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 )

TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

839 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3). Second reading

On the amendment

Mr. Barrett –– 839

TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1983

The House met at 10:19 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to commencing our activities

for the day I must offer an apology to all members for what took place

this morning. We'll have another chance Thursday morning at the same

time, at which time I hope the equipment will have been checked out

more satisfactorily.

Hon. members, yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) answered a question taken on notice. A point of order was made that

a report must be tabled in the House. At the time no citation of a document

had been noted, but I reserved decision in order to check Hansard . The Hansard

transcript reads in part: "I have now received a response from the superintendent

of brokers. I am advised that investigators from the superintendent of brokers'

office examined the trading in Sunmask Petroleum Corp. shares on the Vancouver

Stock Exchange for a period beginning May 15, 1983, through to July 19, 1983

–– I am further advised that the trading is consistent with activities

of the company as reflected…."

The rule relating to tabling of documents is found on page 460 of the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice :

"A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote

from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared

to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to the rules of evidence

in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not

been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been

contested, and when the objection has been made in time it has been generally

acquiesced in. It has also been admitted that a document which has been cited

ought to be laid upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury

to the public interest. A minister who summarizes a correspondence but does

not actually quote from it is not bound to lay it upon the table."

The minister did not quote from nor cite any document, and accordingly the Chair cannot compel the tabling of any document.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 31.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, an indication was given that we would

deal first this morning with resumed debate on Bill 3. I would submit that the

government, by moving in another direction, is moving contrary to an understanding

and agreement which existed. Secondly, standing order 32 says: "If at the

time of the adjournment of the House a motion…be under consideration, that

question shall stand first on the orders of the day for the next sitting…."

The question under debate at adjournment yesterday was Bill 3 and a motion for

a six-month hoist thereon, and that is the item that must be called, I submit

to Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: On the first point, as members can appreciate,

the Chair cannot be a party to any undertakings made outside the

chamber; the Chair cannot rule on something of which it has no

knowledge. On the second point….

The government House Leader wishes to make a submission?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I've just had a chat with

the Whip and there was an understanding. I'm very happy to call

adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, while that may be the case, we do

have a point of order. I would submit that standing order 27 takes

precedence over the reference made by the hon. member.

Now we go to adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: I'm pleased to be able to resume my briefly

interrupted place in this debate. To remind members of the House of

exactly what we're dealing with, what we have before us is a bill that,

should it pass, would enable dictatorial powers to be given to the

government in a way that would be unique in the British Commonwealth.

We are dealing with legislation that would allow this government by

whim and Star Chamber practice to interfere directly with the

management of municipalities, of elected officials at the municipal

level; that would allow them to take unto themselves central control

and power of the personnel practices of municipalities and school

boards. In effect, this government is asking for abolition of the right

of democratically elected municipal officials to administer their own

hiring and firing and supervise their employees. This is manifest

through one particular

section which I was referring to yesterday and

which I may have misquoted because I was unable to use my glasses

yesterday. Now that I have glasses I must go back over the whole debate

of yesterday to ensure that the accuracy of Hansard is recorded.

I refer.... Oh, yes, there's a bill here. Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: From No-Name Optical. I only had to wait in line

for an hour and a half at the thrift shop for these. They're discards.

They must be from a Socred; they're unbalanced.

Mr. Speaker, I quote from this particular

section that I'm referring

to: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations that he

considers necessary or advisable to achieve uniformity and fairness of

compensation of senior managers who are employed by public sector

employers, and to control and limit or reduce that compensation, and

without limiting the generality of this, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations to…." I will skip (

a) and

[ Page 840 ]

(

b) but I will refer to (c). This clause that I'm

going to read has no comparison anywhere else in the free world, in the

British Commonwealth or in parliamentary democracies. As I said

yesterday, only a government of the extreme left or the extreme right

or extreme crazies would come in with legislation like this — take your

pick. Out of the three you can have two that are compatible in any

given permutation — extreme right, extreme left or extreme crazies.

That's where this government is heading, Mr. Speaker, if this

section

passes.

The government could "require public sector employers to supply to a

minister information and records respecting the duties, compensation,

them, notwithstanding any enactment respecting confidentiality or any

contract." What that means is that any police chief, any police

superintendent, any fire chief, any fire superintendent, any senior

medical practitioner at the municipal level, any town planner, any

person in authority who makes decisions related to anything to do with

government members on a personal basis, or in general terms, is subject

to review at the whim of a cabinet minister. What it means is that any

cabinet minister — if this passes — could call up the file of any fire

chief who may be inspecting a building owned by a politician, and that

building may have irregularities in terms of fire safety, and that

politician may be able to call up that fire chief's file and put it on

his desk and call in the fire chief and say: "I've got your file on my

desk. Let's talk about it."

The other illustration, Mr. Speaker, is a police chief or a police

superintendent. I made the point yesterday that it is the tragic and

unfortunate history of this province to have the very bad record of

being the only jurisdiction in the whole British Commonwealth where a

cabinet minister went to jail convicted of fraud. It's an unfortunate

fact. But it's true that under the Social Credit administration they

had a cabinet minister who went to jail, convicted of fraud while he

was a sitting cabinet minister. It never happened anywhere else in the

whole Commonwealth. During that period of time, the Attorney-General

sat over there and shielded that cabinet minister for 707 days by not

releasing the police report.

Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that sitting on the cabinet benches....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Your last hurrah.

[10:30]

MR. BARRETT: It may be my last hurrah, Mr. Speaker. I don't

mind leaving this chamber on a basis of defeat. I'd rather leave on the

basis of defeat than on the basis of cheat, I'll tell you that. If I'm

to leave this chamber, it's a question of everybody eventually leaving

here, either by death or defeat. This chamber doesn't even recognize

individuals, Mr. Speaker, as you know; it is only the legislative

representation for a geographical area that embodies the citizens of

this province. Yes, I've been defeated. But my principles remain the

same. And no one of my group has ever been convicted, while being a

cabinet minister, of fraud or cheating. And if the minister finds it

uncomfortable to have this remembered, remember that I am asking that

this legislation be hoisted simply because this particular

section

would allow interference with police work by cabinet ministers, and

that is unprecedented.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true, not true.

MR. BARRETT: "Not true, not true," says the Provincial

Secretary. Well, you tell me, Mr. Provincial Secretary, just what

business it is of yours or any other cabinet minister to have on your

desk, at call, the personnel file of any police chief or any police

superintendent for your review under this

section which I demand should

be hoisted. It says clearly in the legislation that you don't need to

respect confidentiality — there is the word right there in the

section

— and any contract they may have with that superintendent can be pushed

aside too.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge that minister to tell us what other

jurisdiction in Canada, or for that matter the whole British

Commonwealth, would allow interference by a cabinet minister in the

work of police in a free society. Yesterday I gave a comparison of this

with legislation in Nazi Germany. There has been no other evidence in

recent history other than in totalitarian states where cabinet

ministers would be allowed to directly call up on the desk of any

minister the file of a police official, or a fire official, or a

medical official. If the minister says it is not true, then tell me and

the people of this province why this

section is in here, I will read it

again.

MR. HANSON: Take it out of the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Take it out of the bill if he doesn't believe it is true. Here is the

section that we are dealing with.

MR. REID: Put it to a vote.

MR. BARRETT: Put it to a vote! Mr. Speaker, the blind

majority does not have the right to take away the due process of law.

Hitler won a majority in his legislature, and look what he did. This

whole business starts the same way.

MR. KEMPF: Majority rule.

MR. BARRETT: Majority rule, eh? What about the court system

being independent? Why should police have to report to cabinet

ministers? Tell me that. Is that democracy? That is fascism or

communism or crazy; take your pick.

Mr. Speaker, here is the

section that the minister says doesn't

exist: "…require public sector employers to supply to a minister

information and records respecting the duties, compensation, terms and

conditions of employment of senior managers employed by them,

notwithstanding any enactment respecting confidentiality, or any

contract." That means that regardless of the contract that a

municipality may have with its police chief….

AN HON. MEMBER: Financial curbs alone.

MR. BARRETT: Then why isn't that spelled out in the act? Why

is there a denial of confidentiality? Why is it necessary for every

cabinet minister to have this authority?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, we hear this mindless excuse for the lack of

democracy. Mussolini made the trains run on time, you know. A

dictatorship can be more efficient, if we do away with all government.

I've been reading that the government complains that it costs $2

million a day to run this place — or $80,000, whatever it is. If we

only did away with this chamber, we could save money. Democracy is so

encumbering. It

[ Page

841 ]

costs money to run a democracy. Why have courts?

Why not make the rulings right out of the cabinet bench? I'm giving

that member, who's brand-new here and shiny — all polished buttons and

ambitious to get into cabinet — some longer history of this chamber by

reminding....

HON. MR. CHABOT: In your old riding.

MR. BARRETT: He's a pleasant fellow. I've got more hair than he has and I'm older. He's got more worries, obviously.

MR. PARKS: He's got a better waistline too.

MR. BARRETT: I thought it was measured from the neck up in our business.

Anyway, I reminded this chamber that that government represents the party....

MR. MOWAT: The people.

MR. BARRETT: The people, huh? The only cabinet minister ever convicted while sitting representing the Crown. The recent history….

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind the interruptions, but I would expect some of these members to get up and defend.

MR. PARKS: Are you going to defer?

Mr. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal more to say, and will get to it if those members remain silent for a little while.

MR. PARKS: Just defer, and I will speak.

MR. BARRETT: Sitting across this chamber this very day is a

case in point of the kind of police interference that has been a record

by this government.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You're sounding like a broken record.

MR. BARRETT: When it comes to a record, Madam Member, that

government has a very bad record, and this legislation is an attempt to

keep it from the police.

When the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) was a

candidate and first elected, allegations were made against him

involving criminal activities. A report was prepared by the police. The

Crown prosecutor, who was not interfered with by the government,

recommended prosecution against that member. The Crown prosecutor's

advice was blocked by the Attorney-General, and when that member was a

back-bencher he got up and said: "Thank God for the Attorney-General.

He saved me." Now he sits on the government benches. I'm speaking of

factual records. The Crown prosecutor recommended that charges be

brought against him, but he was defended by direct political

interference, and that again is an example of this government using

power to block the work of the police.

Not satisfied, after having that record over there, they are now

attempting to amend the public sector regulations to allow any cabinet

minister to call any police chief's file right up on his desk. There

were some ads in the newspaper related to this bill and the desire to

hoist it — unprecedented ads placed by the federation of B.C. police

officers. Does anyone in this chamber ever recall policemen placing ads

in newspapers against legislation that was being introduced in the

House? I don't recall it. Does anyone know of any other jurisdiction

where police have actually placed ads in newspapers warning the people

about political interference in them doing their duties? I don't recall

it. All across this whole nation there has never been a situation where

policemen have publicly bought newspaper ads warning of the

interference in their work if this legislation should pass.

If it were just me interpreting that way, I could understand the

anxiety of the back-benchers, but when the police themselves buy

newspaper ads and point out the dangers of this legislation, then I ask

this government why they want this power. Why is it necessary for every

single cabinet minister to have the power that I'm suggesting should be

hoisted?

This morning's newspaper has a very interesting headline. The

respected Roman Catholic bishop of the city of Victoria was commenting

on this legislation. I'd like to read some of his comments. Not only is

it unusual for the police to comment on legislation, but we also have

religious community leaders making comments.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I bring this newspaper to your attention. Here is a picture of

the Roman Catholic bishop of this city, Bishop Remi de Roo. The headline says:

"Restraints Program Evil — de Roo." I don't need my glasses for

the headline. The

article goes on to quote this esteemed religious leader as

saying the following: "'I am sure the government never set out to

create an evil program,' de Roo said in an interview. 'But they don't

realize their narrow, conservative approach is now obsolete in the light of

economic history There is a disorder built into the structure of the government's

program that is evil.'" This is the Roman Catholic bishop of the city

of Victoria saying this. I repeat: "There is a disorder built into the

structure of the government's program that is evil." I agree. A part

of the evil being built into this system is the sweeping power being taken by

this government to take control of all senior public officials, which would

leave their employment in jeopardy should the government decide to put on some

pressure — policemen, firemen, medical practitioners or others.

This legislation was introduced six weeks ago. There has not been

one public explanation by the Premier, by the minister responsible or

by any cabinet minister as to why they want these powers in this

legislation. If this bill is innocuous and if this bill is not

threatening to destabilize society, why hasn't the government said:

"This is the reason we want this power"? Why haven't cabinet ministers

said it?

There have been a few glimpses of differences of opinion. For example, one

adjunct of this is the question of tenure and freedom of speech and of activity

by university faculties. A time-honoured practice in western democracies is

tenure at universities, so that university faculties will not be subject to

political interference, along with the police and others. When asked in the

corridor about the impact of this bill on those

[ Page 842 ]

freedoms, the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said, "Oh, no, it would have no impact

on tenure at all," and the minister responsible for the bill said

publicly: "Oh, yes, it will; tenure will no longer be guaranteed."

We have had very few comments publicly about the details of how this

bill is to be applied and how it works. But the few comments we have

had have been absolutely contradictory. It leads people in the

community to ask the question of who's telling the truth. Both

ministers cannot be telling the truth. It is a violation....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this point I'll remind the hon. member

that we can sometimes have conflicting opinions in the House, but he

cannot impute any dishonourable or untruthful motive to another member.

I'm sure the member speaking is well aware of that ruling.

[10:45]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a conflicting opinion is

acceptable, but can it be acceptable on this legislation? How do you

interpret a conflicting opinion? One minister says yes, it does take

away tenure, and another minister says no, it doesn't. Where does the

the truth conflict with falsehood?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll explain it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you can't even explain it in the

corridor. Explain it to the satisfaction of that minister. You seem to

be having some difficulty explaining it to your cabinet colleague.

Who's tougher in that cabinet? Who's got more control, you or him? I

know, Mr. Member, that you're a secondary cabinet minister. He's got

more clout; he used to be a Liberal. You only belonged to one party. He

belonged to two parties. He's got twice as much power as you have.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I like your logic.

MR. BARRETT: I like their logic of how they became Social

Crediters. They shedded their principles like they shed their coats.

The more political parties you belong to before you jump into bed with

that bunch of opportunities, the more power you have. How could you

have as much power as the minister? He belonged to two parties; you

only belonged to one. You're half-principled; he's none.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please, we are starting to impute dishonourable motives to other members, and that cannot be allowed. To the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, by their own definition nothing is

dishonourable in politics. If I just give the history of how these

fellows became Socreds, what's wrong with that? It's the truth. The

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications was an active

Liberal who sat in this House. He wrote a book attacking the Socreds.

MS. BROWN: Didn't he lead the party at one time?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he tried to be the leader of the Liberal Party. Then

he saw the light. It was shining on that side of the House, and he scurried

over there and became a Socred. There's one of them down there — a three-day

Socred, after being a Tory MP. There he is; he raised his hand. He's voiceless,

but he knows how to blow for power.

MR. BARNES: Where's he from?

MR. BARRETT: He's from West Vancouver. He's a new convert to

Social Creditism. I can see that resemblance to Major Douglas in his

handwriting: "A plus B gets me where I want to go."

MR. BARNES: "Where I want to be."

MR. BARRETT: You got it.

But the point that I'm coming to — that I should arrive at in about

three days — is this whole question of the dispute between the Minister

of Science and the second-level minister, the Provincial Secretary.

Who's the boss? You're right, Mr. Speaker. There can be a conflict, and

it doesn't necessarily mean that either of them is fibbing, so I phrase

the question this way. Since a cabinet minister cannot be fibbing,

which one is telling the truth? That's not acceptable? Okay, I withdraw

that. But we have a conundrum here, Mr. Speaker, and it's something the

rules of this House are going to have to deal with. That minister says

that the legislation takes away tenure from university faculty. The

other minister says that it doesn't. They've got to be taken out into

the corridor and spanked by the Speaker because they're giving this

House a serious problem in the question of which one of them is

accurate. We can't have it both ways. My argument was that the minister

responsible for this bill doesn't know.

But I will continue reading these quotes from the Roman Catholic

bishop the city of Victoria. He says here: "There is a disorder built

into the structure of the government's program that is evil. And the

evil lies in the fact of people being hurt." He said, "The legislation

favours the rich and powerful" — i.e., the powerful being now the

cabinet ministers, under this

section — "and evades the government's

responsibility to the common well-being of society."

He goes on to say: The religious community "feels it is within its

role to call attention to the crisis that is happening in the province

with its devastating effects, and to call for a dialogue." Here is a

religious-community leader saying that this legislation has created a

crisis in the community, and where is the cabinet? Well, lord knows.

Here is a bill that will destroy inherited freedoms that we have taken

for granted for generations, and where's the cabinet? They leave one

minister here to carry the can, the only true Socred left in the whole

bunch. He's got to carry the can for that gang. You know something? I

don't even feel sorry for him, because he hasn't even read the bill to

understand the evil that the Roman Catholic bishop is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat: why do you want this power to supervise police directly,

in the cabinet? Why do you want the power of every cabinet minister to be able

to call police personnel files to the cabinet desk? In light of the ads placed

in the newspaper by the police themselves, perhaps even the media are unaware

of this section. They have been focusing on the other

section of dismissal without

cause. This

section here is more insidious, more dangerous, more socially disrupting,

and if I may quote the Catholic bishop: "There is a disorder built into

the structure of the government's program that is evil." The evil in

this

section lies in the fact that any cabinet minister can call up a police

superintendent's file, have it put on his desk, and then begin to deal with

matters

[ Page 843 ]

that are respected by confidentiality or by

contract. It can break contracts and break confidentiality. If you were

a police inspector, and you were checking up on a politician, and you

knew that the politician could call your file, and you knew that you

could lose your job, would you check out that politician?

MS. BROWN: No.

MR. BARRETT: Well, the police themselves have put an ad in the newspaper saying that it would interfere with their work.

Have you talked to the police officials about this section? I ask

the Provincial Secretary. Have you met with the police chiefs'

association about this bill?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: He hasn't even met with the chiefs of police on this bill; maybe he has on other matters that I'm unaware of.

MR. PARKS: It's innocuous.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, Lord save us from such ingénue innocence. Do you trust politicians?

MR. PARKS: Of course I do.

MR. BARRETT: Which ones?

MR. PARKS: Socreds.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Do you trust Liberals? Do you trust Tories? Do you trust socialists?

MR. PARKS: I even trust some socialists.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm a socialist whom you trust, and

I tell you that I would never allow any politician of any stripe to

have this kind of sweeping power. It is a threat to democracy beyond

every other political power.

The trust of human behaviour gets stretched all the time. British

common law has been the foundation of a decent, civilized, predictable

society that should not be disrupted, and when the warning is that

British common law and the traditions of a decent civilized

infrastructure in our society are threatened, and when a Roman Catholic

bishop says publicly, and I quote, "There is a disorder built into the

structure of the government's program that is evil," surely to

goodness, beyond partisan politics, the government should be willing to

take a second look and support this hoist.

What is the urgency to get this legislation through? What harm would

it do to give it a six-month hoist and let the people of British

Columbia examine the legislation through a legislative committee? As

you know, legislative committees are dominated by government members by

a two-to-one vote — six to three. If you're so proud of this

legislation, what's wrong with putting it in a committee and travelling

around the province? Let the citizens who pay the bills....

MR. PARKS: The citizens don't want to waste money.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, do the citizens know about the waste of

money? I suspect that the citizens who pay the bills noticed a couple

of days ago in the paper about the issuing of $100 million worth of

five-year bonds as this government goes further into debt on northeast

coal. If you want to talk about citizens knowing about the wasting of

money, let's talk about the expenses of cabinet ministers which have

gone up by 84 percent in four years. If you want to talk about wastage

of money, explain to us what happened to the $5.5 million that's gone

through McKim agency, which you refuse to call the police on. When it

comes to handling money, there is a record by this government that

brings shame upon every citizen of this province.

And even if part of that argument were valid, democracy has no

price. No politician, regardless of what political party, knows what is

best for the people. The people will make their own mistakes, and their

own good choices. You trust people in a democracy. One of the basic

faults of that political coalition over there is that it does not trust

the citizens of its own jurisdiction; as a matter of fact, it even

hates people.

MR. PARKS: How can you say that?

MR. BARRETT: Very easily. I know how strong the word is. Look at the atmosphere that exists in this province today.

MR. PARKS: Thanks to you.

MR. BARRETT: Thanks to me. Oh, I have the ability to mobilize

the Roman Catholic Church against this government? Are you suggesting,

sir, that I mobilized the religious community to make these statements?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll call the members to order. Please, don't interrupt. And the member now speaking will relate his remarks to the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will relate my remarks specifically to the hoist motion so that I may remain in order.

MR. PARKS: When did Remi de Roo leave your office last?

MR. BARRETT: There's a good question, Are you suggesting that

the Roman Catholic bishop is taking instruction from a member of this

chamber? Mr. Member, what do you mean by that statement?

MR. PARKS: You're the one who suggested it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there's the paranoia that I spoke

about yesterday. Now they're even attacking the leaders of the

religious community as being politically motivated. It's pretty obvious

where their heads are coming from.

I repeat: what reason is there for the cabinet to have the power to

call up the files of police chiefs or of anyone working in that area?

MR. PARKS: Financial information.

[ Page 844 ]

MR. BARRETT: The financial information is public information

available to any citizen. When it comes to Crown corporations, cabinet

ministers sit on the boards of Crown corporations and help make those

decisions. There isn't a Crown corporation that doesn't have a cabinet

minister sitting on the board. Furthermore, if they don't know what the

compensation is, then they're derelict in their duties as cabinet

ministers. We've even had the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) put

himself on boards directly in this chamber. There's a member over there

who sits on the transit board, he knows what the salaries are. If he

doesn't, he should be fired.

What do you need this legislation for? It's nothing other than a

move to the closeness of a police state, where you want to interfere

directly with the decisions made because of the record of that

government. You don't need this sweeping power. If you simply want

information on what people are getting paid, ask those cabinet

ministers who get paid to sit on the boards to tell you. Don't they

show up at meetings? Don't you know how government is run? Somebody

should take you in the caucus and spank you a little bit and tell you

what the responsibilities are. If you've got an ambition to be a

cabinet minister you should know that part of the responsibility of a

cabinet minister is to have that information at his fingertips as he

goes to board meetings.

Big Brother and one Big Sister in that cabinet, Mr. Speaker, are out

to see the kind of control that only a paranoid group would want. What

do you need this power for? Extreme left, extreme right or extreme

crazy. What business is it of yours to see the confidential files of

police chiefs? What business is it of yours that you have to draw up

legislation that does away with confidentiality or respect of contracts?

[11:00]

MR. PARKS: Just the financial implications.

MR. BARRETT: Why are the words "confidential" and "contracts"

in here? Mr. Speaker, it is simply a grab for threatening power by a

frightened government.

MR. PARKS: Nonsense, you fearmonger.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, remove this section. If a socialist

government had been elected and you were in opposition and this bill

was brought in, who would be up screaming the loudest? Those members

themselves. You go back and read the allegations made against us when

we were in government and brought in the land bill: legislation that is

still on the books and unamended.

MR. PARKS: That was different.

MR. BARRETT: Different, my friend? If it was different, why

is the legislation still there and unamended? If all those things they

said against us were true, why is the legislation unamended? Simply

because it was a matter, obviously, of partisan decisions. If the

socialists brought in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, they would be the

first on their feet attacking sweeping powers taken by the government.

MR. PARKS: That's good government.

MR. BARRETT: It's not good government; it is fascism and it stinks,

Mr. Speaker. Mussolini made the trains run on time and he said it was good government.

Hitler did away with the Reichstag and he said it was good government. Democracy

always has a price, but nowhere else in the whole Commonwealth is there legislation

like this. Nowhere else in the western democracies is there legislation like

this. What makes Social Credit so unique that it wants to take away the freedoms

and justice that we've enjoyed in every other place in the British Commonwealth

and in every other parliamentary system? What makes you think that you've

got some kind of right to take away what other people have fought for over these

last 600 years of parliamentary democracy? Not one other jurisdiction anywhere

in the British Commonwealth has legislation like this.

No other jurisdiction would provoke a Catholic bishop to say what he

said: "There is a disorder built into the structure of the government's

program that is evil." He's a gentle person. He goes on to say that he

doesn't think that the government members are evil — he's very

charitable — but he says the legislation is evil, and I agree with him.

I don't know if my charity can extend itself as far as his, but I'm

willing to give it a try, and the way to test my charity is to hoist

this legislation for six months.

MR. REID: Put it to a vote. That'll test it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Roman Catholic bishop of the

community of Victoria goes on to make some other

interpretations of

this legislation that I think are worth repeating from this morning's

newspaper.

"Bishop de Roo said the Socreds justify some of their measures

by claiming that government should not intervene in the private sector. 'But

they don't hesitate to intervene in the private sector with all kinds of

subsidies and tax rebates to big business when it suits their political purpose.

They don't hesitate, because they have aligned themselves clearly with the

powerful and rich. They hope, in the name of some obsolete theory, that by letting

the powerful and rich get more powerful and richer, it will trickle down to

the poor....'"

That is part of the program. One way of keeping the structures in

line so they can favour the powerful is to ensure that they are

protected from police scrutiny. Here's a method of protecting the

powerful from police scrutiny.

What is to prevent a lobbyist coming in to see the government — such

as we have witnessed in the past, when there was land to be removed

from the agricultural land reserve and a minister of the Crown showed

up at the Environment and Land Use Committee hearing and, unknown to

the minister, the hearing was being recorded.... There is a transcript

from the hearing, and we discovered that a minister of the Crown

actually went in to a committee meeting and attempted to influence the

committee to have land withdrawn from the agricultural land reserve and

rezoned so that a massive profit could be made. That is a matter of

record. The minister still sits in this chamber. The words of the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) are there in the transcript.

He tried to influence the committee to the benefit of a constituent.

Now suppose the police wished to investigate whether or not there

was any connection in that influence. In the past the police could move

in directly, unless they were blocked by the Attorney-General, as they

are presently being blocked on

[ Page 845 ]

the McKim Advertising scandal. That is a different

matter, but they could be blocked. Suppose the police moved in on that

particular instance, and this

section were in force. That minister

could call the police superintendent's file, call in the police

superintendent and say: "I see you have three or four years to go

before retirement." "That's right." "You have a very good record here,

Mr. Police Superintendent." "That's right." "We wouldn't want that

record marred, would we?" "That's right." "There is a little too much

heat going on in an investigation over there." "Oh." "Perhaps the

police officers are being too zealous in examining this case." "Oh."

A message is a message, and this particular amendment means that

interference messages can be given to the police by any single cabinet

minister on any single issue. Is that what you want? That is what you

are asking for. That is why we are opposed to it, and as long as we are

here we will clearly say that the police should never be interfered

with in the investigation of any citizens, including politicians. When

the police perceive legislation to be an impediment to their

investigations.... In this jurisdiction the police took the

unprecedented steps of buying an ad in the newspapers. You remember

that ad. It was just run in the paper two weeks ago by the federation

of police officers in the province of British Columbia, who clearly

stated in that ad that if this legislation passed, they would consider

their work was being interfered with by politicians because their job

security would be subtly threatened by this legislation.

That ad, Mr. Speaker, was referring to an earlier clause in this

bill. They had not yet addressed themselves to an even more evil

clause, if I may borrow the word of the respected Catholic Bishop of

Victoria — an even more evil clause, along with the bill that I am

requesting be hoisted. That clause says: "…require public sector

employers to supply to a minister information and records respecting

managers employed by them, notwithstanding any enactment respecting

confidentiality, or any contract…." What that means is that any cabinet

minister can call up the mayor of Vancouver or the mayor of Port Moody

or the mayor of Esquimalt and, under this legislation, order that mayor

to deliver to that cabinet ministers office the file of any police

supervisor employed by any municipality in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Why don't you do it with the RCMP? You have a

financial contract with them. If that is the only argument, why isn't

it done with the RCMP? You contract RCMP services from the federal

government. Why didn't you include the RCMP in here? Every time those

members open their mouths they expose more and more the real purpose of

this amendment. The only reason the RCMP isn't put in here is that this

government would run up against the federal government, regardless of

whether they were Tories or Liberals, who would brook no interference

with the administration of the RCMP when it comes to checking up on

politicians. They have left the RCMP out of this, even though they have

a contract and they pay for the RCMP service. If it is as that member

says — that they just innocently want information on finances — then

why isn't the RCMP included? No, it is selective, allowing direct

control over all branches of municipal services including the police.

Mr. Speaker, if you were a member of the government and you saw the odds-on

track record on how many of them had been in trouble with the police, you would

understand why this legislation.... But you are in the chair and you are

neutral. I am not, but I quote again from a neutral, and that is the Roman Catholic

bishop of this community. Mr. Speaker, he said: "The climate of anger is

really growing; it's getting worse. It doesn't look good. I speak to

so many people who are demoralized and angry. We may not feel too much of it

now because we're going through the summer — it's a kind of quiet time

— but I expect that with the winter it's going to get pretty desperate."

Mr. Speaker, put that remark that the Roman Catholic bishop has made

this morning in context with the ad placed by the police. Do you feel

good about that ad? Do you feel right that the police have to go to the

newspapers and advertise against legislation? Are you suggesting, by

your silence, that the police are some kind of militant radical group

who are ready to spring a revolution on this government? Or are you

trying to interfere with their doing their job?

Mr. Speaker, the record indicates that interference with police work has been a pattern by the Socreds.

MR. PARKS: A pattern?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, it is a pattern. I say that

advisedly. You're new here, but I've sat through 20 years of the

pattern. There was a police investigation of a cabinet minister that

was covered up for 707 days by a former Attorney-General. That's the

first time that that happened anywhere in the whole British

Commonwealth. That cabinet minister then went to jail. There was a

police investigation of the member who now sits as the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). That was recent. That police

investigation of that member recommended prosecution on criminal

charges.

MR. PARKS: How many years apart was this?

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I'll give you a whole litany

of all of them I've sat through. I'm just bringing them together as a

pattern. If you want them, I'll go through the Gaglardi stuff, all of

it. I've sat through them all. I've sat through committee hearings. Mr.

Speaker, there's no other government that has a record of a pattern of

criminal activities in government.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, criminal. One of them went to jail for five

years. That member was under investigation by the police. The Crown

prosecutor recommended that that member be charged.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The Crown prosecutor did that. You're a lawyer.

The Crown prosecutor recommended that he be charged, and he stood up

and said: "Thank God for the Attorney-General. He saved me." Now if

that isn't a pattern of interference, I don't know what is. Why would

the Attorney-General have to save him? Now, currently, every day in

question period, we are addressing the fact that the auditor-general's

report has indicated that $5.5 million has gone

[ Page 846 ]

missing, unaccounted for, or inexplicably,

inadequately accounted for, in the hands of an advertising agency.

We've asked that the police be called in. It has been 28 days since the

auditor's report has been tabled, and still the present

Attorney-General is blocking the police from coming in. Perhaps he's

waiting for this amendment to come through so they can have the subtle

influence they want over the police forces before the investigation

takes place.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'm trying to interfere with the administration

of criminal justice? Mr. Speaker, I've never blocked the Mounties from

checking up on a politician. I've never been an Attorney-General who

stalled for 707 days and then finally a cabinet minister went to jail

for five years. I've never had one of my members stand up and say:

"Thank God for the Attorney-General. Now I won't be prosecuted." I'll

tell you, Mr. Speaker, the interference has come from one party, and

one party only, consistently as a pattern, and it's Social Credit. Now

they're going for more grab of power here today. Mr. Speaker, that

member should go into the library and read some history as well as

being a current member, because he will be asked to vote on this

legislation in light of the history of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, who was protected from the Crown prosecutor's recommendation

to prosecute. Now we have legislation that he appears to approve, as a

lawyer, that would give the right to cabinet ministers to call police

files directly to their desks.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't believe in it. I don't trust any

politician of any party to have this kind of power. I believe in the

courts, and the court system, and the police should be left with their

work uninterrupted by any politician in any guise, or any legislation.

It's as simple as that.

MR. PARKS: How pathetic.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, they say it's pathetic. Can they

explain to the people of British Columbia what moved the police

federation of this province — for the first time in history — to buy an

ad in the newspapers and say that under this legislation they felt

impaired and threatened by politicians because they felt that

investigations could not be carried out successfully with this kind of

legislation hanging over their heads? Do you know any other

jurisdictions where the police have put ads in the newspapers saying

that the process of justice will be interfered with? That is their

opinion, sir, not mine. That is not the meanderings of a politician

here in this chamber. That is not the subject of debate between you and

me. It is a matter of an opinion expressed in an unprecedented

advertisement in the newspapers by the police themselves, saying the

very thing that I'm saying here.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Is he suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that all the

police are NDP voters, or Liberal voters, or Conservative voters, and

that they're not Socreds? Is that the basis on which you make

legislation, allegiance to a political party?

That party has no allegiance history of its own, and that could hardly be an argument in itself.

It is obvious that this government, because of its own record with

the police forces of having people convicted of criminal action, is

attempting to deliberately lay down a smokescreen of fear and paranoia

over the delivery of police services in this province.

MR. PARKS: A fearmonger, that's all you are.

MR. BARRETT: That member is blinded by his own repetition. If

I were just saying, sir, that it is a fear that I have, your argument

could be valid. But can you explain to me, has one cabinet minister

stood up and said why they need this power? Is it not a fact that that

member sitting over there was protected from prosecution by the

Attorney-General, by his own admission? The Crown prosecutor said that

that member should be charged with criminal charges.

Mr. Speaker, that happened just within the last few years. That member stood

up and said: "Thank God the Attorney-General's protected me."

If I were not reciting facts, I'd be thrown out of here. Is it not true,

as a matter of record, that that member was under police investigation? There

was a recommendation that he be prosecuted, and there was police interference

by the Attorney-General, who said he would not go ahead with the prosecution,

and that member said: "Thank you, thank you for the Attorney-General."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Come on outside and say it.

MR. BARRETT: Outside and repeat it? I certainly will go

outside and repeat it. I will certainly go outside and repeat exactly

what you said. Yes, I will, at noon, as soon as the House adjourns. You

be present when I repeat it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Outside right now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Outside right now? Sure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll call the hon. minister to order, and I

must advise the hon. member now speaking that he cannot impute any

dishonourable motive to another hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: No question about it, Mr. Speaker. Is it not

true that the Crown prosecutor recommended prosecution in that case? Is

that not true? It's true.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've

listened enough, and I want to take this opportunity to invite that

member out into the corridor to make that accusation.

[ Page

847 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Order, please.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the hon. Leader of the

Opposition has stated that he is not imputing any dishonourable motive

to another member. However, he would be far more in order if he would

relate his remarks to the amendment before us now. I would advise all

members to do that.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: In an argument to have this bill hoisted, I have

recited to this House the fact that there was a police investigation of

that minister when he was a private member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: There was. I'm not making an accusation; I'm

stating a fact. The Chair has correctly reflected that I'm not making

an accusation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the member could relate it to the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm relating it to the bill, and

the fact is that this

section will give cabinet ministers the right to

call police files to their desks. I'm giving an instance of how that

right could be interpreted as being interference with the normal

process.

I'll repeat this publicly, because it is public knowledge. When that

member was an MLA there was a police investigation. That is a

public-knowledge fact. The recommendation was prosecution, and that is

public knowledge. That member said he was protected by the

Attorney-General, and that is public knowledge. I'll repeat that

anywhere in British Columbia. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what we're

dealing with.

If I were making an accusation, there are rules of this House that

would prevent me from saying what I'm saying. If I were making an

allegation, there would be rules in this House to prevent me from doing

that. But I'm not making an allegation or an accusation; I'm stating a

series of facts that took place. That's the kind of police interference

that will take place with this legislation.

When I remind this chamber that a cabinet minister from those

benches went to jail for five years for fraud, that too is a fact. When

I remind this chamber that the Attorney-General of this province hid

that police report for 707 days, that's a matter of fact. When I stand

here and say that this is police interference, that will be a matter of

fact under this legislation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to

bring standing order 43 to your attention. It's about being tedious and

repetitious. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition repeating the

same comments time and again yesterday afternoon for over three hours.

He's been doing the same thing today. It's starting to become tedious

and repetitious, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want to hear the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The point of order is well

taken. Standing order 43 should be commended to all members. We cannot

be tedious or repetitious. If the member now speaking could relate his

remarks directly to the amendment before us — the amendment to hoist —

then perhaps we could maintain parliamentary debate.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your direction.

What we are debating here is a motion to lift this bill out of this

chamber for six months. We are debating a motion with a recommendation

that this legislation be taken from this chamber and put into a

committee to go around the province. Let the citizens of British

Columbia come to a legislative committee to add their input, criticisms

or support of this bill. There is no urgency for immediate passage.

That's why I've made my appeal on the motion to hoist. We're not even

on the main part of the bill, and I want to thank the Speaker for

reminding the House of that.

As for the repetition of my arguments, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely

essential in some instances to emphasize a point by restating it,

simply because at the present time there are only two cabinet ministers

out of 20 who are sitting here in this chamber. Maybe I'll have to say

it 20 times so I can impress upon each cabinet minister who will have

that authority. This bill is unique. This does not deal with the powers

of one cabinet minister; this will give every single cabinet minister

equal power to call police files, fire chiefs' files or anyone else's

files onto their desk. If this bill passes, any cabinet minister — and

only two out of 20 are here — will have the power to call up files,

breaking confidentiality and contracts according to the words right

here.

I ask the government if they know of any other jurisdiction in the

British Commonwealth where this kind of legislation has passed. They

don't cite another example. Is there another example of this kind of

interference with police in the western democracies in the free world?

MR. REID: That's why he's the leader.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Hitler gave leadership; Mussolini made the trains run on time. But I trust the people. This is totalitarian legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you intentionally misleading the House?

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker. That member asks if I'm

intentionally misleading the House. If I were, the Chair would call me

to order. Even in my recitation of history, when I reminded you that a

cabinet minister from those benches went to jail for five years and the

Attorney-General blocked the report for 707 days, I wasn't misleading

the House. I'm repeating history, and I'm in order in repeating

history. Do you know of any other jurisdiction where a cabinet minister

went to jail for fraud and bribery?

MR. PARKS: Let's get back to the bill.

MR. BARRETT: I'm dealing with the bill. If the police are

going to investigate a politician, would it not be worthwhile to be

reminded of the record of that group of politicians over there, which

is not exactly very clean.

I read again: "authorize a minister…."

[ Page 848 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now the member wants to talk about regulations

and

interpretation. I'm glad he suggested that. Another reason for the

hoist is that that minister promised seven days ago he would bring in

the

interpretations and regulations, and we still haven't seen them. It

was a headline story.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order....

MR. BARRETT: You can table them at noon.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: As a point of order do you want permission to

table documents that I can include in my speech? Ask the Chair for a

recess; ask for leave. I'll give you leave.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll table them if you'll shut up.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the wonderful thing about the

parliamentary system is that there are no personal animosities in this

whole exchange. The member just wants me to shut up so they can get

along with the business and ram this through the House so there'll be

no questions. Democracy is sometimes troublesome, I know. It is

troublesome for you people. Nonetheless, I've been elected as the loyal

opposition to represent Her Majesty. I'll tell you, I'm going to do my

duty no matter how much cat-calling or yahoo yelling I hear from the

back benches.

The fact is that this legislation is unprecedented anywhere in the

British Commonwealth. It is totalitarian. It is direct interference

with the police. We have no other such example in Alberta,

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario or in the Maritimes, nowhere in

Australia, nowhere in Great Britain; just here in little old British

Columbia. And you wonder why the Catholic bishop said what he did about

you in this morning's paper. Are you saying that the Catholic bishop is

wrong? Are you saying that when the Catholic bishop expresses his

opinion of the legislation, saying that there is disorder built into

the structure of the government's program that is evil, he is just

frittering away time in a democratic debate?

Mr. Speaker, do you take no notice of what prominent non-partisan people in the social structure of this province say?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: As soon as someone starts talking like a

Christian, they say they're partisan. I find that interesting. They're

all laughing and caterwauling down there. They're a good group down

there.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it's true that I'm leaving this chamber.

It's true that I'm a lame-duck. But as I've said many a time, I'd

rather be a lame-duck than a lame-brain. As long as I'm here….

Interjection.

[11:30]

MR. BARRETT: You can say all those bad things about me.

Through this thick skin of mine I hurt deep inside from those insults,

but I'll hide that hurt. I won't show the public that your slings and

arrows are really getting to me, as long as you begin to understand

that we in this chamber will not under any circumstances tolerate

fascist legislation on the people of British Columbia.

This

section will allow cabinet ministers to call for senior medical officers' files.

MR. PARKS: Only employers.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, only employers. Protect me, Mr. Speaker.

They can apply to any municipal council to have a public health

officer's file sent to them. They can apply to the municipality and

have the town planner's file sent to them. Supposing there's a group of

investors that have a piece of property they want to develop which

doesn't conform with existing zoning, and a planning officer says,

"Well, we can't allow this rezoning to take place," and then the

cabinet minister calls up that planning officer's file directly to the

cabinet. What do you need that interference for? The only reason that

such interference with senior administrative officials could possibly

be justified is that there is some other purpose to it other than

salaries. If you want salary information, all it takes is a letter or

for the ministers to do their duties on the boards on which they sit.

The ministers sit on the boards of Crown corporations. The ministers

are part and parcel of the administrative decision-making processes of

those Crown corporations. If you're saying by this legislation that the

ministers don't know what is going on at board meetings that they

attend and at which they represent the government, then the minister

should be removed, but you shouldn't change the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I know the government views this debate as a temporary

inconvenience. I know, by the attendance on the government benches,

that they're deeply involved in the urgency of my debate and want

nothing more than to have a gentle exchange of intelligent ideas. To

give them that opportunity, I am simply exercising my right unfettered,

in the best of all parliamentary decisions, to discuss delaying a bill

for six months. Perhaps it will take six months to make the argument;

it could be.

Nonetheless, what we are engaging in here today is a right that has

been fought for over hundreds of years. Whether there is one member of

the opposition or twenty, it is their role to scrutinize any government

legislation that attempts to take power beyond the norm. On most

occasions when we ask for a hoist of legislation there is generally a

fuzzy

interpretation around the necessity for that hoist, but in this

instance there is nothing fuzzy at all. The whole community out there

is aware that there are some threats to basic security and social

fabrics that we've been used to in this province, through a whole

package of legislation — 26 bills in all.

We're dealing with just one of those bills and it is this bill,

along with others, that has raised alarm throughout the community of

this province. Lawyers in this city have made a statement about it;

doctors have been concerned; teachers are commenting.

[ Page 849 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Not many? Even if there is one citizen, that

citizen should be heard. And when a leader of the religious community

says there's evil in this legislation, surely we should scrutinize it

to put at rest those arguments out in the community, which is deeply

concerned.

Mr. Speaker, do you recall any other occasion on debate of a bill

that we want hoisted for six months where a leader of a religious

community made a public statement that there is a disorder built into

the structure of the government's program that is evil? I don't recall

it. It's true that I'm finishing a short career of some 23 or 24 years

in this chamber, just one-fifth of the time this building has been open

— a very short history in this province. Yet I don't recall any other

legislation that has evoked that kind of reaction from religious

community leaders in the history of this province. Even at the height

of the debate about some of our labour legislation, under the W.A.C.

Bennett administration, I have never witnessed, nor can I recall, the

leadership of a major part of the religious community talking about the

government having an evil program.

If the government wishes to dismiss the blandishments or the

bleatings of an opposition group, I can understand that. If the

government wishes to dismiss individual members of the opposition, I

can understand that too. But the request for this hoist is made in an

atmosphere where the total community of British Columbia is upset about

what this government is doing.

I referred earlier to an example of that upset, which is the

unprecedented move taken by the policemen through their federation of

police officers in the province. They took out an ad in the newspaper

and said that if this bill passed it would be an interference with

their duty to investigate politicians. Politicians have a bad enough

name as it is. Why should we add to that bad name by letting the

community perceive — through this bill — that politicians will now have

the right, as written in

section 6 of this legislation, to call police

files up to a minister's desk? With all the talking that I've done, and

all the comments that I have yet to make on this legislation, the

simple question remains: why does the government want this power? What

would motivate any government to have the power to call up the files on

police chiefs, police superintendents, fire chiefs, fire

superintendents, principals of schools, health officers, town planners

and others unless there were some suspicion that they either weren't

doing their job, or were not malleable enough to political interference?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the bill.

MR. BARRETT: I've read the bill, and that frightens me even

more. Not only have I read the bill, in response to the question by the

minister — a member whom I enjoy on a personal relationship — but I

have witnessed the differences of opinion between the minister who

shepherds the bill through the House and the Minister of Universities

(Hon. Mr. McGeer). When two cabinet ministers are asked about the bill

— that minister included — they give conflicting answers. The Speaker

has earlier ruled that I cannot say that one of the ministers was

fibbing and I'm not going to say that. I am saying that ministers are

confused to the point that when the press asks them the question, "Do

university professors lose their tenure?" one minister says, "Yes they

do, " and another cabinet minister says, "No, they don't." It's not the

opposition who is raising confusion. It's obvious that cabinet

ministers' own

interpretation of this bill is in conflict.

I want to refer to the

section raised in a gentle manner by my good

friend the minister across this floor. Even though this is not a

committee meeting, it is important that we have this exchange. The

minister keeps on telling me to read the

section that refers to

compensation. I say to the minister: why do you need the last line:

"notwithstanding any enactment respecting confidentiality or any

contract"?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the whole section.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I've read the whole section, Mr. Minister.

After all these hours, Mr. Speaker, we've finally got them engaged in a

little debate about this section.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What information can you not get by letter — or through your own

colleagues who sit on Crown corporation boards — without this bill? Is

it not interesting that when a minister of the Crown sits on the board

of a Crown corporation, personnel decisions are already made there? If

you want the information from a Crown corporation, you don't need this

legislative authority. All you need to do is have the minister do his

duty and show up at a meeting. There's nothing to stop a minister of

the Crown, who is designated with the authority of the cabinet to go to

a Crown corporation meeting, to ask for this information — not that I

know of. So they certainly don't need this power for ministers and

Crown corporations. That eliminates a whole section.

Now we take the next step to municipal governments. This

section

would allow any cabinet minister to call the file of any municipal

police chief or superintendent, school principal, school

superintendent, town planner, zoning officer or senior administrative

official at the municipal level.

MS. SANFORD: Or agrologists.

MR. BARRETT: Agrologists as well. Thank you, Madam Member.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: They're doing more research for me, Mr. Member, and I want to thank them for all their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, this means that for the first time a democratically

elected body at the municipal level has its own authority stripped away

from it by a centralist cabinet that takes away the democratic

authority delegated to a municipality. It means that when you vote for

a mayor and a council, it doesn't really matter who you elect in this

regard — the supervisory role of calling the file of anybody at the

municipal level will now be delegated to the Big Brother and one Big

Sister cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Compensation? In a pig's eye! If you want the

compensation figure you can get it anytime you want. As a matter of

fact, most jobs that are posted....

AN HON. MEMBER: Untrue.

[ Page

850 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would never knowingly utter an

untruth in this chamber, as you have been witness to. Most of those

jobs posted tell exactly what the salary is when the job is open to the

public. The competition says what the salary is.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Do you mean to say that the government is trying

to tell us that people take jobs without even knowing what the salary

is? Don't be silly. Public information is public information. You

haven't taken that away yet. Are you planning on doing it as the next

step in this bill?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Twist, twist, twist. My dear friend, we have

been too long in this House together to suggest that that would be part

of our exchange, despite what some of the new members say. But you know

the minister has been given the unpleasant task of carrying the can for

the government. I understand that. Pick somebody in the cabinet to

carry the can. In this case they picked the Provincial Secretary to

carry the can. And what is he carrying the can for? That power-hungry

group that wants to create legislation that has been described by the

Roman Catholic bishop of the city of Victoria as "the disorder built

into the structure of the government's program that is evil."

The Roman Catholic bishop doesn't suggest that any one of the

cabinet is evil. And I don't either. But sometimes human beings can

err. In the desire, under the name of efficiency, the rationalization

of taking away freedoms and protective structures in our society become

paramount. As I said earlier, was it not Mussolini who said: "Well, at

least we made the trains run on time"? They might have had to shoot a

few people on the way, or throw a few people in jail, but what was

important?

Interjection.

[11:45]

MR. BARRETT: Well, the human rights bill is being taken away

too, but that's a companion piece of legislation to this which would be

out of order for me to speak to, Mr. Speaker. That's why I'm not

raising the fact that the human rights bill is also being eliminated.

If I were to, then of course I would ask that the Chair call me to

order.

In examining the impact of this specific bill we discover that the

suspicion is out there in the community that the

interpretation that

the Roman Catholic bishop and that the opposition is giving on this

legislation, and that the policemen themselves are giving in

advertisements in the newspaper about this legislation — that those

suspicions are indeed true.

Mr. Speaker, I have referred consistently to just one

section as an

argument for the hoist of this bill for six months. There are so many

other arguments to be made and so many other sections that I haven't

even touched upon yet, and should good health prevail, I would expect

that I will have the opportunity of discussing them at length. But

while we are addressing this one section, and while I have the

minister's undivided, devoted, sincere attention, would he please make

note of the one paramount question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I am reading the regulations.

MR. BARRETT: You are reading the regulations. If I may leave

that bit of information aside for a moment, would he please make note

of this one question. Why do you need this power? If you just want

power to find out what people are paid, say so, but when you go further

and say notwithstanding confidentiality, notwithstanding contracts, and

you open it up to every cabinet minister, then it is time for

amendments to clear up the intention that the minister wants.

Mr. Speaker, the minister informs me gently across the floor that he

is just reading the regulations. Would it not be useful, in the name of

efficiency, to assist the trains' running on time, if the minister

would table with this House those regulations which he promised the

people of this province eight days ago? If the minister would just give

them to the press the way he did last time. He had to bring in some

amendments because the citizens were upset, so he could hardly wait to

run to the press. We had that confusion, as you recall; there had been

that nervous breakthrough, as it was described. The premier said it was

a breakthrough; I said it was a nervous breakthrough.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The amendments came in the House though.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and I would hope, now that the regulations

are available, that they would be promulgated throughout this land, and

then we could hoist this bill, at least under the guise of having new

amendments or new regulations and more rational debate. And then inform

us, too, whether or not there are more revisions to be made, so that we

can all participate openly and honestly; and there will be, in the best

interests of all the citizens. If that is indeed the case, why are we

debating the hoist? Let's have the whole thing. Let's have it now.

Let's put aside the bill. Let's have the House Leaders meet and say

there's going to be a whole series of amendments hard regulations and

changes, and when it all comes in, everyone will be happy. We will all

hold hands around the maypole and pass this legislation in harmony,

peace and love.

Ah, Mr. Speaker! Would that not be the ideal dream that we tell high

school students? Would that not be the pleasant outcome of this

exchange? Would that reasonableness not be exactly what we want in

politics? But, of course, I'm older and jaded, and I've seen those

excuses before. I've actually been fibbed to in this chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER , Shocking!

MR. BARRETT: It is shocking, yes. It's left a scar on my

psyche every time it happens. I'm so glad that a great deal of this

happens without school children present, because I wouldn't want them

hurt in the same way that I have been. Nonetheless, having had those

bitter experiences before has led me not to trust the government when

it says: "Wait for the regulations." It has led me not to trust the

government when it says: "Read the explanations." It has led me not to

trust the ministers when they say: "Soon we'll be bringing in

amendments."

I find it much better for healthy debate to avoid comments like

those of the Roman Catholic bishop who describes us as "evil." If the

amendments are prepared and the regulations are ready, and the

explanations are available, table them in

[ Page 851 ]

the House now, Mr. Member, so that we can deal with

it openly and fairly in a mature exchange that would avoid the kind of

personal insults that the new members somehow find themselves

necessarily attracted to because of their absence of information about

what you're up to. Pity those poor members back there in the back

bench, who've reduced their arguments to personal invective, simply

because they don't know what's in the regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good government.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we could buy tape recorders that

could be programmed for better responses than what we get for the money

we're spending for the one-and-a-half MLAs for Surrey — and I have

never defined which one is the half. Never.

MR. REID: One-and-a-half each. That's three in total. At least we don't speak for two days about nothing.

MR. BARRETT: I've just begun to speak, and I will continue to

speak as long as there is the threat of interference with police work

in this province. The police must not have their work interfered with.

No politician has the right to block open access of police information

on politicians. No government has the right to defend politicians from

police investigation. This government's record includes a cabinet

minister going to jail, and others investigated. The police must be

free to do their work, without interference from any legislation or

politician. Absolutely. I know some of the members find it amusing, and

I know the minister is talking about the amendment and regulations; but

I've seen the police stop in their investigations of politicians. Now

we have, for the first time, legislative permission for cabinet

ministers to interfere with the work of police. No regulation or

amendment will change that. Unless this bill is hoisted the citizens of

this province are going to see the worst kind of government

manipulation of law services in this province. So while I generally

keep my good humour and while my arguments are directly to the point of

hoisting this bill....

MR. MOWAT: Call your troops in. Why don't they listen to you?

MR. BARRETT: Sustenance is very important to keep body and

soul together. While some of us can do well without repetitive

sustenance, others do need that support.

While we fight to keep body and soul together, Mr. Speaker, it is

also a matter of principle in hoisting this bill. So that I may be in

order, I would say to this House that if you truly trust the citizens

of this province — and you claim you have a just argument for this bill

— then put the bill in committee. Take it around to the communities of

this province, to those citizens low and high in station, all of whom

pay the bills for government. Remember, this is a delegated democracy,

and it is the taxpayers whom we represent; they have the right to

expect that the laws being passed in this chamber represent a

protection of cherished values and social structures, which the

Catholic bishop is talking about.

If you're so sure about the rightness of your cause, the correctness

of this legislation, then hoist this bill. Put it into committee, take

it around the province and let the citizens hear what you've got to

say. Let the citizens participate.

MR. REID: They did on May 5.

MR. BARRETT: During the election campaign not one of you ever said you were going to bring in this kind of legislation.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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