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

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 427

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government advertising contracts. Mr. Cocke –– 428

Education financing. Mr. Rose –– 429

Reduction of Ministry of Human Resources' staff. Mr.

Barnes –– 430

Tabling Documents

Public Service Commission annual report, March 31, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 431

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

Mr. Lockstead –– 431

Mrs. Dailly –– 434

Mr. Macdonald –– 439

Mr. Skelly –– 442

Ms. Sanford –– 446

THURSDAY, JULY 21, 1983

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are the

executive of the B.C. School Trustees Association; Bev Rodrigo, the

vice-president of the school district of Kitimat; and a number of other

trustees, some of whom are board chairmen from around the province who

are visiting our caucus and with whom we had rather an interesting

meeting. I would like all members to welcome to the House today these

most important functionaries, who are performing a significant job in

British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: I, too, would like to join in welcoming the

functionaries. I would like to welcome these people, who are district

board chairpersons, as well as the BCSTA executive — and a special

welcome not only to their chairperson but also to Mrs. Gwen Chute, who

is the chairperson of the district of Coquitlam, my riding.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have in the galleries today Mr. Byung

Yong Soh, the newly appointed consul-general of Korea in Vancouver,

accompanied by Mr. Ki Ho Chang. I'd like the House to welcome them here

today.

MR. NICOLSON: Visiting us today, representing school

districts in the Nelson-Creston constituency, we have chairman Bernice

Rutski from the Arrow Lakes School District, and a very old friend and

acquaintance with whom I used to work side by side in School District

7. He is now a school trustee, and we were both employees at one time —

Mr. Bill McNown.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's indeed my pleasure this afternoon to

introduce to the House a couple from the central Fraser Valley, Dr. and

Mrs. Deane Downey. Dr. Downey is the chairman of our local school board

in district 34. We appreciate the strong leadership that we receive

from Dr. Downey.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It is indeed my pleasure to introduce from

School District 46 school trustee Diane McKendrick; from School

District 47, Warren McKibbin; and the chairman of the South Coast

trustees' association, Mr. Don Douglas. I ask the House to join me in

welcoming them.

HON. MRS. McCARI'HY: I am very pleased to tell you that today

I have a very special guest in the gallery, Mr. Peter Tseng. Mr. Tseng

is a valued member of the business community of Vancouver, the owner of

Kingsland restaurant, and a very active member of the Chinatown Lions

Club, which I think I can say is one of the most active Lions Clubs in

North America.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

mentioned the person that I'm going to participate in welcoming as

well. I'd like to add a few extra words. I'm talking about the

vice-president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association and chairman of

the school district in Kitimat, Mrs. Bev Rodrigo. If the minister and

the government would listen to some of the words that Mrs. Rodrigo has

to present, maybe some of the northern wisdom will have some beneficial

results.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome two

hard-working members of the Kamloops School Board — School District 24

— the chairman, Dr. Russ Gerard and trustee Mrs. Meryl Matthews. I'd

ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today from Winnipeg

are Mr. Frank Wiesinger, his wife Barbra, and lovely little daughter

Sarena. Mr. Wiesinger, a former architect, is now an inventor and an

innovator and is working on a product which I hope will have some

substantial value to our forest industry in this province. I ask this

House to welcome him, and I wish him success.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today from Trail School

District 9 we have two elected representatives from Rossland — the

chairman of that school district, Mr. Jack Bryan, and vice-chairman

Mrs. Jean Cormack. Also representing School District 9 in Castlegar and

from Ootischenia, British Columbia, we have Mr. George Anutooshkin,

chairman of that board. I would like the House to welcome these people.

MR. MOWAT: In the House today in the gallery behind you, Mr.

Speaker, we have some very special guests, Wally, Joyce and Jill Seaman

and Craig Brown from North Burnaby. With them they have some special

guests from Blackpool, England: Mr. Seaman and William and Joyce

Adcock. Wally and William have been pen pals for 50 years, and in their

fiftieth anniversary the Adcocks have come to Canada. They have brought

greetings to our city of Vancouver from their Stanley Park to our

Stanley Park. I'm proudly wearing a Blackpool tie today. I'd ask the

House to join in welcoming these special guests today.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon is a

constituent of mine, a candidate for the Social Credit Party in the

last provincial election who currently serves as chairman of the

Burnaby School District — Mr. Gary Begin. I would ask the House to

welcome him.

[2:15]

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, as well in your gallery this

afternoon are three individuals representing school boards from my

constituency: Mr. Nick Karelis from School District 54 in Smithers; Mr.

Don Archibald, chairman of School District 55 in Burns Lake; and Mr.

John Froese, chairman of School District 56 in Vanderhoof I would ask

the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Because they've probably come the greatest

distance, I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Adine Wong from School

District 81 in Fort Nelson, and from School District 60 in Fort St.

John, Mr. Ed Olsen and Mr. Wilf Chelle.

MR. COCKE: Hansard is busy today.

Mr. Speaker, from New Westminster, I would like the House to welcome

Anita Hagen, the chairperson of our school board. Also from New

Westminster, Miss Nina Saklikar, a student, who is very interested in

politics.

[ Page 428

On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Mrs.

Audrey Graham, her grandson Jason Laidlaw, and Mrs. Mary Reiland, also

from the great municipality of Delta.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries today is a resident of West

Vancouver, Miss Heather Walker, who is the president of the West

Vancouver branch of the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

MR. DAVIS: I would like the House to welcome two

distinguished school trustees from North Vancouver, Verna Smelovsky and

Marg Jessup.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with

me in wishing our Whip, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch),

a very happy birthday today.

HON. A. FRASER: In the galleries today from the great riding

of Cariboo, we have the chairman of Cariboo-Chilcotin School District

27, Edna Telford, and Mr. Jim Bann. I would like the House to welcome

them.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have two

hard-working members of the Surrey School Board: our present chairman,

Laurea McNally, and the present trustee and former chairman, Louise

Sorenson. I would like the House to welcome them, please.

MRS. WALLACE: I feel that I must also introduce the

representatives from Cowichan — probably one of the closest areas, but

I wouldn't want them to feel left out: the chairman of the Lake

Cowichan School Board, Mrs. Jean Brown, and a member of the executive

of the school trustees and past president of Cowichan, Mrs. Joan

Gillatt. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Along with the introduction of all these

trustees, I'd like to introduce Mrs. Lil Corriveau from the Kimberley

school district.

MS. SANFORD: Not to be left out, I would like to introduce

Frank Sloat, chairman of the board of school trustees of Qualicum

School District 69, and Stuart Hartman, from Courtenay, vice-chairman

of School District 71.

MR. R. FRASER: In the gallery today is one of two sisters

whom I greatly admire, a girl who graduated from the greater Victoria

regional school district and went back east to further her education.

This particular girl applied herself throughout her schooling, gaining

scholarships all the way, and now at a very tender age finds herself

progressing very rapidly through the boardroom chambers of eastern

Canada in a large corporation — my niece Jennifer Lewis.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, may I add my words to this

filibuster by asking the House to welcome the chairperson of the

Vancouver Island West District, Mr. Tony Ellis.

MR. STRACHAN: No trustees, but representing School District

57 and a good friend of mine, Mr. Keith Gordon, who is a teacher in

School District 57. Would the House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. Gordon

and family.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we may have to ask leave

for an evening sitting to continue the introductions.

I as well have a school trustee visiting Victoria today: not a

member of the executive but a member of the Langley school board, Fern

Wilson. I ask the House to make her welcome.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a former

coroner of West Vancouver, now retired. Would the House welcome Bernard

Nash.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in the somewhat unlikely event

that no one in the gallery has been welcomed so far, could I please

welcome them.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CONTRACTS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the

Premier. Two of the advertising agencies involved in milking the public

purse for private gain have been implicated as working for the Social

Credit Party. Can the Premier advise whether any officials of McKim

Advertising or Vrlak Robinson were assigned to work at Social Credit

Party headquarters during the provincial election campaign?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't agree with the premise. It is not

only incorrect but very improper in posing a question. The answer is no.

MR. COCKE: Again to the Premier, the auditor-general has made

serious allegations of impropriety involving McKim Advertising and

Vrlak Robinson. Can the Premier advise why these agencies continue to

be employed by the provincial government, despite the serious nature of

this matter?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under review.

MR. LAUK: Is review another word for carpet?

MR. COCKE: No, it's comforter.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Minister of

Tourism. Yesterday the minister refused to acknowledge that agency C in

the auditor-general's report was Vrlak Robinson. Has he now read the

auditor-general's report and investigated to determine whether Vrlak

Robinson is the Social Credit advertising firm involved in this matter?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered the

member's question sufficiently yesterday when I said that the report

was under review and we will be bringing back an answer to this House

in all haste.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we've noted the haste in this and

other situations.

On a supplementary, can the minister confirm if agency B — this is

one we haven't asked about before — which under the direction of the

Tourism ministry spent more than $114,000 on a two-week junket to

Germany, is, in fact, the International Conference Services Ltd. of

Vancouver.

[ Page 429

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, again a complete report will

be brought back to this House as quickly as possible to answer the

member's question.

MR. COCKE: The stonewall continues.

As supplementary, has the minister determined why International

Conference Services was instructed to launder $29,115 of their account

through the Social Credit advertising firm, McKim Advertising?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, I find the member's question

argumentative. I disagree with the

preamble, and the same answer goes

for the third question as for questions one and two.

MR. COCKE: I'll just ask one more question of the minister.

In light of the fact that the auditor-general found only one invoice in

the amount of $844 to document the entire $114,000 bill for the entire

Germany junket, what steps has the minister taken to secure the

documents which appear to have gone missing from the ministry files?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To repeat once more for the member, who

refuses to accept my answer, we are looking into the report in its

entirety, and an answer will be brought back to this House in all

haste, or in due course, whichever the member prefers.

MR. COCKE: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary,

who is becoming lonely. In view of the shocking disclosure by the

auditor-general that Vrlak Robinson had two unauthorized slush funds

containing government funds, has the minister responsible for

government advertising investigated to determine whether any other

slush funds exist in the Socred advertising firms in question?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I don't like the terminology

that the member uses: "slush funds." It's most inappropriate in this

regard. But I do want to say to the member that the question he posed

to the Premier would probably be applicable here, and the matter is

under review at this time.

MR. COCKE: One final question. [Applause.] I'll bet you're

clapping. I'd be ashamed too. I'll ask this final question: since the

matter is under review, will the minister suspend the use of McKim

Advertising as the contracted advertising firm for the provincial

government?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not at this time.

EDUCATION FINANCING

MR. ROSE: I have a couple of important educational questions

to direct to the affable Minister of Education. Over the past year the

school boards approved their commitment to restraint. In view of

today's submission by the school trustees that the education-funding

formula which was announced last week will result in increased

administrative costs and increased costs in other ways, including plant

operation, has the minister decided to suspend the new

education-funding formula and allow the school boards to set their own

budgets for 1984?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, there are also some questions about

the equitability of the new formula. For example, North Thompson School

District's enrolment is going to go down 2.1 percent, yet in 1986 its

budget will be cut 11 percent. Compare this to Grand Forks, where the

enrolment will go down 1.6 percent, but the budget only 2 percent. So

it's obviously not fair.

I'd like to ask the minister whether he's decided at last, maybe, to

take some advice from the trustees with a view to developing a formula

with their assistance, instead of just the bureaucrats, so we can have

a fair and equitable funding formula for education in this province.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the formula and system which

was introduced a week ago last Tuesday seems to have met with

considerable support from secretary-treasurers, trustees,

superintendents and many school board chairmen. Right now we have some

views which are being expressed by the BCSTA. The purpose of the system

is to put in place equity and fairness for all. Now if the member is

suggesting that one particular school district got too much money and

it's not entitled to it, I'm glad he's brought it to my attention. But

I want to tell you that the object of the entire process was to try to

bring fairness on a per student basis to all students in British

Columbia. I think everybody out there has recognized that this is

required.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has obviously been

listening to a different set of people than those who are appearing

here today, because that's not what their brief says at all. It says

that your new funding formula is blatantly unfair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you ask a question?

MR. ROSE: Why don't you get up and ask a question?

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask — finally — whether or not the new

finance formula will be amended to permit school boards who wish to

become members of the B.C. Schools Trustees' Association to use those

funds to join that association.

[2:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, my reading of the brief would

not indicate that there was a statement to that effect. That was made

by the critic, the member for Coquitlam-Moody. I don't think they will

find it expressed that way in the brief at all.

Now with respect to the comments on membership in the BCSTA, that

matter is being reviewed; but I think it appropriate that we have a

responsibility to all of the districts within the province, as well as

the BCSTA budget of just about $1.9 million. If any of those funds can

be appropriately placed in the classrooms, I think we ought to consider

that. I think that the boards ought to have some consideration as well.

What we are going to do, however, is examine that particular point.

They apparently don't feel there's enough money in there, and we are

taking that under advisement, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 430

REDUCTION OF MINISTRY OF

HUMAN RESOURCES' STAFF

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Human

Resources. Since last week, when the minister confirmed that Human

Resources staff were about to be fired, or terminated without cause,

the entire ministry has been living in fear of losing their jobs. Has

the minister decided to come clean with the ministry's staff and

indicate who is on the hit list and who has a reprieve for the time

being?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is partially in order, and the hon.

member knows that it's also partially out of order.

MR. BARNES: Who is going to be fired and who isn't going to

be fired? People are presently waiting in tension and with fear of the

future. Her ministry staff have cancelled two meetings with regional

directors throughout this province. Why did you call those meetings if

you didn't intend to follow through on them? The meetings have caused a

great deal of fear, Mr. Speaker. Her staff has the right to know

whether they are going to have a job or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure the minister has the

question.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to

just that part of the question that is legitimate. The member must

know, having sat through the throne speech and the budget speech in

this House, that it is government policy, because of our restraint

program and because of the necessity for a restraint program in this

province, if not in this nation, to reduce the public service.

The Ministry of Human Resources, like all other ministries in this

government, will be effecting the reductions that we will have to make

in our ministry in the best manner possible — in an orderly, humane and

proper way. We also want to assure, and have assured, our ministry

staff that they will be the ones who will be told. We will not be

telling them through the efforts of the media. We will not be firing

people through the media, as was done during the NDP administration,

when people were fired over the television set. It will be done in an

orderly manner and according to our collective bargaining process.

MR. BARNES: I thank the minister for her response. The

question still remains: when will they know? In the meantime these

people feel that they are under a great deal of pressure. They are

unable to perform their duties, and it's a pretty sad state of affairs

in that department. I think the minister has an obligation to advise

them when they will know one way or the other.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the very question promotes

fear, uneasiness, anguish and anxiety in the public service of this

province. Because of that kind of statement, and because of that kind

of politicking and the firing up of emotions that is being done by

those members — not those on this side of the House — there is that

uneasiness.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and the members of this House that

the knowledge will be given to any member of my ministry. I have some

6,000 members in the Ministry of Human Resources. I feel that those

people whose programs will be discontinued would have to have knowledge

of that first, before I share that with members of the House or members

of the media. I think that's only fair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order — very briefly — it

seems to me that you and your predecessors in the chair, commencing

with Mr. Speaker Dowding, have found it necessary from time to time to

remind members asking questions that there are very strict rules with

respect to

preambles, argumentative nature and so on. That material has

been distributed in the past. I feel that I can rise on a point of

order today inasmuch as no questions were directed to me, but perhaps,

sir, you might consider reminding members of the....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're never here.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, you might remind members of the

fairly stringent limitations with respect to questions....

MR. NICOLSON: If you were here, you'd know that the

Speaker....

HON. MR. CURTIS: I never ran away from my office, Mr. Member,

the way you did when you were the minister.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order as that raised by the

Minister of Finance, perhaps if Your Honour would follow what he is

suggesting, you might also remind cabinet ministers that they have some

rules to follow in answers to questions. Secondly, perhaps you could

remind the Minister of Finance that he should have been here yesterday,

available to answer questions relating to his department, but he

absconded and was absent yesterday.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, for many days now the

first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), the Leader of the

Opposition, has been absent from the sessions here. I'd like to ask a

question under standing order 8. Standing order 8 says: "Every member

is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence

has been given him by the House." As I said previously, he's been

absent for many days. I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether you can

clarify for me whether the Leader of the Opposition has been given

leave of absence to be away.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has the point, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I want to make a serious point of order, unlike the

Provincial Secretary, who has been absent from this House for 25 years.

During the course of question period, the hon. Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was answering a question of my colleague

from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), and I could not hear it. I tried

very much to hear the answer to her question, because it concerns

constituents of mine. The reason I couldn't hear it is because the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was literally caterwauling over

here to one of the members on this side of the House. I could not hear

a word. Now I'm going to have to check the Blues several hours from now

before I can get the proper answer from the minister in order to advise

my constituents of the government policy. I would ask, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 431

that you would take it under advisement and perhaps

have a private

chat with the Minister of Finance, who has been under a great deal of

strain over the past 25 days.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal

privilege as a result of a remark made by the Minister of Human

Resources in responding to my questions. She suggested that we on this

side of the House are inflaming the public by suggesting in advance

that people are going to be fired or not fired. I take offence at that.

What side of the House suggested that 25 percent of the public service

would be laid off without a program in place and without any work

having been done in advance?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are obviously straying very far

from the intent of points of order and the intent of organized business

presently before us. When members try to seek the floor on points of

order or points of privilege — which in fact may not be points of order

or privilege, and that in turn spreads — we tend to lose control of

debate and progress of an orderly nature in the House. I would commend

to all members a close scrutiny of the little red book, for those of

you who have not read it.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if she

would withdraw any motives that this side of the House was trying to

inflame the public service, because that is not our intention. She is

the one that made the 25 percent announcement; we did not make the

announcement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the withdrawal of unparliamentary

language can always be insisted on, but if we were to stand and urge

one side to withdraw remarks made by the other side with which we did

not always concur or agree, very little debate would take place in this

House between the points of order. Members will have ample opportunity

to put forward their points in debate at future times.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the sixty-fourth annual report of the Public

Service Commission for the year ending March 31, 1983.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, there was a question asked by

the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), and I believe reference was

made to a particular document. I could not find some comments in the

document. I would really like leave to file with the House the

particular statement issued by the BCSTA.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for

Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: Actually, Mr. Speaker, it's a point of

clarification. I think the minister....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Well, it's a point of order, then.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, yes.

MR. ROSE: The minister has suggested that I alluded to

something in a particular document. I talked about the BCSTA brief. But

the fact that there are no funds for joining the association....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member.

MR. ROSE: It's in your document, your handout.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would hope that the Chair would

not have to take any more stringent action in dealing with members who

refuse to come to order upon being so called by the Chair, but clearly

if that is the only alternative, I can assure you it will be taken.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

[2:45]

Orders of the Day

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

orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm surprised that no government member got up

to defend this bill. The Premier is heading for the door. The treasury

benches are heading for their bunkers. The back-benchers are sleeping

in their places. I thought at least one government member would get up

to defend this bill and speak in favour of hoisting this bill,

postponing second reading of this bill for six months. Actually it

should be a lot longer than that, but this is our motion at the present

time. I was hoping that at least one government member would take their

place in debate, but apparently they're not going to.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I don't want to repeat the speech I made two days ago, at least not

in its entirety. So to spare the members in this House a little bit I'm

going to try to develop an argument on why we should hoist this bill

six months hence by referring to some international agreements of which

Canada is signatory, and to what other governments, federal and

provincial, are saying about this proposed legislation.

To start things off, I guess I can come to no other conclusion but

that this government is deliberate in its intent to undermine human,

civil, social, economic and trade union rights of a large majority of

people in this province. That's what's contained in this bill, and it's

one of the reasons I think second reading should be postponed six

months hence.

Where can I start? The shock value of the firings that have taken

place, possibly illegally.... I don't know; I'm not a lawyer. To date a

great number of firings have taken place in our public service; a great

many more are fired in spite of seniority.

[ Page 432

The minister responsible for this bill, the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Chabot), shakes his head. I know the minister will respond

when he takes his turn in closing debate on this bill some three months

hence.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I'm just trying to protect the rights of

our working people of this province.

It's interesting to me that the hon. Provincial Secretary would

interject across the floor and shake his head. He said no firings have

taken place. Maybe he objects to the word "firing," because the

government prefers to use expressions like "termination" and

"dismissal." Those are the expressions you are using. Don't tell me.

Tell those fired people out there that they haven't been fired and that

their rights have not been usurped by your government, in spite of your

campaign promises. The shock value to the public service and to the

people working in Crown corporations, listed here by the dozens....

The School Trustees Association, the BCTF, municipalities, regional

districts, hospital boards are all clearly named in this legislation

that we are debating today. I think you should rethink some of these

actions that you are currently taking and contemplating taking under

this legislation. That's another reason why this bill should be hoisted.

As I stated a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, the government did

not.... I was going to say, "tell the truth"; in fact the word I

have here is "lied," but I'll say the government was not candid during

the recent election campaign. I've talked about this before, and I

don't want to dwell on the subject too long.

This bill, by the way, is misnamed. They call this the Public Sector

Restraint Act. It has very little to do with restraining the public

sector and is going to do nothing to aid recovery in this province, so

the bill has been misintituled. When we are giving section-by-section

reading through committee, I don't think even the title should be

allowed to pass, because it's the wrong title for this bill.

The first untruth is that the government led us to believe and, in

fact, they discussed this during the campaign — that restraint leads to

recovery. Restraint is a device used by this government, in my view,

for punishing the enemies under this Bill 3, as the Social Credit

government have clearly shown. It does not help the economy at all. The

budget will tax more money out of the economy, as indicated in this

bill. It's one of the reasons it should be pulled. As a Vancouver

political columnist has said: "When 40 percent of the workforce is

either unemployed or afraid of imminent firing by government, they will

not spend their money in the economy." I would like to know from the

Hon. Provincial Secretary, when he closes debate on this bill, how

firing a large proportion of our population will lead to strengthening

the economy in British Columbia. We have ministers who have spent and

overspent a great deal of money on travelling around the world and

doing all of these kinds of things. There's no restraint there. There's

no restraint in giving their friends huge pay increases, yet the

working people are expected to take

part in this so-called restraint.

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly discuss the implications of what the

government is doing under this bill. They are violating international

conferences held under the auspices of the United Nations and the

international labour conference, normally referred to as the ILO —

International Labour Organization. I won't read the whole thing; I

obviously

wouldn't have time. I do want to read a few pertinent sections of this

agreement. It was finally concluded in 1978, although a number of

conferences have taken place since 1948 on this matter. I want you to

document, as have more than one hundred other nations in the world.

I'll start with

article 1, and I'll just read

section 1, just to

give

the minister sitting across from me some idea. I quote now from the

document of the International Labour Organization signed in 1948, page

part 1, under "Scope and

Definitions." I'm sure you have a copy. You

are a former Minister of Labour, Mr. Minister, and I'm sure that you

know this document by heart,

section by section. But for the other

members of this House....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, where did he go? Mr. Minister, didn't

you have some $2 million or $3 million for travel purposes in your

budget? What do you do with it? Did you put it in a Swiss bank account?

What did you do with all that money?

AN HON. MEMBER: Went to Bulgaria.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He couldn't spend that much money in Bulgaria.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps I could ask all members to come to

order and the hon. member for Mackenzie to consider the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Not only that, but I've got to catch a ferry

in 20 minutes. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that there is a large protest

rally taking place in my constituency this evening. In spite of the

fact that there are 24,000 people in that community, I would hope and

think that probably half the population will be out there tonight, and

I'm going to tell them what's happening in this House. I'm going to

tell them all about you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I definitely will.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, in

article 1 of

part 1, "Scope and

Definitions, " it says: "The convention applies to all persons employed

by public...."

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I think this is important. I want the minister

to hear and understand that this convention applies to all persons

employed by public authorities — that's the government — to the extent

that more favourable provisions and other international labour

conventions are applicable to them. So that will give you the

background.

Section 2, "Protection of the Right to Organize," which this bill

and the accompanying legislation deals with....

This bill should be hoisted because it infringes upon the rights

contained in this next section.

Article 4 says: "Public employees shall

enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in

respect of their employment." This bill clearly destroys bargaining

rights, and to some

[ Page 433

extent does away with labour agreements that were

reached in good

faith by both parties — at least I thought so. Obviously, the working

people signed these current agreements in good faith, and they are now

being shoved down the tube by this government. This is clearly against

the international agreements reached by many nations in the world under

the International Labour Organization.

Article 5,

section 2, "Dismissal Without Cause," says: "Public

employees' organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any

acts of interference by a public authority" — like the Social Credit

government; it doesn't mention Social Credit; I'm adding that as a

little aside there for Hansard — "in their establishment,

functioning or administration." Yet clearly in this bill, Mr. Speaker,

the government is interfering with the rights of workers,

internationally agreed to on a document signed by our country on behalf

of all the provinces of this country.

In other words, they're promoting violation of agreements, which is

clearly against the International Labour Organization, sponsored by the

code of the United Nations.

Article 7, under

part 3, "Facilities to be Afforded to Public

Employees' Organizations," says: "Measures appropriate to national

conditions shall be taken where necessary to encourage and promote the

full development and utilization of machinery for negotiation of terms

and conditions of employment between the public authorities concerned

and public employees' organizations, or such other methods as will

allow representatives of public employees to participate in the

determination of these matters." Once again, very clearly — I may go

into labour law after this speech, I'm not sure....

In any event, Mr. Speaker, it's very clear that this bill violates

that international agreement that was signed by the representatives of

Canada on behalf of all of us. Basically what it means is unilateral

government action without any representation — if they choose — from

the organizations which represent the 45,000 or so government employees

and the 200,000 other employees affected by this legislation.

MR. REID: Is that dated 1948?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's dated 1978. These conferences started in

1948, for the benefit of the second member for Surrey. I am sure that

member is going to get up in this House and take his place in the

debate and refute everything I've said. In fact, I'll lend him this

international agreement, or give him a copy, so that he can study it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Table it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I can't, because it's the only copy I have

and the next speaker has to use it as well. We'll run off copies for

you. I'm sure you know the agreement, anyway, Mr. Member, because you

were a Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A good one.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They really loved you out there, didn't they?

Do you remember 1971 ? You got me elected in 1972 with your legislation

in 1971. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The first job you ever had.

[3:00]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, that's a dandy.

Last but not least....

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's wrong with your glasses?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I sat on them and they broke. I have a spare

pair at home. He wondered what's wrong with my glasses.

I want to read this one last

section under "Final Provisions,"

article

Section 1 says: "This convention shall be binding upon those

members of the International Labour Organization whose ratifications

have been registered with the director-general." I guess I didn't have

to say that, because I've said several times that Canada did sign this

agreement under the International Labour Organization.

Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, this government has broken those

international agreements. Certainly the federal government is quite

interested in what is happening here in British Columbia at the present

time, so I've taken the trouble to do a little research. A very serious

part of our current constitution pertains to disallowance, which, as I

understand it, has not been utilized since 1973 to deal with

conscription. Prior to that, disallowance dealt with the Social Credit

funny-money scheme that the Social Credit Party initiated in Alberta,

putting this funny money around the country. My father used to call

them "shin plasters."

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've got one.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You could put it over your mouth. In any

event, Mr. Speaker, there could be some question about disallowance,

and I suspect our present federal government would never interfere in a

provincial government matter. I note some of the decisions in this

regard by Peter W. Hogg, a so-called expert on constitutional law in

Canada. He waffles a lot. In fact, he goes on to say that probably the

type of case we're discussing here would be better resolved in the

arbitrary decisions.

What I'm trying to point out here is that this piece of legislation,

and other legislation introduced before this House to wipe out human

rights, is probably against the Human Rights Code of Canada federal

legislation as well. We're not sure about that yet. That may end up in

court at some point too. But this type of legislation has stirred such

a great deal of interest right across Canada that other provinces, and

certainly the federal government, are very concerned about what this

provincial government is doing here in British Columbia today. But they

haven't got away with it yet.

I don't have much time left, but I do want to get on to one or two

little matters, such as getting back to the Social Credit promises made

prior to and during the last election campaign. I don't want to dwell

at great length on this, but the other day when I was speaking on this

matter there were interjections from across the floor like "Not true!

Not so!" when I talked about health care user fees, which the

government said would not be increased during the election campaign;

that taxes would not be increased; and on and on. Yet these things have

happened. I suspect that if the government had been candid during that

last election campaign and told the voters of British Columbia what

they were really going to do if they won the election — which,

unfortunately, they did — they probably would be sitting on this side

of the House,

[ Page 434

the three or four that would be left, and our party

would be sitting

on that side of the House. I want to draw to your attention an

article

that appeared in the Alaska Highway News on Wednesday, April

27, 1983,

some seven days prior to polling day in this province. The article,

addressed to the editor, says:

"I was incensed to hear that someone is circulating a

petition among our senior citizens asking them to sign to prevent the

Social Credit government from taking away health benefits from the

elderly. It was sick enough when the leader and the health critic of

the NDP tried to frighten the sick and the elderly with the false

statement that the Socreds were planning to increase health user fees.

This statement was an absolute lie, but it got headlines for the NDP. I

thought it even sicker for someone to be going around with a false

petition trying to individually frighten our senior citizens. I find it

hard to believe that anybody could stoop to that level in order to

possibly gain a few votes. Our senior citizens can rest assured that a

Social Credit government will not jeopardize the benefits which the

same government brought into effect.

A.J. Brummet, M.L.A.

North Peace River"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reference does offend anticipation,

because it would be better stated on another bill. We are on Bill 3,

Public Sector Restraint Act.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This is directly under Bill 3, and a good

reason why this bill should be hoisted. It deals directly with what

this legislation is and what we were told in the election campaign. But

you're right. We'll read it out again under another bill. I've really

got to get cracking here. In spite of all this material which I'm sure

I can use again in second reading and third reading and fourth reading

of this bill, possibly some time in August, I move we adjourn debate of

this legislation until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.)

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Brown

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 33

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

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. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I want to identify

whether I heard the name Lockstead. Did I hear that name?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

[3:15]

MR. REID: On a point of order, as a new member in the House

I'm surprised and shocked that, with the seriousness of the debate

today, the mover of the motion has left the House before the vote is

taken. Is that normal procedure?

MR. SPEAKER: It's not normal, hon. member, but it's not

improper.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to support the official opposition in

their motion to hoist this bill for six months. First of all, I would

like to deal with the minister who is in charge of this bill. We

haven't had a chance to hear from him yet, because he has to wait until

the close of the debate; however, I had the great opportunity this

morning to hear the minister's sweet, temperate, moderate, quiet tones

— I'm not talking about the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland),

but about the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — as he was being

interviewed on CBC. All I can say is: thank goodness for radio and the

newspaper, because it is the only chance we get to find out what these

members of the Social Credit government really feel about Bill 3. We've

had the opportunity to hear from maybe two or three of them. We heard a

weak, pallid, little speech from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Davis) yesterday and a weak attempt to defend it. I'm

going to get to the minister's attempts in a moment.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour had been referred to earlier

in an editorial in one of the papers, saying that surely he could be

counted upon to get up and be one of the seven back-benchers who would

come out and defend the rights, perhaps even of the opposition in some

of the concerns they've expressed — the lack of humanity, for one

thing, in this bill. Unfortunately, the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour did exactly the opposite. He continued in the same

vein of showing no compassion, no humanity, and supported this bill

right down the line.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I was not particularly disappointed. I've been in this House for a

number of years now and I did not expect to hear anything else from the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour. However, I did hear the Provincial

Secretary interviewed this morning, and I'd like to repeat a couple of

the comments which I picked up. I know that if I've made an error, in

due time he will certainly correct me. The Provincial Secretary was

asked a number of questions by the interviewer re the bill. He said

something to the effect — and I have to paraphrase it, because I don't

have the tape — that he did admit there had perhaps been a little too

much haste in the development of some of the bill. He said yes, maybe

in the future it could be done in a different way. So I am picking up

my arguments for a hoist from that statement by the minister. If he is

ready to admit, as he did to the whole listening public — and it's a

large audience that CBC has in the morning — that he feels there was

too much haste in drafting this bill and different ways should be

developed for the future, may I

[ Page 435

suggest that the official opposition is giving him

a great

opportunity.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wasn't too swift this morning. I was

sleepy.

MRS. DAILLY: Whether he was sleepy and not awake in the

morning, I'm afraid his words are there for all the public to hear. The

opposition has heard them; the B.C. public has heard them. When the

minister who is in charge of the bill admits that he and his government

have brought it in in haste and maybe he should look at it in a

different way for the future, we are giving him that opportunity. I

know that minister, if we follow these statements that he made this

morning, has no choice but to support this hoist. I look forward to

hearing the minister when his turn comes. Maybe by Christmas you'll

have an opportunity to reply to this.

He also, if I recall.... I was trying to write this down rather

quickly this morning. I was probably quite as sleepy as the minister at

that time, but when I heard he was coming on I made sure I was awake to

hear his sweet, moderate tones. I thought one of the most interesting

things the Provincial Secretary said this morning to that interviewer

was when she kept asking him: "Yes, but why have you put in this firing

without cause, dismissal without cause, which is concerning so many

people?" Do you know what the Provincial Secretary said?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I forget.

MRS. DAILLY: He's forgotten, so I'm going to remind him over

and over again. The Provincial Secretary said: "Oh, without cause. That

is really just legal terminology."

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that to all those workers out

there who have already received the axe and the pink slips, and now

don't know what their future holds, it means much more than legal

terminology. It means the loss of a job. It means they're now in a

situation where they no longer can contribute to society the way they

want to, where they don't even know if they can pay their mortgages and

make their car payments. What are they going to do about their families?

The problem with the Social Credit government is that they're

beginning to look at everything that happens and all their policies in

terms of full-time equivalents, in terms of efficiency, to the point

where they forget they're dealing with people, with human beings. I

happened to read one of the articles, by the minister who is just

leaving, but he can go because it said absolutely nothing. He had no

defence for this bill and so you may leave the floor. We can't deal

with you right now. We're hoping that sometime the member for Peace

River....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I have one of his reports. I went through some

of the local papers, and most of the Socred MLA reports just repeat the

official line. That minister doesn't seem to have the ability any

longer to make up his own reports; it was pretty much the party line.

It's rather pathetic.

One of the new members, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, made a

couple of interesting statements....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MRS. DAILLY: Shuswap-Revelstoke, right. Thank you. You are

awake now, Mr. Minister. One of those comments he made was interesting.

He had been asked by a reporter in his riding, according to this

article: "Aren't you concerned that with the firing of all these public

servants, as we see in Bill 3, it is going to — for one thing — cause

harm to your constituents in many areas?" This particular reporter

expressed concern about the loss of the rentalsman's ability to

adjudicate.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the

quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for bringing that

matter to the attention of the Chair. I would like to read from

standing order 6 which states: "The presence of at least ten members of

the House, including Mr. Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a

meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers." There are

precisely ten members here.

AN. HON. MEMBER: There are nine.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there are eleven. The member has

difficulty counting.

There's one here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Would the member proceed, please.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was referring to a comment by one of the back-benchers from the

Shuswap area who, when asked about the fact that the rentalsman was

disappearing and whether he was not concerned about what was a vehicle

now to help his constituents who might have rental problems, and his

answer said: "We shouldn't worry about it. The free marketplace will

look after rent. If, however, there is evidence brought to me that

injustice is taking place, I will personally look into it." This is the

standby that we hear from all the Socred back-benchers and cabinet

ministers. They want to take us back to the old days again — the days

of the old benevolence where "you just come to me and I'll help you." I

don't know how many tenants that member has in his riding, but in my

riding of Burnaby North over half of the population, which is well over

40,000 today, are renters.

I want to tell him that no matter how good an MLA may be, there is

no way one MLA can deal properly with those complaints of the tenants,

which are going to be increasing year by year. Under the Social Credit

government there doesn't seem to be any impetus being given to the

development of alternative housing accommodation which people within a

certain income bracket desperately need. I want to say that that kind

of talk from a back-bencher, saying that he will look after the

problems, just shows that they haven't any understanding of the

problems which tenants face in British Columbia today, and have faced.

Also, some of the landlords themselves, as we know, are not happy at

all about the removal of the rentalsman's abilities to mediate in

disputes. We read those kinds of statements and yet we do not hear them

in the House because most of those members — have either been told not

to get up and defend this or they simply are unable to. I would say it

is probably a combination of the two.

[ Page 436

[3:30]

The other member, who always likes to get up in this House — he's

enjoyable to listen to, but he is also a member who makes some

statements that are completely inaccurate and are intended to whip up

what I would say is mass ignorance — alludes to generalized statements

with no backup facts. He should be ashamed because he is supposed to be

one of the most highly educated members in this House. I know everyone

is thinking it must be themselves, but actually it's the member for

Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who got up and made, I think, a pathetic

but noisier defence of his government than did the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — a former cabinet minister. The member

from Point Grey — the cabinet minister — said a very revealing thing

when he was waving his hands around in that old-style speech that we

have heard and seen over and over again and which must be a real shock,

actually, to the people in the public service, who have to say to

themselves: "Is that the kind of person who is responsible for making

the decisions that affect me?" He actually stated that the time had

come when we all have to share equally. So he was saying to all the

people out there who have suffered or are going to suffer from this

iniquitous bill, just as the Premier has said: "Buckle in your belt. Go

ahead, buckle it in. Remember, everybody has to share these problems

today."

Well, let's examine that cabinet minister who says everyone has to

share. I would like to say to that cabinet minister that I don't think

that you are in any position to make that kind of statement when you

are now in possession, and have been for a great number of years, of a

very fine salary, provided by the taxpayers of British Columbia. A

cabinet minister today makes over $70,000 a year. I'm not going to

question now whether that's relevant to the work or not. The point is,

Mr. Speaker, that that member has that kind of salary, with all the

perks that go with being a cabinet minister; being able to return to

his riding and his family whenever he wishes, on a government jet. He

takes trips at the cost of the taxpayer, for God knows what purpose,

all over the world, and runs around half the time.... He also

spends time at the university, and he claims even though he has tenure

that he doesn't believe in tenure. That member had the unadulterated

nerve to stand in this House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and tell the

people of this province, who are suffering because of this bill and

this government, that everyone has to be treated equally. Well, I can

say that it is because of members like that and their arrogant attitude

that we are faced with this terrible bill, which we are asking to have

hoisted. When you have that kind of thinking from one of the senior

cabinet ministers, there isn't too much hope for this kind of

government to be able to provide for equality in this province.

Mr. Speaker, that member, when he was in opposition, spent many

hours on his feet condemning what he called inequity of governments at

that time, and asked for a democratic government. And now he sits in

what I would say is one of the most undemocratic governments which this

province has ever seen. And he seems to be quite content because he is

able to play around with being a cabinet minister at $70,000 a year,

and also at the same time do his work at a university and travel the

world. I'm sure that there are many people out there today who can't

even pay their mortgages, who must look at him and wonder how he has

the nerve to tell them that they must share equally.

Mr. Speaker, I thought that a very fine statement was in the paper

this morning. It came from a rather unusual source for this kind of

statement. The source is the mayor of Victoria, Peter Pollen. In this

article he refers to the government policies which have brought about

Bill 3. I find his remarks most interesting. Before I quote from the

article, I would like to make the point that I think Mr. Pollen is well

known as a former Social Credit cabinet.... I mean candidate. He

would have liked to have been a former cabinet minister, I'm sure.

Mayor Pollen is certainly not known for being a supporter of the NDP.

In this

article he does criticize the NDP — I don't want to be accused

of just picking out of this

article the things that will favour my

argument — but that is to be expected; we know that he is not a

follower of the NDP. But I want to quote a few statements from Mayor

Pollen, who was a former Social Credit candidate, on the present

situation with this budget. He says:

"The problem with the new provincial budget" — which

relates to the hoist, Mr. Speaker; as I go through I think you

will see the connection — "is that it is largely theatre; it may not be

'the

greatest show on earth' but it is great illusion, great fantasy and

manipulation. Worse, it reveals a cynicism and crudeness that is truly

frightening. It reassures us with its demands for sacrifice,

particularly by others, but it fails miserably in changing [sic] a

course for the economy.

"Behind the tough-talking budget is a government which

has been in power for almost eight years — eight years in which it has

wallowed in indecision, in a lack of policy or program articulation, in

an almost pathological obsession with megaprojects and image-making.

Further, its inability to anticipate economic trends or to manage the

province in a stable, prudent and effective manner is starkly evident."

I think that's a very interesting point Mayor Pollen is making, Mr.

Speaker, as I digress from the quote for a moment, because we

constantly hear from across the floor, in defence of the government's

actions: "Well, we're going to have to bring down this public service.

It's grown and grown." The interesting thing is that that government

has been responsible for that growth for the last eight years. They've

been responsible for all the major decisions made in this province.

You know, Mr. Speaker, for a number of years before you came to this

House, that government's only defence when things were going wrong in

this province was to put the blame on the NDP. Now even they can no

longer bring up that old bogey. They have been in power in this

province for a straight eight years now. The policies and the problems

we face are the result of their policies. They are the ones who have to

defend them and do something about them.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd like to continue with another statement from Mayor Peter Pollen:

"In these eight years the civil service and Crown

corporations' staff, according to this government, have become bloated

and largely unproductive. In these eight years our life-support

industries of fishing, mining and forestry have become less and less

competitive. Labour and management and government relations are more

and more based on confrontation. The province's relations with our

federal government are based on petty squabbling and rancour. More than

200,000 people are now unemployed, and in

[ Page 437

scarcely a year we have gone from a so-called

restraint program of 12 and 13 percent to one of 6 and 5 percent, then

to zero percent, and now pay cuts and even

summary dismissal. Our

provincial debt, both direct and indirect, has soared, making the NDP's

three years of government look miserly indeed. So large has B.C.

Hydro's debt become that their bond-raising has been downgraded. This

is astute management?"

To continue with Mayor Peter Pollen's remarks, with one last

paragraph:

"No question, we need to atone for the unproductive

and self-indulgent years brought on by the easy affluence of the past

decade. But should it be a primitive catharsis of the magic wand of the

provincial budget, a wand which is supposed to emancipate the

simplistics of the 'free enterprise system' and allow prosperity to

prevail once again in this most bountiful of all provinces?"

Whatever our politics, I must say to Mayor Pollen — forgetting

whether

or not you agree, Mr. Speaker, with the sentiments here — he certainly

can write well. I happen to think that Mayor Peter Pollen, as a former

Social Credit candidate, has put his finger on many of the problems

which we are facing today in so many areas because of the ineptitude

and incompetence of the Social Credit government in the last eight

years. The tragedy is that this same government is sitting here today

in charge of our economy, in charge of this kind of legislation, and

their same ineptness and short-sighted thinking is prevalent again.

As I mentioned in an earlier, speech, what I find really tragic is

that many of the policies which eventually.... I hope not. We shall

struggle very hard to see that they're not passed. If they are passed,

the results of many of these policies are not going to be seen

immediately. I can assure you that as the years go along, all the

social problems, social ills, increased crime, and all the other

accidents, such as car accidents, etc., which are going to result from

the Social Credit policies are going to come back to haunt the Social

Credit government. All I can say is that I sincerely hope that at that

time a more enlightened and progressive government will be in office in

this province, a government with compassion and humanity, a government

that is not incompetent, and a government that can get this province

back to work again — put people to work, not put them out of work,

which unfortunately is the end result of the policies that we are

subjected to by this very incompetent government.

Over and over again one of the arguments we hear from across the

floor about the public sector bill is: why should the public sector

people get off so easily when private industry workers have a harder

time and don't have nearly the same protection? That seems to be a very

simplistic statement. I will say one thing about the Socreds: they are

very adept at coming out with very simplistic statements, with the hope

that most people out there will not go into any depth to analyze their

simplicity. Before I go on to discuss the difference between the public

and the private sectors, which was brought out in the House before, I

want to point out to you that fortunately there are many people in our

province today who don't accept the simplistic Reagan-type approach to

politics which we are faced with with Social Credit. They don't believe

the myth any more. They start thinking about these oversimplifications,

such as: "Back to the good old days." "Get government off my back." The

people who really think — and there are getting to be more and more

every day, because they are being forced to think, because they know

that the policies of the Social Credit government are not working — are

beginning to question these overly simplistic statements.

I happen to have in front of me a very thoughtful, well-written

letter from a constituent. The constituent's name is not familiar to

me, but I certainly feel very pleased that he took the time to write to

me as his MLA to express his concerns about Bill 3. I would like to

read this letter to the House. I think it expresses things far better

than I can. He says:

"Dear Mrs. Dailly:

"I'm very concerned over the various bills introduced

in association with the recent provincial budget. The conservative

ideology behind two bills, the Public Sector Restraint Act and the

Public Service Labour Relations Act, is so extreme and so provocative

that I seriously fear it may lead to unfortunate public unrest in the

streets.

"I find myself, for example, often angry and even

emotional over statements made by Premier Bennett. His comments in

relation to the breach of contract with the federal government over the

ALRT logo, that he thought the discomfiture of Senator Perrault was

fun, betray an irritating lack of integrity and a completely annoying

adolescent sense of political gamesmanship."

This is a constituent, I repeat again, who has just written a letter

to me.

"His close to kill-the-messenger attitude toward

reporters — he recently told a reporter questioning him about the above

bills that his questions were argumentative — really makes me wonder

how much he respects the role of the media in our democratic society.

"The point of all my prefacing is this: that there are

people less educated to the remaining avenues of political influence

than myself in British Columbia, and whose sense of irritation could

have more destructive expression."

If I can digress from the letter before I continue here, when he

says that there are some people who might be more destructive in their

expression of their terrible concern over this government's policy, it

brings back to my mind the fact that I had the privilege of seeing an

excellent movie the other night which I hope you've seen. It is called

Gandhi . What this man says in this letter was certainly

symbolized in

Gandhi . Gandhi, of course, as we know, believed in non-violence

passive resistance. I think that if everyone could follow Gandhi's way

of achieving independence for India, we would have a peaceful world.

[3:45]

Why I'm bringing this up is that I know what this man is saying in

this letter to me. He is saying there are a lot of people who, when

they become upset, annoyed, afraid, insecure — all the things that are

going to happen to many public servants in this province and other

people who aren't public servants but are going to be out of work in

increasing numbers because of the government's policies — reach out,

unfortunately, in a destructive expression. I hope not. I know there

isn't one MLA in this Legislature who would ever condone such action.

It's our responsibility to see that it never reaches that. The

unfortunate thing is that when you build up

[ Page 438

confrontation and bring in legislation which is

unjust, unfair,

takes away their security and is frightening to people, you are asking

for confrontation. This is another reason we want this bill pulled. If

you do realize it's going to cause harm, I can't believe that you would

sit here with a bill like this and let it go through. I'm sure many of

the people out there who support the Social Credit government had no

idea that legislation could possibly be brought in by the party they

supported which could perhaps create very destructive turmoil in our

province. It can.

I want to continue with this letter. This man says that he's worried

there could be more destructive expression. He says:

"There are people whose jobs in the civil service are

shortly going to be on the line in the most uncivil way imaginable, and

who face mortgage payments and all the other painful economic realities

of everyday life. They need the NDP to fight for them against the

unfair nature and the capricious implications of these two bills. The

Social Credit attacks on regional planning and other positive social

policy instruments are certainly deserving of severe criticism, but

their amending acts to the public service, because they strike so

harshly at the ideas of due process and justice, must be addressed

immediately and most urgently and energetically."

This is a letter from a constituent whom I've never heard from

before, and who is telling me as his MLA: "You get in there and you

fight to stop this terrible bill." That's why I'm on my feet, and

that's why all my colleagues will be on their feet, and we will fight

this bill as long as we possibly can, Mr. Speaker.

I thought it was interesting that this constituent should end his

letter with a quotation from our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

section 7: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the

person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance

with the principles of fundamental justice." That Charter of Rights is

there, and yet I say to the Social Credit government that this action

you're taking with this bill, and many others, is going to be a serious

abridgment of the principles of the Charter of Rights.

When I refer to our Charter of Rights it also takes me back —

although I can't be taken back personally; perhaps in a time warp — to

the time of the Magna Carta. Do you remember when it was passed, Mr.

Speaker? It was passed in 1215. I always remember one of the best

teachers I ever had — we all seem to have one or two teachers we always

remember — was teaching our class about the Magna Carta, years and

years ago. He asked the class when it was signed. No one remembered,

and he said to us: "It doesn't matter when it was signed. What was it

about?" I always remember that, Mr. Speaker. What it was about is the

important thing.

A quotation from the Magna Carta is very relevant, I think, to

asking for a hoist for this bill: "To no one will we sell, to no one

will we refuse or delay the right of justice." I think this is the

thing that the people of the province, many of whom might have

supported your government, are really concerned about today. The

government that they supported is bringing in legislation which is

unjust and unfair. If you leave this bill sitting here, you are going

to be responsible for creating inequities and injustice in the province

of British Columbia the like of which we have not seen before.

I found it rather interesting to look up a few quotations on

justice, and two or three of them are rather interesting. What is

justice? Justice is truth in action. And, of course, the one most of us

remember, Mr. Speaker: justice delayed is justice denied. As long as

the Social Credit government continues to leave that bill sitting there

and continues to let it go through, you are denying justice to the

people of the province of British Columbia who are going to be affected

seriously by this bill. It's not just the people who are involved in

the bill; everyone in this province is going to see some repercussion

from this very uncivil bill, to put it mildly.

I've listened to many of the members over there — they're not in the

House, but we've heard them elsewhere — who keep saying: "Trust us."

The people of this province trusted that whatever government they

elected in the province of British Columbia, whoever they are today,

whether Social Credit or NDP, would at least bring fairness and justice

into their legislation. But they have found now that they have elected

a government who think they have a mandate to ride roughshod over the

rights of everyone. The people of British Columbia did not elect that

kind of government. The Social Credit government does not have a

mandate to produce inequities in this society. It does not have a

mandate to take away from the people who are underprivileged and to

concentrate far more on those who already have.

Somehow or other the members of the Social Credit Party, for

whatever reason, seem to have lost the sense of why they are here and

why they were originally elected. They are here to serve all the people

of this province in a fair and equitable manner, and not just a

privileged few. I want to say that this bill is a travesty. If it goes

through in the province of British Columbia we will be known across

Canada as a province that not many people are going to be proud to

remain in.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the

House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[4:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 33

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

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.

[ Page 439

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising to support the hoist

of this bill for six months so that the government can reconsider the

matter. I notice the exodus from the chamber. It puts me in mind of one

of the members of the British House of Commons, who was known as the

"dinner bell, " because every time he rose to make a speech he emptied

the House. My audience will diminish, and yet what I'm talking about is

of great importance to the people of the province of British Columbia.

I asked myself why we should be consuming so much time of the

Legislature of British Columbia and holding up — because that's what

we're doing as the opposition — a piece of legislation which has been

brought in by a government that has become a government of the radical

right. But we know that. They were elected as a pretty right-wing

government, and they're taking measures of economic restraint and

moving towards small government. I disagree with all that. That's a

matter of legitimate debate in this chamber. I wouldn't want to be part

of a long filibuster about a difference in philosophies, which we all

recognize on both sides of the House, but I participate in this one and

will continue to participate in it and do everything I can to hold up

this legislation, primarily because it has two words in it which I

think are insulting and degrading to vast numbers of the people of

British Columbia. The words are — we all know them by now — "without

cause." People can be terminated from their employment without cause.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I heard with a great deal of disappointment the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Smith) of the province of British Columbia, who is sitting

opposite, get up and defend this bill. His argument — I have it here,

and I don't want to misrepresent it — was that there had to be control

in terms of the size of government: a legitimate argument. He said

there should be the right to get rid of people who were not needed in

their employment, that the taxpayer had suffered enough and this kind

of thing. But he was really, as Attorney-General of the province,

upholding arbitrary, capricious discharge — the abandonment of the

whole progress of people in the western world to some kind of due

process in matters which vitally affect their lives, not only in the

workplace but in terms of the families who are either going to school,

or dependent on them, or keeping house and trying to hold things

together.

Now in the case of property taken away from anybody, the

Attorney-General, I'm quite sure, would say: "Well, don't take that

arbitrarily. Don't take it without any kind of process." Yet here is

the chief law enforcement officer of the province of British Columbia

defending the words "without cause." Why? What are the real reasons for

this particular legislation? It is called the Public Sector Restraint

Act, but that can't be the real reason for the legislation. The

collective agreement of the B.C. Government Employees' Union has ample

provisions in there relating to layoff and discharge of employees if a

government decides to economize and cut back the public service. But it

can't be arbitrary discharge, and nobody's made a case for arbitrary

discharge on that side of the House. You wonder why, when everything

that the government wants to do in accordance with its radical

right-wing politics can be done under the existing collective

agreements

or done under other legislation like Bill 2, if they want to do it, in

terms of changing clauses in collective agreements — arbitrarily, even

in mid-term. Why would they want to revert to the Dark Ages in terms of

the dignity of employees by inserting those words "without cause"?

I ask that question and I hear it answered by the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds). I've been listening to the debate.

He said that scaring people was a legitimate objective. "It would make

them work harder," he put it. But I fasten on what he said about

"scaring people," because when I asked myself why these unnecessary

words were inserted in this particular bill, I think I know the answer.

It is to establish a system of intimidation over the whole public

sector and, by implication, over the private sector as well, because

the same arguments would apply there.

I see the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) sitting

over there. I'm trying to remember the name of the garage that I was

his counsel for when we.... The IWA of Salmon Arm were seeking to

organize it. I can't think what year it would be. I think it was called

Salmon Arm Motors or Columbia Motors.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Columbia Auto, yes. Some of the employees of

Columbia Auto had signed up to join the union, which was a perfectly

lawful thing for them to do. And the moment they did that a number of

them were discharged by the employer for flimsy reasons, but we knew

the real reason. The employer had the right of arbitrary discharge. The

dignity and worth of these individuals who signed the union cards was

of no account whatsoever because they were subject to arbitrary

discharge, and they were discharged. That hon. member and I went and

fought for them. It was not the greatest battle that's ever taken

place, but we felt good about it at that time. In a sense, we were

trying to enhance the worth and dignity of human beings and to see that

their lives would not be suddenly shattered for doing something that

was perfectly lawful, because the employer disagreed with their union

activities.

And what a falling-off there has been. I haven't heard that hon.

member speak about this bill and defend those words "without cause."

And I know I should be addressing the Chair, and I am, to the hon.

member through the Chair. But I ask him if he can possibly defend that

kind of thing that for capricious reasons, vindictive reasons, reasons

of disagreement with the political opinion or because somebody has done

something which the law allowed him to do that nevertheless doesn't

meet with the approval of somebody up further.... Can you discharge

that person and put his family through possibly moving to Fort St. John

to possibly re-establish their lives and get the children back in

school? There's been a long, long struggle to lift human dignity out of

the Dark Ages where one man with the money power held that kind of

control over other human beings.

So I ask myself why these totally unnecessary words are contained in

this bill. I don't want to be mean about what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker,

but this is what I think. This is what has happened: the words have

been put in there because of the Premier. We have seen on a scale that

it's very difficult to credit, really, the extent of one-man government

in this province. The Premier made the remark a long time ago, which

has been bandied about in this Legislature, when he was looking over at

the opposition in 1976. He said: "It took me only two weeks to train my

dog." Now we have pleasantries, banter and so on back and forth across

this House, but there was a terrible significance in what he was

saying. A

[ Page 440

little while ago he appointed the Minister of

Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Ritchie) to his cabinet. That minister, as he should for the

people of British Columbia, gave an interview and gave some of his

views; they were very innocuous. I see the minister sitting back there.

The Premier said, "That's the last time any minister of mine will speak

out unless it is something that has been decided upon in cabinet,"

which means by himself. Nobody protested that a minister of the Crown

should not be under the thumb of the Premier. Nobody protested at that

breach of a fundamental privilege that has gone on.

But there are shades of difference in philosophy between cabinet

ministers. Look at Great Britain at the present time, where there are

very substantial differences of opinion and expressions of that public

opinion without the thumb being placed on cabinet ministers. The thumb

is being placed on members of this Legislature. The thumb of

intimidation is now being placed upon the whole public sector.

[4:15]

Yesterday when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was

speaking to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, somebody from the

audience said that legislation that creates a high social outcry but

has little effect on the bottom line was the description of this

particular legislation. Then you come back to the question of why we

have it. Why should we have this particular legislation at the present

time, if I am not right in saying that there is a deliberate policy on

the part of the Premier to intimidate the whole public service? The

legislation before us is such a legal fandango at the present time that

I would very much doubt that it will be used to any great extent in its

present form. I don't understand many sections in it. You've got this

business of "without cause," and then you've got regulations, and you

wonder whether you could still protest your termination. You have the

question of whether or not there would be a common-law remedy. I doubt

it, because I would think that the legislation which says you have no

rights whatsoever and you can be discharged capriciously or

vindictively is all you have left. There's no use going into the courts

and saying you want to take action for damages for wrongful dismissal,

because your rights have already been stripped away by the language of

the statute. So why is it done? I think there is an element of cruelty

in what's happening here — callousness.

You've got all kinds of very good British Columbians out there: some

teach school; some are in a police squad car, and they're in the public

sector; you have nurses. You have all these different kinds of people,

who I think have been doing a job to the best of their ability. I think

there have been abuses in the system, where the system has not been

efficient, and I think those should be addressed. But now all of them

are told: "You speak out and you may be subject to arbitrary loss of

your livelihood." What kind of Legislature is this that would give big

government that kind of power? Have we no shame?

Don't tell me that I shouldn't take the time of this House, spending

taxpayers' money, with a Speaker sitting there, and the pages, and all

the panoply of the Legislature. There's a fundamental point of

principle involved in this legislation, and we ought to fight it down

to the last drop of our endeavour.

Arbitrary action. I notice in Thomas Berger's book that he brings

back my recollection of the Gordon Martin case. Gordon Martin was a

communist who nevertheless had been allowed to enter law school in the

early 1950s and pay his fees. He was from Nanaimo, I think. He

graduated and was qualified to be admitted to the bar. Nothing he had

done was unlawful, but he was a communist. I know there's an irony

about communists getting up on pedestals and defending civil liberties;

it's an irony that doesn't escape me for one little moment.

Nevertheless the benchers of the law society refused his admission to

the bar, not because of anything he had done — because it was all

lawful; he had run for office as a Labour Progressive candidate, for

example — but because of what he thought, because of his convictions.

Of course, he had had three or four years of law training wiped out —

unable to use his training — by that kind of a decision. And the courts

upheld it. It went to the supreme court and it went to the court of

appeal, and that kind of arbitrary, discriminatory treatment of a human

being, that would not be accepted today for one minute, was upheld in

the case of Gordon Martin.

I can see that under this legislation the government can say the

union will still be there — there will be the policemen's union, the

government employees' union; the nurses' union will still be there —

but they

will hesitate as to whether they should run for union office and take

an active

part in their union and expose themselves to discharge

without cause, without explanation, for no reason whatsoever. Somebody

who is in this very wide public sector that we are talking about, Mr.

Speaker, will think twice before he sits down and, on a matter of

legitimate public concern, writes a letter to the editor that the

government might find offensive. This is the extent to which these two

words, "without cause," are casting a pall of intimidation and

stripping away basic, fundamental liberties in the province of British

Columbia. Is somebody from the law school at UBC going to take a

part

in politics after this legislation? We hear all about the abuses of

tenure. There are some abuses there, in my opinion, and I think we

should have a proper code so we don't again have cases like the Julius

Kane case, which I thought was a fantastic misapplication of job

security. There should have been a tribunal to quickly determine

whether or not the kind of offence which he had committed and which was

job-related should have led to the termination of his employment. I

agree that there are all kinds of abuses of that kind, but there are

other abuses that occur on the other side, which this bill encourages.

I fought a case once for a logger in my friend from Alberni's

riding, near Ucluelet, and his name was Lucky Macdonald. He had a real

row with the bullbucker in the woods about what he should cut and what

he shouldn't — whether they got a proper count of his tally for the

purposes of his wages. They went at each other verbally with hammer and

tongs, and at the end Lucky said: "Well, we'll finish this thing off

tonight." The superintendent had a big wedding reception — his daughter

was getting married. After a few drinks had been put in his belly,

Lucky Macdonald came charging up to this bullbucker, who was dressed in

his nice suit and everything at this posh reception for the

superintendent's daughter's wedding, and felled the bullbucker with a

single swipe of his fist. The question, which was an important question

of civil liberties, was whether what he had done justified his

discharge, although it had happened after hours.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: How does it apply? You haven't the faintest

understanding of what I'm talking about. Suppose someone in the public

sector commits an infraction and

[ Page 441

gets his name in the paper but it's not related to

his employment —

Lucky Macdonald's offence was related to his employment. Should a

person be subject to this power of arbitrary discharge when his offence

is not related to the work he does, in terms of hours of employment and

the duties assigned to him? It will be, because that person can be

discharged for something that happens in terms of his lifestyle or, as

I say, his opinions or something that happens that is totally unrelated

to his job. That's just a little point, eh? Somebody gets into impaired

driving, or gets drunk and has a fight with a policeman in the city of

Victoria after hours, and he is fired for that. Who's going to complain

about that? Yet it is a basic erosion of the kind of fight for human

dignity that has been growing up all through the years. That's what

we're seeing in this legislation.

The government makes the argument that it should be for the public

sector, and presumably for those who are under collective agreements,

just as it is in the unorganized private sector. You think that, well,

the employees of Bennett's hardware, for example, have no job security.

They could put in 15 or 20 years and give their best endeavours to that

job and make a real contribution to the business, but for some reason

that need not be given to them — all they are entitled to is some

notice, two or three months or whatever it might be — they can be

discharged. Their whole lives shattered, and their families suffering,

with an arbitrary discharge. The government says: "That is happening

out there, so why shouldn't it happen in the public sector?" By

extension, they are really saying: why shouldn't it happen in the

lumber industry, where they have an IWA agreement?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or in your law office.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, in a law office or in real estate. The

federal government has addressed that problem — and of course, they're

light years ahead in their political thinking, in spite of everything

else, of this government of the radical right. They have sections under

the Canada Labour Code which apply to somebody who has served in the

private unorganized sector and gives them some job security — the right

to go to an adjudicator and the right to be reinstated if necessary.

That legislation exists to enhance the dignity of human beings. It's

not interfering with industrial efficiency and all of the rest of this

nonsense that we hear about. It is one of the basic liberties that is

beginning to develop in our society, one of our basic freedoms.

What the government is saying is that we should level down the kind

of dignity in the workplace that has been slowly established, and make

everybody like the employees at Bennett's hardware stores in the

unorganized sector who could be fired for their lifestyle, or for good

reason, or for no reason, provided you give them a few months' notice.

Which way are we going in this province of British Columbia? Are we

serious about going to that model? I suppose it's a great thing, in

terms of a very radical government of the right, that the money power

should control human beings, that the owners of the business should be

absolutely in charge, and that the ultimate relation between employer

and employee is one of feudal lord and serf; master and slave;

complete, final authority of one over the other — not a cooperative

relationship, not a relationship that recognizes that the employees too

have built the capital of that business and made it prosperous. The

arbitrary right of the owner to do what he likes not only with his own

property but with the human beings who have contributed to the

development of that property — that's what you stand for.

I say there is an answer as to why we have this legislation, and it

is to be found in the political desire of the government, led by the

Premier, to brook no opposition. There were difficult negotiations

leading to the signing of the B.C. government employees' contract. Is

this revenge? Is this the government saying: "I'll show that union how

to forget looking after the interests of their members. I'll take the

militancy out of that union. I'll make sure that there aren't any fiery

speeches made that would reflect upon the government, because I'm going

to take unto myself the power to fire any one of those members who

works in the public service without cause and without explanation."

It's a pretty formidable power over hundreds of thousands of people.

What about the people outside who are left? If they have any sense in

their heads, and I think they do, they will say to themselves: "If this

kind of basic denial of human dignity in the workplace of the public

sector is allowed to take place, we will be next."

Interjection.

[4:30]

MR. MACDONALD: "Scare them," says the member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds).

MR. REE: The NDP will be next.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Yes, of course. I know.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: The next election will be more difficult, if

this legislation goes through, because it will be very hard for a

public sector employee to exercise his political rights under this

legislation.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members will please come to order.

MR. MACDONALD: It will be very hard for people to speak up in

a forthright, independent way — the way we expect them to be able to do

under this legislation.

I notice the Premier's in the House, and I'll just repeat his one

message. We have nothing to do with restraint in this bill. We have

nothing to do with cutting back the size of government, which can be

done perfectly well under the layoff provisions of that collective

agreement. But we do have a bid for control over human beings by the

Premier and this government. Discipline them. Cast the pall of

intimidation over them all. Brook no opposition. These are fundamental

reasons why we have to oppose this kind of legislation.

There are other examples out in that private sector where this kind

of control over human beings exists at the present time — an

unfettered, arbitrary control over human lives. I think, for example of

real estate salesmen. To try and make some money, by the hundreds they

pay $300 to $400 to go through the real estate course. Then they join

Block Bros. or one of the other big firms, or they work through an

agent. Of those 300 or 400 people that go through a particular course,

only those who hustle well and make sales make it — Maybe 10 or 15

percent are able to make a worthwhile career out of real

[ Page 442

estate; the rest are discarded. They're lured into

the course, they

pay their money, but the oversupply is simply enormous out there and

very few of them make it. They just have to slink away and take their

punishment.

There are all kinds of examples of the kind of thing I'm saying. I'm

worried about the police and whether they'll be fearless in the

discharge of their duties, without fear or favour, under this kind of

legislation that allows them to be fired without cause. I'm worried

about the prosecutors in British Columbia who have a duty to act

without fear or favour in the enforcement of the law, but who can,

under this legislation, be fired without cause. The judges are exempt;

the prosecutors are not. I can see another thing happening in the

Attorney General's ministry, which is becoming a ministry of injustice,

not a ministry of justice. I can see that the regional prosecutors, the

Crown prosecutorial system that's been developed so that justice would

be done throughout the whole province without fear or favour, will be

disbanded in the direction of employing counsel for a fee. Those

counsel who are employed for a fee, and who can be discharged or not

retained for another case, are very apt to work the will of the

government rather than act without fear or favour.

I know there will be intimidation in the universities. I listened

this morning to the speech by the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). What a pathetic defence of the

independence of the universities was in that speech! It was almost as

if the hon. member had given up. Even the member for North

Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) pretends that these words "without cause"

don't have any meaning; it's really seniority, and the union agreement

will apply. It's pathetic nonsense. We've heard these invertebrate

defenders of the rights of the people. We say there's a great

constitutional point involving human liberty involved in those words

"without cause." We are prepared, to stand in our places as long as we

possibly can until everyone in the province of B.C. realizes that the

words "without cause" are an intimidation by the Premier of outspoken

opposition sentiments that might be voiced anywhere within this

province. We are prepared to stand here and point out that this

government is rolling back the slow growth of civil liberties, of

dignity on the job and the worth of the human individual. Turning back

the clock to the dark ages of employer-employee relationships.

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

sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 32

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

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. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of a full

disclosure, some time ago in the House the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) referred to a business card which was purported to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, what is the reason

you're seeking the floor?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wish to ask leave to file a document,

Mr. Speaker. During that time the card referred to was said to have

been a deputy sheriff's, or a sheriff's card, and in the interest of

disclosure I'd like to ask leave to file this document with the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some noes, hon. members.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The chair recognizes the second

member for Vancouver Centre rising on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: An explanation for the denial of leave must and

should be given. When a card....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: This is a point of order to explain why the

minister should not be entitled to table such a document. He is not

willing to offer any proof of the authenticity of that document

whatsoever. And until he does, it's not acceptable on the table.

There's no reason why we should believe that anything he produces is

authentic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, there is a question

before the House, which we'll defer until the remarks from the member

for Alberni.

MR. SKELLY: I rise to speak in support of this motion to

hoist debate on Bill 3 until six months from today's date. I think this

government needs an opportunity to consult with

[ Page 443

the people of British Columbia. There have been so

many newspaper

articles and so many groups who have approached both the government and

the opposition expressing their abhorrence of this type of legislation

that the government is perhaps best advised to delay passage of this

bill and to talk to some of those people to find out their reasons for

the opposition to this bill.

[4:45]

This is a government that makes a great deal of its mandate and

talks a great deal about its mandate — or its

interpretation of what a

mandate is. Mr. Speaker, a mandate to govern or to introduce

legislation or to pass legislation isn't obtained solely by winning an

election, although that's a large part of a mandate. It reminds me of

the government of El Salvador at this time and its human rights

policies. The government of El Salvador did win an election recently by

a substantial majority, even greater than the majority obtained by this

government.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'll ignore the comment, considering its source.

The government of El Salvador claims to have a mandate by virtue of

the fact that they obtained an even larger majority at the polls than

the government here in British Columbia. But they can't argue that that

mandate gives them the right to kill hundreds and, in fact, thousands

of people every year in order to protect the mandate of the government.

It's interesting that the United States, in a new definition of what

constitutes human rights, has stated that there's an improvement in the

human rights attitudes in El Salvador now that the government only

killed 1,054 civilians during the first month of this year compared to

961 during 1982. The Roman Catholic Church has estimated that 2,527

civilians were killed by the government and by para-military forces

during the first six months of this year.

No government can claim by virtue of its mandate, or by virtue of

being elected at the polls, that it has the right to treat human rights

in the same way as the government of El Salvador does or in the same

way that this government does, especially when you consider, Mr.

Speaker, how that mandate was obtained from the electorate. It was

obtained by false promises that this government has no intention of

keeping, by fear tactics that this government used in their telephone

campaigns, telling senior citizens that their houses and their pensions

would be taken away, telling them that there would be no increase in

user fees and telling them that there would be no increase in taxes.

When you obtain a mandate by false promises, in fact it's no mandate at

all.

The types of fear tactics used during the election campaign — the

false promises, the lies and misinformation that were used to gain

power in this province — mean that this government has no mandate at

all by which they can justify the legislation that they've currently

brought in. Given these facts the government should go back to the

electors. I'm not talking about having another election where they can

use the same kind of tactics, but go back to the electors and through a

process of consultation find out whether the electors actually want

this kind of legislation or not. That's the reason behind this hoist.

We want to give the government six months to go out there and through a

process of consultation talk to the people of this province. See if

they want the annihilation of some human rights. Talk about the

effectiveness of the Human Rights Act to see if they want the

annihilation of tenants'

rights and talk about the effectiveness of the Residential Tenancy Act

and see if they want to get involved in the kind of employer-employee

warfare that seems to be developing around the legislation that this

government is currently attempting to force through the House.

Let me read some of the comments from columnists in newspapers and

journals around the province to give you an idea of the thinking that's

going on out there among the people of British Columbia. This one is

from the Kamloops News of July 18, 1983 by Cam Murray. I see

that the

member for Kamloops is not in the House now. He very seldom spends time

in the House. Here's what a columnist from his riding says:

"Less than 50 percent of the voters supported these

mean-minded people at the polls back in May. But the platform of

restraint, more of the same, is now seen to be a very hollow uttering

when matched against the deeds of this very sorry collection. Restraint

is not the major theme of this legislative program; revenge is. Many of

the promises of the campaign have been swiftly repudiated, and those

responsible haven't the decency to blush even a little."

What Cam Murray calls the Social Credit government is:

"....a disgusting collection of sycophants that

masquerade as the government of this province. This parsimonious pack

of petty, penny-pinching politicians has wreaked havoc throughout B.C.

With the introduction of the budget and the more than 20 bills that

were ruthlessly foisted upon the public of this province, the Socreds

have swung B.C. far to the right."

Mr. Speaker, all around the province these types of comments are

coming out in the editorials, letters to the editor, meetings of the

people and in demonstrations such as the one that was held in Victoria

a short time ago. The government simply does not have the mandate that

it claims to have in order to pass this legislation through this House.

That's the reason why we're attempting through these processes of delay

to slow passage of this legislation — so that the government will have

an opportunity to consult with the people.

There is a need to reduce the fear and the terror and the fear of

the loss of their jobs that is currently being suffered by the public

sector in this province, and by the private sector who feel that the

axe is going to fall on them next. There is a reason to hoist this bill

so that minority groups in this province can be consulted by the

government to find out whether in fact and through what regulations and

what changes in legislation they are going to be ensured the protection

that in a democratic society minority groups have the right to. There

is a reason to hoist this legislation and to delay its passage and

implementation in order to ensure that tenants and landlords will be

protected as a result of the changes in the Residential Tenancy Act.

There is a need to consult with client groups of the government to

make sure that the legislation being passed by this government, and the

actions being taken by this government, are actually going to achieve

the kind of restraint measures that the government claims they will be

providing. I'm talking about groups and services such as legal aid,

diversion programs from sentencing, and services to the mentally

handicapped and to those who suffer from domestic and sexual violence.

[ Page 444

It's interesting that there was an

article in the Times-Colonist

this morning where in eliminating one agency.... The people in that

agency claim that it's going to cost the government more and cause more

suffering if the government eliminates the program. Apparently this is

a program in Victoria that diverts hundreds of non-violent first

offenders into community work. It was one of the first victims of the

Socred restraint axe on Wednesday. The cost of this program to the

people of British Columbia was $92,852, or about $106.12 per client.

Yet it protected the taxpayers from the costs of putting these people

through courts, where even if they enter a plea of guilty it costs

something like $300 to $750 a case for every person to be processed

through the courts. The fact is that this program that cost the people

$92,852, as a result of the Social Credit restraint program is now

going to cost the people of this province $500,000. That's some

restraint.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and some of the other

ministers admitted that they hadn't really done any kind of analyses of

the ultimate costs of their restraint measures. Where eliminating a

program like this increases the costs to the taxpayers and the general

public by 500 percent, surely the government should be given more time

through the measure of this hoist to examine the programs that they've

brought about and to see if they actually have the effect of doing what

the government says those programs were doing. Otherwise we have no

reason to believe that they are restraint measures, and must believe

that they are simply ways of attacking programs that the government is

opposed to in a philosophical way. Most of those programs, of course,

are programs that are designed to protect the poor.

It's gotten to the point where even the Times-Colonist

newspaper has now relabelled the province of British Columbia. We now

have a new name: we're called "Brutish Columbia" as a result of the

passage of this type of legislation and the presentation of this type

of budget and legislation to the province. In an editorial on Thursday,

July 21, here's what the Times-Colonist has to say:

"Much of that unqualified support for the provincial

restraint program has now vanished, atomized by the harsh methods the

Social Credit government is using to reduce the size of the public

service. In addition, there is growing resentment at the way the

government has used its restraint theme as justification for a whole

range of other moves which primarily affect the poorer, more

disadvantaged members of society."

These programs are not restraint programs at all. They're simply

reflections of the philosophical approach of the Social Credit

government, and they represent an attack on the poorer, more

disadvantaged members of society, The government needs an opportunity

through the vehicle of this hoist to go out and re-examine the programs

and measures they've brought in, and to consult with the people who are

responsible for these programs and the people who have benefited from

these programs, and also to see whether or not these programs actually

constitute restraint, or whether they're going to cost the taxpayers a

lot more, not just in the short run but in the long run as well.

Our caucus has had a number of discussions with local government

representations, and we find in general; that prior to the presentation

of this legislation there has been absolutely no consultation with the

local governments who are going to be required to conform with the

legislation or, in some cases, to enforce it — to fire the people who

are to be fired without cause, and also to take the flak from the

community. There's been absolutely no consultation taking place between

local governments and this government on the regulations, which have

yet to be drafted. The government is telling us in the opposition:

"Trust us. It's not going to be firing without cause. We're going to

bring down regulations which will ameliorate that drastic action." Yet

we have seen no regulation, and we understand there has been no

consultation with the public. We need a six-month hoist on this

legislation to give this government an opportunity to talk to those

local governments, whose members could be fined up to $2,000 each.

Elected members could be fined up to $2,000 each, not for carrying out

the wishes of those who elected them but for refusing to carry out the

wishes of the central government, from whom they are in no way

responsible, to whom they have no mandate — as this government defines

a mandate. These elected officials could be subject to a $2,000 fine if

they fail to carry out this government's orders. For that reason alone,

and for the fact that many of these people have given their lives to

local government, have made local government a career, through school

boards, municipal councils, regional districts and hospital boards,

they should at least be consulted prior to the implementation of this

legislation.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The government might also meet with some of its allies out there. I

understand that even its allies are expressing some concerns about the

legislation that we're presently being forced to deal with in the

House. Even Bill Hamilton of the Employers' Council of British Columbia

— a man to be respected, a former Postmaster-General of Canada, a

member of the Conservative cabinet several years ago....

"After the dinner Hamilton said the province's employers are behind

the government's decision to impose restraint." So are most people in

the province. Most people in this province recognize in the state of

economic ruin that Social Credit has brought us to that restraint is

absolutely necessary. Bill Hamilton goes on to say: "...but we have

certain concerns with the proposed administration of the legislation.

We want the opportunity to explore the legislation with the cabinet and

to express some of our concerns. We do feel we have some helpful ideas

on how it could be implemented with a minimum of dissension." This

government has an obligation to go out and consult with its friends.

The six months' hoist we're talking about here today will give the

government that kind of opportunity. It's a very reasonable suggestion,

one that the government should pay some attention to.

A hoist would also give the public and the government an opportunity

for a cooling-off period. It would give the people an opportunity to

examine in some detail the legislation that was dumped in this House

last Thursday — 26 bills in all. It came as a total surprise not only

to the people of this province and to the public sector employees, but

also to the people who ran as Social Credit candidates. Gary Begin

mentioned that if he had known this legislation was in the works he

wouldn't have run as a Social Credit candidate. Graham Bruce, the mayor

of Duncan, said the same thing: that he was absolutely unaware that

this legislation was in the works or that this type of political

philosophy was part of the Social Credit political philosophy. Even the

Social Credit candidate for Victoria said that all during the campaign

nobody had made him aware that he was going to be one of those who

would have to

[ Page 445

enforce this type of legislation against his

constituents. It was

kept completely secret until after the election. So there was

absolutely no consultation, not even with their own candidates during

the last election campaign.

Probably one of the reasons why the Socred backbenchers in this

House are so silent, so afraid to stand up and justify this

legislation, is that they weren't even made aware of it prior to the

last election or during the last election campaign. The government, the

sitting members of Social Credit, didn't even have the honesty to tell

them what their plans were for after they came back into government. So

a hoist would permit a level of consultation with the community, even

with their own party members who were unaware that the government was

going to take such a radical turn to the extreme right. I think the

government should take this opportunity to sit down with the people of

this province, with employers and employees, to develop a process of

consultation — even with their own party members — and explain to them

just why they have taken this radical turn to the extreme right.

As one of our members pointed out earlier today, or possibly

yesterday, it will also give them an opportunity to re-examine the

constitution of their own party, to see that this type of legislation

violates even their own party's constitution, the things that they

claim to stand for. But we know how seriously they hold their own party

constitution and statement of principles. They are always willing to

sacrifice those for whatever reasons they choose to sacrifice them

whenever the circumstances allow.

There was an interesting

article in the Vancouver Sun this

evening, Mr. Speaker, in which it was pointed out that the Ministry of

Human Resources plans to cut a $50 payment to people — mentally and

physically disabled people, generally — who attend volunteer centres.

The reason for the $50 payment is to assist those people to get

transportation, to provide themselves with lunches and the necessary

clothing, etc., and to allow them to go out into the community and be

functioning members of the community through volunteer workshops

provided by volunteer organizations. The government in its callous way

is even cutting back on that and justifying it as restraint. I am

surprised that the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr.

Mowat) has never said a word about this legislation, never said a word

about this type of program called restraint which fundamentally attacks

some of the services provided to mentally and physically handicapped

people in this province, whom he claimed to represent. When he was

appointed coordinator for the international Year of the Disabled, he

claimed to represent these people in the province. Now he has become a

member of a government that has turned around and done nothing but

attack the handicapped people of the province by cutting back even the

pittance of $50 that they receive in order to participate in volunteer

workshop programs.

Mr. Speaker, if for no other reason, we should hoist this bill, we

should hoist the legislation, we should delay consideration of the

budget until the government has had an opportunity to consult with the

people of the province because of the reputation of this province

throughout Canada and around the world. This place used to be called

Super Natural B.C. As I pointed out, the editorials are now calling it

Brutish Columbia because of the jackboot nature of the government we

have in office here. The Toronto Globe and Mail for 21 July,

1983, says:

"In effect the government of British Columbia has

declared open season for bigots, unjust landlords and exploiting

employers. In their moral universe" — they are taking about the moral

universe, of course, of the Social Credit Party and its government —

"tenants exist at the pleasure of landlords, employees at that of the

employer. In their imaginations tenants never pay the rent on time,

employees goldbrick, and things are going to change. In the near future

the self-described Eden of Canada is not going to be a very pleasant

place to live if you are unfortunate enough to be one of those

targeted."

Super Natural B.C., Mr. Speaker, or Brutish

Columbia? Domed stadium

or not, Vancouver may yet realize its true ambition and become the Hong

Kong of Canada.

An editorial from the Toronto Star , recently reprinted in

the Times-Colonist

here in Victoria, says:

"All of Canada is diminished when the level of

compassion and caring falls below acceptable levels in any of its

parts. That is why the brutal measures in the B.C. budget, even though

they fall entirely within areas of provincial jurisdiction, are cause

for chagrin for all Canadians.

"Different provinces will naturally have different

programs and policies, but there are certain thresholds of civility,

decency and compassion for the most vulnerable, below which none of our

governments should fall. The newly re-elected Social Credit government

of Bill Bennett is busily smashing through those thresholds with a

package of harshly retrograde measures that will cause real human

hardship.

"Bennett is striking directly at the protection of

low- and middle-income British Columbians. It is the relatively weak in

society, those lacking in wealth and personal influence, who most

likely rely on the assistance of such institutions. Bennett proposes to

leave them more vulnerable. A similar edge of brutality characterizes

his approach to reducing the size of the provincial civil service. It

is highly desirable for any government to trim out any fat it finds in

its bureaucracy, but Bennett intends, instead, to hack at it with a

chainsaw.

"It is hard to see how Bennett can attain those

reductions without cutting back sharply on government services. Given

the overall tilt his government is demonstrating, there is every reason

to fear that the hardest-hit services will be those that benefit the

neediest. Moreover, at a time when some 185,000 British Columbians are

already unemployed, to contemplate adding thousands of government

workers to the ranks of the jobless is in itself

an act of cruelty. It

is a nasty business made all the worse by the fact that in his recent

election campaign Bennett gave the voter little inkling of the extreme

to which he has now gone. In any event, with only 50.1 percent of the

popular vote, he can hardly claim overwhelming public support for a

right-wing rampage that affronts Canadian traditions of social

compassion and embarrasses us all."

Mr. Speaker, I don't expect the government to listen to this type