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 )

MONDAY, JULY 18, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

331 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supply Act (No –– 1), 1983 (Bill 10)

Royal Assent –– 331

Tabling Documents

Special report of the Auditor-General of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker –– 331

Oral Questions

Trading in Sunmask shares. Mr. Howard –– 331

Superannuation withdrawals by terminated employees. Mr. Hanson –– 332

New year's message of Provincial Secretary. Mr. Hanson –– 332

"Privatization" of legal services to government. Ms. Brown 332

Cruise missile testing. Mr. Nicolson –– 333

Jesco Financial Services contract. Hon. Mr. Smith replies –– 333

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

Mr. Stupich –– 334

Mr. Mitchell –– 336

Mr. Barnes –– 340

Mr. Rose –– 345

Mr. Nicolson –– 349

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 1), 1983

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In her Majesty's name, His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept

their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have in the galleries today Mr. D.R.J.

Campbell, better known as Dan, who served in this House from 1956 to

1972. For 16 years he represented the constituency of Comox. He did a

good job representing that constituency and is still living there, on

Cortes Island. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. HOWARD: Many of us have vivid memories of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like the House to join me in welcoming today — they're in the

precincts if not in the gallery — the mayor and council from the

district municipality of Kitimat. Mayor Thom is also the president of

the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to welcome a clutch of my relatives from the Victoria side who are in your gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What's a clutch?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's more than a few. They are Mrs. Grace

Humphries, Mrs. Adele Wicket and her three daughters Rebecca, Elizabeth

and Esther, and Mrs. Gale Bexton and her two sons, Nathan and Sean.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, there are three friends of mine in the

gallery today. I'd like to ask everyone to welcome them with me. They

are Alderman Dan Miller, from the city of Prince Rupert, his daughter

Laura and his son Jason.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Harry

Mathias, the unsuccessful candidate in the Kootenay riding — but only temporarily.

Next time!

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome

two ladies who have been active in the equestrian and tennis fields,

Mrs. Rhonda Doorman and Mrs. Thelma Legge of Parksville.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have the pleasure to submit the second special report of the auditor-general of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

TRADING IN SUNMASK SHARES

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and ask him, in view of the disclosure

over the weekend that certain members of this House have been trading

in shares of Sunmask Petroleum — the company involved in potential

ownership of the Spetifore property through Dawn Development — if he

can advise what investigation into this particular matter his

department has conducted, and if any is completed?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe that same question was taken on notice some time ago.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I can advise the

member that after I took the question on notice I instructed my staff

in the superintendent of brokers' office to carry out an investigation.

That is underway at the present time, and I haven't had a response to

my query as yet.

MR. HOWARD: In view of the extraordinarily large volume of

trading in Sunmask shares on the days prior to the introduction of the

Spetifore amendment, or Bill 9, into this House, has the minister

decided to investigate the possibility of any inside information — not

insider in the sense of corporate insider information, but political

insider information?

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: The investigation that will be carried out

by the superintendent of brokers will deal with any irregularities

there might be. I'm not sure of the second part of the question, but I

believe that question was addressed a year or so ago by the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who tried to raise the

political question in this chamber. At that time he was found wanting,

and I think this member is going the same way.

MR. HOWARD: It is interesting to note that the minister has

made a predetermination about something under investigation. Has the

minister decided to investigate whether or not any member of this House

received escrow shares in Sunmask Petroleum on terms far more

favourable than were available to the general public?

HON. MR. HEWITT: When I receive the report back from the

superintendent of brokers' office, I will advise the member of the

findings at that time.

[ Page 332 ]

SUPERANNUATION WITHDRAWALS

BY TERMINATED EMPLOYEES

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. As

the Provincial Secretary knows, thousands of auxiliary employees

working for the government have long-term service — perhaps five or six

years. His ministry is adding additional hardship to these employees,

because when they're fired, the Superannuation Commission is saying

they are not entitled to draw their superannuation contributions for

eight or nine months, as the government may want to recall them and

fire them again. Has the minister decided to advise the Superannuation

Commission that it is government policy to fire government employees

without cause, and they are therefore entitled to draw their

superannuation as requested?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The whole question put by that member is based on a false premise, and an answer to that kind of a question is not justified.

MR. HANSON: To the Provincial Secretary on a supplementary, it is not a false premise.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It is so.

MR. HANSON: It is not a false premise.

There are people being advised that they have to wait eight or nine

months, after being fired unjustly, without recourse, from your

government. In view of the legislation before this House, which will

allow the government's contribution to be recovered upon firing an

employee, what is the justification for putting that bounty on

government employees?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Any public servants being dismissed will get their superannuation contributions back forthwith.

NEW YEAR'S MESSAGE OF

PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

MR. HANSON: Excellent.

On a new question, in the New Year's message from the Provincial

Secretary to all government employees, which was paid for at taxpayer

expense....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: He says "Big deal." The Provincial Secretary had

a remark in his letter: "The government does not wish to take abrupt

action in reducing the size of the public service. Massive layoffs are

not desirable. My personal object is to avoid layoffs and to minimize

the disruptions to government workers and the public alike. Attrition

can do the job." Has the minister investigated to determine how this

seriously misleading information managed to get out of the minister's

office under his signature?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, the member is wrong again. The

member suggests that I have communicated with the public servants at

great expense. I want to tell him it was not at great expense, because

any message that I've conveyed to the public servants of this province

was included with their paycheque and, therefore, was of insignificant

expense. It was substantially less than many of the bulletins,

brochures and the Christmas mailings made by the members of the NDP.

When you use first-class mail for those kinds of communications, it's

substantially greater than my method of communicating with the public

servants of this province.

The objective at the time, Mr. Speaker, was that we were going to

attempt to cut back the public service by attrition. We've now come to

the conclusion that economic circumstances have changed in British

Columbia, and if you're not aware of that it's because you haven't read

the budget. The proposed deficit in British Columbia this year — in the

budget that we're debating in the House today — is 60 percent greater

than it was last year. Economic circumstances have changed in British

Columbia. Therefore we must address that particular issue, and that's

exactly what we're doing now.

While we would have desired achieving a cutback to a leaner public

service through attrition, because of the change in economic

circumstances in British Columbia it wasn't possible, and therefore

we've had to take a different approach to that particular problem.

MR. HANSON: The only change is that the provincial election took place, and they didn't have to tell the truth before.

In view of the government's mass firings, which continue in all

departments of government, will the minister send a similar memo in the

paycheques and superannuation cheques of these employees and apologize

for deliberately misleading them prior to the provincial election?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the term "deliberately mislead" is unacceptable. Please rephrase the question.

MR. HANSON: For misleading the employees.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the first member for Victoria

uses pretty extreme language. He uses it not only here but in other

areas as well. I take exception to some of the innuendos and some of

the accusations which aren't really parliamentary, in my opinion,

dealing with the question of telling the truth. I take strong exception

to those kinds of approaches. I take strong exception as well to the

false statements that are made from time to time, not necessarily by

that member, but by members of that side of the House about the

question of firings, Mr. Speaker, because as far as reduction of the

public service in this province is concerned, no one has been fired.

You've got to recognize that and take that into consideration when you

look at the answer that I gave just a few moments ago. When I said that

the firings.... If anyone is dismissed from the public service in

British Columbia, they'll get their superannuation contributions back

forthwith.

"PRIVATIZATION" OF LEGAL

SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT

MS. BROWN: My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I

just want to say as an aside that the comments of the Provincial

Secretary would seem to indicate that he has been opening the mail of

the opposition members. However, we'll investigate that later.

The 1982 annual report of your Ministry, Mr. Attorney-General, states that the legal-services-to-government branch

[ Page

333 ]

was organized in line with the recommendations of

the Jesco Financial Services report. That report says that the

organization effected $1 million in savings to the ministry. In view of

this information, can you now explain to the House why the government

has decided to privatize legal services to government?

HON. MR. SMITH: The premise is incorrect. "Privatize legal

services" does not mean privatize all legal services. It means

examining ways in which existing legal services might be done more

efficiently in the private sector, but it doesn't mean privatizing all

legal services. If some efficiencies have already been obtained, more

can be.

MS. BROWN: Supplementary. I never cease to wonder what they are clapping over, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the savings, as I've said before, which were cited again

by the Jesco report through the reduced use of ad hoc counsels by the

ministry, can the Attorney-General now tell us why the government is

choosing to use more ad hoc counsels rather than fewer?

HON. MR. SMITH: In some cases it may be more efficient to do

that, particularly in smaller communities where the workload is less or

varies; in other cases it may be efficient not to. The member well

knows that nothing is necessarily efficient because it is in house or

out of house; it's what works best.

MS. BROWN: I have a supplementary question. I would hope that

the ministry has always done what was more efficient, and that the

Attorney-General is not telling us that now they are going to begin to

do what is efficient but that in the past they were indulging

themselves in inefficient practices. Can the Attorney-General explain

why the vote for legal services to government has actually increased,

as reported in the estimates, by over half a million dollars? If it's

more efficient, it's going to be more cost effective. How do you

explain the over half-a-million-dollar increase?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that estimates is the proper time to deal with these matters, not here.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I thought that question period gave

us an opportunity to ask questions of the ministers. I realize that

they don't have to give answers. However, I have another supplementary.

Can the Attorney-General tell us whether he has decided to privatize the Crown counsel services?

HON. MR. SMITH: I have not decided to totally privatize any part of government legal services, as I told the member.

MS. BROWN: I think what we have, Mr. Speaker, is the

difference between firing and dismissal, and now total and partial. Can

the Attorney-General confirm that the government has decided to scrap

the tradition of professional legal advice and professional

prosecutions in favour of a pork-barrel system of government-preferred

private counsel?

HON. MR. SMITH: Of course, the short answer to that highly politicized

and improper question is no. What this member does by asking questions in that

form is cause concerns and worries on the part of loyal public servants who

are performing their duties as Crown counsel. It's patently obvious that

that is their main concern.

CRUISE MISSILE TESTING

MR. NICOLSON: My question is to the Premier. In view of the

allow testing of the cruise missile system in Canada, can the Premier

advise whether he has contacted the Prime Minister to protest Canada's

involvement in the escalation of the arms race?

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

MR. NICOLSON: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Has the

Premier decided to call resolution No. 3 on the order paper so that all

members of this House may express the view that the people of this

province find cruise missile testing in Canada unacceptable?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that's a determination on the

order of House business that will be made by the House Leader during

the course of the session. I'm sure that the House Leader will consider

all business already of record that may be placed before this House.

That's yet to come. It might have a fair opportunity.

JESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES CONTRACT

HON. MR. SMITH: Questions that were asked of me in the House

on July 6 by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) had

to do with the contract of Jesco Financial Services Ltd. The first

question was whether or not the contract had been extended effective

July 1 or any other date. The answer is that the current contract was

signed on August 1, 1982, and terminates on July 31, 1984. There has

been no extension of it.

The second question was whether the government of British Columbia

pays the flying or any other expenses of Mr. Jessiman, who is the

recipient of that contract, so he can do his business in Winnipeg,

etc., etc. The answer to that question is no. Mr. Jessiman is only paid

travel expenses in connection with his duties under his contract with

the ministry, not matters of a business nature that he might deal with

in Winnipeg.

The third question is: has the Attorney-General decided to table

that contract in this House? That question has been asked before in

this House, and the answer remains no.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: One of the youngest members of this House went

over the hill today when he turned 40. I wonder if the House would join

me in wishing a happy birthday to the old first member for Victoria

(Mr. Hanson).

[ Page 334 ]

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRAINT ACT

(continued debate)

[2:30]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that when I was

discussing this legislation on Friday — perhaps I should briefly

summarize some of my points — I started by saying that the government

had broken faith with the people who voted Social Credit in the last

election and that they've done this regularly after every election.

They have proceeded to break and to forget their campaign promises, and

they did again this time.

The government promised there would be no large-scale firing of

public sector employees. They have now indicated that they intend to

reduce the public sector by 25 percent, and the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) himself said that there are some 300,000 employees

working in the public sector as defined in this legislation. That's a

reduction of 62,500, which certainly qualifies as mass-scale firing.

They said it would be handled by attrition. They said there would be no

hospital user fee increases, and of course they proceeded to introduce

them as soon as they brought in the budget. They said there would be no

tax increases, and they introduced those as well with the budget. So

they proceeded to break their campaign promises the moment they had an

opportunity.

The Provincial Secretary told us today that the reason for this was

that economic circumstances changed. That certainly was miraculous,

wasn't it, how quickly they changed from May 5 to May 6. On May 5 there

was no need for mass-scale firing, tax increases or hospital user fee

increases. On May 6, all of a sudden economic circumstance had changed

and there was a need for all of these draconian measures.

When I was speaking Friday, Mr. Speaker, I was urging some of the

government members to get up and tell us how they really feel about

this legislation, to see if they had anything to say, even if they

could manufacture arguments in support of it. We'd certainly prefer if

they told us how they really felt about it, but if they want to speak

in support, well, okay. You may recall that the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) indicated that he was anxious to speak. I suggest

that he may need some reminder today. When I sit down, if you could

help me remind him that he wants to speak, we'd all look forward to

hearing from him. He's nodding now, so I expect that means that he's

getting ready to speak in this debate.

When this legislation was being talked about — actually before we

started second reading, but in a discussion of it — the first member

for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) used some words at which the Premier took

offence. The first member for Victoria, in putting a question to the

Premier, said: "The Premier's government has introduced laws into this

House which flow from the kinds of dictatorship we see in Chile and

Poland." The Premier took offence and said: "I take great offence at

that member and his political extremism of mentioning Chile and

Poland." I don't recall any such laws ever being debated publicly in

Poland or Chile, or Germany or Italy before the war. These kinds of

things weren't done publicly. Any such government going this far would

want it done very quietly. The books I've read and the movies I've seen

all showed secret police arriving in dead of night and breaking down

doors and arresting people, but none of them showed anything of any

public debate. Introducing legislation in 1983 that provides for the

firing of 25 percent of some 250,000 people without cause must be just

about as bad as anything that any such government would have done. When

the Polish government decided to take on the Polish people, it was the

trade-union movement, as represented by Solidarity, that they went

after; and they're still going after them. That's exactly the action

that this government is taking, with legislation that gives it the

right to fire without notice or cause anyone working in the public

sector — a total people involvement of some 250,000 to 300,000.

Speaking in debate in this House in 1973, the hon. member for South

Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) used language.... Speaking on March 20

— Hansard page 1470 — he said: "We're going to have to have a

Magna Carta in a few years. If Bill 42 passes we'll have to get a Magna

Carta in British Columbia to protect our rights and get them back

again. That's what this Magna Carta was all about." I think that the

member should be reminded of those words today. What kind of Magna

Carta are we going to require in the province of British Columbia —

when will it come in? — to bring back the rights that we're going to

lose by the passing of this legislation? We know that it's going to

pass, unless the government can be persuaded by the people within its

own ranks who are objecting to this legislation. We see no signs of

that, but we certainly hope that there is some measure of rebellion

within the government ranks about this legislation.

I saw a little bit of a movie on Thursday evening: Hennessey .

I was reminded of it today when the Lieutenant-Governor came in to give

assent to legislation. In this movie, the little bit that I saw, the

Queen was approaching the Houses of Parliament to address the House of

Lords in the Throne Speech. The Horse Guards were there dressed up in

their uniforms, riding their horses, very impressive, and yet a lot of

pomp and ceremony. It looked as though there was a lot of time and

money being wasted. And what was it all about? What it was all about,

Mr. Speaker, was what the hon. member for South Peace River was talking

about — the Magna Carta. It started that long ago with the Mother of

Parliaments. Sure it looks as though we're making a great show of these

things, but there is some real meaning behind the ceremonies that we

still follow to this day. What's happening this day? This is the day —

and the days after, in this debate — when we're going to require a new

Magna Carta in the province of British Columbia. Hopefully Canada

itself will take some action in this, but in B.C. what are we going to

do to get back the rights that 250,000 to 300,000 employees are losing

by this legislation? They're not the real target, Mr. Speaker; that's

just the first row of attack. What they're really taking on is the

whole trade union movement.

As I indicated in my remarks on Friday, they're not just after a

quarter of a million people; they're after a million. They're hoping to

destroy the trade union movement in the same way that the Polish

government hoped to destroy the trade union movement in Poland. That's

their target, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 335 ]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Forests is speaking again, and I

do invite him to wait, because I will be finished shortly, and then I'd

like to hear from him. I hope he has some contribution to make to this

debate.

In the course of speaking on the budget I quoted some words from the

throne speech. I never pay much attention to throne speeches; they

don't tell us much about what is going to come in in the way of

legislation. There was more in this one, I suppose, than in others. I

didn't pay much attention to the pomp and ceremony until I saw a bit of

that show on TV on Thursday evening.

I want to remind the members, again, about the opening and closing

of the throne speech that we heard on June 23. In the first paragraph:

"May I express the wish that your goals and aspirations and the needs

of the people you represent will be met in the course of your service

as individual members and as the Legislature of our magnificent

province." Good words, Mr. Speaker — words to be remembered and that we

should pay attention to. That's what we should be thinking about when

we're dealing with legislation here. How is the legislation before us

now going to serve the needs of the people of British Columbia?

Later, very near the end of the speech: "Hon. members, you now begin

a most important and demanding session. Our people are coming through

very painful times, yet there is considerable distance to travel. I

pray that in carrying out your duties you will reflect fully on the

example of your decisions and their effect on the people of our

province and our country."

The right to organize, to form into associations with your fellow

workers, is something that has been won by workers in this province and

country over many years of struggle. When I was speaking on Friday, I

told of my father's experience, some 70 miles away from here in South

Wellington, when they were fighting for the right to organize. They had

to sneak around in the dark of night, meet quietly and privately with

just a few people, none of them really knowing who else was involved,

because they knew that if the employer heard about it they would lose

their jobs. That's the kind of situation we're facing today with the

legislation before us. Any one or any number of these people may be

fired without cause. Supposing someone in the Social Credit Party

suspects that a government employee is supporting the NDP; that may

very well be reason enough to fire that person.

MR. LEA: That's with cause.

MR. STUPICH: The member says that there is cause, but they

don't have to say that's the cause; they don't have to give any cause

at all. Even if they were going to give that reason it would be

something, some excuse for firing the person. There can be all kinds of

reasons. There were all sorts of stories coming out of Germany during

the war, of people telling stories about other people — some true and

some not true. It didn't matter. All it took was a rumour, a wild

story, and that's all it will take under this legislation. If someone

in the government service wants to make room for a shirt-tail relation

and appoint him to a very well paying job in the public service, all

they have to do is quietly ask someone to make sure that the person in

the way is fired — they don't need any cause. "Just get them out of the

way so that I can appoint my relation, and all will be well."

The whole public service, 250,000 to 300,000 people, will be waiting

for the guillotine to fall when this happens. There really isn't

anyone, of all those people, who has the security. What does it do to

the other trade unionists? We're talking here about 250,000 people. I

don't know how many of those would be union members. There certainly

wouldn't be any more than 100,000 union members in that group. But in

the total public sector there must be some 40 unions involved, when you

look at all the Crown corporations, all the organizations that are

represented in the public sector here. Every one of those trade union

organizations is going to have to take into account, in signing

collective agreements with employers, other than those operating in the

public sector, the fact that some of their trade union colleagues are

working under legislation that allows them to be fired without cause at

any time. No cause need be given; they are simply told: "Look, that's

the end of it."

The Provincial Secretary said today that no one has been fired —

yet. Why is it that people think they have been fired? Something has

gone wrong with their communication. Maybe you have communicated very

economically in the past week or so. If that's the case, I suggest you

start using some more expensive communication and save a lot of

heartache. The leader of the opposition read into the record a letter

from one of my constituents addressed to the Premier, with a copy to

myself. Certainly this person believed she was fired. A copy went to

the Provincial Secretary as well. I have not seen his reply yet; I

assume there is one coming, and I expect I'll get a copy of it. This

person was coming in to meet my constituency assistant today, because

she firmly believes she was fired. That's the information she got from

the Provincial Secretary's emissary — or from someone; I don't know, it

doesn't identify the person. The person was not working in the

Provincial Secretary's ministry, but someone or other.

[2:45]

This letter starts out: "As I never before have been fired from a

position...." The last paragraph: "Obviously the directive to fire came

from you." This letter is addressed to the Premier. This person rightly

knows, as the Premier made very plain to the cabinet, that he's running

the show. He's the boss. He doesn't need a deputy premier any more. He

doesn't owe anybody anything. He won the election on his own. He can

forget completely and absolutely all the promises he made during the

election campaign, because whatever he did, he was successful in

winning and that's all that counts. He can pay no attention at all to

anybody. He does everything exactly the way he wants to, and that's the

way it's going to be. This past employee, as she describes herself,

certainly knows that's where the order came from ultimately; perhaps

not in this specific instance, but certainly the order to fire came

from him.

It really is terrible legislation. We have never before had to

discuss anything like this. As I said earlier, the member for South

Peace River was talking about Bill 42, which was a legislative attempt

to zone agricultural land. It was already being zoned in some areas,

but there was no overall plan. Some regional districts and

municipalities were doing it. The provincial government wasn't involved

at all, although for some six years I asked the Minister of Agriculture

year after year just what he had in mind. He agreed with the need to

preserve agricultural land, but he couldn't think of any way to do it.

He was always waiting for Canada Land Inventory maps, waiting for

something, waiting for somebody to tell him how to do it. So we did it,

and it simply applied to zoning

[ Page 336 ]

farmland. We then proceeded to bring in legislation

to mitigate the effects of that for farmers who were trying to make a

living by farming. This legislation threatens not only the job security

of those working in the public service but, through their association

with everyone else working in the province, threatens the livelihood of

every person in the province.

Mr. Speaker, with this legislation there are only 57 public service

employees in the province who have job security for a period of a full

five years. With this kind of legislative program, they won't dare go

to the polls until the full five years is up. So there are only 57

public sector employees out of some 250,000 to 300,000 who needn't

worry about being called tonight at dinnertime and told: "You're

fired." Only 57 out of 300,000 have security. Cabinet members can't

feel secure in their position as members of cabinet, but they know they

can't be fired as MLAs until that election is called; then it's up to

the voter. We look after ourselves, don't we. The legislation doesn't

prevent us from having job security, but at passage of this legislation

we'll be saying to the total community: "The government wants the right

to fire anyone at any time without cause, and is hoping to give

leadership so that the private sector will negotiate similar agreements

in its bargaining." It's opening the door to that kind of bargaining.

I think the opposition has made it abundantly clear that we can't

support this legislation. I'm pleased that the Minister of Forests is

going to take his place in debate and tell us how he feels about it. I

would like him to have a bit more time to get ready for his place in

this debate, and in order to give him the time to think about what he's

doing to the people working in his own ministry by voting for this

legislation. He's saying to all the people in his ministry, from the

deputy on down, that if anyone doesn't like the shape of your beard,

the color of your socks, or if anyone has any suspicion that you're

doing something they don't like — it could be politics, it could be in

their personal life, whatever — that you, representing the government,

would have the right under this legislation to fire any of those people

and not have to tell anyone the cause. Mr. Speaker, in order to give

him the time to reflect on this, and to give other members on the

government side of the House some opportunity to reflect on whether or

not they want to say anything about the legislation, I move adjournment

of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Barrett

Howard

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. MITCHELL: The reason I hesitated was that I was under the

impression that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) wanted to

enter the debate, and I was allowing him the opportunity. I do believe

in such things as political democracy, that we exchange sides and have

a few speakers from the other side of the House.

In my first participation in the debate, I would like to take this

opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker and the

Deputy Speaker on his election. I would also like to welcome all new

members and returning members. I would especially like to comment on

what the member for Burnaby–Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) did. He did in four

years with one try what took me 27 years and two tries to accomplish.

Little things like that. I realize the effort it took me, and I

appreciate the effort he took.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As you are most likely aware, Mr. Speaker, I find that I will not be

able to support Bill 3. This may come as a surprise. I think it's only

fair to vote the House. I don't believe that I will change too many of

the members sitting in the House, but those sitting in the precincts

and in the galleries may want to know why people on this side of the

House have taken the position we have. I think it's important. A

society that enjoys parliamentary democracy should take a look at

history and the types of benefits, rights, laws, and the type of

legislation and the type of agreements that have evolved over the

hundreds of years whereby our democracy has come to be where it is

today. The laws of society were never written in stone. They were never

handed down from up above. They evolved because of the efforts and the

input from everyone who has gone before us.

[3:00]

I look at the trade union movement; I look at the pensions; I look

at education; I look at the rights of being able to get up and express

our opinions, not only in the Legislature, where we have certain

historical immunities, but out on the street. We can go out in our

homes, and in the halls, and in organizations. These are the rights

that we have fought for. These are the rights that I feel this House

has a moral obligation to preserve.

When one piece of legislation can come down, with a stroke of a pen,

because one political party wants to turn the clock back.... I don't

care what particular reason they use. They can use such things as

"restraint." They can use the idea that they're going to save money.

But when you trample on the rights that have been fought for, rights

that people from my riding.... My riding is a military riding. We have

both

[ Page 337 ]

the army and the navy. Citizens of my community

have gone to war and died to protect the legislation that has evolved

through our parliamentary system. Then all of a sudden, with very

little debate, with the vast majority we are continuously told the

opposite side of the House — the government side — has, their members

are not getting up and explaining why they want to trample on those

rights.

I happen to come from a profession, as a policeman, where we had to

fight, we had to negotiate, we had to plead to get certain concessions,

to get certain security in our employment. These were the rights to

deal with the public honestly with the proper training. As I said

before, Mr. Speaker, when I first became a policeman — and that wasn't

that long ago — the attitude was that a policeman was issued four

things: a uniform, a gun, a ticket-book and a quota. I remember those

days when we were fighting and going through the labour legislation

that was at that time in vogue that we couldn't discuss such things as

training. We had to petition the government. We had to go to the

councils and to the police commission for the proper training so that

police officers, when they dealt with the public, had the facts, had

the knowledge, and had the understanding and compassion a police

officer needed. We fought for those. If this type of legislation had

been in place where the employer could fire a person without cause, I

would have been fired years ago. I would have been fired because I

fought for training. I fought for an understanding and a better police

force in my area. The police commissioners, the mayor, the aldermen and

the Attorney-General at that time were opposed to my views. They were

opposed to the views of the working policemen.

Everyone sitting in this House knows that if we had rocked the boat

with this legislation in place, we would have been out on the street.

This is what I am opposed to, because this is what's going to happen

throughout the working community. So many people believe that this

particular bill is only going to affect government workers close to

this precinct. But this is going to affect every public servant, be he

a policeman, a garbage man, a hospital worker, or a schoolteacher.

Everyone who has dedicated his life, who has worked to gain an

education so he is competent in his chosen field, who after many years

of dedicated service — excellent service to the public.... If he

happens to speak out of place, or for some unknown reason the

supervisor, the local politician or the provincial government decides

they want to cut, they can go indiscriminately through the roster of

the workforce and pick anyone they want to get rid of. I say to each

one of the members of the government side of the House who are going to

have to make that sincere decision: are you going to support that type

of approach to legislation? Are you going to enlarge unemployment

because you think that is an answer, that it is going to solve

something? All it is going to do, Mr. Speaker — and you know it; any

economist knows it — is to compound the problems we have in this

province right now. It's going to compound the problems we have in

Canada, because it's going to deny the security of someone who has been

hired, someone who has dedicated his life — it could be to human

rights, or to such things as automobile-testing stations.... He has

gone out, worked five, ten — I believe some up to 19 — years.... They

have been encouraged by this government — by society, because all this

government is.... Each one of us, each one of the 57 who are sitting in

this House today, is only the representative of society. Society makes

the decisions. Society has empowered us to set certain guidelines, and

these guidelines that we have set up.... We have set up these various

boards and services, and then 35 people feel in their wisdom that they

have a mandate to tear it down.

I guess I have looked at as many political advertisements put out by

the Social Credit government.... I know that I can't hold this up

because it would be classed as a display, or something like that, so I

won't hold it up so you will rule me out of order. But this is — I'm

laying it down — a Social Credit political ad. I went through this

political ad. Nowhere in this political ad does it say that they were

going to deny the rights of the people of British Columbia. Nowhere in

this ad do they say where they are going to cut services. Nowhere on

all this page — and I know the cost of a full page in the Times-Colonist

doesn't come cheaply.... But of all the promises laid out in bold type,

not one of them said they were going to increase hospital service fees;

not one of them said they were going to wipe out human rights; not one

ad in there said they were going to indiscriminately lay off all the

people in the EBAP program. In fact, in the fifth paragraph it goes on

to say what a great program the bridging program is. But what was one

of the first announcements made when this House sat? The end of the

bridging program — wiped out. They wiped it out because, according to

the government figures, over 5,000 people were employed by it. The

federal government with its donation was putting in in the

neighbourhood of $11 million. It was going to cost the province $4

million to keep 5,000 workers employed. Before the House even got into

the budget speech, they wiped that out. I know that if I said that the

public was misled you might accept that, but if I said they were

deliberately misled, then you would rule that out of order. So I won't

say they were deliberately misled. But they were led to believe that

some of these programs that were creating employment would stay in

force.

I remember the campaign very plainly, and I do know people who were

out of work who were working in the bridging program. They were getting

the extra $112 per week — I believe it is — to supplement their UIC.

One of them came to me prior to May 5 and said that Social Credit had

come out and spoken to a group of their workers out at Muir Creek and

told them that if the NDP got in this program was going to be wiped

out. I went out and met them, talked to them and looked at some of the

work they were doing, and assured them that if we got in, the money

would be made available and they would continue to work. But as soon as

the government came in they wiped it out. They didn't have the $4

million.

It's funny. In my riding, just a short time before the election,

this government dumped $2 million into the Highways department and told

them to use that money in high-visibility work. I talked to the

engineers and public servants who work in our Highways department; they

were happy to get the $2 million, but they wished they had a little

lead time to plan the roads and get the base in so that when they laid

the blacktop, the high-visibility election gimmick, the $2 million

would be spent and have some lasting effect. But that's not the way

this government did it. They spent $2 million in my riding to try and

get the job for one person. It wasn't for me; it was to elect one

Social Crediter. When you can go out and waste $2 million of the

public's money — it's not the government's money or the opposition's

money — for one person, but you can't find $4 million for 5,000, I say

this government is lacking in the moral integrity that I think the

province of B.C. deserves. Their attitude and the way they are looking

at where we should go....

[ Page 338 ]

[3:15]

One of the programs they wiped out is the motor vehicle testing

station. I don't want to go on about my ex-profession, but I was a

police officer before they had a testing station in British Columbia,

and I know the many accidents and injuries and deaths caused by having

unsafe vehicles out on the highway. This might be all right in the

rural areas where you don't have the heavy traffic that we have in the

Greater Victoria and Vancouver areas, but we cannot afford to have

unsafe vehicles on the highways. I believe you can remember when one

out of ten cars driving down the highway was belching black smoke. It

was considered that it needed a ring job, it needed this, they put too

much oil in, they used something that was wrong. There was always an

excuse for it. It was a part of our life. It polluted our air and the

cities. Sitting behind a car, you'd have all this black smoke coming

in. Because of the safety stations, a lot of that was wiped out.

Sometimes out on a black road with a vehicle approaching you, when he

dimmed his lights they were still hitting you dead in the eyes. When

you're on some of the rural roads in my riding and you have two

headlights coming right into your eyes, that is a hazard. Some of the

programs were wiping that out. Cars were going in every year. People

were being educated, being instructed, and they were forced to have a

car that was safe to drive — safe not only for the driver and

passengers in that car, but for the other vehicles and pedestrians out

on the road.

With the stroke of a pen it was wiped out. As I said, I went all

through this piece of literature, "For a Future That Works," and

nowhere in there did it say this government was going to wipe out one

of the major safety devices or programs that makes our highways safer

to drive on. I know they might even privatize them, and I give that as

a suggestion if you haven't already thought of it; if you haven't given

all your Social Credit friends who own garages the rights and the

privilege to put the sticker on. If you give those rights to a lot of

garages, motorists will come in and be told they have to get this and

that fixed. There won't be a $5 inspection fee before they get out of

that garage; it will be a $500 fee in some cases, or $50 or $150. It

will be a make-work program for those few people who manage to get that

right. Maybe this is what the government has in mind for all the

ex-used-car salesmen and dealers who make up the majority in cabinet

over there in that group. I don't know what it is, but I know it is a

service and a responsibility which the government accepted. It made the

roads a lot safer to drive on.

To a certain degree you have to look at it from a philosophical

point of view. I think this legislation refers to the budget speech by

my good friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). One thing I

found very shocking was when that minister said that the people of

British Columbia must not continue to hold the expectations they had.

He's saying to the people of British Columbia that the chance to own

your own home, to go out to work, to learn a trade, to get an

education, or to get a profession — if you feel this is what you

need.... Those expectations have to be cut back for certain people.

This legislation cuts it back for a lot of public servants.

If this particular piece of legislation goes through and the axe

comes down on the public service, that same axe will come down on the

rest of the citizens of British Columbia, be they union or non-union,

professional or non-professional. The cutbacks will be devastating to a

lot of families.

I know of one particular industry in my precinct, where a lot of the

employees work in B.C. Forest Products, in plywood and sawmill. A lot

of them have worked 5, 10, 15.... I believe one worked 31 years, and

private industry said they were going to shut down this particular

plant. I can't use anything less than "devastating" to describe the

effect that that had on families scattered throughout the greater

Victoria area.

During the campaign I remember knocking on the doors of people who

have worked all their lives. Because they had a certain amount of

security — they had a good job — they could afford to buy a home, to

make a fair-sized down payment of $20,000 or $30,000; they could afford

to make the mortgage payments. Even when the mortgage payments went up,

when people were paying 18, 19 and 22 percent to have their mortgages

renewed, they could still make those payments. They couldn't go on

holidays; they couldn't buy some of the things their children needed.

They had to go without a lot of other incidentals. In life the first

two things we provide for are food and shelter. They could provide that

shelter. But all of a sudden they were thrown out on the scrap heap.

With the $700 or $800 they received on UIC, they could not make those

inflated mortgage payments. They lost their homes; they lost their down

payments; they lost everything — their life savings — they had put into

that home. That was sad. It was wrong. But the government will not

agree with that.

This government seems to think — and they use it in their debates —

that if people in private industry get thrown out on the scrap heap,

then we should do the same. I say it's wrong.

To each government member here, I say that this government should be

giving leadership, not following along and devastating families. This

government should be giving leadership, instead of bringing in

legislation that is contained in Bill 3, which is going to destroy more

homes. Just the stress of wondering whether your name, punched in on

the computer.... You could be a garbage collector in Penticton. All of

a sudden the Minister of Finance decides that he wants to cut back

municipal grants, and he'll do just the same as the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) does with his computer. If they want to

cut costs in a certain school district.... It's all centralized in the

Minister of Education's offices or in his ministry, and if they want to

cut costs they punch the computer and they say, "Wipe out $20,000," and

another teacher goes down the line. The Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Ritchie) may decide he wants to cut out some of his grants,

so he punches the computer and another person goes down the street.

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this government should have

given the leadership that I believe the Canadian Catholic bishops tried

to give last Christmas when they spoke out and said we are coming to a

time in society when full employment should be the way that this

country is going. I know that some of the politicians jumped up and

screamed that bishops should not talk on such things as economics, on

how it's going to affect their community, on what a rich country like

Canada, what a richer province on a per capita basis than any other

province, as we are in B.C. — that we in this province and this

country, instead of having 200,000 people unemployed, or a million and

a half people unemployed in Canada, cannot afford to continue this

approach, and the waste of the main resource of this country, which is

the human resource.

[ Page 339 ]

We cannot afford to allow people to drift down to the poverty level

just to keep them surviving. I don't think society wants to. When I

talk to the great majority of the people out on the street, they want

the security of full employment themselves, the security of maximum

health care, of the best education possibilities for their families

that are mentally available within these families, of knowing that they

are building an equity in some type of a pension plan that they can

look forward to down the line with hope and dignity. I know that the

vast majority of these people in my community equally want to share

that with the rest of the community.

I know that if this government, instead of using a vindictive,

vicious type of legislation, had given the leadership that this

government is capable of giving.... Let's go back to 1978, when in the

wisdom of the Premier he decided that he would go back to his Liberal

friends in Ottawa and would propose to the first ministers' conference

that we should raise the interest rate to 18.5 percent. The economists

and people in the business world joined with the NDP and said: "If you

go and raise interest to 18.5 percent, you're going to suck the money

out of the economy, stop building and start a depression." But the

Premier gave the leadership and went down to his Liberal friends, and

Mr. Trudeau bought his particular program. He bought it, and that

started the effect on the families and the businesses. Following in

line with the Americans, the Thatchers and everything else, this was a

simple answer. There is no simple answer to the program of full

employment, but high interest and unemployment are not the answer

either. If this government had gone to the federal government and had

given the type of leadership that is needed to combine the resources of

federal and municipal governments, the private sector and the

provincial government, I know we could start a program of full

employment, as the bishops have outlined; we could look at a type of

society where people are going to be able to hold up their heads in

pride and not worry in shame.

[3:30]

This is the sort of leadership that this government failed to give.

They set out in their pamphlets and advertising all the jobs that were

going to be created and all the wealth that was going to be produced,

but the security that was needed is being denied.

What is their reasoning? They will just say: "Where's the money

going to come from?" I think it's important at times, Mr. Speaker, that

each one of us take a few moments and look back on history. Read back

in history about when education was only there for the rich and the

powerful. When the servants out in the fields, the hewers of wood and

the drawers of water, were wanting an education, the same argument was

used at that time: " Where is the money going to come from?" But

eventually society at that time demanded that we look at universal

education as a right. It is not right to have the largest part of the

population uneducated. The money was made available.

Look back in history to the time when the industrial revolution was

growing. The victims of that revolution became the derelicts on the

street, panhandling and begging for food to feed their families and

survive. When the church leaders and the activists in the communities

said we must have some type of workers' compensation that will support

those who were destroyed in industry, governments and business people

said: "Where's the money going to come from?" Eventually the activists

and church groups pleaded, begged, fought and demanded, and industry

and governments provided compensation.

You can see the same arguments as you go through the history of

pensions. When the fight was for an old age pension so that people

could live in dignity, there were governments that came and went when

they were promising it.... It wasn't until there was a minority

government in Canada that, because a few socialists and labour people

had control of that minority government and had the balance of power,

we got old age pensions in this country. The same arguments went on

time after time: where is the money going to come from? The money is in

the community.

When I first came out of the army in 1946 and got involved in

politics, the battle at that time was for health care — hospital

insurance. We had all kinds of privatized hospital insurance programs.

We had Blue Cross, IWA.... Lumber workers, shipyard workers, everyone

had a particular little hospital plan. If you got sick and you had paid

your premiums, your hospital bills were covered. The only problem when

you got sick was that if you read the small print in some of these

plans, you realized that.... The only people who got rich were those

who were selling the insurance, not those who were trying to collect.

At that time when I got into politics, and we were campaigning for such

things as hospital insurance, the same argument was used: where's the

money going to come from? In those days health care was being paid for.

People were losing their homes, mortgaging their whole future, to pay a

large hospital bill. They were being paid all right, but they were

being paid by those who were sick.

That is exactly what is happening today. The unemployment bill is

being paid. It is being paid because people are losing their life

savings, their homes. They're the ones who are paying for it. We have

to look at full employment, at a changed attitude or way of life. We

can't go back, and this legislation — Bill 3 — is going back. When you

go back or mark time, you go down. The government has failed to give

leadership, to bring in something positive. They've brought in

something vicious.

I really believe, in fairness to all members on the government side,

that this bill really hasn't been thought out. It hasn't been thought

out as to how it's going to improve the economic stability of this

province. Because I want this government to think it out and study it,

participate in the debate and put their reasons forward, and say what

kind of leadership they're going to give, I therefore move adjournment

of the debate until the next sitting of the House so that the

government can give a second thought.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

[ Page 340 ]

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Veitch

Ree

Reynolds

Reid

Parks

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

MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if I could have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of myself, the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich), and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Ritchie), I'd like to have the House welcome to the gallery and the

precincts Bill and Yvonne Kennedy and their children Michelle and

Suzanne. The reason I draw the Minister of Municipal Affairs into this

is because Bill Kennedy is the city treasurer for the city of Prince

George, incoming officer of the Municipal Affairs Association and was

one of the first people the member for Central Fraser Valley met when

he became Minister of Municipal Affairs. Would the House please welcome

these guests from Prince George.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would mind

joining me in welcoming in the gallery today my brother and his wife,

and their son-in-law and their daughter.

[3:45]

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd ask the House to join me in extending

a warm welcome to Alderman Joanne Monaghan from Kitimat, who was the

Social Credit candidate in Skeena. We're very pleased to see her here

today.

MR. CAMPBELL: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CAMPBELL: I would like to introduce Mr. Lance Arnt from

Vernon. He's been going to the University of Victoria and is back down

here right now. Would you give him a good welcome.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, fellow MLAs, and fortunate attendees

in the galleries, this is a very special occasion. I would like first

to read something from the book of bills. We are presently debating the

Public Service Restraint Act, Bill 3, but I would like to read Bill 1,

if it's in order. This House has decided that before any business takes

place there is to be placed on the order paper, and in the order of

bills, a bill which will protect our right to sit. I would just like to

read that bill to you. I'm not sure that all of us pay much attention

to what goes on in this House, but

An Act to Perpetuate a Parliamentary

Right — that's Bill 1 - states that:

"This act to perpetuate a parliamentary right is an

important part of our democratic process. The purpose of this bill, and

its introduction prior to consideration of the throne speech, is to

perpetuate the established right of parliament, through its elected

representatives, to sit and act without leave from the Crown.

"This bill simply asserts the right of the Legislative

Assembly to give precedence to matters other than those expressed by

the sovereign.

"Introducing it at this point in the opening

proceedings of this Legislative Assembly is a tradition that dates back

to the reign of Elizabeth I when on March 22, 1603, Parliament first

recorded this assertion of independence from the Crown for purposes of

legislation."

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that we start at the beginning.

Unfortunately Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act, seems to

disregard the fact that there are other fundamental first things that

should be done with respect to any act by any parliamentarian at any

time on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and that is to make

certain assumptions. Certain things are fundamental in a democratic

society, and they seem to have been overlooked in this bill. These are

the things that, quite frankly, after 11 years in this Legislature I

personally am shocked at. I am shocked because I never thought I would

see even Social Credit — those mortal enemies of the people's movement

toward justice and legality in this society — go this far.

There is an explanation for their acts. It wasn't by accident; it

was no miscalculation or mistake. Those members on that side of the

House have had access to the powerbrokers in this society who have

their own agendas and their own ideas about the direction society

should go. I am sure that they were advised — we find now ill-advised —

at the time prior to May 5 and prior to April 7 when they dissolved the

House and told us that we were going to the people to have a general

election that they'd made some calculations based on polling

information, consultation with certain organizations who advise on the

nature of people's thinking and their values. They were advised on the

direction in which most people would like to go in order to protect

themselves.

It was no accident that Bill 3 had such devastating clauses in it:

removal from employment without just cause, and not only that but no

appeal. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that in this day and age and in

this democracy of ours, as hard as people work and struggle, that we

have had a government claim that that is merely a restraint measure and

that they are simply carrying out their mandate to cut down on the

public service? Do you mean to tell me that you have to deny people due

process of law in order to cut down on public service? Do you have to

disregard the commitment of people who have studied, worked hard,

scrimped and tried to raise their families with a sense of duty to

society? You know what it's like to raise a family, Mr. Speaker. I

don't need to get into those

[ Page 341 ]

details. But all of those public servants are

people, although they have been stigmatized by those who would try to

stereotype them.

It's a kind of class slander right across the board for everybody.

It doesn't matter whether they are working for the government,

municipalities, Crown corporations, commissions, school boards,

hospital boards, universities, the police, the fire chief or the

garbage collector. All of them. "We will fire them without due process,

without a hearing, without regard for their contributions to society

and without regard to their commitment to their work, their specialty

and, furthermore, without regard to whatever service they may be

providing, because that is not the point of what we are doing."

I think the people of British Columbia were caught in an ideological

struggle. I think there is something more sinister and far more

diabolical than just trying to restrain the spending of public tax

dollars. It's something far more serious, far more desperate and far

more categorically fitting under the description that the Leader of the

Opposition used the other day when he said: "A black angel was coming

over British Columbia." That's a contradiction. Imagine an angel that's

black. Now that's a turn, isn't it? British Columbia is in a crisis

that I don't think has hit them yet. I don't say I shock lightly; I

don't think any of us do in this House. We have pretty tough skins. We

do a lot of yelling and screaming back and forth across the floor. But

I can tell you that I was numbed. I thought: "What can I say?" I was

hit in the pit of my stomach and I could not believe that after all

these years.... I'd come all the way from down in New Orleans,

Louisiana, where oppressive politics is the name of the game,

especially for people who are underprivileged and without access to the

law and who do not have the power to defend themselves. I was used to

that, so I got out of there and went up north to Portland, in the

beautiful state of Oregon. Things were a little bit better, but not

much, because as times got tough down below, some of those people were

moving up with their ideas about special treatment for some members of

society and not for the others, and I still suffered. When I finally

got to Vancouver, I knew I had it made, until I ran into a few people

who had come up here from down there. I don't know where you people are

coming from, but as Canadians, as fellow British Columbians, where did

you get the idea that you could do this?

You've been called some pretty disrespectful names and compared to

some pretty horrendous regimes from Chile and Germany and other places.

I don't like to call names. When I was a little fellow I detested

names, because they were so condemning and demeaning for me. I don't

need to tell you what the names were; I just don't like name-calling. I

think we should address problems objectively; we should show more

respect for each other, and we shouldn't force people to react and

confront us because we disregard their rights. We shouldn't force

people to do that. This government has not only confronted those people

over whom it has some jurisdiction by virtue of its allocating funds

for those programs that maintain their services, but it has offended

fundamental traditions upon which we all rely to avoid going after each

other's throats. You must be intelligent and sensitive enough to know

what you are doing. It's no accident if you are going to deny the

rights of people who are not criminals and have committed no offence.

The only offence they've committed is trying to do their job, and

suffering the humiliation and disgrace of being classed as not being

productive by irresponsible statements from politicians.

What are those people going to do? Quietly disappear? Do you think

those people are going to just say: "Thank you. That was a bad break,

but I can see what you are doing. This is your restraint program to

save dollars. It makes a whole lot of sense"? That's not going to

happen, and it makes no sense. Those people are going to do more than

that. They're going to lose their respect for due process and the

fundamental traditions we believe in, which keep us together and

cooperating and trusting in each other, and generally allow us to carry

on with some of the virtues that we all would like — to work together

to try to architecturally design a society that will demonstrate that

it is possible for people to live together, not in confrontation but in

cooperation, intelligently doing so because we know the consequences of

doing otherwise. We will all be finding out about the consequences in

British Columbia very soon.

Do you realize how many people you have affected directly? We've

been estimating that there are something like 200,000 to 300,000 people

by the time you go from the government right down to the municipalities

and the agencies and organizations affected by this legislation. Do you

realize how many people you are doing that to, and do you mean to tell

me that you are not yet aware of the serious error you have made? It

must have been an error, because I'm giving you credit for having been

intelligent. The mistake that you've made is not just against the

people of British Columbia; it's against the movement of democracy

right across the world. That's what you've done.

We've had several people stand up over there and say it takes a lot

of courage. I think that was referred to in the throne speech and in

the budget. "It takes courage. We are leading. We are going to lead out

of the recession. British Columbia will be hailed the world over." What

for?

Some of our members have a great deal of difficulty being able to

listen to the remarks made by some of these people who seem to be

totally insensitive and even arrogant, even now as people are

organizing and demonstrating. Schoolteachers, professional people in

the helping professions — these people are actually catcalling even at

this late point. You say it's good government. What about those British

Columbians you are providing good government for? Do you know how many

people will lose their homes and will be unable to feed their families

in another two or three months, and will be out on the streets? People

who themselves were helping others, the unemployed and social

assistance recipients, are now going to be joining them in those lines,

and there are already 200,000 of them on the streets in British

Columbia. If you get 25 percent of those you intend to, in the next

year we'll have 300,000 people on the streets. The only thing that they

will have to look forward to will be subsistence on social assistance —

which your government has, for some strange reason, increased. That's

one of the increases in your budget. I didn't say you increased the

rates; you just increased the amount — in other words, anticipating the

doubling of the units, as you call them: the people, recipients,

persons, families and children.

[4:00]

What's really going to happen? Why didn't you give us an analysis?

Why didn't you tell us you had in place a research department that

analyzed all services in the government, and that you could come to us

with your fancy computers and say: "Here, we are making these cuts

rationally. We've debated them in caucus and have determined that they

are in line with advice from the best economic and social advisers

[ Page 342 ]

throughout the community. We've had the benefit of

public input, and they agree that we have to have a restraint program;

it is rational, it will be systematic and done in an orderly manner."

Not just the rhetoric we've received from the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) in his letter to the staff, but the fact that "we are

doing this."

Right from the start the opposition has stated that restraint in all

sectors of society — public and private — is necessary, but not an

irrational, reckless approach with no understanding for the

consequences. What's going to happen when you start to withdraw people?

It is rumoured.... I say "rumoured, " because there are no facts. All

we have is a bill that is not yet proclaimed, a bill that until

recently was used as the basis for letting people go. You let 400

people go from the public service, another 22 from the human rights

branch and commission. It is rumoured that you will be letting 500-plus

go from the Ministry of Human Resources. We have been asking in the

Legislature who those people are, what their jobs are, from what

regions of the province they will be withdrawn, and whether these

terminations will have an adverse impact on existing services. We don't

have a clue; we don't know.

We would hope you would be able to assure this House that when you

remove family service workers, for instance, those specialists who work

with families.... By the way, there are some 8,000 such families

currently on social assistance or under care. Most of them, some 6,000,

are in homes; another 2,500 are in foster care homes and other

institutions throughout the community. What's going to happen to those

people? Is it going to be the reckless abandon of families? What about

those children needing protection under the family and children's

services legislation? What's going to happen to the many children

referred to as "children at risk," in the vernacular of the social

worker? Have you documentation to clarify your plan to remove

child-abuse teams, and in what regions? What will be the consequences?

What's going to happen to the family court? What's going to happen to

those court orders made on behalf of these children, and where will

they go? These are serious questions.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Over the weekend I met with a number of people in the community —

social workers, social worker aides, different paraprofessionals from

all walks of life, and ordinary taxpayers. It is no rumour; people are

frightened. One Human Resources worker came to my home and said:

"Emery, I wouldn't want to bother you, but I understand you are going

to be the critic for Human Resources. I just want to tell you that you

should phone my office and hear the way those people reply. Their

voices are quivering. They say: 'Hello, this is Human Resources. What

can we do for you?' " I know that won't come out right in Hansard ,

but I'll tell you it's a pretty sad tone that you've created. Truly,

there are shock waves, and justifiably so. What you have done is

incomprehensible. It's difficult for a civilized person to be tame and

control himself, but I think those of us in this Legislature have a

duty to try to be rational and pay attention to the people and what

they are saying.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when that man came to my home

and shared those remarks with me, he was broken-hearted. He's a

hard-working person. He said: "What do we do? Where do we go? What's

going to happen? Who goes next?" I said: "It's a sad day but I don't

know what I can do for you. You know the government has a five-year

mandate. I could certainly get outlandish and accuse them of having

duped the public, but any time a politician starts speaking in those

kinds of derogatory terms, people seem to think they are just doing it

because of their political bias, and they have no credibility."

I'm calling no names. You've already condemned yourselves; I don't

have to call you names. The public knows what you're doing. In fact,

many of the people who voted for you understand it better than I do. I

don't need to call you any names; I'm merely telling you what is going

on out on the street. You can do what you wish. I'm here to work on

behalf of the public and tell it as I see it; to try to express to you

the feelings that are out there. You should care about these public

servants, for no other reason than that you yourself might have been

them. In fact, many of your friends are some of those people. You

should do it out of common decency. It should be very difficult for you

to become signatories to a piece of legislation that would be so

heinous, so mean, so vicious, so insensitive, so uncaring and so really

indescribable. It is no accident when you get international bodies and

institutions protesting this action. It is no accident that the federal

government is beginning to wonder if it has a role to play. It's no

accident that so many organizations are beginning to form to create

something very similar to Poland's Solidarity. It's happening. Quite

frankly, I'm relieved that it's happening, because it indicates to me

that the public really does care about the democratic process. They

really do care about these fundamental principles.

I know that in your polling information you were led to believe the

contrary, because this was a design based on taking advantage of

people's insecurities — something that has been promoted and marketed

by those purveyors of hate who really believe that it's a good product

that is exploitable and can be used. You know what I mean, because that

is the way the materialistic, capitalistic, monetarist society that we

live in tends to go. It goes that way because we convince the people

that the money — the dollar — is the only thing that matters,

notwithstanding the fact that the money and the dollars mean nothing if

they have no value to the people. If it can do nothing for the people,

what difference does it make? It's all relative. Any businessman will

tell you that, any banker will tell you that, and any car dealer will

tell you that he doesn't care about the total cost; he's looking for

the bottom line: "What's my profit? What's my margin? What will go into

my pocket?" That's all he cares about.

So don't tell me anything about your concern for people and that you

cannot afford to keep this society healthy and together, and show some

care and responsibility. What you're doing is forcing people to go back

to their animal nature. We call it the survival of the fittest, but

there's no such thing in contemporary society. These people have long

since lost the ability to survive. They lost it because we're now

living in a society in which they depend on each other. We're not an

agrarian society where people can go out and till the soil — get a

piece of land and work it and use their own hands and their own skills

and abilities. We don't have that any more. We've long since lost that.

We've been told to sell the farmland, get rid of it, build some houses,

put everybody downtown, get some supermarkets, feed them some pills,

lock them up, and then we can control them. That's what's happened.

So don't tell me about people being able to make it on their own. They can't do it. Governments have to have

[ Page 343 ]

responsibilities. You say: "It's interventionist.

We want to leave it to the fair marketplace." Well, hell, it's a jungle

out there. You've got no consumer protection. You don't want to give

people proper health care or education, you don't want to inform them

of their rights, you don't want to tell them how to participate in the

democratic process, you don't want them to know what's going on with

their government or with yourselves. And you don't want them involved

in anything. Those who do get a job, you want to scare the hell out of

them. What kind of people are you?

I get angry. I can tell you — even though I'd like to be objective —

that I get personal, because that's what it's all about. I'm a person.

I'm an MLA, but I'm also a person — a human being — just like everybody

else. I take personal offence on behalf of the people — and on behalf

of you people too, if you don't have sense enough to realize what

you're doing. You're destroying the future for your children, for your

neighbours, for everyone. Hell, people, what you're doing is impossible

to believe. "No cause." Dismiss people without cause and then your

right of appeal.... And then tell them: "If you don't like it, sue me.

Take me to court." The courts are filled up, and you can't get in. If

you did get in, it's going to cost you a fortune. You'd have to go and

borrow the money from somebody who wants to rip you off, because you

probably couldn't get a first-rate loan. You'd probably have to get a

second or third at about 15 percent or 20 percent for something risky

like going to court. This is a sham! You don't care. You never have. I

think the public's beginning to see it. The days of talking about the

conspiracy of socialists and communists are over.

Quite frankly, you know, the people really don't care any more. They

want to be able to live during their lifetimes with some peace and some

dignity. That's what they want. They don't want you to give them

slogans and all this business: "Watch those guys. They're bad for you.

We're the nice guys. We'll take care of everything." You sure will.

We're only talking about Bill 3. We're not talking about the removal

of the Human Rights Code and what you're going to do by eliminating the

Greater Vancouver Regional District. You know the implications of that

planning program; you've centralized virtually everything in this

province under yourselves. I cannot imagine anyone having any

understanding about the nature of society today wanting to take on that

responsibility anyway. You people must be masochists. Why would you

want that big job — to run everything yourselves? You know, true

democrats would give everyone a chance to share in the politics and the

decision-making. It makes a lot of sense.

You people are going to run everything yourselves, and you expect

people to sit back quietly and let you do it, in this day and age, the

way the world is. The dissention is.... Why do you think people

protest? Why do you think there were 60,000 people walking across the

bridge over to Sunset Beach during the election? Why? They're telling

you something. You say: "Oh, it doesn't matter, we've got the power. We

don't care." Well, don't you care about yourselves as human beings?

What's so important to you that you've got to bludgeon and be mean and

brutal to these people, that you can't back off and listen and look

people straight in the eye and say: "Hey, look, yeah, maybe you've got

something to say"? This is their government, you know.

People have lost hope in government; they've lost hope in people who

talk out of the side of their mouths. These people probably would not

like to be dishonest but are themselves a product of such a cynical

society that they have lost the ability to be reasonable and to

understand. You people are handicapped; you should have some protection

yourselves. You have a serious emotional, psychological and

intellectual disability. You don't understand the whole idea of the

parliamentary process.

The whole idea of this thing is to involve these beautiful people of

British Columbia, not to alienate them. They want to be involved and

they're desperately trying to get involved. If you were to give them

the enthusiasm that you should on a good working team, you would get

ten times as much out of them. Right now most of them are not even

productive. Most of them are sitting shivering in their boots and

afraid to say anything out of line, and you can believe that if they

did say anything under your legislation they would be gone. That's the

kind of society we will have if we allow you to get through with Bill

3: a society that has been confiscated by deceptive means during an

election. I don't think there's a single British Columbian who would

really want you to do what you're doing, and I don't think that you

people yourselves....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You stand and tell me that you believe it is

correct that you should fire people without due cause, without access

to justice and without appeal. You stand and tell it to everyone on the

streets — tell it to your own children. We have not heard any defence.

The Premier himself, unfortunately I think, has found himself

victimized by forces far greater than he could ever understand. I don't

blame him. I think he's doing the best he can with what he's equipped

with. But I can tell you that somebody is moving somebody, because that

man has yet to stand in this House and successfully defend this

legislation. In fact, I've heard very little credible debate with

respect to justifying how they could violate our freedoms and rights

under our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No, there's no question

about it. You people are not the real government; your advisers are the

real government.

[4:15]

Do you know why I think it all happened? I think it all happened

because the people were going to defeat the Social Credit Party at the

last election. I think the polls told you that, and I think you got

desperate and said: "We've got to get rid of those people once and for

all. How do we do it? We get the big money behind us and sell our souls

to the devil. We promise them everything and anything — just get us

elected and then we'll kill them. We guarantee you they'll never come

back to haunt you again. We're going to destroy all access to justice.

We will make sure they never, ever come back again." That's what you're

doing.

But, you know, notwithstanding all the things you are attempting to

do, this is a democratic society. As far as I am concerned you have

fired those people illegally. You have not fired those people under any

statute that I know of. You certainly can't fire them under the Public

Service Restraint Act, because it's not passed yet. It hasn't even

passed second reading. So on what basis are you doing it? You say you

are paying them severance pay, but you tell them they are not allowed

to leave the job; they've got to be available to help have an orderly

windup. Are they working or not working? There are some problems with

what you are trying to do. You had several meetings to tell the

Ministry of Human Resources workers that you are going to advise them

who would be laid

[ Page 344 ]

off last Friday, and then again today. Both of

those meetings were cancelled. Maybe you began to realize that there's

something wrong, and you can't do it anymore. What's happening? In the

meantime, what about these people? They don't know what their status is.

Well, I don't think I can convince you. I just wanted to express to

you that the public are on to you. They're on to you, and you'll be

hearing from them. You have probably already been hearing from them. As

far as I'm concerned it's a great opportunity for us to begin to show

how really fragile and delicate this so-called democracy really is. I

would just close by saying to those of you who have not yet read

Justice Tom Berger's book, Fragile Freedoms , I would recommend it for weekend reading.

In light of the fact that none of the Social Credit people seem to

be anxious to get on their feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you

an idea of some of the problems. Take the family services to homes.

This is speculation. I would like to be more specific about what the

impact would be. Do you know what is involved in supporting one family?

Do you know how many members of different teams are involved?

Counsellors, social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, job training

— the kind of programs that can only happen through the specialized

training of people who are committed to the very difficult job of

working in families, and who have become frustrated as a result of the

competition in trying to make a living in society. Many of those people

may well be working right now but will be needing service themselves.

It's a difficult thing to talk about in the abstract; in the next few

days we'll probably have some cases of people who are becoming

distraught by their anticipation of waiting around two or three months

while the government decides whether they stay or go. The pressures

will filter down through the family, on the members of the family, on

the community, on their ability to perform their services with some

sense of enthusiasm. They call it low morale — something that perhaps

is very advantageous if you're trying to take advantage of someone. If

you can keep them low, the next thing you know you can recommend to

them that their self-esteem is down and that's where it should stay,

that they should listen to you and you'll show them the way back to

recovery. But what good is talking about economic recovery when people

themselves are losing their ability to participate, the opportunity to

be part of the future?

I would like to challenge the government. You know, there's always

some hope. One of the greatest virtues that man can have, it seems to

me, is the ability to reconsider and to recognize the error of his ways

and to be able to recover from a misguided direction and say: "Hey,

let's turn this thing around. Let's come clean." Surely you do not

intend to pursue this course of action. Surely you do not really

believe that you are doing the right thing by telling people who are

handicapped with various disabilities, the various ethnic groups in

this community who you yourselves know do not have equal opportunities

in the job place or for that matter just in many of the amenities in

society.... Surely you're not telling those people that if they don't

like what is happening they can go to court. Is that really what we're

down to now? I'm referring specifically to the removal of the Human

Rights Commission and replacing it with a five-person council under the

Minister of Labour, under a new revised Human Rights Code. Do you

realize what an offence this is going to be? I ask you. It's one of

those situations that just leave one almost pleading for some

understanding.

I can't go out on the streets and tell people what I can do as a

politician other than talk to you. They themselves are saying: "What

are we going to do? Who do we go to, now that we have a complaint?" I

say, "Well, you can go to the minister." "The minister's not taking

phone calls. Is there a bureaucrat around that we can call? What do we

do? We had a fellow tell us that we can't use this facility because he

doesn't like us, but we feel we should have access to that facility."

Well, that's too bad; you can take him to court. But there was a time

when you could go to a human rights officer and by law could expect a

proper inquiry and a report so that you could at least ensure that the

person who was denying you your rights was doing so unknowingly, or if

he was doing it deliberately you would have redress. But now the burden

of proof is on you and me every time we feel that our rights have been

offended, wherever those rights may be inscribed. There'll be a great

deal of difficulty trying to find where those rights are — under what

legislation.

Not being an expert on the terminology used by lawyers in dressing

up legislation, I will simply say that it's interesting that you

created some new terms. You've removed from the Human Rights Code

"reasonable cause." Why would you do that? And yet you state that: "you

shall not discriminate against a person on the basis of physical

disability for jobs or the right to facilities." But then you don't

say: "...provided there is a reasonable cause, a reasonable

explanation." That effectively means that the burden of proof is on you

and you can't prove it. If the person says, "I didn't know I was doing

it," or "I may have done it but it wasn't intentional," you're dead.

Before, the burden of proof was the other way: you had to show

reasonable cause and to make your own case. You can't do that now. You

can be sure that that's all we need to get rid of people on the basis

of sex, sexual orientation, age, language, colour, whether they wear a

moustache or a turban — you name it — religion, political belief,

social affiliations; any reason will do. We could go on to the new

Residential Tenancy Act and find it all over again.

I just wanted to give you a general overview of some of the serious

problems that you've created. I think that this is a very, very cynical

and mean way to thank the public for electing you to a new five-year

mandate.

I would now move that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

[4:30]

YEAS — 18

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lank

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

[ Page 345 ]

MR. ROSE: I hope that that thunderous ovation doesn't

subtract from my time, because I'm certain to need all of my 40 minutes

to tell everybody what a vile piece of legislation this is. Perhaps for

the sake of the gallery I should explain what's going on here. Some of

them might be interested in knowing, because what we're doing here must

seem rather crazy. One side gets up and speaks all the time, and every

40 minutes the other side comes in. They don't say anything; they don't

take

part in the debate; all they do is sit there. They don't even pay

attention. We're trying to convince them of the error of their ways,

and they don't even listen.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the gallery, that

what we're doing here is an example of democracy in action. That is,

we're trying to preserve democracy. If we let this bill go through,

there'll be lots of action, but there won't be any democracy. So in a

parliamentary democracy, if you have a majority and a minority, if it

comes to a vote, the majority always wins. This is known as the tyranny

of the majority.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: A little higher. It sounds like an E flat to me.

So what can we in the minority — the sort of beaten, intimidated

members of the opposition; 22 to 35 — do in order to prevent this

horrendous rape of people's rights from going through? We have to keep

talking. We want to keep talking so that people will understand what's

going on here, so that the people out there whose rights have been

stolen will have an opportunity to find out. They can't do it because

you're trying to whistle it by them — that's what you're trying to do.

What's the hurry? We have a two-day budget debate — it's supposed to be

ten — then in comes Bill 3. What's the rush? Why did we interrupt Mr.

Curtis? Where has he gone? Doesn't he want his budget passed? Why do we

have to have Bill 3 through? That's hard to say, but why do we have to

have Bill 3 through in such a hurry? I don't understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it.

MR. ROSE: Read it? I've read it and wept, but I'd like to

hear you get up and defend it. Your only maiden speech I've heard so

far is you introducing somebody in the gallery.

MR. BARRETT: He even got that wrong.

MR. ROSE: Yes, he even got that mixed up. As a heckler, if you had twice as many brains, you'd be a Whip.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, shall we address the Chair?

MR. ROSE: I was a bit harsh, Mr. Speaker, and it was kind of

a quip. There are lots of things I could have said in here — I have

Beauchesne here. I didn't say, for instance, that the member was coming

into the world by accident. I didn't say he was a parliamentary babe

and suckling. Those things would have been out of order. I didn't say

that he was disgracing the House or talking twaddle.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: If I'd said something like that, Mr. Speaker, I think you would have had a perfect right to rule me out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I do at this time, too, hon. member, because we

cannot do by one means what we cannot do by another. I'm sure that if

the member reflects upon that, he will see why and continue with the

debate in question.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I didn't have a gentleman such as the

minister across the hall to provoke me. He was further than two sword

lengths away, and a good thing too.

The people in the public service have received a shower of pink

slips based on not one shred of authority. They have been fired;

they've been pink-slipped; they've been warned; they've been.... I

think they've been burned. I can think of other words that I could have

used here, but it would have been unparliamentary. I would like to ask:

on what authority have these layoff notices been given? We haven't

passed Bill 3, which takes away all their rights.

What are we saving, in terms of money? We are not saving any money,

because these people are going to be paid until at least the end of

September. But they're not on their jobs, they're not in their offices

and they're not serving the public.

Why are we doing this to these people? What's the rush? I don't

understand this. I think — and I hate to say this, because I don't like

to say harsh things to people — it has to do with being vindictive. I

think it has to do with warning people not to get too smart, or else

they could lose their jobs. I think that's what it is all about, and I

think that beneath that there is no respect for public servants; there

is no respect for the people who work for government.

If you work for a private company, or you spend money on a private

company, that's good; but if you spend money on a public service,

that's somehow bad. Apparently the only people who get respect from the

Social Crediters are those people who meet a payroll. That's what we

hear all the time: "The only way you're any good is if you can meet a

payroll." Now that rules out a lot of very important men. Jesus Christ

is ruled out on that one — he didn't meet a payroll. And, you're going

to say, look at what happened to him. What about Charles Dickens? He

didn't meet a payroll either. Beethoven. Rembrandt. They didn't meet

payrolls.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You don't think they were in the public service?

They were all living under patronage. They might as well have been

Social Crediters.

What's happening here in Bill 3, Mr. Speaker, is that it completely destroys bargaining in the public service in this province.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look, the happiness boys are all over there. All

the gloom-and-doomers are on this side of the House, and the happiness

boys are all over there.

MR. REID: You got it.

[ Page 346 ]

MR. ROSE: You got it, Pontiac. If you are so great, why are

we in such tough shape and why do we need so much restraint? That's

what I would like to know.

If you're a public servant and you have no job security, and you

can't bargain for wages, and you can't bargain for working conditions,

why on earth would you need a public service union? You don't. It's out

to destroy that, and the BCTF, and all the unions that are in the

public service or the municipal service. That's what is behind it. If

they get away with it, other super-right-wing jurisdictions in Canada

will adopt it. That is what the fight is all about and that is why

we're delaying it. We want people to know it. That's what I want the

gallery to know; I'm sure that they'll hear.

If it was a temporary thing for some specific reason, I could

perhaps accept a bit of it. I can't even find this bill; it's so bad I

can't find it — somebody is suggesting that I'm not very well-organized

— but I know what it does. Bill 3 requires everybody from water

boards.... Here's the

schedule on the back. Look at how pervasive it

is: no bargaining, no job security, dismissal without cause, no due

process. Let me read this shocking list. I hope that you remember this,

Mr. Speaker. We've done in the first part of it — all the public

service, all the municipalities, school teachers, university and

college teachers, Community Care Facility Act people, hospital workers,

hospital insurance workers and the Library Act. That's not enough. It's

not enough to remove all the rights from all those people — that's too

simple. Why don't we get the rest of them: the board of parks and

recreation under the Vancouver Charter, B.C. Assessment Authority, B.C.

Buildings Corporation, B.C. Development Corporation, B.C. Ferry

Corporation.... Ferry workers are a little troublesome sometimes, so

we'll get them too. Don't forget to get them, because some of them have

been known to vote NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. ROSE: Yes. I knew one who did. But it wasn't a captain.

In some ridings he did pretty well. We've got quite a few members from

ridings served by the B.C. Ferry Corporation — some of our best members.

B.C. Steamship Company, B.C. Systems Corporation. I thought we were

going to get rid of all these things — B.C. Transit, B.C. Utilities

Commission, bus drivers, capital hospital district, City of Vancouver,

compensation stabilization commissioner.... Oh, good. He's got no job

security. Wouldn't that be fine? Ed Peck now has no job security. He

can be fired without cause. That'd be all right. Greater Campbell River

Water District, Greater Nanaimo Water District. I've got a little

advice for all these people. Anybody who works — and I've only read

about half of them, that's how pervasive it is — for those authorities

should join the Social Credit Party right away. It accomplishes two

things. First of all, if there's likely to be any hit-list, they're

carrying a card and they're okay. See? The other thing is that they can

go to the nominating conventions and vote some of the candidates out.

That'd be all right, eh? They have a lot of candidates over there in

West Van.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: You need more, eh? Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we

can make some light of this, but it's extremely serious for those

people. It's nervous time. Is that what you're trying to create? That's

what disturbs us. You see, we've had 25 years of trying to build safety

nets under people and provide some security, because it's civilized,

dignified and is right, and with one stroke of the pen we're going to

remove all that. From whom? From the people who work for us. That's

really nice. For what purpose? The bottom line.

[4:45]

Anyway, they say: "Well, no, we're not going to do that, because,

after all, we've got regulations in here. We've got some regulations

that prevent that." I'll read these regulations under "Regulations

respecting terminations" — it sounds so final, doesn't it? It's

like having a terminal illness. It says here: "The criteria referred to

in subsection (2) may include skills, abilities, qualifications, operational

requirements and efficiency, seniority of employment and seniority provisions

of the collective agreement." They may include — it doesn't say they

will. It doesn't say when the regulations are going to come down; it just

says "may include." Well, Mr. Speaker, that does not make people very

comfortable. They can be fired without cause. Why? Public servants can be fired

now. There's nothing that I know of that prevents them from being fired

for just cause. Why would anybody want to be able to fire them without cause?

I just don't understand that, unless it's what I suggested.

I think the private sector people better watch out as well. Because

if this goes through for the public sector, the private sector is next

on the list to be beaten down. It'll be the end of it for them as well.

Mr. Speaker, is this all for restraint? I don't think it's all for

restraint. I don't think it's for restraint at all. I don't even think

the issue is restraint; I think the issue is one of liberty. Let's

pretend that I am a hospital worker and would like to take part, as is

my right, in the political process — it's more than my right, it's

guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — to express my views

about things. Suppose I stick my neck out and express my views about a

particular matter. Am I then going to be singled out for the hit-list?

Suppose I'm a shop steward for the ferry workers and I would like to

speak my mind, as is guaranteed in the Charter. Am I suddenly going to

be laid off?

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. ROSE: How do I know? I have no protection.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look, I know what that does — that gives jobs for

lawyers. Now what poor beaten person, who's perhaps an immigrant, is

going to be able to hire a lawyer and fight it on the Human Rights

Code? Besides, you'll probably bring in "notwithstanding" parts for

these various sections too that protect people. That's what we're

frightened of. That's why we're talking. That's why we intend to delay

this as long as we can.

Suppose we were a municipal planning office. My colleague from

Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) and I were both honoured by sharing

the same council, at different times. From time to time people came in

for rezoning. I think my colleague is well aware of that. Sometimes

people want to get a sewerage system septic field passed, and a health

officer is around.

If you can be fired without just cause, and you have the fear within you that if you made a wrong decision and

[ Page 347 ]

offended somebody in power of that political stripe

in government — it doesn't matter which stripe it is — wouldn't you be

a little bit concerned about that? Wouldn't you be a little bit

concerned that perhaps you might have made the wrong decision or that

you might risk making the wrong decision? I think it is the appearance

and the intimidation of this legislation that's so frightening.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I'll read you the Charter of Rights. One of the things I have been

very proud of in my political career is that I was in Ottawa at two

periods of tremendous importance to the country. One was terrible: it

was called the War Measures Act. Others in this House might have been

in the House at that time. We imposed the War Measures Act because of

terrorism in Quebec. Ninety-two percent approved of that action the

first week; 8 percent didn't. Now ask anybody what they think of the

War Measures Act. At the stroke of a pen people's liberties were

removed and, what's worse, they approved of it then. So if you think

you're going great guns on this and that you're going to win a lot of

Brownie points from people out there who hate civil servants.... I

talked to a man in a store the other day who said: "They're all lazy.

Get rid of them. They're no good." He doesn't know that what we have

here is hospital workers, nurses, health inspectors and people who

protect us — policemen and firemen. He doesn't need them because

"they're all lazy and useless."

The other thing was the constitution and the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms. Here's what clause 2 says: "Everyone has the following

fundamental freedoms: (

a) freedom of conscience and religion." As my

colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) said a

little earlier, if I've got freedom of conscience and religion, and I

happen to wear a turban, and I've got a bigot in charge of me, who

happens to be my boss, and I can be fired without just cause, then I

better take my turban off. That Charter of Rights isn't much help to me

there, is it? Not a bit.

I'm a native Indian and I need a room somewhere or I want to drink

in a particular beer parlour and I'm a member of a visible minority; I

don't have that right.

MR. REE: You're protected by the Human Rights Act.

MR. ROSE: What human rights act? The one you're going to get rid of? You're going to get rid of the Human Rights Code.

MR. REE: It's Bill 27.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I know. The five-member council probably made

of Socreds, which is the greatest thing since sliced bread, according

to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I've heard his songs

before.

Here's (

b) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms: freedom of

thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press

and other media of communication. Okay? If I want to join a political

party and speak on a particular cause — it may be women's rights,

affirmative action or anything.... I've got no job security; I'm a

policeman or fireman or I work for a water board. If somebody doesn't

like what I have to say, I'm gone. They blow me away. I'm finished. I

have to bring an action, don't I? I have to hire one of you guys to

bring an action in order to protect myself.

We need this protection of job security in our contracts. You people

are trying to remove it, and then you tell us to hire a lawyer. I don't

understand that. Well, it might be considered enlightened

self-interest. There's no appeal granted; hire a lawyer.

I think Bill 3 is really an assault on our fundamental freedoms. I

think that going back — the lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong; even

if I'm not wrong they'll try to correct me — into our history of common

law there is the tradition of the right of the accused to face his

accuser. It seems to me that that is well established in our British

tradition. So if I'm going to be fired I should have the right to face

my accuser and ask: "Why am I fired? Who fired me, and for what cause?"

That's a fundamental freedom. If you remove that freedom, you've taken

away my liberty. It's too fragile and has taken too many centuries to

build up to have it taken away at the stroke of a pen.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I exaggerate, you say. Well, I would rather

exaggerate on that side of it and fight for something that I believe

in. I don't think it's just ideological; I think it's anti-democratic.

I think a person has the democratic right, whether he works for a

public institution or a private one, to face his accuser and be told

why he was fired. There's a feeling around that you can't fire people.

I don't know anybody except perhaps tenured university professors who

can't be fired, and you can fire some of them as well.

That's another issue. Why do we have tenures? Just to give the fat cats a nice cushy job?

MR. REID: Yes, that's why they have it.

MR. ROSE: You didn't bridle at that. Sorry, but you don't

understand about this. What that's all about is academic freedom: the

freedom of people who work in institutions of higher learning to have

the opportunity to express themselves, like that ferry worker, without

fear and without favour. That's why it's there. Is there too much of

it? Is it misused sometimes? Sure it is. But you've got to do a little

bit of documenting; you can't just say that. You've got to have more

than just your prejudices.

I've got a little quote for you. More than two centuries ago, Jean

Jacques Rousseau said: "Good laws lead to the making of better ones;

bad ones bring about worse." Could there be worse laws coming? Watch

out, I say. If we don't fight this one, watch out for the next one.

People have the right to resist unjust laws. The Americans revolted

because of unjust laws, and thousands in British Columbia have thrilled

to the story of Gandhi. It's been playing in theatres all over the

province — all over the world. What did Gandhi do? He saw an

oppressive, colonial South African government that treated him and his

people with the utmost disregard, and he fought them by civil

disobedience. It was his right and his duty, even if it meant fasting,

going to jail or being killed — which he ultimately was. The greatest

man in this century. How did he become great? Did he knuckle under

because some claptrap law was dreamed up by some Brits who wanted to

oppress or get even with some people? No. He fought it, and he's one of

the great heroes of the twentieth century.

[ Page 348 ]

I've got another little quote for you. It's on the mast-head of the Globe and Mail .

Junius, a Roman lawyer, said: "The subject who is truly loyal to the

chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures."

Our old friend and well-known conservative, Edmund Burke, said that

evil will triumph when good men do nothing. We're not going to stand

around here and do nothing. We're going to fight it with all our power.

We're going to put up all our troops, and when you blow them away,

we'll take them out and revive them, and bring them back in to fight

some more.

We've talked about rights and freedoms and social issues,

vindictiveness and oppression — all those emotionally loaded words. I

don't use the really emotionally loaded words. I don't like to use

words like "fascist" and "Nazi," that sort of thing, because I don't

think they're credible. I don't think these are particularly evil

people over here. I think they sincerely believe they're trying to

solve a particular problem. They have their own motivations, the same

as we do. There's no question about that. I don't like terms like that,

particularly because I don't think people believe them when they hear

them.

I want to tell you a little story. A young teacher approached me

last weekend and said: "We're planning to have our house renovated.

Should I get a mortgage?" I said: "Look, I don't think you should do

anything; build that renovation when you've got the money. Tuck those

bucks in your sock and when you've got the money then go ahead with the

renovation. It's really scary out there right now and you may not have

a job, because 25,000 to 103,000 are going to be out. O-U-T, out. Not

just by attrition.

Interjection.

[5:00]

MR. ROSE: Don't give me that nonsense about ability to pay.

You've got all kinds of money for the things you want to spend money

on. No problem at all. All kinds of money for that sort of stuff.

I don't think she's going to proceed with this renovation, so the

carpenter doesn't get a job. The guy who sells ready-mix, isn't either,

because we decided not to go ahead with the renovations. The guy who

sells lumber....

MR. REID: He's closed out.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I don't think you're right up on it, because

the export market.... It's a bubble right now, but it's better than it

has been for a long time.

MR. REID: Is that right?

MR. ROSE: I'm told that by reliable sources. I don't think

it's going to last long, but I'm not the happiness boys over there. I'm

a gloom-and-doomer; you guys are the happiness boys. The sunshine boys

are all over there.

The guy who sells lumber, the logger, the mill worker, the nail

manufacturer, the guy who sells glass and doors and all that building

stuff — they're not going to have that business, because it's fearful

out there. So the advice to the policeman is....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, the provincial government is scaring them.

They're saying the recovery is fragile. They got that from Allan Gregg

of Decima, the corporation; they got all kinds of little pet words like

"restraint" and "earn our way out of the recovery." On the backs of

whom? Allan Gregg told you what to say — or R.B. Bennett told you.

So the policeman or the school teacher decides not to have a

renovation. Where do you think the money ever comes from? It comes from

the resources of the people. That's where all wealth comes from. It

doesn't come from hot air. The policeman is not going to buy a new car.

Now I know that is going to be serious because a lot of people in this

House sell cars. So he doesn't buy a new car. The prison guard doesn't

buy a new fridge. The nurse doesn't buy a new washer and dryer. The guy

at the liquor store who wanted to go on holiday decides not to buy the

camper, and so the tourist people in the Okanagan are screaming — the

rain is bad enough, but they're screaming. The hospital employee wanted

to buy a new house.... The day that budget came out, I'm told by the

real estate industry in Victoria, the deals stopped. Now they might

have sprung back now, but if there's that climate of fear.... All those

lazy people who worked for the civil service are not doing their jobs

and are taking all that money. They're not going to be spending it on

cars, fridges, homes, renovations and all that sort of thing that would

create more jobs, and if you think you've got a $117 million overrun

this year, wait till you see what it's going to be next year. You're

going to have restraint.

You don't want people working. You want them on unemployment

insurance and welfare, that's what you want. Are they going to pay

taxes? Are they going to make your budget...? I know what you've done.

You've underestimated your revenue and overestimated your spending, so

that you can come out smelling like a rose. But I don't believe that. I

think you're deliberately doing that. You multiply this business of

what happened to that school teacher or the policeman 250,000 times in

our society, and what's going to happen to sales? What's going to

happen to their families? They're not going to spend the money, because

they're frightened. You need consumer confidence to get us out of this

mess we're in. So much for a consumer-led recovery. Four out of ten

households have somebody out of work in them.

We've seen, Mr. Speaker, that we've gone from a generation of people

who were secure and confident to a generation now where there's fear

out there: eviction without notice, dismissal without cause, the

rentalsman's out. We're going to let the marketplace regulate

everything. Why do you think we have these laws if the marketplace is

so benign and it regulates everything? Does the marketplace regulate

northeast coal? There's the minister over there; he'd tell you that. It

needed a little help, didn't it? The marketplace wouldn't have done it

by itself. Now I know the Japanese are going to whipsaw you around a

little bit between northeast coal and southeast coal, and I know you

don't want any Japanese car assembly plants here, because you don't

believe in sourcing. I've heard you say that. You think if we have an

auto plant in here that they're not going to buy any coal from us.

We'll get tough on that. I can't believe the minister wouldn't want a

Toyota assembly plant here. Australia has one, Brazil has one, Mexico

has one, and the United States has one, but the minister doesn't want

one here. He said that's an eastern plot.

Consumerism is going to be slashed. Even the price of Life Savers

has gone up already. The Human Rights Code, native housing.... Bigotry

is in and human rights are out.

[ Page 349 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. ROSE: That's your opinion, sir; that's just your opinion.

They say "nonsense," Mr. Speaker, but you know, I know that there is

some minor association between the Socreds here in British Columbia and

the Tories in Ottawa. But what did Walter Baker, a leading Tory, say

the other day? "Oh, we wouldn't do that. We wouldn't pass legislation

like that." Well, that's what I'm going to be telling them in the

riding of Mission–Port Moody, that those federal Tories will pass

legislation exactly like that. Where did you get the idea? Sinclair

Stevens — 60,000 jobs in the civil service, that's where you got the

idea. They'll do it exactly like this if they're given a chance.

What about Fairweather? He's a long-time member of the Conservative

Party — a tremendously fine man — and he's head of the Human Rights

Commission for Canada. He says: "This is madness. This is taking away

our civil rights." I didn't say it. It wasn't some wild-eyed, radical,

screaming socialist who said that. It was Walter Baker, former House

Leader, friend of various ministers who go to the Tory convention. Oh,

they're Socreds here, but they go across the border and then they're

Conservatives. I don't know if they voted, but I know they were there.

So what we have really is a social and economic War Measures Act —

that's what we're fighting about. That's what Fairweather is concerned

about, because Fairweather is no dummy. Fairweather is one of the most

respected and dignified Canadians. He is an outstanding Canadian, in

spite of the fact that he's a Tory. He's a tremendous man.

You know, there's some view that if we restrain enough and we don't

spend any money, somehow we're going to be prosperous. I