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 )

Morning Sitting

[ Page

275 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Reid –– 275

Ms. Sanford –– 280

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 283

The

House met at 10: 17 a.m.

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1983

Orders of the Day

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

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I therefore call second reading of Bill 202, Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1983.

MR. HOWARD: I move second reading of the bill.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On behalf of the hon. member who,

unfortunately, has been somewhat skewered by his own kind over there, I

move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3, Public Sector Restraint Act.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

MR. REID: I am privileged to rise for the second time to

speak to Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act. I can honestly say,

Mr. Speaker, that I was certainly encouraged yesterday when, after

speaking for just two minutes in this House, I got 30 percent support

from the NDP. They wanted me to continue yesterday, so I'm going to

continue for 38 minutes this morning. By the time I'm finished, I'll

probably have them all converted.

I got resounding applause from them yesterday when I mentioned

leadership and good government. I guess the thing that concerns me more

than anything else this morning is that the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Barrett) said yesterday, as he pointed in this direction to

the second member for Surrey, "Who is he? Who is that Mr. Slick?" Well,

that Mr. Slick is a small businessman from Surrey who spent 18 years

out there trying to meet a payroll, finally getting the support of 37,

610 voters in Surrey, which for his interest, was 3, 365 more votes

than his old Provincial Secretary.

I might say that during the campaign I certainly was encouraged by

the gentlemanly approach of the NDP ex-member for Surrey. In my view he

certainly doesn't represent some of the attitudes expressed in this

House by the other 63 percent whom I have not yet converted.

I'd like to point out to the first member for Vancouver East that I got

16,000 more votes than even he did in Vancouver East. It may be of interest

to the opposition that I received more votes than all three candidates for the

leadership of the NDP: the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) ; and if you add

the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), I top all four of them. The first

member for Vancouver East said In the introduction of Bill 3 he called our hon.

member a turkey. He called himself an eagle. Well, we call him the lame duck.

You see, Mr. Speaker, this leadership, this good government, is building towards,

as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said, "the spirit of B.C."

He's finally being encouraged to use those words. We like that: the opposition

is finally picking up some of the slogans which are going to lead this province

into recovery.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The first member for Vancouver East, who used to be the Leader of

the Opposition, doesn't seem to know — and he's not here to listen to

the major debates in this House — where the money's coming from in this

province to balance the books and pay the wages.

There are declining revenues in this province. Last year the forest

industry lost hundreds of millions of dollars. During this most

important economic issue that B.C. has ever faced, there was an attempt

by the U.S. lumber producers to have duties imposed on Canadian lumber.

This trade is critical to the B.C. economy; it was worth over a billion

dollars, even in the bad year of 1982. What does our lame-duck

opposition leader have to propose? I'll use his exact words: "They

constitute one of the most colossal, ill-timed, ill-conceived blunders

in B.C. history. Gas wells have a funny way of drying up. If the lumber

markets run dry, rivers have a funny way of drying up. Electricity has

a funny way of turning brown in the light bulbs if the lumber market

dries up." He said: "No threats. Just mutual understanding of love and

caring for our lumber." Irresponsible statements.

If they wanted to be positive, they could use the information which

is positive within the province. Eighty-seven percent of the workforce

today is employed; 12.1 percent is unemployed. The employed numbers are

1, 350,000 people. The opposition pointed out in the gallery yesterday

— a very sensitive issue — a young man who was recently laid off within

the public sector of this province. This government is sensitive to

that and has some feelings towards those people, no question about it.

As a green back-bencher, I have a positive idea I'd like to throw to

the NDP. Here's an idea for the 30 percent support I got. In this

province there's a paratransit and a handyDART transit system offered

by this government. In 1982, it provided 355,000 rides in the Vancouver

area; 28, 130 rides for the handicapped in the Victoria area; and 152,

951 rides in the small communities which most of these supporters of

mine represent. The budget for that service is $1,500,000.

1 noticed, as I reviewed the budget as a green backbencher — I don't

know if you're supposed to do these kinds of things — that it indicates

that there's a program that I would have eliminated if I'd not have

been a green backbencher, and that's the ombudsman's budget. The

ombudsman's budget provides employment for 43 professional staff, with

$1,100,000 for salaries alone; $508,000 for supplies. If this 30

percent support I have in the NDP is prepared to support my philosophy,

which is to have some assistance to the laid-off and the handicapped,

maybe they'd propose that the $1.5 million be taken out of that budget

and put into

[ Page 276 ]

employing some people helping the handicapped. Mr. Speaker, we could

accomplish that without eliminating the ombudsman; we can keep him on

because we can pay him the same amount we are paying Mr. Tozer. We

would still have $1.5 million to implement that program. So with the 30

percent support I have in the NDP, I offer you that challenge.

During the course of the debate in this House we have heard many

times the issue of the agricultural land reserve and the elimination of

the land from the reserve in the Delta area, which took place in 1981.

It may be of interest to this House to know that I served on the

council of Delta for five years, during 1973-78. I served there when

the issue of the Spetifore farm first came to light, when it was proved

that it's not a viable piece of property. The land isn't viable,

contrary to the opinion of the member for Comox, who's probably never

been in Delta, never mind seeing the Spetifore property. Mr. Spetifore,

with some encouragement from the government of the day, opened a

factory to process potatoes and try to prove....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether

we are discussing the elimination of the land reserve or Bill 3. It's

not quite clear to me.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Weren't you here yesterday?

MR. COCKE: I was here yesterday. He hasn't spoken on Bill 3 yet. He's talked on the budget and on the Spetifore land.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes that a great deal of

latitude has been allowed during this debate on Bill 3; nevertheless

the point of order raised by the member for New Westminster is valid.

If the second member for Surrey could make his remarks relevant to Bill

3 it would certainly be appreciated by all members of this House.

Fleeting reference to other issues is of course allowed, but relevance

is parliamentary.

MR. REID: I think it's relevant because it deals with the

question of restraint, and the question of restraint deals with the

difficulties of balancing budgets and providing funds for different

departments of government. The Agricultural Land Commission, which at

this point doesn't have any control over that piece of land, and the

council of the day saw fit — as the council of today sees fit — to talk

about that land in the context of what it ultimately can serve, and

it's to serve the residents of the area and also provide 89 acres of

parkland for the residents of the area. Mr. Speaker, I'll reserve

further comments on the Spetifore question for when it is raised for

further debate in the House, because I probably am the most

knowledgeable person in this House on the subject. I shall pursue that

another day.

I am sorry that the member for Vancouver East is not in the House

again, because yesterday he raised the issue on restraint about the

appointment of a senior person to this government. I wanted to remind

him that during the course of their government, they appointed Mr. Norm

Pearson as Mr. Bob Williams's aide. There was also a Mr. Vic Parker

appointed to one of the higher posts; Mr. Jim Rhodes appointed to B.C.

Energy — patronage. A Mary Rawson to the Land Commission; a Betty

McClurg, who was the campaign manager for Mr. Ernie Hall; Barrie Clark

was appointed as rentalsman. Surprise, surprise! That doesn't happen

with that government. Then Frank Howard was appointed as the Indian

Affairs consultant during that time.

[10:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could, once again,

remind the House to be relevant to the bill; and mention of a currently

sitting member's name is not parliamentary.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, speaking about restraint, during the

debate yesterday they raised the question of the elimination of the

vehicle inspection division stations, and the elimination of two-thirds

of the employment, retaining 60 employees in that department. But there

is a

section of the society out there that is prepared to provide that

service on a non-profit basis, and that's the BCAA. They have in the

past been providing the service very effectively, and they are

promising that they are capable of providing the ongoing service

required for the general public out there in testing their vehicles for

safety purposes.

I think private sector service stations and garages are certainly

equipped to offer that service on a continual basis to any concerned

operator of a vehicle in the community. I'm sure that if the member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) had taken his vehicle to any service

location in New Westminster prior to taking it to the testing station,

that service station, which is a private enterprise industry within the

community, could have offered him some advice before putting that car

on the street.

MR. COCKE: They wouldn't know any more than I would.

MR. REID: That's private enterprise, you see. They're

supposed to keep people employed and offer that service, yet the member

for New Westminster doesn't see fit to make use of it.

MR. COCKE: What service?

MR. REID: Service to the public. There are millions of service station operators.

MR. COCKE: Do they check the brakes?

MR. REID: They'll check anything. Take your car in and they'll check it. How do you think the testing places check it?

Interjections.

MR. REID: That's how little you know about it.

MR. HANSON: Where's the law?

MR. REID: The first member for Victoria says I don't know

what I'm talking about. I've been in the business, sir, for 18 years,

and if I don't know what I'm talking about I've met a payroll of 22

personnel over the last 14 to 18 years. The problem with that side of

the House is that most of them — I guess 80 percent of them — never met

a payroll in their lives, so they don't even know what it's all about.

They don't even know what a service station is. If any of these members

have the opportunity to be in Surrey in the next while when I'm there,

I'll introduce them to a fully

[ Page

277 ]

effective service operation. And if you don't trust the small

businessman, that creates a real problem for the industries out there

in trying to pay their taxes to keep this government operating. That's

a problem.

It's interesting. If you go through the process of restraint and

talk about good government and leadership, we have to go back a little

bit to talk about some of the things that aren't good government and

don't make good leadership. That's the dilemma of probably cancelling

the ALRT, which was a proposal by one of the members trying to get

elected from the NDP; but the people of the constituency had the brains

not to listen to the rhetoric. The public knows about the purchase that

that government made relative to light rapid transit .

MR. SEGARTY: The rusty buses.

MR. REID: No, not the rusty buses. They bought almost a

$200,000 –– I think it's called a "Mickey Mouse" — train which is still

sitting in storage over there in Vancouver. It can't be sold to anybody

within the province or to anybody around the world. When they brought

it over they couldn't fit it on any track. It wouldn't fit within the

electrical components of.... That's restraint. That comes under

restraint, Mr. Speaker. That comes under creation of jobs. They wanted

to build models of those cars, I understand, up in Squamish in a

railcar plant. The government that finally got elected and threw them

out saw the writing on the wall. We were throwing away $50,000 or

$60,000 per car being constructed, and they were going to build these

Mickey Mouse railcars out there. The public and electorate saw through

that.

They also saw through the requirements for transportation

connections to the south shore and Annacis Island. When the proponents

were discussing the Annacis crossing, which is in the budget of 1983-84

as partial development, the NDP in their wisdom were going to cancel

the Annacis crossing project and eliminate the expenditures which have

been made up to date.

In the process of restraint we are talking about selling one of the

assets, Pacific Coach Lines, which costs this government $8 million a

year to subsidize, and $3.39 per ride provided. It's important that the

private sector, which is capable of providing that service and probably

making a buck on it, is allowed to enter that part of the industry. I

think it will be the sooner the better that we sell off an $8 million

losing proposition and put it out into the private sector to provide an

equal or better service during these difficult times. I think it's the

responsibility of this government as dictated in the restraint act.

I want to quote from an

article of October 1975. It deals with the

member for Vancouver East, who had some advice for the students of one

of the universities. It was the member for Vancouver East who told a

lunchtime audience at the University of Victoria on Monday that they

should get off their rear-ends and try to solve some of their problems

themselves.

MR. SEGARTY: Did he say that?

MR. REID: He said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's his compassion?

MR. REID: He said: "Big governments are not going to do everything

for you."

MR. SEGARTY: He said that?

MR. REID: Yes, he said that. He said that the money is not limitless. He said: "Go help yourselves."

MR. SEGARTY: Who did he say it to? A bunch of students?

MR. REID: Yes. He also said he'll hold the line on all

services. But he has not suggested that cutbacks might be necessary. He

said he believed the budget will balance without the necessity for

cuts. But he said services will be chopped if the need arises. "We've

been spoiled in this country; we've had it too easy." He said that.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Who said that?

MR. REID: I don't know what his name is. He didn't remember mine, and I don't remember his.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lame duck.

MR. REID: The lame duck. He said: "We've been led to believe

that things come too easily." He suggested that governments have to

take the lead and there will be no deficit spending. He said: If

governments don't, who will? If I have to make cuts, I'll cut." Yes, he

said that. That lame duck.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am finding that term offensive. It's been used quite a bit and it is a personal reference.

MR. REID: Okay, I'll withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It does offend parliamentary practice.

MR. REID: Okay, but he wanted to be called an eagle, so I'll call him the lame eagle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Please, if we could just refer to members

as members from their ridings or their ministries and leave personal

references and unparliamentary comments out of the debate, I'm sure

that the debate could proceed with far more courtesy. Thank you.

MR. REID: Okay. Mr. Speaker, he said he refused to speculate

on what area the cuts might come and said if the situation has not yet

arisen, since he believes the government will he able to balance its

books, but if the worse comes to the worst, cutbacks will come. That

was the Premier of the day in 1975. That's why he's not Premier today.

During the course of good government there are changing times and

changing conditions. These are tough times and very tough conditions.

Restraint has not had a disastrous effect, we can be proud to say in

this government, on the Education budget, because it's up 7 percent;

it's up to $1.4 billion of the total expenditures of this government.

The Health budget is up 7.3 percent to S2.4 billion. That's another

priority of this government. The Human Resources budget is up 13.9

percent, to $1.37 billion of our total budget. Those are numbers which

are interesting when we're talking about a time of restraint. We need

to balance between business and

[ Page 278 ]

government. We must remain competitive if our industries are to survive.

It seems interesting that during the debate the members over here —

I didn't get the member for Victoria's vote, and I'm sorry about that;

I may have it by the time I'm finished because he seems to be paying

attention — haven't made much of an offer towards improving the

situation of the economy in recovery within this province, not from

this side of the House. All they can offer is negativism, criticism,

doom and gloom. This government knows we need to develop a leaner and

more productive, efficient and effective government — one that can meet

the needs of the people in this province. That's one of our real goals.

Remember that government has no money of its own and that restraint is

essential because this government is labour intensive.

The minister pointed out yesterday that a 1 percent increase in a

public sector wages bill equates to $40 million. The taxpayers of this

province can no longer support those kinds of increases. We can no

longer ask our government for more and more services that somebody else

has to pay for. Governments at all levels must come to terms with this

issue. Economic prosperity has to be earned, and it cannot be purchased

with public dollars.

This Bill 3 will assist in controlling the size and the cost of

government by reducing the number of employees in all areas of the

public sector. This act will create for the public sector employees a

safe economic reality that faces the private sector. This act will

cover all the Crown corporations, school districts, municipalities,

hospitals — the entire spectrum of the public sector. There will be

compensation for those employees whose employment is being terminated.

The compensation package is to consider such benefits as relocation

allowances, additional retirement benefits, provisions for retaining

allowances with private sector standards being used as a guide.

Employees will have a choice to accept our package for compensation or

pursue compensation in the other role in the courts. Our commitment is

to fairness and the freedom of choice. That's evidence of good

government. That's evidence of good leadership. During the termination

of employment of these public sector civil servants, consideration will

be given to qualifications of the employees, their abilities, their

skills, operational requirements, efficiency and seniority. That's good

government; that's leadership. We also have underway a very

consultative process....

[10:45]

MS. BROWN: You obviously haven't read the bill.

MR. REID: Are you back in the House? That's the first time

I've seen you since I've been here. I can't understand what she's

saying, so I can't interpret it.

This government is offering a consultation process and has made

submissions to all interested parties. And as the minister pointed out

yesterday, those submissions are to be back to this government by

August 8. Meetings have been arranged with public and private sector

groups. We will deal sensitively and fairly with those affected to

ensure a very productive and efficient public sector.

We tried to reduce the numbers in the public sector by attrition,

and we found it was not enough. Now we're asking the public sector to

offer us some cooperation in reduction of the numbers.

MS. SANFORD: They're already fired.

MR. REID: We haven't fired any; we've laid some off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You fired them!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, if we could get some support for some

encouraging development in this province and keep the NDP from picking

on the industry and the economy of this province and encourage the

economy to improve so that we could raise some more funds and hire

these people back rather than talk about negativism.... If we could get

this economy improved, which is what this government is looking for in

the recovery, is encouragement towards the private sector,

encouragement into paying taxes and raising funds As I mentioned

earlier, the lumber industry is one of the largest industries that we

rely so heavily on in this province. It lost close to a billion dollars

last year. Do you see what the people on the other side are talking

about? They don't mention how they're going to help; they're talking

about shutting off the power, turning the lights down to brown lights

in northern Washington and cutting off the water supply.

Let me talk about restraint in respect to a $500 million job-creation offer that the Leader of the Opposition was making.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Which leader?

MR. REID: The lame-duck leader. Sorry, you told me not to use that; I won't use it again.

The program he tried to introduce to the public sector electorate

out there, which they didn't buy.... They reason they didn't buy it was

because it didn't add up. Do you know why it didn't add up? They were

going to borrow $500 million from future revenues of the petroleum

resource industry. Do you know the interesting thing, Mr. Speaker? If

he read the estimates of the budget for this year, he'd see that the

total income for this province from that resource will be $45 million.

So the number is very interesting. He was going to borrow $500 million

from future revenue, which would have taken 12 years to accumulate. If

he didn't pay any interest, which would have been 10 percent, he would

have lost $5 million each year in paying the interest. By the time the

12 years were up, we'd be totally bankrupt; we'd be like Quebec and

France and Chile and some of those other socialist

Interjections.

MR. REID: That's the socialist thinking: $500 million out of

future revenues. They would never generate that kind of money under the

philosophy of that government, because they're talking about closing

most of those down. That's their philosophy.

Our actions reflect the economic reality of the private sector. The

private sector doesn't even recognize the word "tenure." It also calls

on the representatives of the unions and the associations that

represent our provincial government employees for cooperation in times

of economic downturn. We encourage their participation in and input

into the Public Sector Restraint Act. Our programs are fair and

reasonable to all parties concerned.

Yesterday some reference was made by one of the other speakers about

the responsibilities and autonomy of school boards under the

requirements of the restraint program. I'd

[ Page 279 ]

like to read the powers of the school boards under the autonomy of

good government and good leadership. School boards will, as in the

past, retain authority for the following areas: selection of sites,

capital expenditures, designs of buildings, renovations, modifications

and improvements, overall facility planning, busing and boarding, and

community use of school. In the area of programs, they'll have school

boundaries, grade groupings in schools, locally developed courses,

elective courses from provincial curricula, supplementary materials and

instructional supplies, summer schools, adult education, special

education programs and special education program decisions.

On staffing they'll have final approval of all staff selections,

both numbers and qualifications. They'll have the staff assignments.

Transfer of all staff will be under their control, as will evaluation

and promotion of staff, dismissal for incompetence and misconduct,

reduction in staff for declining enrolment and establishment support

for staff levels — clerical, janitorial and maintenance. Other powers:

paramount authority in school discipline; setting of health service

standards within the school; responsibility for student attendance;

negotiations for salaries and bonuses; establishment of personnel

policies for professional and support staff; and closures of schools.

I think the school boards are going to have trouble handling all

that. You call that a reduction in autonomy for school districts and

school boards? Let me give you some other numbers which are rather

interesting, because we must talk, in restraint, about what's happening

to the taxpayer's dollar.

The gross operational budget of the school systems in this province

in 1971 was $346.717 million; 11 years later it went to $1.553 billion

— a mere 348 percent increase in 11 years. The number of students —

this is interesting — was 506,561 in 1971; in 1982 the number was

reduced to 485,568. That's 20,993 fewer students in 11 years,

Interesting numbers. Let me tell you the other number: in 1971 there

were 22, 193 teachers; in 1982, 11 years later, there were 29,075. The

interesting thing is we added 6,882 teachers in 11 years. The most

interesting number is that for every three students who left the

system, we added a teacher.

Provincial grants to school districts, which always seems to be a

controversial subject: in 1971 they were $189-166 million; 11 years

later, provincial grants to school districts were $617.445 million — a

mere increase of 226 percent. Interesting numbers, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. REID: That's talking about restraint. If you want to talk

about cars, hon. member, come and see me afterwards. That's a business

I'm trying to run while I'm also over here trying to be a member

elected from Surrey with 37,000 votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you give us a good deal?

MR. REID: I'll give you a good deal, because we people out

there in the private sector have to look after the people who need some

help. I know how you're restrained, hon. member, in your budget, and I

know what we have to deal with over here in funds for operating our own

households. So if you need some help in that regard, I'm prepared to

help you out.

I could go on and on, but I'd continue to be interrupted. As the red

light is on, I'll sum up by saying that the agricultural land reserve

of land out in Delta, which the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I always allow someone the

chance to finish a statement, but we're digressing from the bill now,

and you are out of time,

MR. REID: Can I wind up?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, please, but make it relevant to the bill.

MR. REID: I'd like to wind up by saying that in the restraint

program some of the regional districts have to have a place to dispose

of their garbage....

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I think the hon. member for

Surrey should be entitled to deal with the subject of the agricultural

land reserve in his own constituency, or elsewhere, because the

Agricultural Land Commission is one of the groups affected by this

particular bill. It's perfectly within the ambit of the conversation to

do that, and I think you should let the member continue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a very good point, but the time under standing orders has elapsed. If the member could finish his speech now.

MR. REID: Can I have a couple of minutes? I appreciate your advice and I'll use it.

The agricultural reserve in the area of Delta has in it the Burns

Bog, and the Burns Bog, for the benefit of the people in this House, is

to be used under the restraint program of the Greater Vancouver

Regional District for the development of a garbage dump — the garbage

dump that was refused by the member for Comox to go to Texada Island.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair must intervene. The

section with respect to agricultural land and the commission deals with

the staff of the commission and not land itself. That's clearly in the

act. And your time has expired.

MR. REID: But doesn't the staff have to deal with the

section

with respect to agricultural land and the commission deals with the

staff of the commission, and not land itself. That's clearly in the

act. And your time has expired.

MR. REID: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I'll take your direction, and on

the strength of the support of the 30 percent of the members of the NDP

which I received yesterday, I'm sure I'll get the balance of their

support, and I appreciate the consideration of the House.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we are

perfectly prepared to permit the hon. member for Surrey to extend his

time in order to complete the well thought-out remarks that he wanted

to present to us.

MR. SPEAKER: Standing orders of the House would allow that if

it were the will, but that is not the will, as I understand it, and the

time has elapsed.

[ Page 280 ]

[11:00]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, once that election was held, and I

got over the disappointment of the fact that we were not going to form

the government in Victoria, I decided that I would again travel to

Victoria as the representative for the people of the constituency of

Comox and try to continue the fight for improved justice in this

province; the fight for better services for constituents in Comox and

other places in the provinces; the fight for improvements within my own

constituency and for those in our society who need special protection

of government during the deep economic recession that we have witnessed

over the last few years. I thought that I would come down here and

fight for those people who are elderly, disabled or unemployed, and who

need the assistance of government, particularly at this time. Little

did I know that I would be coming down to Victoria to face legislation

as draconian as this piece of legislation we are faced with today. I'm

being kind by using the word draconian, because I feel very strongly

about this particular issue.

This is part of a total package that we are facing, beginning with

the budget, which we know will not serve in terms of improving the

economy of this province, but will in fact have the exact opposite

effect. We have seen that through the various media, commentators and

editorial writers who have indicated very clearly that the measures

adopted in that budget are going to have an adverse impact on the

economy. We had hoped we had seen a little bit of light, a little

glimmer, that there may be some improvement, but that has now been done

away with through the introduction of that particular budget which is

part of this whole package that we're looking at.

I have been very uneasy since I returned to this Legislature because

of the comments that have been made around me by the new people who sit

in this House. I have sat here many times and cringed as I heard the

attitudes as expressed by the comments all around me. I should have

known, based on that, plus the arrogance of the Premier which has been

displayed since this House was called together, that this was the kind

of thing that we could expect. I have heard backbenchers applauding the

elimination of human rights in this province in this House.

MR. REID: Not so.

MS. SANFORD: I have heard it. I have heard people in this

House, in the back bench applauding the removal of services to people,

such as the rentalsman. I have heard people on the back benches calling

for the sale of our hospitals because they see no reason why government

should be involved in providing health services. I have mentioned it

before. When I was speaking in the throne speech debate I mentioned

these things, and I should probably have been more prepared for the

budget and that avalanche of legislation that we have since seen,

including this bill under debate today.

We know that the budget is going to harm the economy. That's been

very clear in all of the press coverage that has come since then.

Everybody knows it. It is clear that the people who need the assistance

most are going to suffer most under the approach that has been taken

through the cutting of services and the elimination of jobs. It is

clear that the approach they have adopted is going to strike terror

into the people affected by this particular piece of legislation,

because they can be fired without cause. There is absolutely no appeal

for them.

MR. REID: The courts are always there.

MS. SANFORD: The courts are always there! Well, that's just

another kind of comment that makes me cringe: go to the courts and

fight this government.

We have seen people being victimized and scapegoated by a government

that is heartless, a government that has no feeling for people and a

government that is prepared to take any measures in order to accomplish

what it wants to accomplish. Terror and fear is what is happening out

there, when we have people who are called up at dinnertime, when they

have guests in their home, to be told: "Sorry, you're out of a job. You

will not report for work tomorrow. You are no longer needed." It

doesn't matter what kind of service they've given. It doesn't how

matter how long they have worked there. It doesn't matter what kind of

position it is. It doesn't matter how dedicated they are to their work.

They are phoned at dinnertime, with guests there, by representatives of

this government, people who are sent out to hunt people down in order

to tell them that their jobs have been eliminated. That's what

happening in this province today.

MR. BARNES: Their jobs are redundant. They call it redundancy.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: You know, the comments from these people in the back bench are not even worth....

What we have is centralization, a reign of terror by this government

against the people who are included in the

schedule accompanying this

bill: teachers, nurses, firemen — all of the public service. They are

all included in this particular piece of legislation.

I think it's worth bringing some of these headlines to the attention

of the House today in order to give the people sitting across from us a

picture of what is happening today in the province under this new

government, because they seem incapable of understanding what this bill

is capable of doing. "Minister Gets More Control" is an example of the

centralization that's taking place.

MR. REID: That's what leadership is all about.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, Pinochet gives a lot of leadership. He certainly does. No one opposes him' I can assure you.

Then we have a cartoon showing the Premier wearing a collar, and

instead of a prayer book, it's a ledger. That, too, indicates the

attitude of this government towards people. Madness is another term

that is being used for what is happening today. "A Passport to

Extremism, " says this particular headline: centralization, control,

extremism, madness. These are the things that are coming out in the

major dailies in this province. Where do these terms fit? They do not

fit in a democracy in this country of Canada in the year 1983. Another

headline says: "Why All This Bloodshed?" Another headline says: "Socred

Ideology Victimizes the Poor." Victims we have, in this province, Mr.

Speaker. "School Board Power Slashed." Guess who gets them? "Socred

Hitmen

[ Page 281 ]

Swoop on Rights Workers". "Victoria Bids to Control Doctors."

"B.C.'s Licence to Discriminate." "Citizens' Champion Hobbled by

Curbs." There they are talking about the ombudsman. Behind the figures

are the tears. Mr. Speaker, listen to this one: "Fired Like a

Criminal." That's how the people feel about this government. The

government is treating them as though they are criminals.

Here we have the cartoonists carrying on the same theme with two

dedicated workers sitting at their desks. One says: "I've been dying to

go to the washroom, but I'm afraid Bennett will eliminate my job while

I'm gone." That's the attitude. This one — which is one of the reasons

I cringe when I hear the comments that are made around me — shows a

member of the Ku Klux Klan headed directly to British Columbia because

of the elimination of all human rights by this government.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Rubbish!

MS. SANFORD: Oh, rubbish, is it? You're right and everybody else is wrong.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: Here's another one: "Bennett's Blitzkrieg." The

first time I heard that word I was about eight years old. My father

joined the army, went to training and came home in order to announce to

his family that he was being sent overseas. I was quite young at the

time, but I can remember the emotional impact and the trauma that I

felt, knowing that my father was going to be sent overseas to go to a

war. I did not know why. My mother and my father sat me down with my

siblings in order to explain to us why it was necessary for my father

to be sent overseas. As it turned out, he was gone for five years. He

was sent overseas, I was told, because there was a man who had been

elected in Germany who had removed civil rights from people. They were

no longer able to do as they had done before.

MR. REID: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, could we have the relevance of this speech to the restraint bill?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order.

This has been a common concern during debate on Bill 3. Some latitude

has been allowed, but all members are reminded to make their comments

as relevant as possible to the bill.

[11:15]

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, when the government moved to

set aside the budget debate and proceed to bills, it was the government

Whip who said that the bill is part of the budget, and that the budget

and the bills before us go together — they're companions. It was the

government itself that said it should be an all-encompassing debate,

and that you cannot consider things in isolation one from the other.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: I made that point with you with respect to the

member for Surrey's desire to talk about the Agricultural Land

Commission, which I thought was perfectly in order, and I make the same

point now with respect to the member for Comox.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Irrespective of

what has been said in this House with respect to a bill, our standing

orders require that in second reading the general principle of the bill

be discussed. The member hag raised a point of concern, and the Chair

has just reminded all members of the House that we should be relevant,

maintaining the guidelines that tell us that the principle of the bill

is discussed in the second reading.

MR. HOWARD: Are you saying that the government Whip doesn't know what he's talking about?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That comment is not worth....I cannot comment on that.

The hon. member for Comox continues.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, you are quite correct: it is under

the second reading of a bill that the principle of the bill is being

discussed, and I can assure you that these headlines all point out the

principle of what's involved in this particular piece of legislation.

Blitzkrieg — the first time I heard that word was when my parents

sat me down in order to explain why it was that my father would have to

be sent overseas to fight. They talked about that word "blitzkrieg, "

and it meant the swift invasion of Poland at that time. And now we have

the headline-writers and editorials of the province talking about

another blitzkrieg. We have it. It's right here in British Columbia.

And the other thing is that right across the country now we have the

editorial writers, the commentators and the cartoonists telling what is

happening here in British Columbia. It's frightening.

Yesterday afternoon I was sitting in my office listening to this

debate on the speaker. A police car drove up and parked just underneath

the windows on that side of the buildings. Two officers got out and one

put his cap on very smartly. They came into the buildings. I don't know

what they were here for, but when I saw them get out of that car in

conjunction with the debate on this bill, I shivered. I sat in my

office and I shivered. That's what this kind of legislation and this

approach of this government does to the people of this province,

including those of us who sit here and have to listen to it and fight

it. My father's been dead for nearly 30 years now, but I'm glad that I

am able to stand here and fight against this kind of thing that he told

me he was going over there to fight.

Today, in the Province, we have an editorial that's reprinted from

the Toronto Star. They know what's happening here in this province, and

they're beginning to tell us and the rest of the country about it. 'All

of Canada is diminished" — and I'm quoting from the Toronto Star

editorial — "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." We have fallen.

[ Page 282 ]

On the same page we see a cartoon which is done by a nationally

syndicated cartoonist which shows a picture of Bill Bennett signing a

law that says "Marshal Law." It shows a picture of, I assume, one of

his friends sitting on the desk. Maybe it's Pinochet or somebody like

that. It shows also the Pope arriving at the door. Shades of Poland.

I'm receiving letters from people within my constituency who are

expressing the same sort of sentiment that I just expressed — people

who served overseas who have been faithful servants of this government

for all these years, and are now out. That member talks about

consultation. He talks about seniority. That is all nonsense. It's

whoever the government wants to fire for whatever reason. That's what

it's all about, and it strikes terror into our people.

The whole concept of labour relations and industrial harmony is

based on fairness. It's based on people who sit down and talk together,

who meet and bargain in good faith, and who are not faced with this

kind of legislation which says: "You can be fired at a moment's notice.

We will hunt you down if you are out camping. We will interrupt a

birthday party. We will phone you when you have dinner guests." This

letter today is another example of one of my constituents getting

phoned at dinner time be told " you are without a job." When you see

somebody driving in the driveway these days, you go up and hide in the

attic the same way as Anne Frank had to do. That's what we've come to.

If you don't recognize that, then read the papers. Read what other

people are thinking about us. Read what people are looking at and what

they are saying. Read about those people who are getting together to

oppose this kind of tyranny.

This government does not recognize....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! One at a time, please.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They're like this all the time, you know.

Good industrial relations are based on good faith; that has been

eliminated by this bill. I wonder how some members of this House feel,

those who have been involved in labour relations over the years, who

have fought for the rights of workers, who have been involved in

cooperative movements; those people who are now sitting while this kind

of thing is happening around them. Are they comfortable? Are they at

ease? Are they going to vote for this kind of thing?

Labour relations are very fragile. This kind of move by government

will undermine the climate of industrial relations for the entire

province. We're going to have more difficulty in resolving any

disagreements in the future. We're going to have more difficulty....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Fewer union bosses bossing the workers.

MS. SANFORD: Is that right? Well, isn't that interesting, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Freedom of choice to be thrown out on your ear, without even ten minutes' notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or any right to appeal.

MS. SANFORD: Or any right to appeal; of course.

Not only that; if you have to go back into your office to pick up

some personal things you might have left there, you have to be

accompanied by someone from government to keep an eye on you. If you

have served for 20 years you are not to be trusted anymore. You're out

on your ear.

You do not get a good educational system when you have teachers who

are completely demoralized by the fact that they stand to lose their

jobs tomorrow: phoned at dinnertime tonight, or hunted down if they're

out camping, to say they no longer have a job. That kind of

demoralization in the teaching force means that our students, our young

people of the province, are going to be denied the kind of education

they might otherwise have. Not only that; I know those teachers; I know

how they feel. I know the kind of demoralization that comes into any

workforce faced with this kind of legislation.

What about the students? All those nurses, firemen, teachers, public

servants, but what about the students, the children who come to school

every day, knowing the feeling at home because of the uncertainty based

on legislation of this type? It's chop-chop. It doesn't matter about

seniority or dedication or productivity. It's based on a phone call at

dinnertime, with no notice and no appeal. That's what this legislation

is all about.

Now we hear that another 350 people are going to be fired in the

Ministry of Human Resources. They have to wait until Monday, though, to

find out which ones. They're going to be worried about going home in

case it's their phone that rings at dinnertime to say "you're out." Who

are these people who are going to be fired? They are people providing a

service for children who have been abused in this province. Those are

the ones who are going to be fired. The people providing a service to

mothers with young children, to single mothers. They are out. You

people have no humanity in terms of dealing with people — no humanity

whatsoever.

People have fallen by the wayside because of the actions of this

government. They're either thrown out of a job or have been told they

will not have any increase in any kind of income as far as handicaps,

as far as people on social services, human services. They're not going

to have any increases, Mr. Speaker. The welfare recipients are going to

have to make do with the money they have this year. At the same time

the taxes have gone up for them, user fees have gone up for them and

rent controls have been eliminated. They could face huge rent

increases, Mr. Speaker. There again: "too bad." They don't have any

rights under the human rights code anymore. There's nowhere they can

appeal.

[11:30]

This government has let them lie by the wayside, and on the way past

they've given them a little kick. At the same time this government has

so mismanaged the economy and been so neglectful in terms of any

planning on how this province should be developing that we have been

driven into debt to the tune of over $12 billion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we're paying for it.

MS. SANFORD: Now we're paying for it, you're right. And the

people who are paying the most for this mismanagement are those people

at the lower income levels. There's no doubt about it.

[ Page 283 ]

If you people were concerned about those people who are not going to

have any increases in their income — the disabled and human resources

recipients — you would not be giving an overnight increase of $10,000

to the Minister of Propaganda, Doug Heal. You would not!

They talk about restraint! We told them about restraint, Mr.

Speaker, for year after year in this House. We said cut back to last

year's level in terms of the purchase of office equipment and

furniture. We said cut back to last year's level in terms of the

massive advertising and cut back to last year's level in terms of

ministerial travel. And for heaven's sake, cut out the Broadway shows

and the wine and all of these things. We have been telling the

government this for two and three years in this House.

Not one time did the government accept our recommendation to cut

back. We made motion after motion after motion; not one was accepted by

that government. And now, in the name of restraint, they are removing

human rights, and they are doing in services such as the rentalsman,

legal aid and any service that's going to benefit people who need it.

They're going to fire at will anybody in the public service or in any

public agency in this province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The next time the Socred party sends out a letter requesting a

political donation to the Social Credit Party from the public servants

of this province, not only are they going to give because they want to

hang on to their jobs and to feed their families and keep paying that

mortgage so they don't lose their home, but they're going to worry

about not giving enough. Those people who do not live up to the

requirements of this government, whether it's in the materials that

they teach at school, in their approach to their job through the

policing, the laying of charges....You know, I can visualize that

the people in the probation service, for instance, working with young

offenders, will have a list of all the people who belong to the Social

Credit Party, and they will check that list before they take too much

action against young offenders; because their jobs are on the line.

They have to feed that family; they have to make that mortgage payment.

These people are absolutely heartless. What they have said is that

because people in the private sector are getting laid off, in order to

even it out we will fire people in the public sector. Instead of doing

something to improve the economy, instead of bringing in a budget that

will assist, they bring in a budget that has the opposite effect. They

say the private sector will take care of everything else, and in the

meantime we will fire people, because we want things to be even. There

are lots of ways to make things even. There are people sitting on that

side who have great gobs of money. Maybe we could even that out a

little bit, could we? Oh, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

says no. Some of them lost a lot of money too, in other ventures that

they've been involved in.

The people of the province did not give this government a mandate

for this kind of right-wing tyranny. Never once did the people of the

province expect to see this batch of headlines. Never once did they

think that they were going to be reading about blitzkriegs, as it

applies to the government of British Columbia, in a democratic society.

We are going to be the laughing-stock of Canada. In fact, people may

not laugh; they may shiver, as some of us over here shiver when we see

the kinds of actions that this government has embarked upon.

The sad part, Mr. Speaker, is that they don't seem to understand

what they are doing. They don't seem to understand how authoritarian

governments, in order to rule with an iron hand, take authority unto

themselves. That's what this government has done time after time. We're

seeing it again through education, through the kind of legislation that

we have before us today. Fire without cause; no appeal; get hunted

down; get phoned at home. The people of the province do not want this

kind of right-wing tyranny.

At this point I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 30

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

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

[11:45]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity

to speak and welcome your appointment to high office and also to

welcome the Deputy Speaker. I also welcome the new members here on both

sides of the House. It's good to have you on board.

I think I would like to say something about our former Whip, the

member for Dewdney. As a matter of fact, he was around when I was first

brought into the world and has known me for a long time. I miss him.

The former member for Shuswap-Revelstoke often gave me some guidance in

this House at times, although it was very rough as well. I remember it,

but I think it was really given in good spirit.

With respect to the bill, which I'm standing in support of, I think

we should look at the background of what really has occurred in British

Columbia over a considerable period of time. I remember in February

1982 when the compensation stabilization program was introduced. Some

of the debate that I recall seems to been echoing in this chamber in

the last few days. When in fact restraint became a political issue and

that issue in fact was accelerated about half-way through the election,

as I recall, it really did come to the forefront. I only have to look

at the message which was given to me in my

[ Page 284 ]

riding, and that was pretty clear. With respect to the riding we had

a good clean fight, I might say, with the opposition candidate. I think

he should be paid tribute to. He conducted a good campaign. I certainly

know that he had some help. I realized it was going to be pretty tough

when they had a campaign manager who came from the prairies to do the

job for him. But full marks to her. She did a very good job.

Restraint was an issue in my riding, and I think it has carried

through. It then became evident that it wasn't rhetoric that we were

talking about, and it certainly wasn't rhetoric that the public was

sending to us as well. They were serious. I find the same comments in

the throne speech. I might say that I felt that the throne speech was a

document, for the first time since I've been here, which really had

some substance and some direction to it. I make reference to page 6 of

the printed version which we have, and it says: "My government has

developed a plan for reducing the size of public service in the next

few years." Mr. Speaker, we started restraint in February 1982 through

the CSR We get into an election, and it's clear what the public are

saying to us; it's abundantly clear. An election is held; a decision is

made. Those who advocated restraint were returned to government. We

find it now in the throne speech, and it's clear.

The next item that comes in we find in the notes from the budget speech. Again, the same message is abundantly clear.

There's an interesting point. I refer to page 4 of the budget speech:

"Since 1981 there has been a major turning point, with the

most telling signals emanating from international financial markets."

Prior to that, we have seen governments assume:

"... the role of model employers, offering generous salary

and benefit packages. As a result, skilled members of the labour force turned

to the public sector in greater numbers. These were dramatic and far-reaching

developments — developments that history might have suggested could not last.

They were, in a sense, golden years of economic growth and social reform. By

the mid-1970s cracks began to appear."

I remember talking in here once before, and one of the statements

bears repetition. I remember speaking in April 1982 at one point. "In

the private sector, " I said, "there has been the bottom line in the

financial statement. In the public sector there is only the resolve of

governments to say no when common sense dictates it. It must be said. I

do not believe the public sector should be immune from some sort of

economic sacrifice. Its ultimate well-being is dependent on the health

of the private sector."

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Prince Rupert rises on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I know it's against the rules of the

House to read your speech. I'd like to check with the Speaker to see

whether it's against the rules to read your old speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members are aware that notes can always be used when a member is speaking.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have heard the same speeches on both sides of this House for four-plus years. I thought making reference to something in Hansard has as much legitimacy as making reference to the daily press, which we heard from the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Prince Rupert will let me indulge for

about 30 seconds, I quote: "We cannot have two classes of citizens in

this province, one which is always vulnerable to the business cycle and

one which is not. The burdens of restraint cannot be applied just to

the private sector alone." Well, what did we see? The CSP came through.

I presume all members have had an opportunity to look at the data filed

in the annual report for 1982 and see whether or not that program was

successful. Certainly it's been successful, when we look at the

figures. In May 1983 the average settlement in the public sector was

2.8 percent; in the private sector 2.4 percent. In the previous year it

was 17.4 percent and 15 percent. So it seems to me that things are

working reasonably well.

I really enjoyed the comment from the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Reid) when he made reference to the Leader of the Opposition's comment

some time ago; Hansard really came back to haunt them. He made

a statement to the effect that we have been spoiled in this country;

governments must take the lead. We've been spoiled. Cuts if necessary.

We know in his case there were cuts if necessary, but not necessarily

cuts. That's exactly what has happened. I think that as time has gone

on we have all been guilty of this to some degree.

A couple of comments were made by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

with respect to the Ku Klux Klan. Just remember which government

introduced the civil rights protection act when we had that very

unpleasant and nasty problem here a couple of years ago. The

legislation that was in place or any amendments to it would not really

have done the job, but the civil rights protection act did. It was a

special bill, there were sanctions within it, and it worked well.

Reference is always made to political donations. Interesting. It's

very well for them to throw their barbs across the floor, but I can

remember what happened during the campaign. It was pretty clear the

amount of money which the BCGEU pumped in and the type of advertising

we found, and the funds which came from the Teamsters, the building

trades, the IWA and the operating engineers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's correct. People were coming to me

and saying I don't believe in this, I'm supporting you. It's all very

well for you to throw those chunks right off the top and throw the

barbs across, but expect some bullets back. This is what happened.

I'd like to make reference to the speech of the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) yesterday, which contained a lot of most reasonable

material, particularly when we're talking about the regulations, which

haven't yet been prepared and which the affected parties are going to

have an opportunity to give some input to. He's invited this — nothing

wrong with that at all.

With respect to one of the provisions in the bill, tenure, do

excluded employees in government or the public sector have tenure? How

about employees in the private sector? Do they have tenure? They don't

have it. They talk about this being draconian legislation. Do you

remember the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act? I remember that

well, in 1975. You know, in one way I don't blame the government of the

day for introducing that bill, because they had 60,000 people

[ Page 285 ]

who weren't working outside. It was time that they went back to

work. To be very candid with you, I thought the government provided

good leadership by bringing that bill in and putting them back to work.

The fact of the matter is those men wanted to go to work. I was

involved with them, and they wanted to go to work. I think that you did

the right thing, and yet it was thought to be very draconian. An

interesting comment was made in the press the other day. It came from a

professor. He made reference to tenure and said that tenure came from

the old concept of academic freedom. But he said it has in fact

degenerated into what we call de facto job security. Well, for my

money, somebody who's working in the mill in Mackenzie or Prince

George, who's had to suffer the whips of the marketplace and a

collapsed international economy, and who in fact pays the bill for

those people who've got tenure, is going to have some say. That's

exactly what this is intended to do.

MR. HANSON: They have seniority.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Seniority, the member mentions. Well, all

we have to do is take a look at the bill and the provisions that it

refers to. What does the bill contain? It calls for regulations which

should be ready by August 8, we hope. What's going to be taken into

consideration? Skills, abilities and qualifications of employees.

Operational requirements and efficiency. The seniority of employees and

the seniority of provisions of a collective agreement. I'll tell you

that we're not going to be the masters in here; school boards and

municipalities will run their show. But isn't it nice that somebody

should be able to make a determination as to which employees are there

because of skills, qualifications and seniority? It's all there.

We look at the provisions in the School Act. One of the things that

has bothered school boards, and they have been looking at it for a long

time, is that we threw the gauntlet out — "operate, manage" — but we as

a government have really in effect stopped them from doing it. We've

stopped them from doing it because the provisions under the School Act

say that there cannot be any terminations unless (1) there's a school

closure, (2) you can establish declining enrolment, and (3) there is

elimination of a program. The fact of the matter is that there could be

a teacher, fully qualified, with 20 years' experience in that

particular program, but she can't be protected. Now that's not right,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. HANSON: You're doing them a favour — now you'll fire them.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You said the word "fire."

Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come when everybody's hungry. 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 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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