. This is in spite of the immense wealth of North Sea oil which has

come on stream. What's happened in West Germany with the election of

monetarists? What's happened in West Germany has been that the real

growth that has gone on for 30 years since the end of World War II has

now become negative again, with a burgeoning debt for the first time in

that country's modern history. What's happened in Central America under

the Socred-style monetarists? Again we see huge debt. Again we see

falling gross national product and drastically falling per capita

incomes. The same thing has happened in Italy under Social Credit-style

governments, and yet they tell us that they're going to give this

province good government and good leadership.

The reason the Socred government has to have this bill in to

retrench the size of government is because they have been lousy

administrators over the last 28 years. That's why they need it. They

caused the growth of government. They caused the debt. It's interesting

that the major debt that we have in this province is B.C. Hydro. We're

told by government apologists: "There's a sinking fund to help pay it

off." Do you know that if B.C. Hydro never borrowed another penny from

today on but continued to make payments into the sinking funds at the

same rate that they've made them over the last 22 years of its

existence, it would take 300 years to pay off B.C. Hydro's debt? That's

Social Credit economics; that's why we have a double-A credit rating,

and that's why the government has to bring in this bill.

It's Social Credit that gave us a ferry debt on a system that never

had a debt before 1975. They gave us mortgaged buildings, and we never

had a mortgage on a building before 1975. They've mortgaged to foreign

interests the universities and given us a debt when they were all paid

for in 1975. They've mortgaged the buses, which were all paid for in

1975. They've mortgaged the computer system. They can't manage, and so

they're desperate for some sort of retrenchment. So they scapegoat

government employees, foreign governments, and Ronald Reagan, and say

that it's the international situation that has caused this problem of

government revenue and a low economy in British Columbia. It's the

Social Credit government which has caused it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to go back to one of my favourite members on the other side,

the minister of tenured scientists over there. He talked about no

tenure for the poor workers up at Endako being laid off. The main

reason those workers got laid off is because of Social Credit

electricity royalties that have crippled the mining industry in this

province. That's why they got laid off: Social Credit capital taxes,

property taxes and electricity royalties. We do have an economic

problem in this province, and one of the major problems is not that we

can't attract new business to provide revenue so that we don't need

things like Bill 3. Our major problem is that a great deal of our

existing, installed, captive productive capacity cannot compete in

international markets because of upfront costs and royalties imposed by

Social Credit in this province.

It's interesting; some of the apologists for the government have

said that they're going to roll back.... I even see this in the press.

The press is not always as accurate as some of us would like; I think

you would probably agree with that. They said: "The government has

agreed to roll back water rental...." Well, they haven't rolled them

back. They simply said: "We're not going to increase them as much as we

were going to." Instead of increasing them by 40 percent, they're only

going to increase them by 5 percent. That's an aside, Mr. Speaker. I

know I'm out of order, but you're extremely tolerant. That's probably

because your industry in Prince George has been severely affected by

these royalties. You know that, but you're on the government side, so

you have to say that privately in caucus; you can't say it here in the

House.

Reference has been made before that this province has been mortgaged

to foreign financial interests by the Socred government, and so more

and more retrenchment has to take place. I don't like to see people who

refuse to accept the results of their own actions and scapegoat other

people. It was interesting that some reference was made earlier by the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) to what Benito Mussolini did

in his government in Italy in the 1920s. Il Duce was more honest than

the Socreds. He didn't indulge in any gobbledegook about restraints; he

was very honest. He called it the "Law on the Discharge of Public

Servants." That was the name of it.

There was something else that he was more honest about. That fascist

in Italy actually put a sunset clause in his bill; he only wanted 12

months to get rid of people they didn't like. Social Credit wants

eternity; they want this always to hang over employees of B.C. Hydro,

B.C. Rail, the Assessment Authority, school teachers, hospital

employees, and liquor licence inspectors. Mussolini was more honest; he

was upfront about it. He said what he was going to do, and he put a

sunset clause in it.

It's interesting. He said:

"The government is empowered up to...1926 to discharge

from the service official employees and agents of every civil and military grade

belonging to any administrative body of the state who by reason of acts in or

out of office do not give full assurance of faithful performance of their duties

or who place themselves in a condition of incompatibility with the general political

policies of the government."

It sounds a whole lot like Bill 3 to me. It sounds a lot like the

spokesman for Social Credit who said, when duly elected municipal

government didn't do their bidding, that they all must be part of a

communist-socialist conspiracy; or like the member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain, who said that the

[ Page 424 ]

city council of Vancouver, duly elected just as he

was, should be stripped of its powers simply because they did something

he didn't like, even though they were elected by the entire electorate

of the city of Vancouver and he was only elected by the electorate of

one-fifth of it in Little Mountain. That is the attitude of Social

Credit towards democracy and towards people who are duly elected in

other jurisdictions.

We know that a lot of things have been said in this Legislature.

Another thing that disturbed me was something that was hollered across

this morning. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) is a new

member. He was attempting to stay completely in order, with greater

success than I, but was interrupted much more than I. He was accused of

being negative by members across the way. The people of the province

look on the government as being negative. They don't look on the second

member for Victoria as being negative. But they look on this bill as

being negative. Even those who support this bill look on it as being

negative.

It's interesting that the public also looks with a negative and

jaundiced eye on such things as sales tax on telephone calls, which,

once again, is an imposition on business. For most of B.C. businesses a

telephone is a very important part of their operations, and that cost

has been increased 7 percent by the budget. That is negative. The

restaurant tax is negative. The debt of this province that leads to

Bill 3 is considered to be negative. The capital tax and the

cancellations of Human Rights Commissions and the human rights branch

of government.... As the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has properly

pointed out in this House, these firings in total eliminate services

which, on a per capita basis, have cost the people of this province in

the past few years the same as the price of a few postage stamps.

It was interesting to hear the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Davis) say yesterday that people really had nothing to fear,

because they were protected by their collective agreements. Admittedly,

we have a point of view which is perhaps partisan; that's part of the

nature of being a politician. But every independent observer, whether

from the management side, the academic side or the trade union side,

has said that Bill 3 and some of the attendant legislation effectively

emasculates all collective agreements in the public sector, whether

they be in a hospital, a municipal council, a Crown corporation, or in

the direct, immediate provincial civil service.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour would perhaps have some

knowledge of what it means to be padlocked out. He was a victim at one

point, Mr. Speaker, of a Social Credit takeover. He once was a very

competent executive and worked for a corporation called the B.C.

Electric Co., which was a private utility. They were expropriated by a

Social Credit government and he lost his job; he was forced to go into

the never-never land of federal politics as a Liberal. So he knows what

this kind of legislation is all about, knows something about Social

Credit takeovers, because he was fired by a Social Credit government

after they expropriated a private company.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Not a negotiated purchase, Mr., Speaker: a takeover by an authoritarian government.

This legislation has been compared to many things nationally and

internationally that are very distasteful. But that great

Czechoslovakian social democratic writer of the 1910s and 1920s, Franz

and about centralized, authoritarian states, whether they be of the

right or of the left. If he were around today, he would have some very

interesting things to say, because he's told us all about it before.

One of the things this bill is going to do, and that Social Credit

mismanagement has done to affect the province of B.C., is put up

property taxes. We have already heard from the second member for

Victoria that municipal assistance programs which used to be outside

the revenue-sharing program, such as sewer and water assistance, last

year were put inside, effectively reducing the amount available from

revenue-sharing.

We know that this government inability to meet its own commitments,

due to its mismanagement, is resulting in other things which the

government is going to have to bring in. So we want a hoist on this

bill, because it is being used as a way of decreasing confidence in the

economy, of decreasing efficiency within the 250,000-strong public

sector — administrators, employees and professionals in this province —

and of decreasing the province's chance of coping with the

international depression which we are into right now. We want a

six-month hoist to allow the government to learn something about public

administration, about fiscal responsibility, about administering the

corporation that is British Columbia, which they seized control of on

May 5 by not telling the truth during their election campaign and

fooling the public as to what their real intentions were. There are a

number of people who supported Social Credit during the election — and,

who knows, some of them may do so again — who are wondering why the

government is taking these actions.

[11:45]

You can't go around telling people — Hydro engineers, B.C. Rail employees,

liquor inspectors, assessors, truck drivers for the Ministry of Highways — that

they're not doing their job and expect them to have any sort of morale,

A few days ago the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

said that as recently as a year or 18 months ago it was considered

unparliamentary to attack a public servant in this chamber, either

individually or as a group. In fact, when references were made either

by a government member or by an opposition member that could possibly

be construed as an attack on a public servant, almost invariably there

was a host of — and you know this, Mr. Speaker — catcalls across the

floor: "attacking people who can't defend themselves, " "attacking the

public service." To cover up their own administrative incompetence, the

Social Credit government have decided that they are going to make a

career, in an excuse for what they call a mandate, out of attacking the

public service of this province, whether it be a hospital board

administrator, a nurse or a gandy-dancer on B.C. Rail.

People have written that the only reason for this bill is

retribution against people the government didn't like. Well, I would

agree that that is a large part of it. I think the government had

another reason for bringing this bill in. They knew they were going to

have to have retrenchment in government due to their own incompetence

over the years. But they had a problem. Administratively you have a

problem when you have to — I'll use the buzzword — "downsize" the

public sector. You have to be fair. You have to redistribute people

throughout the service. You've got to lay people off who are the most

recently hired, and you have to find work for others who are being

removed from areas which are considered redundant by government. The

government looked at that

[ Page 425 ]

administrative problem and they knew they were not

capable.... They were too lazy, too incompetent to handle that kind of

an administrative problem. They knew they couldn't do it. So that's

another reason why they had to bring this bill in. They were looking

for an easy way out of a major administrative problem, which they had

created themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I know you're going to be tapping your electronic

marvel there by your side in a minute. I hope the government members,

most of whom are not in the House, and a number of whom aren't going to

show up for a division this morning, reconsider this bill in the light

of their administrative and fiscal and social and moral

responsibilities to the people of this province. I hope they reconsider

this bill for six months in light of the 51 percent who voted against

them in the election. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of

this debate until the next sitting of the House,

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 31

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Reid

Parks

Ree

Reynolds

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Mr. Lockstead moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada