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 )

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1705 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

B.C. Transit fare increases. Mr. Macdonald –– 1705

Removal of rent controls. Mr. Blencoe –– 1706

Northeast coal. Mr. Lea –– 1706

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

Mr. Hanson –– 1707

On the amendment

Mr. Passarell –– 1709

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1714

Mr. Skelly –– 1719

Mr. Macdonald –– 1724

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 1728

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1983

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. — REYNOLDS: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, is a

lawyer from Vancouver, Mr. Paul Bowes, with the firm of Worrall, Scott

and Page. I would like the House to make him welcome.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Miss Linda

Carlson who is actually a constituent of the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis), but who is a volunteer and very hard worker for the people

of British Columbia and the New Democratic Party. Would the House join

me in making her welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the

House today Canada's best known and loved band leader, a past president

of the Vancouver Gyro club, a hardworking citizen dedicated to the

betterment of British Columbia, an outstanding British Columbian and a

great Canadian: Mr. Dal Richards, "Mr. Vancouver."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is a rare occasion when the

government and the opposition can be in tune, and only a superb

bandmaster could accomplish that. May I extend my welcome to the

ageless Dal Richards.

MRS. DAILLY: In the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are five

visitors from Burnaby North: June Tratch, Jim Forgaard, Ike Finlayson

and Colleen and Frank Vipond. I wish the House would join me in

welcoming them.

MR. PELTON: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, from the

beautiful municipality of Maple Ridge, is a very good friend of mine,

Mr. Sandy Macdougall. Sandy is presently an alderman in that

municipality and has served the people there for many years. He tells

me today that he is about to throw his hat into the ring in his fight

to take over the mayor's job in the municipality this coming November.

I would ask the House not only to welcome him, but to wish him the best

of luck in November.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have several introductions I'd

like to make. The first four are: Warren Huxley, director of the Alma

Mater Society of the University of Victoria; Stephen Leary, chairperson

of the Canadian Federation of Students, Pacific region; Mike McNeill,

fieldworker, Canadian Federation of Students, Pacific region; and Brian

Stevenson, president of the AMS of the University of Victoria. I would

like the House to welcome those representatives.

The other introduction I'd like to make is of old friends of mine

who are now resident in the constituency of Nanaimo, Doug and Betty

Cronk.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to introduce one of the hardworking

volunteers in the Victoria MLAs' community office, Mr. Robert Arnold.

Would the House make him welcome.

MS. SANFORD: In the galleries today is Randall Potts, a former researcher

for the NDP caucus in Ottawa who has returned to British Columbia to attend

the University of Victoria. I'd like the House to give him a warm welcome.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to add my word of welcome to Doug and

Betty Cronk from my constituency. In addition, I'd like the House to

welcome Alderman Dick Winkelman, who has been in the gallery off and

on. I don't see him at the moment, but he was there this morning. I

think he's learned a lot about the activities of the House since he's

been here. I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. NICOLSON: It's indeed with pleasure that I would ask the

House to welcome a couple of people from my riding: Maria Potochnik,

who was a graduate in 1978 of the Friends' school in Argenta, and Donna

Sassaman, also from Argenta and a former school trustee in School

District 86.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to add my words of welcome to

those of the member for Nanaimo for both of the guests he introduced,

Doug Cronk and Dick Winkelman, both of whom I knew very well during the

days when I was connected with B.C. Hydro. I would like to join in

welcoming them here.

MS. BROWN: Andrew Pedder, a Rhodes scholar and brilliant

lawyer, is floating around the precincts somewhere; maybe the House

could bid him welcome — also, an old friend in the gallery. Robin Garry.

Oral Questions

B.C. TRANSIT FARE INCREASES

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Human Resources. B.C.

Transit fare increases averaging 25 percent on the buses October 1 in

eight cities; Hon. Premier making the statement that although the

restraint under the Crown corporation fare increases act was to be

repealed, fare increases by Crown corporations would not happen. Has

the minister decided to get in touch with B.C. Transit and tell them to

curtail those increases in view of the Premier's statement that the

Crown corporations would not be allowed to raise their rates, as they

are doing in B.C. Transit?

[2:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. MACDONALD: Let me just ask this supplementary, and then

perhaps one more. What is the cost then that the minister has had under

consideration for the past three or four weeks for this ridiculous

painting of the buses by B.C. Transit to the U.S.A. and SCP colours of

red, white and blue? What is the cost, why is that program continuing,

and has the minister decided to cut it so that B.C. Transit will not

have to raise fares?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member did not mention that they are also the colours of the Union Jack, and many other combinations we could rely on.

The reference to the painting of the buses, which is a maintenance

program undertaken by all of those who have the responsibility for

keeping vehicles on the road, whether it be the private sector in the

trucking industry or the public sector in the transit business.... That

goes on apace and has no reference whatsoever to nor does it in any way

derive

[ Page 1706 ]

from the fare structure. It is part of the ongoing

maintenance which all transit companies throughout North America

undertake, and this in no way is unusual.

However, the member has a question which I took as notice which is

separate, indeed, from the first one he has asked today, and I will be

very pleased to bring that information back to the House when all of

the specific information is made available to me.

MR. MACDONALD: Another supplementary question. Has the

minister decided to review the cutback to B.C. Transit that's set out

in vote 51? In view of the spiralling public costs, with higher fares,

reduced numbers of riders, lower revenues, more cars on the road, more

exhaust fumes, more accidents, more roads to be built, and the

imposition of hardship upon low-income people who ride the buses, has

the minister decided to review the severe cut in the subsidy to B.C.

Transit which is contained in vote 51 ?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Frankly, I think implicit in the question

is a criticism, if you like, of those who are charged with the

responsibility not only for a very effective and well-run transit

system throughout this province, but one in which they do keep within

their budget and deliver a service that probably isn't given anywhere

else on this continent. I would suggest that the budget which is made

available is being very well administered by the board of directors to

whom we give that responsibility. It is not within their jurisdiction

to overexpend the budget and they will not be doing so; but they will,

as they have always done, deliver top-rate service. Where there are

routes that are not viable, they will, as they did even in the affluent

years of our province's history, be addressing them, and will replace

them with routes which are more viable.

The House must understand that this transportation business is

ever-changing, just as our needs in many areas are changing. It is all

driven by the marketplace and we will be having changes. I am sure the

member knows that.

MR. MacDONALD: Another short supplementary. I was not

criticizing B.C. Transit; it is the government that has reduced the

subsidy to B.C. Transit, down from $91 million to $78 million. Has the

government decided to review that so that these fare increases will not

be imposed on people?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The government has already reviewed it.

In the budget for this year B.C. Transit, no less than any other area

of government, is cutting its cloth to suit its capabilities. The

reference is to minimal increases, which still makes the fare that is

being charged in the marketplace a very reasonable one for the service

given. I think the member would have to agree that it is reasonable

when one compares it with rates all over this nation, and even the

continent.

REMOVAL OF RENT CONTROLS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet). The September 1983 issue of Housing Quarterly ,

published by the minister's ministry, indicates, and I quote: "The

immediate effect of removing rent control will be upward pressure on

rents." Has the minister decided to bring this information to the

attention of his cabinet colleagues?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe that information has been well

publicized. What has not been well publicized are the good things in

the report, and there are many of them.

MR. BLENCOE: This same report informs us that the current

vacancy rate is only temporary and that by June of next year renters

will again be competing for scarce apartments and be facing increased

rents. In light of the information in this report, has the minister

decided to recommend that the order abolishing rent controls be

rescinded?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If the member wishes to quote, he could go on and finish the quotation, which says: "...which in turn will result in an uptrend in the building of rental units."

MR. BLENCOE: Isn't that interesting; the report is quite

clear that your policies are not going to create increased housing. A

supplementary question. In view of this shocking revelation, will the

minister not admit that government policies will cause skyrocketing

rents in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEA: A question to the Premier, in the absence of the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who is in charge of northeast coal. I know the Premier, as

head of government, is very familiar with the northeast coal project.

Japanese buyers have approached Quintette and Bullmoose in the

northeast coalfields with the thought that they would like to negotiate

either new tonnages, new prices or a combination of prices and tonnages

downward. If the tonnages go down, it means the taxpayers of the

province have to pick up the extra costs, because there is a $3

surcharge on each tonne to pay off the public debt to build the rail

line. If the prices go down, then the companies are in the position of

having to pick up the pieces in that area. I would like to ask the

Premier what the government has decided the proper formula would be, as

the taxpayers have a big stake in this. Would it be just from tonnage,

just from prices, or would it be a combination? If so, what would the

combination of price and tonnage be?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question on notice for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

MR. LEA: A different question to the same minister. A report

brought out by B.C. Hydro says that by 1985 we will have markets for

only 60 percent of the coal we produce — that's from a Crown

corporation of the government. Has the Premier's office, or has

government, examined this document and projection by B.C. Hydro? If so,

do you have an opinion as to its accuracy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I haven't examined that document, but

my recent discussions with General Park from Pohang Iron and Steel in

Korea and with officials from NKK, which negotiates on behalf of all

companies in the Japanese steel industry, make me far more optimistic

that that.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, we'd all like to be optimistic because it's

to the benefit of the people of the province that northeast coal is a success.

If it isn't, it's going to cost taxpayers money. I'm asking the

Premier if he has taken any

[ Page

1707 ]

initiative whatsoever, as the head of government, to look at this project

and to make some decisions surrounding what's best for the taxpayer. Or

is the Premier saying that he has not examined this in any way? If that's

the case, fine. We'll wait until the minister comes back.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert

really reinforces the need for what the government is doing: that is,

not only holding talks with existing markets but having an aggressive

offshore marketing program for investment in markets by all ministers

in the government. At the present time, the minister for whom I took

the question as notice, the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development, Don Phillips, is travelling in Europe. One of the areas

will be to develop additional coal markets in those countries. He is

also visiting — for the first time, of course — the Eastern Bloc,

Yugoslavia, to seek market opportunities there.

As part of the government's international marketing strategy, and

recognizing that two-thirds of British Columbia's economy comes from

exports.... If it wasn't for our ability to produce and compete

internationally, our economy would be one-third the size of what it is

now, and we would be hard-pressed as a people to have any services at

all, let alone to provide the type of employment opportunity that we

want for our people. We will be having very high-powered, specific

delegations of ministers in all areas, not only those to do with

resources but also with secondary manufacturers and increased tourism

on a planned basis, seeking markets and investment around the world.

Later this week the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) will be

embarking on a major mission to Korea, where we have an opportunity,

for the first time, to expand our tourist business.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you how this relates: Korea is one of the new markets we have for coal....

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I think I've been fairly

lenient with the Premier. He's gone to a topic that I didn't ask him

about and I think that's against the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: While open-ended questions have a tendency to

elicit open-ended responses, nonetheless, hon. members, when responding

it is incumbent upon the member responding to at least contain the

remarks somewhere within the confines of the question that has been

asked.

I would ask the Premier to conclude his remarks.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If I could conclude my remarks, it was from

a major mission that I led to Korea two years ago that we got the coal

contracts from Pohang Iron and Steel and made contact with Korea

Electric. Korea has now lifted the embargo on travel of their people to

be international tourists. That's why it's timely, in conjunction with

that, that the Minister of Tourism take the earliest opportunity to

take advantage of that market, and that's why the Hon. Claude Richmond

will be making that trip.

[2:30]

MR. LEA: We're actually pleased that the government is going

out trying to sell coal; it's to all of our benefit. But at the same

time, we also understand the bit of franticness that's going on because

the original figures and markets for northeast coal obviously aren't

there. We're concerned, and we hope these new markets come.

I'd like to ask the Premier if he could tell the House whether, to

his knowledge. there has been an approach, either to government or to

the coal interests in northeast coal, by NKK to negotiate either

tonnage or prices downward.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker. I just recently met with the

officials of NKK and that subject ~.k as not brought up to me. I cannot

say whether they're negotiating to increase their tonnage from British

Columbia — from the southeast, the northeast and other coal-producing

areas — or not, or whether their forecasts for steel production, at a

time when steel production capacity is at its lowest ebb in years in

which they have been maintaining shipments.... I'm not sure what their

forecasts on the ten-year basis are, but I do know that British

Columbia would intend to take full advantage of an increased percentage

share of coal and other resources. not only in our traditional markets,

but in the markets of the world, in which British Columbia has made a

very favourable impression.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill 3 impairs British Columbia's

opportunities to recover in the economic climate that presently obtains

in this province. Bill 3 undermines the confidence of the working

people of British Columbia, in that their government has turned on them

as the reason for the misfortune that befalls our economy. There are

many analysts, both here and abroad, who indicate that the course of

the government's present legislative package, the direction in which

the government is taking us, leads nowhere but to conflict and

instability and to a lack of confidence among our own citizens.

I want to cite a couple of observations that are made by various

reviewers and analysts. One of them is the B.C. Public Interest

Research Group, which states that the drastic budgetary measures of the

Social Credit government in Victoria are currently impairing the

economy of the province and that the notion that somehow the ordinary

people of the province are responsible for our predicament is false. I

have a report from New York which states very clearly that when

governments proceed on a course, which is often very popular initially,

to lay off public sector employees as some kind of cost-saving or

efficiency measure, it is false economy, and, in actual fact, the

public is ill-served.

I would like to read the abstract from this report, which states:

"In a number of instances the state has chosen to reduce

its workforce through layoffs. Doing so has resulted in immediate apparent savings,

but also, to some degree, in costly side-effects which have not been fully counted

and are thus not fully heeded in a state's decision making. These include

the costs of

[ Page 1708 ]

insecurity-induced quitting of valuable employees, the lower

productivity which accompanies layoff anxiety and unemployment compensation

chargebacks for the large number of people that find themselves on other sources

of income such as social insurance and unemployment insurance. These costs are

not equated into the cost formula when right-wing governments embark upon what

they perceive to be a popular political move to ingratiate themselves to the

electorate.... Planned attrition programs represent one way of eliminating many

of the costs of these side benefits while maintaining most of the savings of

layoffs. The study explored the hypothesis that the attrition strategy can be

more cost-effective than the layoff strategy."

Mr. Speaker, it was clear from the Provincial Secretary's letter to

his own employees in January of this year that attrition was the

desirable mode by which he was suggesting cost savings be made in

government and that as people retired or left government for whatever

reason, they not.... Mr. Speaker, the letter indicated that because of

the natural outflow of various types of workers leaving the public

service, attrition would be the desirable mode of reducing any numbers

during this recession period. That view was held by all of the

bargaining agents for all of the 250,000 workers affected by this bill.

Clearly if a person retires or leaves the public service for their own

reasons and leaves that position vacant and it is not necessary to

refill it for one reason or another, that is the desirable course

rather than wholesale terminations for people whose livelihoods depend

on that revenue to maintain body and soul, to keep their families

together, to look after the needs of their own immediate kin.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What happened? Why did the government abandon that course? Was it a

strategy that they were aware of right from the beginning, or did they

embark upon a course shortly thereafter and the whole letter and

correspondence with their own staff was a contrivance to try and

facilitate the prospect of an election which we knew was coming in the

fall or in the spring? The government was clearly hedging their bets by

telling the 50,000 employees scattered throughout this province in all

manner of public services and also other public sector trade unions

that they had nothing to fear from a Social Credit government; rather,

they should have confidence in the government's willingness to

cooperate with them in ensuring that no abrupt, disruptive

haemorrhaging of the economy was to take place — nothing that would

impair what appeared to be at that time the incipient steps of a

recovery based on timber sales and other activity south of the border.

The government employees of this province have been betrayed. As I

pointed out earlier, we are in an international observatory in the

sense that governments in Europe, Japan and in the United States are

looking at British Columbia and disclaiming the approaches embarked

upon by the Premier of this province and his cabinet. Clearly the

opportunities for doing something constructive and positive rather than

something that damages the economy and will, if not corrected and

withdrawn, wreak havoc on this economy and will be with us in terms of

negative aspects throughout our social and economic fabric for years

and years to come if the government is not convinced of the growing

opinion outside of this Legislature that the government is on a course

that doesn't have the confidence of the people that elected this

cabinet....

The New York study indicates that mass layoffs are bad economics.

They do not stimulate the economy; they create more uncertainty and a

climate of fear. What we have been saying through the course of our

deliberations and our opposition to this bill is that the government,

if it were prepared to do the mature, adult thing and recognize that

the right-wing advisers who have been advising and have had the ear of

government over the last while have charted a course which is alien to

the government we have come to understand in Canada, the people of the

province would clearly breathe a sigh of relief and would commend the

government for their wisdom and courage in stopping in mid-course and

making the decision that they have been ill-advised and should be

taking a different course. I say that in the hope that they will do it,

but every indication — in their behaviour this session to ramrod the

package of bills that hurt the elderly, the poor and the least able in

our society to protect themselves — is that the government seems

committed and confident, because of these advisers, that they're on a

course that will be of some benefit to all of us.

We have editorials in newspapers which have headlines that we have

never seen in the history of British Columbia, such as: "Why All of

This Bloodshed?" "Consensus Not Combat." "Labour's Taste of British

Columbia." "Budget Hurts The Little Guy." "Help in the Budget is

Minimal." "Budget Wrong Recovery Route." These editorials come from

areas of the province that are not at present represented by New

Democratic Party members. They are areas that oftentimes have expressed

views of the rugged, individualistic, non-cooperative and

non-consensual approach to public policy. They feel that an individual

must stand on his own two feet and that the government's responsibility

is not to all citizens to ensure that the poorest of society are

protected. Yet these editors, for some reason, have come to understand

that the government has embarked upon a course that is not in the best

interests of our beautiful province.

[2:45]

In places such as Kamloops, Quesnel, Telkwa and Armstrong and

throughout the central interior of the province — the traditional power

base of the Social Credit Party for some years — newspapers have

clearly denounced Bill 3 as a bill which serves no useful purpose.

There is now an understanding and astuteness in all of these areas that

Bill 3 is some kind of vindictive response of the government to cut

away any opposition to this government and to use the public sector

employees — who cannot speak out against the government — as scapegoats

who are solely responsible for our present predicament.

Over and over in the study in New York state the researchers

indicate how initially desirable, politically, is the notion of cutting

back on government — all the buzzwords we hear in this Legislature,

cutting back on services and red tape, all the things we have come to

hear so frequently from Social Credit over the last few years. But in

the final analysis they indicate a lack of understanding of the public

service and its importance in our mixed economy and as an agency of

management of resources which plays an advocacy role protecting the

public against market forces that would, at the earliest opportunity,

take advantage of situations that ought not to be taken advantage of.

[ Page 1709 ]

I pointed out that the government has attempted to divide the

working people of the province into essentially two categories,

although there is a third very large category of working people whom

the government has designs on, to limit their particular bargaining

position in society; they are the unorganized people in the workforce.

The government has attempted to divide those who work for public sector

employers, painting them as not productive and not wealth-generating,

and painting those in the private sector as the engines of recovery and

the kind of employment that is desirable. Clearly, that is an

incredibly simplistic and silly approach. With fantastic accolades to

the working people in both the private- and public-sector organized

workforces. they have refused to accept to any major extent the

government's argument and now have joined together with community

organizations throughout this province to attempt to explain the course

that this government is taking us on, the dismantling of the British

Columbia we know and understand into some kind of society that harks

back to early times. It is some kind of simplistic, classics-comic

notion of economics. and the public is beginning to understand it in a

major way. That is why this incredible opposition to Bill 3.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd just like to introduce a constituent of both

the first and second members for Victoria, Mrs. Sue Douglas, and her

young son Allan. I hope the House will make her welcome this afternoon.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, over the last few days I have been

speaking on the serious issues of Bill 3 and other bills. My colleagues

and I have been registering our opposition to the course this

government is taking us on. I want to say to the 250,000 families in

British Columbia who have pinned their hopes on us that we will

continue to fight to the best of our ability to oppose this bill. The

road that we are on with this budget package is a long road. The

resolve of the members on this side is to defend the legitimate rights

of the people of this province. The fundamental challenge to democratic

rights that is occurring in this province is unprecedented. We will

continue to fight and oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have been talking to the government through you for ten hours.

I am now going to move a motion, and I would ask that you accept this motion

on a reasoned amendment. My motion is that the motion be amended by leaving

out all of the words following "that" and substituting therefore the

following: "it is the opinion of this House that every consideration of

humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose measures which

would encourage practices of political patronage through powers of arbitrary

dismissal of public employees."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will allow debate to proceed before making any determination on the amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker. at times when we come down to

this Legislature and there are a lot of games that go on, a lot of

things that happen in public life....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I'd like to know what

he's speaking on. Is he speaking on the amendment that's just been put

forward here? You have accepted the amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I haven't said anything yet, but I'm prepared to let the member....

HON. MR. CHABOT: We shouldn't allow debate to take place until such time as we determine whether the amendment is in order or not.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It is traditional to allow

debate on an amendment until such time as the Chair can rule on the

amendment. That has been a tradition and courtesy of this House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Has that been a tradition in this House? I'm not familiar with it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the records will show it has been

done this week already. The member for Atlin will continue, and the

Chair will arrive at a decision shortly.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. A wise decision.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We don't know whether the amendment is in order or not, yet debate is taking place on it. That's simply ridiculous.

MR. PASSARELL: Ridiculous is what I've seen in this House in

the last few days by the government. Mr. Speaker, I try to be a

reasonable man around this place, and when I see the Provincial

Secretary trying to shove this stuff down the throats of the people of

British Columbia, I get a little concerned. We've been going in this

House for two days — nights, mornings, right straight through. Why?

Because this is a dictatorial government. If you stand up in this House

— if you go out in the hallways and try to make some statements around

this — it's shoved down your throat.

I have never been so embarrassed in all my life. Standing here and

trying to be reasonable and talking with people across this floor and

trying to show some kind of compassion here, and what do we see? This

Bill 3. We see this kind of junk being pushed down our throats. And

what happens? The government members don't even stand in their place

even to defend themselves. You stand in your place....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Wasting time.

MR. PASSARELL: Wasting time! If I've ever seen a waste of

time, Madam Member, it's this bill right here in front of us talking

about thousands of people who you people are trying to dump because of

this restraint bill. And you talk about a waste of time. Don't people

matter to you — their livelihood, their jobs, their concerns, their

families? What do you think this bill is going to do, Madam Member for

Surrey?

[ Page 1710 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: What about the taxpayers?

MR. PASSARELL: That's something I'd like to talk about, Mr.

Speaker: the taxpayers. You people have been going around saying it

costs $80,000 or $100,000 a day to keep this place open.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, not

knowing whether or not you've approved the amendment, I guess the hon.

member is continuing, but I think it would be proper if he addressed

the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good point. The member, I'm sure, can address

the amendment on Bill 3, always bearing in mind that temperance and

moderation are a parliamentary courtesy.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm a poor old country boy and I try to be

moderate, Mr. Speaker. But when we see this government going out and

playing a charade of telling people that we're holding up all

legislation and costing the taxpayers in this province $80,000 or

$100,000 or whatever figure comes into their head at that specific time

— what about the poor people in this place that they've kept going here

for days? The people in the library, the people down in the legislative

dining room, the security guards...

MS. SANFORD: The Hansard people.

MR. PASSARELL: ...the Hansard people. They cost extra

money. And it's not us; it's you people who are doing this — you and

your leader. If you want to save money, withdraw this bill. That's

probably the best cost-saving measure in this province. Withdraw this

bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MR. PASSARELL: It even would be better, Mr. Speaker, for this government to resign. But we know that that's a little too unbelievable.

That is something that gets in my craw, when I hear this government

talking on how much extra money it's costing. You bring in this Public

Sector Restraint Act, Bill 3. Do you know what the cost is going to be

to the province, to society, when you start going around canning people

just because you don't care for what they look like or what their

political beliefs are? What are these people supposed to do?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on welfare.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, yes, that's right: go on welfare. Then

where's the cost, Mr. Speaker? What we're finding in this province

today is a welfare state being developed by this Social Credit

government. Is that called free enterprise? I doubt it.

[3:00]

You have a majority, and I doubt if there is anybody in this

province who does not understand that you had an election on May 5.

They gave you a confidence. They gave you a majority.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: A lot of things I'm saying, Mr. Member for

Omineca, have been right. But you have been given the right, through an

election.... The people have put their faith in your government, but

they did not give you a mandate for Bill 3. There was no mention of

this prior to the election. You ran on restraint, and I doubt if

there's any political party in this country that is opposed to

restraint.

MS. SANFORD: They're there under false pretences.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, I'd have to agree with that statement.

In the recent amendment the word "justice" was mentioned. I doubt if

there's any hon. member in this House who does not understand what

justice is about. In our early childhood we learned about a "fair

shake" and a "straight deal." I sit here at times and get a little

upset with the innuendoes and comments that go across this floor about

our previous occupations. It's a joke to some people in this House that

certain members were automobile dealers. I find nothing funny about

that. When you're in the business world, Mr. Speaker, one thing that

you have to do is have fair practices and give our consumer a fair

shake, regardless of what your occupation is.

There is nothing fair about this bill. When it was first presented,

this government, through its ill-conceived legislation, stated that

they could fire people without cause. What type of legislation is that?

I have never heard of any similar legislation being enacted in North

America or any democracy. Without cause — because they don't like your

political beliefs, the colour of your hair or your sex they can fire

you.

After the initial furor, what happened about this bill? It went very

deep in society to the people who are concerned about this. It broke

apart political labels. People were definitely concerned about this

bill and its implications. Without cause! Then we heard this hoopla

story about the amendments that were going to come in. Has anybody here

seen those amendments? Where are the regulations which were supposed to

bring this bill more into line with the democracy we grew up to respect?

AN HON. MEMBER: The amendments are right here on the order paper.

MR. PASSARELL: Where are the regulations which were promised, Mr. Minister?

I know the difference when I see someone trying to pull the blinders

over the horse. You're trying to deflect a little from the public

outcry that is coming about your bill. Once people really start to see

that Bill 3 doesn't save anybody any money.... It just gives you some

kind of draconian measures to can people in the public service when you

want to.

MS. SANFORD: And destroy families in the process.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Will you shut up.

MR. PASSARELL: I would like the member to withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests made an unparliamentary remark. I will ask the minister to withdraw the remark.

[ Page 1711 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The remark which was made to another hon. member.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to hear the member speaking and the other member kept nattering so I asked her to shut up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Okay, I'll withdraw. Keep jabbering then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The remark has been withdrawn, and perhaps if

the hon. member for Comox does not interject, then we can maintain

orderly debate and hear the proposition put forward by the hon. member

for Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL: Getting back to the amendment which was

presented before that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to

indicate that with this bill the government has gone to the very basic

roots of what we in this country have grown to respect, and that's

justice.

As a teacher before being anointed to this honourable Legislature in two elections....

AN HON. MEMBER: You were elected, not anointed.

MR. PASSARELL: Lucky? I've been lucky, and you people are

lucky right now that more and more people across this province aren't

finding out what your real measures are all about. Dictatorial! Sitting

here all night trying to jam this stuff down our throats, and then

saying it's costing the taxpayers $80,000 a day. You are the people who

are imposing this upon them. What about the poor Hansard people

who have to sit here for 24 hours a day, or the people in the library

or the good ladies down in the restaurant? You forget about those

people, just like this bill is trying to forget about certain people in

this province who grew up to respect justice, grew up to respect a

government because of the authority, regardless of whether it was NDP

or Liberal or Conservative or Social Credit. But I'm telling you, Mr.

Speaker, this bill is starting to worry people out there. They are

becoming very afraid of what this government is trying to do.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is this your leadership speech?

MR. PASSARELL: No, my leadership speech will be left to an

appropriate time. This isn't an appropriate time for jokes, Mr.

Provincial Secretary. You're talking about people's livelihoods with

this bill.

MS. SANFORD: It's callous, and the Speaker is laughing. He doesn't care.

MR. PASSARELL: It is callous but, Mr. Speaker, there is

nothing in this to laugh about. There are times that we have

legislation in front of us that we can kibob with each other and throw

things across the floor. This isn't something to be funny about. It's

serious.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're the funny one.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Provincial Secretary is the funny one. Go

stand and look in a mirror, if you can, after bringing this kind of

legislation forward to people.

This bill imposes itself upon not just one group of people in the

province, one sector of workers; it goes right across and deals with

thousands and thousands of people in this province. I'm sure the

government has some fairy-tale type of thinking that we're going to put

one speaker up and he or she is going to pretend that there are bad

parts and there are good parts and we're going to have an initial

debate of 40 minutes and then boom, we're going to have a vote on it

and then you can implement it. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the

government really realizes and understands the depth and the powers

that this bill entitles you to have. What's next? We're talking in this

bill, intituled Public Sector Restraint Act, about termination of

employees....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I really am not

concerned how many speakers the official opposition puts up in regard

to this amendment. However many they do put up, I wish they would speak

to the amendment and not to the bill. We've been on the bill for

several hours. We took care of that just very recently and we're now on

an amendment. I have yet to find that the member on his feet is

speaking to that amendment.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The

subamendment, in terms of a reasoned amendment, has been thoroughly

researched. The focus is on the justice of the bill and the member has

been focusing on the word "justice" throughout his debate. I don't

think meaningless interjections serve any useful purpose.

MR. PASSARELL: As the public record will show to my hon.

friend from Omineca, I have used the word "justice" from the amendment

numerously in the last 15 minutes.

MR. KEMPF: That's the only connection you've used.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be able to

please that member today with this. Frankly, I don't give...but on to

the amendment.

One of the analyses of why this amendment was brought forward for Bill 3, Mr.

Speaker, is that some of the implications of this bill have been looked upon

by not just residents in this province.... Sometimes I think we can coop

ourselves up into this rock of the island where the capital is located and forget

what the people outside — the residents and the citizens are thinking about.

This bill has travelled off this rock, out of this province, across the mountains

and across the continent; it has international implications when it comes to

labour standards. It also deals with constitutional and human rights. We have

seen this government attempt to erode human rights in this province. We're

seeing the denial of natural justice — centralization of government through

this bill — erosion of autonomy in the public sector belief. There have been

many barbs thrown across into the media that the New Democratic Party takes

its orders from big unions. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing further from

the truth when it comes to taking orders. What we're dealing with in this

bill are residents who work in this province, who pay taxes to keep this government

able to half afford some of the projects that they're going through with.

They come back and say: "Hey, give us a fair shake. What is this about

firing

[ Page 1712 ]

us without just cause and putting us on some

computer list in Richmond to see what our political persuasions are?"

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day.

MS. SANFORD: All three back-benchers who are here are asleep. That's how much they care.

MR. PASSARELL: No, they're not asleep. They're paying

attention. If they're not paying attention, they're probably

embarrassed and ashamed of this government that they're part of,

bringing in such a bill as Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has allowed the government almost a blank

cheque, to dismiss, if they want, 250,000 public employees in this

province without advance specification of the criteria. There are no

safeguards in this legislation. I see in front of me, in the bill

itself, that there are no safeguards. What one has to do, Mr. Speaker,

is read this bill in conjunction with the elimination of the human

rights branch. I know I'm straying from the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I'll

take your wisdom on that.

One of the aspects of this government's legislation, on the

particular amendment that we're talking about, is that it gives power

to the government to reassign, reclassify and relocate any public

service employee. Now I don't believe that when you get into the public

service it's a job for life. But if you're doing a damn good job, then

there's no reason why you should be canned. To talk about relocating

any public sector employee in this province because you're not pleased

with somebody who's working in Dease Lake, and they just happen to

belong to a political party that opposes you....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: We can't do that, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf), outside the province. I think the two of us have a simpler

belief in some of the people we'd like to go up to talk to.

But to relocate any public service employee because they just might,

in the discretion of the individual who's making that decision, belong

to another political party or have long hair or a beard.... Because of

something that whoever is making this decision doesn't like about the

individual — they've just bought a new home, or reinvested in a car —

boom, they're relocated.

[3:15]

Another aspect of this bill is that it guts what we're talking about

in the amendment — justice. I think that's an important word. It was

put into what was brought across your desk 20 minutes ago, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that we grew up respecting, particularly we who have

worked, is a collective agreement. Now we find out that terminations

may be done when the government pleases.

I know the Provincial Secretary had brought in some further

information on this bill because of the public outcry about dismissal

without cause. They brought in some mumbo-jumbo legal terminology. In a

sense, you just can't do it without cause now; you can just can, if you

want to, 250,000 people in this province because there's no more money

left for that specific job in that area. So if you wanted to get rid of

public sector workers in the far north, in the Highways department, you

just say: "There's no more money in that specific area for this year."

The amendment to the motion, Mr. Speaker, should be read into the

record again: "It is the opinion of this House that every consideration

of humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose

measures which would encourage practices of political patronage through

powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees." Now I don't think

that any of us who have been elected believe in political patronage. I

think we're all honourable members in this House. Mr. Speaker, the

reason this motion has to be brought forward by the opposition is that

there is political patronage going on in this province. It's something

that every member of this Legislature should be ashamed of: giving

friends jobs even if they have no qualifications for those jobs,

circumventing certain regulations when it comes to government employees

and government agents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. PASSARELL: You know what I'm talking about, Mr. Member for Omineca.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tozer.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. Tozer.

There were certain specific regulations set up on that job description that that man did not have the qualifications for.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, come on! "Tell me why this person was

killed." "He got a bullet through the head." "Well, give me another

reason why he died." Come on, you know what I'm talking about, Mr.

Member from Omineca. It's one of the worst affairs in this province

when it comes to political patronage. I can just see CBC running with

it one day: "The Tozer Affair."

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, Mr. Member for North Vancouver-Seymour

(Mr. Davis), hopefully we'll be discussing that one day, if it comes

true. Humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose

measures which would encourage practices of political patronage, as the

amendment says, in this province. We have made reference to the Tozer

affair. I don't understand why the man was there, except if he was just

related.... But I know that's straying, Mr. Speaker. It's been

difficult and I will get back on to the amendment to the motion.

Another aspect I would like to cover is a position paper put out by

the British Columbia Health Association in regard to Bill 3 and why the

amendment in front of us is needed, when we talk about the words

"justice" and "humanity." I just paraphrase, reading some of the

executive's

summary on the front page here. The B.C. Health Association

urges the provincial government to reconsider Bill 3, the Public Sector

Restraint Act. Hospitals and community care facilities have proven that

restraint can be effectively achieved through voluntary compliance and

the existing funding process without resorting to the extraordinary

powers provided under this act. You already have the powers to

implement much of what you want to do with Bill 3. You can do it

already; you don't need it. It's more paperwork, and if there's

anything I think many members of this House understand, it's that

paperwork is expensive regardless of who's doing it. The more paper you

put out, the more money it eventually costs. You have the

[ Page 1713 ]

regulations already. It's not as if you need to

bring in Bill 3, because there are no regulations to cover some of the

principles you want to deal with.

I'll refer to another news release from the hon. Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services dated August 4, 1983.

Would you please sit down? I think you think better off your feet.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll do my heckling from my chair then.

MR. PASSARELL: It says:

"Provincial Secretary James Chabot removed the 'without

cause' language from the government's restraint legislation and said

the basic objective of reducing the size and cost to government can be achieved

by applying the same standards used in the private sector. 'We are applying

major private sector principles concerning layoff and termination practice in

both the spirit and the intent of Bill 3,' Chabot said after introducing

amendments to the Legislature."

That's kind of airy-fairy, using the "major private sector principles

concerning layoff and termination." Usually in a collective agreement,

which most of the private sector has to deal with, you have certain rules and

regulations that are specified. There is certain human rights legislation —

it used to be provincial but now it's covered by the federal Charter of

Rights — in which we do not need this legislation to start going around and

saying: "Well, we were going to terminate people without cause, but we

saw the public outcry on this so now what we're going to do is bring in

major private sector principles." What kind of principles are you talking

about? Are these the principles that Michael Walker in the Fraser Institute

believes are principles?

But where are the regulations to go along with this press release?

This was August 4, 1983, and the minister talked about the regulations.

The bill came in back in June when this House started to sit.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're wrong.

MR. PASSARELL: When did it come in. then?

HON. MR. CHABOT: July.

MR. PASSARELL: July 7, 1983, the black day in the history of British Columbia. The day of the budget.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Black day?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a racist remark, isn't it?

MR. PASSARELL: Well, I guess that answers it. You'd know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We're getting a little unparliamentary here, hon. members. To the amendment, please.

MR. PASSARELL: Some of the amendments to the bill itself have

been termed totally cosmetic, and change in no way, shape or form the

thrust and the intent of this reactionary legislation that the Social

Credit government is bringing down in Bill 3. While the objectionable

"without just cause" has been removed, the criteria — and this is

important — for dismissal set out in the amendments are so broad as to

amount to the same thing. Through this legislation, collective

agreements in the public sector are rendered null and void, just as

surely by the amendments as they were in the original bill.

It should be noted that Bill 3 still overrides something that was

basic to justice in this province, and that's called the Labour Code.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I doubt if I'm reading everything, Mr. Member.

But I guess you would be jealous of me. Through you, Mr. Speaker,

seeing your performance as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, I guess you would be jealous. I take that as a compliment,

looking at what you've done. Talk about reading — why don't you get up

and start attacking anybody in this province who can read? Are you

jealous because people can read? There are people up here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't shout at me.

MR. PASSARELL: What are you talking about, shout at you? I'm shouting through the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the bill. The minister will come to order, please.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: The only thing I'm good for — that's good. Let's put that in Hansard right now: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says, "The only thing that you're good for...."

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not debating the bill anyway.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, but I love it. I understand, and I'll let the inane statements come from the minister.

Back to the amendment.

The amendments to the Public Sector Restraint Act, Bill 3, and why we've been discussing this since Monday....

It's now Wednesday, 3:25 p.m. PDT, and we're continuing. We find in the

bill itself.... We're still waiting for the regulations to come from

the minister to clarify what the intent is of this Government. We see

that "dismissed without cause" has been changed but it is still too

wide open, too wide ranging. We see further that for a variety of

wide-ranging reasons a public sector employee still may be terminated

"in accordance with a regulation." The important thing is that

regardless of what the minister brought in, the act stills overrules

the Labour Code and — something that's been very important — the Public

Service Labour Relations Act, which provides that a "collective

agreement shall contain a clause allowing for dismissal only for just

or proper cause." Just and proper.

Back to the word in the motion: justice, What type of justice do you

have when you allow the termination of an employee without just cause

or for proper cause? The reasons for dismissal now specified in this

bill include lack of funds, as I mentioned earlier. The government, in

its wisdom, if it

[ Page 1714 ]

feels that.... A job, an employee, a single mother

working in the public sector employment can be terminated now for lack

of funds. That's supposed to be a catch-all phrase now, to dismiss

public sector workers: "We just don't have the funds anymore." Another

stipulation now is changes in the organizational structure, making

management units larger. If it's in the school, it's disregarding

school boards and their local incentives for the education of children,

and as was pointed out in the throne speech, incorporates smaller

school districts into a larger management unit. If this bill is passed,

we can almost look at the aspect of change in the organizational

structure: "We're making a school board larger," or "We're making the

highway department region larger."

Discontinuation of programs and services, and reductions in the

level of service — that's another stipulation in this bill. So the

government can take it a step further and say: "Okay, ladies and

gentlemen in our public sector, we see that the programs you're working

under now, such as the Human Rights Commission, are no longer needed;

you're no longer needed and your job is no longer there." Services to

seniors, for instance: "That's not needed any longer so your job is not

there." Reduction in the levels of service: "We can't go out and plough

the highways every night in winter, or once every two days, because

there's a reduction in the levels of service, so we're going to let the

snow sit on the highway for an extra week. If you've got a 4 by 4 and

you can get through, fine; if you can't, stay at home. We've got to

reduce the levels of service."

The crux of Bill 3, that public sector employees are allowed to be

dismissed notwithstanding provisions in the collective agreement, to

this date still remains.

[3:30]

I certainly hope to have an opportunity to talk further on this

matter, since I've basically dealt with only five pieces of the

information in my vast file here. In conclusion, as we know, we're all

honourable members in this House....

MR. DAVIS: Some more than others.

MR. PASSARELL: Not some more than others. We're all honourable, Mr. Member. We're all equal. That's the beautiful thing about justice.

We're all honourable members in this House, but I'm proud today to

be able to stand in my place to debate a piece of legislation that I

would have thought would have been thrown away, dismissed, and shown in

historical context as something that came out well before I was born in

the 1930s, and that happened in a country in Europe in which a dictator

brought in very similar legislation. Historical records show what

happened. I'm fortunate and proud to be a member of the New Democratic

Party opposing this dictatorial, totalitarian legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Rossland-Trail.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, can I interfere just a moment,

on a point of order. I raised this issue before, and I don't want to

appear to be harassing the Chair or anything like that, but I just

question the amendment. We've already had one speaker spend 40 minutes

on it, and I'm wondering whether the Speaker now has a decision on

whether this amendment is in order or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not yet, hon. member, so I will allow the debate to proceed.

MR. D'ARCY: Five-yard penalty for rushing the kicker.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: The Chair is my protector. I'm trying to protect

the Chair from the aggressive and abrasive tactics of the member for

Columbia River.

First of all, before we go into this excellent reasoned amendment on

Bill 3, I want to welcome all the members of the House and everyone in

the gallery to Wednesday. We in the chamber declared that as of 2

o'clock it had suddenly become Wednesday and was no longer Tuesday.

Only people who have been elected to this chamber could understand how

we could do that. I'm sure the general public, which no doubt looks on

this operation here as somewhat less than rational a great deal of the

time, would wonder how we could do that. But we did, in any event.

There are few government members interested in this centerpiece

legislation that the member for Columbia River brought in on July 7 and

has not seen fit to call before this House most of the time since then.

We know, though, that one of the government members, the one from North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), the other day demanded the right to be

heard, and has been rarely seen and never heard since that time. We

know that those government members, who are being paid to do a job for

their constituents, are all out there around the precincts researching,

prepared to come in here and defend this legislation, Bill 3, which is

the centrepiece of the government's legislative program.

The opposition, as you're all aware, did have a request to the

government that was supported largely editorially, I might point out,

by the free press. Not only the major papers but many of the smaller

ones throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia supported

the notion that while many of them supported the general thrust of

restraint — and indeed we on this side of the House support the general

thrust of restraint, and such critics of the government program as

Bishop De Roo have been at great pains to say that they believe in

restraint.... We recognize that we are in difficult economic times

nationally, and particularly in British Columbia due to the economic

and fiscal mismanagement of Social Credit, and that we are going to

have restraint. The limitations of the formerly taken for granted

spending power are simply going to be with us for some time.

In any event, having had the government not listen to us in that

regard — that they draw back, have a second look and reintroduce the

legislation six months hence, after they have consulted with various

non-partisan people in the community.... I recognize that they may be

unwilling to speak with that part of the taxpaying electorate which

they perceive does not agree with them, but I'm sure that they could

find some non-partisan people and maybe even some of their friends out

there who'd be willing to help them. Having rejected that notion of the

six-month pause in Bill 3, I see no reason why the government can't

accept this very understanding and sensitive amendment to the motion.

The amendment says, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker — I'm sure you

have a copy of it — that "it is the opinion of this House that every

consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that this

Legislature oppose measures which would encourage practices of

political patronage through

[ Page 1715 ]

powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees."

Because the government was so late in bringing in a budget and a

legislative package, of which this is one, this year, already the

government has de facto had to accept some parts of this amendment —

and, indeed, some parts of the reasoned amendment. Of course, part of

that is that they didn't even wish to have this bill discussed for a

period of three, four or five weeks. I note, for instance, that the

offices of the rentalsman, which were to close on October 1, and its

employees to be fired as a result of Bill 3, are going to be staying

open until October 31. I know that one of the people who may be

interested in that is the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt), because I believe that does come under his purview. He, of

course, while ultimately saving $3 million or $4 million in expenditure

due to that closure, is quite happy to take that same $3 million or $4

million and expend it on marketing and expansion of liquor stores. Even

though sales are dropping, he's happier to promote the sales of alcohol

than he is to keep the offices of the rentalsman in British Columbia.

In any event, returning to the specific amendment, Mr. Speaker, I

would be delighted to hear the member for Boundary-Similkameen or the

second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) get up in this House and justify

the spending of $4 million on the expansion of marketing and sales

facilities for liquor in the province of British Columbia when they're

cutting out the Human Rights Commission, the rentalsman and consumer

services, and are taking money away from child care workers. I hope

they get up and defend themselves.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the

comments concerning expenditures of money by the liquor distribution

branch are irrelevant to this debate, because they do not involve the

taxpayers' money.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I would prefer that the

member be apprised of the fact, since he was absent, that we are not on

the main motion. We're on a substantive motion, and the wording of the

substantive motion, which is still in order, is that "humanity, justice

and policy demands," which makes the member's comments totally in

order. Mr. Speaker, I think you should call the minister to order and

stop those unnecessary interruptions by a member who is a member of the

cabinet and should know better.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I would

advise that the discussion of expenditures by the liquor distribution

branch do not involve taxpayers' money. I am aware of the fact that we

are on an amendment, and the Leader of the Opposition's comments are

irrelevant, as are those of the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy).

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, for the minister's information, his

ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs deals with liquor

distribution, which is a Crown revenue producer. If he doesn't know

that, then what's he doing as a cabinet minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're a silly little man.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw, please. I find that offensive. Would the minister please withdraw the remark.

MR. BARRETT: Shame! Petty little personal comments....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to withdraw "silly little man."

MR. D'ARCY: Certainly it was not my intention to create a

brouhaha over these references. Clearly. Mr. Speaker, the amendment in

itself is relevant to the references I have made.

The minister knows full well that liquor distribution is not a Crown

corporation, that revenue from liquor sales do go into general revenue

and that it is a discretionary decision on his part as to how those

funds are spent. I want to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not

referring to normal maintenance. I'm referring to expansion of sales

facilities and promotion of sales. Not only are sales of liquor

dropping in this province, by his own admission, but I'm not aware of

any demand out there by the general public for larger, more modern and

new liquor stores.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the ruling of the Chair is that the amendment is in order.

[3:45]

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

the opportunity of looking at the amendment. Some of the language

contained therein just doesn't hold true to what the legislation and

the amendments proposed for the legislation really suggest. The

amendment talks about "arbitrary dismissal of public employees." I

suggest that the legislation does not make provisions for arbitrary

dismissal of public employees. The legislation makes for reasoned

termination of public employees. The only circumstances under which a

public sector employer may consider dismissal is where there "(

i) is

insufficient work, or (ii) ...insufficient current operating funds

budgeted, to maintain current levels of employment, (

b) makes a change

in the organizational structure of the employer, (

c) discontinues a

program, activity or service of the employer, or (

d) reduces the level

of an activity or service of the employer...." I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that that's a reasoned cause for downsizing the public

service. It's not an arbitrary dismissal, as outlined in this amendment

and....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The ruling of the Chair has

been that the motion, which is in fact a reasoned amendment, which, by itself,

falls into a separate category, is in order for debate now. Hon. member, while

members may take umbrage at the actual words contained in the amendment, that

is not sufficient reason to debate the issue at this time. It is a reasoned

amendment, and as such falls within a separate category.

[ Page 1716 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm not attempting to debate the issue

at this time, Mr. Speaker. I'm just questioning the word "arbitrary,"

and how you came to that conclusion. I want to tell you that you

flabbergast me today with having come to that conclusion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, debate continues on the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to have given the member for

Columbia River some opportunity to exercise himself and become exercised. We

know that the session has probably been rather boring.

I want to refer briefly to a previous ruling of yours: that is, that

interruptions are not added to a member's time. While I understand how

you could come to that conclusion, I hope Mr. Speaker recognizes that I

have been interrupted savagely by the member for Boundary-Similkameen

and the member for Columbia River, and even my friend from Vancouver

East has indulged in this. I'm hoping that some consideration could be

made at the end of my 40 minutes because I do have a number of things

that I'm concerned about.

In any event, the member said that he took umbrage at some things in

the amendment, and I support his feeling on that. The point of the

amendment, Mr. Speaker, is that we on this side of the House take

umbrage at the wording in the legislation, and that's why we moved the

amendment.

I know that you recognize that we're partisan on this side of the

House, but I simply want to make a brief reference here to an

organization which is one of the major press chains in this country. I

don't think it is partisan; I've never heard it accused of that before.

It is interesting that this morning in the Times-Colonist ,

which is a daily published in this city, they state that "the Bennett

government does not have an honest mandate for some of its

legislation." They are referring specifically to Bill 3. We've heard a

great deal from the government about how they have a mandate and

therefore can do whatever they want; even though 51 percent of the

people voted against them, they feel they can do whatever they want.

This morning the free press is saying that in their opinion the

government does not have an honest mandate for some of its legislation.

In support of this statement, this is why we want to give the

government a chance to reconsider some of the aspects.

Referring to the Premier specifically, they state that he

"deliberately chose to be evasive during his election campaign.

Certainly he promised restraint" — I would agree with that — "but his

government then introduced profound changes unrelated to restraint,

policies that could have lost the election had they been revealed

beforehand. That was politically crafty; it was also deceitful." They

are referring specifically to the Public Sector Restraint Act, which is

Bill 3.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I am being intimidated by some of my colleagues, who are not even in their seats.

MR. SKELLY: Without cause.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes. Bad enough having to face the frivolous points of order

from across the way, without people on my own side of the House.... Mr.

Speaker, I hope the government members are paying attention to this. I know

that they haven't had the time so far in the last 72 hours or however long

the House has been sitting to participate in some of these vital debates, but

I hope that they are getting ready to participate so that they can show their

constituents that they were right in sending them here to Victoria to conduct

public business.

Regarding the urgency that we have here — the government clearly

feels that there is an urgency to get Bill 3 passed, and that is why

this House has been working lengthy hours; we are certainly happy to

participate in that kind of scheduling — it is funny, the newspaper

indicted, that "Premier Bennett did not call the House into session for

eight months before the election in May. In the depths of the

recession, he shut down the system even more thoroughly. And when he

did go to the people, he did not present a budget first, which is the

most straightforward and appropriate kind of election platform." Once

again we find a free expression of opinion suggesting that this

legislation and the budget were not an appropriate kind of election

platform, but were brought in after the event.

Referring specifically to part of the bill — and I see that the

Provincial Secretary has left the House, but I know that he's probably

listening on his repeater somewhere....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Possibly, yes. Perhaps he has run to the bathroom.

But referring specifically to Bill 3, "three weeks ago the

Provincial Secretary promised" — and I want to emphasize that word —

"that the government would introduce the regulations" — and they are an

integral part of this legislation — "which would show how this act is

to be implemented, how the size of government will be reduced, how

tenure and restraint will be applied." The Provincial Secretary

"indicated that they would be revealed by last week. With the

regulations still unannounced, the government is moving towards

closure...." I'm not sure that's true; I wouldn't accuse the government

of moving in that direction, but the newspaper does.

The concern is that we could get a situation where this bill is

passed before all the elements of the bill are known, simply because

the regulations have not been tabled. I know, as you do, that even

after regulations are submitted they can be varied at any time in a

cabinet back room, so regulations which were promised and put forward

today could be changed arbitrarily a week from now. That, of course, is

one of the weaknesses of the bill and one of the things that we on this

side of the House would very much like to see the government alter. We

would like to see the government be far more specific in how it intends

to go about its stated program. While all this is happening, the world

is watching us. They know we need restraint. But while all this is

happening, B.C. is different. Perhaps we were always different, but

we're certainly more different right now. It's clear from what's

happening on the Vancouver Stock Exchange that the investment community

does not have the confidence in B.C. that they have in the Toronto

exchange, the Canadian economy in general or the North American

economy, as shown through the New York exchange. It's clear that they

do not have confidence, and this refers both to British Columbia and

outside of the province.

[ Page 1717 ]

We certainly know that while job creation is a problem, and economic activity....

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you please describe for us the scope of debate on a reasoned amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, on any amendment the scope of

debate is limited to the intent of the motion, and the principle of the

motion in this format is the same as it is in every other matter which

is discussed: that is, hon. members, that we must relate to the

principle of the amendment. By just perusing the amendment we can see

that the principle, while having some scope, certainly does not allow

for unlimited debate. I would commend that particularly to the member

currently addressing the House: there is a limit to the breadth of

debate that can take place. It must relate to the amendment. I'm sure

the member has taken that to heart and will continue in that vein.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: May I ask for one further clarification.

Does that mean that we can canvass again the principle of the bill, as

debated during second reading and on the hoist?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, again, it is contrary to the

spirit of the House to recanvass matters that have already been

discussed in the House. While some reference may be made to previous

debate in passing, certainly for the debate at this time to take the

exact form as previous debate would not be in order. I'm sure all

members are aware of that and will guide their remarks accordingly.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The points made are

perfectly valid, and I recognize the spirit and the intent of Mr.

Speaker in making those suggestions. I want, though, to assure you and

the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) that I have not, in the

last two or three months, let alone in the last few hours, perused any

Blues or Hansard publications of matters which have been

covered in this debate, so any similarity to previous debate which the

member for Chilliwack may find in some of the points raised here is, I

want to assure him, purely coincidental.

In any event, I will move away from the economic considerations. I

think the points have been made. But clearly this is a restraint bill —

that's what its title says — and the justification given for that in

those speeches — there have been a few — given by government apologists

has been that they feel there isn't enough money and they're concerned

about the ability to pay. That's a direct reference to the B.C. economy.

So getting back specifically to strict relevancy, if that's

possible, the concern that I have is that I know that people connected

with or from the trade union movement in this province have made the

point loud and clear that one of the things they don't like about Bill

3 is that it simply cuts across negotiated agreements that were made in

good faith. I'm not going to belabour that point, because I think that

the trade union movement has made that point clear.

What I am concerned about in this bill, though, is that it makes

public sector employees.... I think we have to be very specific here,

because most of the discussion has involved provincial government

employees; I think we have to reiterate here that provincial government

employees are only 16 percent of the people covered by this

legislation. That is the full scope, to use the term of the member for

Chilliwack, of the legislation: all the employees of Crown corporations

such as B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro and B.C. Ferries, and all of the

employees of municipal government and hospitals are covered by this

legislation. What concerns me, apart from the issue of the collective

agreements, an issue which I think has not been properly canvassed, if

it has been canvassed at all, is that this legislation makes those

employees — 250,000 strong, 84 percent of them outside of the immediate

jurisdiction of the provincial government — have even less rights with

their employers than a non-unionized employee has under common law.

I want to emphasize that common law is a creation of, in some cases,

centuries of precedents in courts. It has nothing to do with

authorities such as those established by this Legislature or any other

parliament in the British system, present or past, in any other area.

Common law has established in civil court that employees have certain

rights. This legislation, Bill 3 — this is why the amendment refers to

such qualities as justice, humanity and reason — takes a quarter of a

million people and their families and gives them fewer rights and

privileges than a non-union employee would have under common law in

British Columbia today. I think that point has to be made and made

again. If the intent and major function of Bill 3 was in fact to remove

any real or imagined special privilege that public sector employees may

have had — I'm not sure they ever had any, but the government feels

that they had — I'm quite sure that the government would not be running

into this strident opposition both within and outside the chamber. Such

a furor is being raised because we're dealing with a large number of'

people who are being placed below the level of common law.

[4:00]

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

Referring to definite parts of the bill, it’s interesting that one

of the many non-partisan people who have made comment, both critical

and in some cases complimentary to certain aspects of this bill.... One

of the points made is that one can conclude that the government’s

expression of public service downsizing as a component of this bill's

program is tragically flawed by a classic failure: that is, that the

government, impatient for results, gets into a mindset of unwillingness

to invest in the deliberate process of building trust in an open,

consultative undertaking.

It has been noted that statistically a great part of the downsizing

of government, which was talked about by the minister in supporting the

bill and talked about in the budget, has already been completed through

the normal processes of attrition and layoff powers that were already

available to the member for Columbia River and to the Crown

corporations. B.C. Hydro in particular has laid off over a thousand

employees. They already had these powers. We know that in the normal

course of events the government could have achieved its stated intent

of reducing the number of employees of' Crown corporations and the

various government ministries without the authoritarian measures that

the minister feels he needs in Bill 3.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm going to be delighted to hear the minister

speak at some point on his own behalf on this bill. He's talking a lot

from his chair. I know he's not lazy, so he's

[ Page 1718 ]

going to get up and defend this bill, and I also

know that he's actively encouraging his colleagues to get up and

support him. While many of them have qualms about the bill, they

personally think the minister is a very fine fellow, and I know they're

going to come in here and back him up to the hilt.

In any event, I would like to exhort or entreat the minister once

more to consider this consultative undertaking with the people affected

by this legislation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's underway.

MR. D'ARCY: They don't seem to think so, Mr. Minister. I would like

to see him involve people, the electorate, the government's own constituency

out there. Many people out there are not nearly as partisan as many of us in

this chamber. Even though they may not like what the government's doing,

they're prepared to accept the reality of the 49 percent of the public who

supported the government and work with them, at least until the next election.

Getting into more detail on the bill as to why the opposition feels

that this amendment.... It's a fairly docile one, Mr. Speaker; it's a

gentle amendment. It doesn't gut the bill in any way, though some of us

would like that to happen. We realize that the rule of law and order

has to prevail.

Getting down to the bill in particular, we conclude that the

deregulation and wage-restraint components of the program threaten

fundamental features of the social structure and community institutions

and, likewise, destroy trust and credibility. That is the major problem

in the province today: the lack of trust and credibility between the

general public, including the investment public, the business sector

and the government. Many people out there who philosophically agree

with what the government is attempting to do have no confidence in the

business and administrative ability of the government, in the

imagination of the government, to implement its own recommendations.

That's a concern I have, because that lack of trust has spread beyond

the borders of this province and is reflected in the abysmal state of

the Vancouver Stock Exchange and of retail sales in this province today.

Mr. Speaker, another aspect of the bill which we are very concerned

about, and one that we hope the government will see fit to apply this

amendment to, is that it is clear that the bill, if passed as it is,

will have consequences which include not only problems for the practice

of public administration, but which also threaten to erode the

longer-term productive capacity of the community. We heard, especially

back last year, the Premier and other members of the government

constantly talking about the need for greater productivity, not only in

the public service but in the community at large — in the private

sector, the need to sharpen our pencils a bit and perhaps spend a

little less time enjoying ourselves and a little more time in

productive pursuits. I think most of the public, perhaps all of the

public, supported him on that, and I support him on that notion. In

fact, there are over 100,000 people in this province today who would

love to be able to get out and work every day, and who are not able to

do so due to the state of the economy.

One of the reasons we oppose this bill and hope the government

considers this amendment is that we do not want to see anything happen

which is going to threaten the productive capacity of the community out

there. Without public administration at the local level, the

institutional level, the provincial level and the Crown corporate

level, without public institutions where morale is up and people care

and believe in the operation that they're working with, whether ICBC,

B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro, whatever it is, it's quite clear that the public

is not going to be served by these major corporations.

Further, if the bill and the program it is part of had been thought

out at all.... I think that is one of the major flaws: that the

minister did not. Perhaps he applied all of the thought to it that he

was capable of, but it's quite clear that more thought was needed. More

thought is needed, even though it's been on the order paper of this

House for three months now — three months and a week. It's quite clear

that the minister could use some assistance here. I don't want to be

seen as attacking another member of the House, but I do believe that

some.... Perhaps you should hire an MBA.

If the program were thought out at all, those unfortunate results

can only be understood as part of a move first to centralize

authoritarian power in an overwhelmingly dominant executive, of which

the minister is a member. We can go on to speculate that the only

hopeful signs in all of this are first that that the government really

has put all the weight of its restraint program on the search for

greater productivity, which in the end can only be accomplished through

cooperative consultative processes, even though they haven't shown that

they're going to do that. They keep saying that's desirable, but they

have not done that and haven't told anybody how they're going to do

that. It's one of the best kept secrets of the member for Columbia

River (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

Let's remember that the large employers of this province, as

represented by the Employers' Council.... I might emphasize that the

large employers are in the main — let's admit it — multinational

corporations. I wish they were B.C.- based investor-owned companies

but, unfortunately, they're multinationals. We must recognize that fact

of life — which, by the way, underscores my earlier point that the lack

of confidence and trust in the government's ability extends far beyond

the borders of the province, which is giving us major economic problems

right now. It is not just the Employers' Council, but the labour

movement, and this includes even those parts of the labour movement

that are not part of the Solidarity organization, such as the

teamsters. Even that good Liberal, Senator Ed, has called for serious

consultations in good faith.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My old friend.

MR. D'ARCY: Your old friend.

We want to make the point that no legislation, least of all this

piece, has yet been passed. The government has been operating as though

the legislation has all been passed, even though there could be

amendments; this chamber could decide that various pieces could be

changed. The minister may bring in very moderate regulations tomorrow;

he may bring in very draconian regulations, or regulations which he

alters a week from now. I would like, and am able, to take the minister

on good faith. If he would bring in regulations and let this chamber

and people outside examine them, perhaps that consultation could then

take place. It concerns me, though, that if the minister is applying

the same level of thought to producing the regulations as he did to the

legislation, we could have a great many more problems when those

regulations come in. I know the minister is a young man and he's

growing intellectually every day, and I know he's going to do better.

[ Page 1719 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have reached your time limit.

MR. D'ARCY: I will take that instruction, Mr. Speaker, but I

will just note that there were considerable interruptions, not just

from the government side but even from my own side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time of debate has elapsed. The member for Alberni — on the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you for that admonition, Mr. Speaker, and I

will confine myself to this amendment. I don't know if you have a copy,

but it is worth repeating what it says: "that the motion be amended by

leaving out all of the words following 'that' and substituting

therefore the following: 'it is the opinion of this House that every

consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that this

Legislature oppose measures which would encourage practices of

political patronage through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public

employees'."

[4:15]

It's a very wide-ranging amendment, Mr. Speaker. It deals directly

with the impact of this bill — and not simply on the public service of

British Columbia, the employees of government and agencies of

government. We sometimes forget that this bill applies much more

broadly than simply to the public employees of the province of British

Columbia; it applies to a whole range of public bodies throughout the

province, including Parks and Recreation under the Vancouver Charter,

the Assessment Authority, Buildings Corporation, Development

Corporation, Greater Vancouver Water District, Nanaimo Water District.

I give just a few examples, skipping over some because the minister is

getting impatient and would like to see the bill passed sometime during

the next 48 hours, possibly. The Insurance Corporation, Pacific

National Exhibition, B.C. School Trustees' Association. This

legislation doesn't apply simply to the people who work directly for

the province, but to public bodies, municipalities, school boards,

universities, colleges — all employees who are defined by this

government as public sector employees all over the province.

It's wide-ranging legislation, and it's something we should

carefully consider. We should give it a great deal of debate before

passing it, and the debate should be heard from all sides of the House,

not simply this side. It's clear that the opposition has been speaking

on this bill and the amendment for many, many hours over the past few

months. The government has even accused us of filibustering, if you can

believe that, Mr. Speaker. They've suggested that it costs — $80,000 a

day for us to hold up this legislation, but in order to encourage

consideration of this legislation outside and inside the House, and to

give members on the government side an opportunity to examine it and to

prepare their debate in response to the material we're putting forward,

it's important that we create as much time as we can and create as

wide-ranging a debate as we can around this legislation so that the

interests of the people of the province are protected.

I think the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) did a fine job

over the last evening, right up to 1:30 today. A tremendous job by one

single member trying to prevent the passage of this legislation which

threatens....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't disagree with you, but that has nothing to do with your debate on this amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Absolutely it relates to this amendment, Mr.

Speaker, because this amendment is another way in which we are creating

time and opportunities for debate for the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. hon. member. I'd ask that you get back to debate on the reasoned amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I am absolutely directing my comments, Mr.

Speaker, to the topic of this amendment. I should have a right to do so

without interference.

What I'm saying is that we've been presenting amendments such as

this; we’ve been presenting hoist amendments. We've been debating at

great length and using the opportunities given to us in the standing

orders of this House, in the rules that govern debate, and where those

standing orders as a result of what the Socreds did several years ago

in insisting that there be unlimited debate for certain speakers....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the estimates only.

MR. SKELLY: No. If that uninformed minister would read the

standing orders, he would find that there is unlimited debate for

certain speakers on motions and on bills in this Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I would ask that

you get back to debate on the amendment. I would also ask that the

minister not kibitz across the floor from his seat.

MR. SKELLY: There's a rule against kibitzing in this House, Mr. Minister. With your experience you should be aware of that.

We've been criticized for delaying this legislation, and for the

cost of delaying this legislation. But delay is necessary for adequate

discussion and consideration.

Mr. Speaker, you can recall in your lifetime the British

Expeditionary Force in northern Europe, in the early forties, that held

up the invasion of western Europe by the forces of Germany at the time

controlled by the fascist government. Those men held up the progress of

that fascist government and their intent to sweep Europe into the

darkness of fascist rule. They held them up; they delayed and stopped

them by using delaying tactics. They held them up for months. It was

only at the beaches of Dunkirk that they were successful.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I've been

listening very intently to your debate and I have much difficulty

relating it to the amendment before us. I'm going to ask once again,

please, hon. member, if you would return to the intent of the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: These are just introductory remarks for Mr.

Speaker’s guidance, to give him an understanding of the direction the

opposition is entering upon in order to clarify why we're debating this

legislation and the manner in which we're debating legislation. We are

trying to do the same kind of holding action as that heroic British

Expeditionary Force in northern Europe. It was costly. Nobody ever

complained at

[ Page 1720 ]

that time, if it cost $80,000, $1 million or $10

million a day, that that delaying action wasn't worth it in order to

keep that type of fascist government from taking control of northern

Europe and western Europe. It was worth it. Fifty years later....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I'll ask you once more, and once more only....

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please let me continue.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll give the member time to state his point of order, but he'll do it after I'm finished.

Once again, hon. member, I would ask that you return to the amendment before us in regard to that which you are debating.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, these remarks are directly related...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: ...to the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll read the amendment for the member and

for all hon. members, so that we're not in doubt as to what it is we

are debating here this afternoon. The rules are clear regarding

reasoned amendments. You must be relevant to the amendment before us.

The amendment reads: "It is the opinion of this house that every

consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that this

legislature oppose measures which would encourage practices of

political patronage through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public

employees." I would ask all hon. members, including the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly), to stick to the intent of the motion being

debated.

On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the power of the Chair is not

unlimited; the power of the Chair must come under the standing orders

and conventions and rules of this chamber. It is not for the Chair to

make an arbitrary decision about what is in order. Simply by the

Speaker interrupting a speaker and saying, "I don't see where it's

relevant," does not make that statement so. As you read the amendment

to the motion, it's clear that the wording.... As a matter of fact, the

wording — I'm just sending out for the charter that set up the

Nuremberg trials — of this reasoned amendment is based largely on the

language of the charter setting up the Nuremberg trials, and this is

relevant in the sense that we're discussing a broadly ranging principle

of a motion that's found in order. Simply that a Speaker does not feel

that it's relevant in the way he would like to see it debated is not an

appropriate judgment to be made from the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you hon. member. I'll take that into

consideration. Again I ask that all hon. members, including the member

for Alberni, please stick in debate to the intent of the amendment

before us.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, our intent in presenting this

legislation was that consideration in this province has to be given to

humanity, justice and democratic traditions. We are concerned — and

that concern prompted us to place this amendment before the House, and

it was accepted as in order by the House — about the politicization of

the civil service and public employment in the province of British

Columbia. Those concerns of humanity and justice prompted us to present

this resolution. As is every member's right in this House, I am drawing

certain comparisons from history which allow the House and the public

to consider why we feel so strongly about this legislation and why we

are debating it in the way we we are. I'm using the example of that

heroic force in western Europe in the early 1940s that did not have a

majority in that area. They were vastly outnumbered by their opponents.

Their opponents had vast resources, and yet those people stood their

ground as long as they could. They knew that ultimately those forces of

darkness would have their way, and yet they had a heroic obligation to

stand their ground to protect that type of government from sweeping

across Europe and plunging it into darkness for years and years.

I remember a line from a little poem I learned in elementary school

that described the situation we had in the Legislature last night and

the situation that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was put

through in the last 12 or so hours:

And haggard men fought hard with sleep

And when their strength was gone,

Still their brave spirit held them up

And drove them on and on.

Wherever the large force of the majority is being

used to crush the rights of the minority, with all the resources they

have at hand, with their ability, through the standing orders of this

House and the laws of this land, to ultimately stifle dissent and

ultimately stop dissent....

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

personally object to the debate that is taking place now. As one who

lived and suffered under that threat, I would say to that member that

had we listened to Churchill in those days, we would not see socialism

and communism threaten the freedom, as they do here today. I resent

that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! No hon. member in this House

can get up on a point of order and use that point of order, even if it

were in order, to enter into debate. Hon. members, again I repeat to

the member for Alberni that tempered debate, tempered language and

sticking strictly to the intent of the amendment to the bill or

whatever is before us would not bring on that kind of outburst in this

House. I ask all hon. members to stick strictly to the intent of, in

this case, the amendment before us.

[4:30]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, this amendment was drafted by the

opposition, and we are aware of its intent. But maybe I'll read it

again for the member who's so concerned about the content of our

arguments: "that every consideration of humanity, justice and policy

demands that this Legislature oppose measures which would encourage

practices of political

[ Page 1721 ]

patronage through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees."

Mr. Speaker, I had family who went through that war as well, and I

am standing here on the same principles that that member purports to

adhere to.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we please have order on both sides of the House.

MR. SKELLY: Let me make a comparison, then, a little more

remote in time. In the minister's confusion over what happened during

those days and what's happened since, maybe we should take an example a

little more remote in time which the minister cannot claim to have been

involved in or to have had family involved in. I'll take him back to

300 years before the birth of Christ, just to give you a comparison of

the reasons for the debate taking place in this House.

At that time the city-state of Athens, the most powerful state in

the eastern Mediterranean, had the power to do whatever it chose: the

largest fleet in the Near East. They were at war with the Spartans.

Seeking allies and money to support the war, they went to a small

island just off the Turkish coast, the island of Melos, taking a

tremendous fleet with them headed by an Athenian commander named

Alcibiades. They laid siege to the island of Melos, seeking booty,

money and slaves in order to prosecute the war against Sparta.

They had a debate when Alcibiades was before the gates of Melos with

a superior fleet and a superior force. The Melesians came to the gate

and said: "We cannot possibly fight you who have such a superior force,

but you must understand that right is on our side. Nobody has the

right, using the force of their majority and their tremendous fleet, to

crush all opposition." They called upon the Athenians, in the interests

of humanity and of justice, to respect their right to exist as a

sovereign state in the eastern Mediterranean. The response of

Alcibiades — and I commend to everybody to read The Peloponnesian Wars

by Thucyclides, an ancient Greek historian, no supporter of

democracy.... You'd probably all be interested. Mr. Speaker has

probably read it. His response, and I'm paraphrasing, because I don't

have the book here right now, was this: "Men in these circumstances

know that the powerful have the right to do whatever they want to do,

and the weak can only do what they will."

Mr. Speaker, those Melesians fought the Athenians in spite of their

superior fleet and superior power. In spite of their majority and their

mandate they fought them to the death, until the city was taken

captive, the women enslaved and all the men and children killed.

Mr. Speaker, this government is operating on the same principle —

lack of principle; the same argument made by Alcibiades thousands of

years ago — that they have a mandate and majority and, therefore, the

power to do whatever they want. This opposition, as those Melesians did

over 2,000 years ago, and as that British Expeditionary Force did in

Europe — it's very close to us in time — said: "We will stand against

that type of government approach which is undemocratic, authoritarian,

and based on the use of superior power against the right." Mr. Speaker,

that's why we're standing here debating this legislation. That's why

we're using every technique possible to bring the government to its

senses and to make the people aware of the anti-democratic nature of

the legislation that's before us.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Provincial Secretary, when he stood up to oppose acceptance of

the amendment in the House, said that we had misread the bill, and that

it included provisions that watered down the statement that the bill

was designed to terminate — without cause. In fact, Mr. Speaker, that's

not true. We are dealing with the bill as it was originally presented

in the House, and

section 2(1) says: "Notwithstanding the Labour Code

and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, a public sector employer

may terminate the employment of an employee without cause." That's the

bill we're dealing with in this House right now.

There are a number of ways that the government could have changed

this bill. They could have withdrawn the bill, taken it back for

redrafting to eliminate the offensive, authoritarian and

anti-democratic sections and then presented the bill again in the

Legislature. They had that option; they chose not to exercise it. They

had another option: to withdraw the bill entirely. The government can

really do everything it would like in terms of downsizing the public

service, and has done so in the past. The Premier advises us that he's

sacked approximately 6,000 public servants over the last year. So the

government has the power to do it without this bill. The government

selected a way of changing the offensive sections of the bill by

presenting amendments in the Legislature. The Provincial Secretary,

when he stood up to object to the acceptance of this reasoned

amendment, drew the Speaker's attention to the fact that these

amendments were on the order paper and would change the effect of the

bill, so that in firing public employees certain things would have to

be considered. He mentioned insufficient work, insufficient current

operating funds budgeted, etc. But those are only amendments on the

order paper. I could put amendments on the order paper myself. That's

no guarantee to the people of this House, or outside this House, that

those amendments will ever be called, ever be debated or ever be

incorporated into this legislation.

So what we are still dealing with in the House, Mr. Speaker, is one

of the most offensive documents ever tabled as a bill in any

legislature in Canada. It's a document that still allows public sector

employers to terminate their employees without cause. We're not dealing

with those amendments yet. We're still dealing with that offensive,

anti-democratic, authoritarian piece of legislation that was originally

presented to this House during, the "Black Tuesday" budget back in

July. That's why we've presented this reasoned amendment. If the

government had consulted with the public or had been concerned about

the objections raised, even those raised by the Employers Council of

British Columbia, they would have withdrawn the legislation. It should

be an embarrassment for them that this legislation even exists in

print. They should have gone around and picked up every possible copy,

taken it back and redrafted it, and presented it in a form more

acceptable to a democratic House. Instead, all they did was place

amendments on the order paper that may or may not ever be debated in

this House, and may or may not ever be incorporated into the

legislation.

That's why we in the opposition are compelled to present this

reasoned amendment: because there's still the opportunity under this

legislation to fire without cause, or to

[ Page 1722 ]

disguise the cause under the legislation. Even the

amendments say that you can fire a person because insufficient funds

for his or her employment have been budgeted. The minister or the

government could, at whim, suddenly withdraw funds that are budgeted

for a certain position and fire a person without cause — simply by

changing the budget. They have that power under current legislation. So

while the amendments purport to change this legislation to eliminate

the provision for firing without cause, in fact they allow the

government to do an end-run on that phrase and to fire without cause in

any case.

Mr. Speaker, if the amendments had changed the bill materially, then

all of those people who were sacked and sent home at full pay until

October 31 would have to be reinstated, because the impact and the

effect of the bill would have been changed so that you couldn't fire

without cause. In fact, those people are still sitting at home, still

collecting full salaries, and they know full well that when October 31

rolls around they will be fired; they will be out of their jobs

completely. So the impact of this bill hasn't changed. The bill still

allows the government to fire without cause. It misleads the public to

that effect; it waters down the wording; it's window-dressing. So

really we're still here dealing with that provision of firing without

cause, an anti-democratic, unjust, undemocratic form of legislation.

People are only now beginning to understand how seriously this type

of legislation can affect our form of government, our traditions of

democracy, our traditions of independence in certain areas of public

employment. Mr. Speaker, I know that the government has no respect for

public employment, no basic respect for public employees — but there

are public employees who do needed service in this province. Look at

the concerns of the police around this legislation — concerns that have

not changed as a result of the changes in wording proposed in the

amendments. They know it still means firing without cause; it still

means termination without cause. And they know you can disguise the

cause for terminating an employee.

[4:45]

The police have asked themselves, and have placed this question

before the public in this country: what happens if a policeman is

engaged in pursuing an investigation that would affect a cabinet

minister, a member of the Legislature, friends of the government? What

would happen if the government found out about this investigation and

wished to protect its friends or colleagues, and so that policeman was

fired without cause? Or he was told that his budget had been cut back;

that he was no longer employable because they didn't have sufficient

funds. In other words, he'd be fired without cause or through a

disguised cause, through the back door, by withdrawing the funds that

provide for his salary. Mr. Speaker, this affects the independence of

the police and their right to pursue investigations, to curb crime and

to protect the citizens of this province from criminals who would

otherwise escape detection. That's one of the reasons we're concerned

about this legislation. In every undemocratic state, in every

dictatorship, the police are directly controlled by the government;

there is no independence. This legislation, through the back door, by

making it possible for the government to fire police who are

independently pursuing investigations, turns this government a little

towards an undemocratic state and a little away from what that member

claims to have fought for — or claims to have stood for so many years

ago. If this legislation is passed and the independence of the police

forces in this province are compromised, a lot will have been lost, and

we will have moved a few steps closer to authoritarianism, dictatorship

and injustice. That's why we stand here debating this amendment.

We've also discussed, and a number of groups in the province have

discussed, concerns about academic inquiry. One of those groups of

public employees receiving their salaries from public bodies which

would be affected by this legislation are those involved in research

and academic inquiry in our universities, colleges and research

institutes. They are concerned about this legislation, concerned about

what happens if, say, a group of political scientists comment on the

direction the Social Credit government in this province is following,

recognizing that it's a path some countries have gone down before, a

path toward authoritarianism and dictatorship, toward undermining the

ability of the police to act independently to pursue investigations and

to protect the citizens of this province. What happens if those

political scientists involved in their research speak out and warn the

public that this is happening? What will happen to their salaries?

Under this

section the government can either terminate them without

cause or, if they succeed in passing the amendments, cut back the

budgets of their departments in the university; in other bills we give

that power to the government.

We're following a very dangerous course here, the course of

sabotaging independent academic inquiry. We're doing it under the guise

of restraint. The government uses the word "restraint" to cover many

activities that would otherwise have an unacceptable ring to people in

a democracy: sabotaging human rights, the right of security of tenure

for tenants in rented premises, and services to people; sabotaging the

tax system so that it bears more heavily on the poor and middle income

groups and feeds money to the rich; sabotaging virtually every

principle of liberal democratic institutions. The government uses

restraint to cover a multitude of sins, Mr. Speaker, and here they're

using restraint as a justification to sabotage independent academic

inquiry and research. We have to be concerned, this little band of

oppositionists in the Legislature, using every opportunity legally

available to us under the standing orders of this House to prevent the

passage of this legislation which will plunge this province into a

darkness unknown in its history since we won responsible democratic

government.

That's why we're opposed to this legislation. It sovietizes academic

inquiry. If somebody involved in research that the government considers

overly sensitive publishes information, or information about the

research becomes known to the government, suddenly the budget for that

research project will disappear. The budget for that person's salary

will disappear and he will find himself out on the streets, the doors

to his lab locked behind him and his avenues of inquiry cut off. We are

concerned about this legislation.

This government talks about the growth in public sector employment

and how it is mushrooming and has mushroomed over the last few years.

There's an interesting book published by the Institute for Research on

Public Policy in Canada, called Public Evaluation of Government Spending .

I would commend it to the members on the government side, especially

chapter 8, "Bureaucratic Growth in Canada: Myths and Realities." While

the figures aren't completely up to date, it suggests that in the 14

years between 1961 and 1975, actual growth in public sector employment

was minimal. In 1961 some 22.2 percent of the employees in Canada

[ Page 1723 ]

worked for the government, and in 1975 it was 23.7 percent. So it's a myth.

In order to give the government more time to consider the impact of

this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the House do

now adjourn.

[5:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Macdonald

Howard

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 24

Chabot

Bennett

McGeer

Davis

Kempf,

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I am rising under standing

order 58, which requires that "whenever the Speaker is of the opinion

that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and

privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof

immediately...and quote the rule or authority applicable to the case."

We are dealing in the House with a reasoned amendment, for which our

standing orders are silent. When our standing orders are silent, our

authority, as you know, is the parliamentary practice of Britain as

described by Sir Erskine May. Under reasoned amendments, every edition

of Sir Erskine May has this statement: "A reasoned amendment is placed

on the paper in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several

categories." You, sir, have found that the content of the motion before

us is in order, but Sir Erskine May requires — and therefore it is a

requirement of our House, our orders being silent on the matter — that

such a reasoned amendment be placed on the order paper. As one member,

Mr. Speaker, not having had notice of this motion and really not

understanding its content, I am unable to debate it with the

thoroughness of our members opposite, who placed it on the order paper

without notice. I would request that this debate and the amendment be

found out of order on those grounds.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order. I simply want to

point out to Your Honour that the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications is wrong, wrong, wrong again.

Where have you been all your life?

Mr. Speaker, if he wanted to object to anything he should have done

so at the time the matter was under consideration, not at some time

after he's awakened from a deep sleep.

Secondly, the use of reasoned amendments in this chamber has always

followed the practice of moving them without having to give notice. In

any event, he's had the ruling and he's just kind of awakened to the

fact, upset.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will reserve opinion on both propositions put forward by the hon. minister and the....

MR. HOWARD: With respect, how can you reserve judgment...

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, when might we anticipate a decision on this matter be rendered, because debate, I would propose to you...

MR. HOWARD: ...on a decision that's already been made by the House?

HON. MR. McGEER: ...is being carried on in this House which is out of order.

MR. HOWARD: The only person out of order is you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. One moment please.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Mr.

Speaker seriously considered this when it came up — you did. Mr.

Speaker, or someone who resembles you in your great capacity — the

Chair — did not make a sudden ruling. The Chair took at least 45

minutes, during which time the member for Vancouver–Point Grey or any

other member of this House had plenty of opportunity to make any point

of order that they wished. As you have ruled on many occasions, Mr.

Speaker, once Mr. Speaker has ruled, that is it. There is no further

debate, whether a member attempts to raise that debate immediately

after the ruling or an hour later.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the member brings forward, of

course, an excellent point. But I submit the ruling that was made from

the Chair was with respect to content only. This is the first time that

a member, who I must confess, in my case, was confused about how to

debate the question, not having received notice of it and considering

the fundamental importance of the question, would really require notice

adequately to prepare for debate.... I think this is the position that

all members of the House would be in, being faced with an important but

surprise amendment. That is why this is the initial opportunity for it

to be brought to your attention and therefore for you to consider a

point that obviously has not properly been canvassed in the decision on

content.

MR. LAUK: The reference read by the hon. Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications was a reference to the word

"paper." It seems to me, from most of what is contained in Sir Erskine

May, that whenever a notice is required it explicitly states so and

gives references to the precedent-of-notice requirement. That not being

the case, in desperation the Minister of Universities, as acting House

Leader, obviously has found a reference to the paper that could mean

that the motion should be written down on a piece

[ Page 1724 ]

of paper, for all we know. But if it means notice, Sir Erskine May would expressly say so.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, regarding the matter that is

raised, the Chair is prepared to advise the House that the earlier

decision of the Chair stands and that the motion is in order —

notwithstanding the points raised by the minister. The practice of this

House clearly has been that such matters have not required previous

notice. Hon. members, on that matter the decision of the Chair is that

the motion is in order.

MR.