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, SEPTEMBER 19, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1439 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Mr. Cocke –– 1439

Committee on operations of ICBC. Mr. Macdonald –– 1439

Crofton-Vesuvius ferry. Mrs. Wallace –– 1439

Privatization of Colony Farm. Mr. Rose –– 1439

Ms. Sanford

Independent logging in interior forests. Mr. Skelly –– 1440

Travel expenditures for cabinet ministers. Mr. Hanson –– 1440

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

On the amendment

Mr. Campbell –– 1446

Mrs. Wallace –– 1447

Mr. Michael –– 1450

Mr. Barnes –– 1452

Mr. Pelton –– 1457

Mr. Mitchell –– 1458

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 6). Second reading.

Mr. Hanson –– 1480

On the amendment

Mrs. Dailly –– 1484

Ms. Brown –– 1489

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1494

Mr. Skelly –– 1496

Mr. Lockstead –– 1501

Mr. Howard –– 1506

Mr. Cocke –– 1509

Mr. Passarell –– 1512

Mr. Mitchell –– 1516

Mr. Macdonald –– 1520

Mr. Rose –– 1524

Mr. Stupich –– 1528

Mrs. Wallace –– 1532

Mr. Lea –– 1536

Mr. Blencoe –– 1540

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1543

Ms. Sanford –– 1548

Mr. Kempf –– 1551

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

MR. COCKE: That was quicker than I anticipated, Mr. Speaker.

Because there were no introductions and the ministers aren't here,

could we have a short recess until such time as the ministers find

their way to the Legislative chamber?

MR. SPEAKER: We are in question period, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: My question is to the Speaker: could we have a

short recess until those ministers find their way in? Otherwise, Mr.

Speaker, I'll direct my question to the first minister.

BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA MAGAZINE

MR. COCKE: On July 8 the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) set a sale price for Beautiful B.C.

magazine — that is, he, in consultation with the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — of $2.8 million.

In view of the fact that the magazine was sold for a financial

consideration totalling some $760,000, will the first minister advise

what became of the other $2 million anticipated by his Minister of

Tourism?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to take the question on notice for the minister.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when so doing, will the Premier ask

the minister to table new spending estimates for the Ministry of

Tourism? Because some $2.8 million have been omitted from those

estimates. After the fire-sale price to the Jim Pattison group, I think

we need that Tourism ministry's estimates retabled.

COMMITTEE ON OPERATIONS OF ICBC

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs, having in charge ICBC. The committee headed by your

deputy, which you have revealed to the Legislature and elsewhere as

studying ICBC, has received an actuarial report on the effects of

privatization of ICBC's insurance, general and auto. The report

predicts that under privatization rates would be increased by

approximately 30 percent. Has the minister seen that report, and can he

confirm the figure of 30 percent?

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I have not seen that report, Mr. Member. The committee

is working to review the activities, policies and the programs of ICBC. As I've

mentioned before in this House, when it has completed its work it will be making

recommendations to the cabinet. Decisions about any change in the corporation

will be made by government.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The

minister says that he has not seen the report. I put it to him that he

knows about the report of which I have spoken. Is that true or not?

MR. SPEAKER: There is a question there, hon. member.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in regard to "a report, " I'm

not sure which report the member refers to. There are many working

papers, etc., being completed. The member has asked this question

before and I have advised him that I have a committee attempting to do

a job and that it will be making recommendations to cabinet after the

review. The member tries to inflame the situation, which will cause

concern to many. He knows better than that; he shouldn't raise

questions in the House which attempt to draw the concern of the people

of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I'm not

referring to general things that the committee is doing. I'm referring

specifically to an actuarial study that was ordered to project the

effect of privatization on rates and to the results of that study,

which has been received. I ask the minister: is he aware of such a

report being received?

He won't answer.

CROFTON-VESUVIUS FERRY

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Transportation and Highways. Has the minister decided yet what he is

going to do about the Vesuvius-Crofton ferry terminals? If so, will he

share it with the House?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I understand B.C. Ferry

Corporation is making an announcement today that they are going to

repair the Vesuvius crossing. I don't know how long it will take, but

they are announcing that today.

PRIVATIZATION OF COLONY FARM

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Agriculture and it has to do with Colony Farm in my riding. The

government has proposed to privatize Colony Farm. I wonder if the

minister would be prepared to assure us that even if and when the farm

is privatized it will remain as agricultural land in at least the

foreseeable future. He is not even with me, Mr. Speaker. He's away

somewhere; he's off....

I wonder if I might rephrase or even repeat my question. We were

talking about Colony Farm and the government announcement that it

intends to privatize the farm. I understand that proceedings are

underway in that direction. Has the minister decided that the farm

should remain as a farm, regardless of whether it's in private or

public hands?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the details of finalization,

regarding the Colony Farm, have not yet been concluded. As a result, I

am not prepared at this moment to make the details public to the House.

But in answer to the question about whether it is intended that the

farm remain a farm, the acreage does belong to the agricultural land

reserve. There is no application before anyone to have it removed.

[ Page 1440 ]

MS. SANFORD: A question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr.

Speaker: if the details about the sale of that farm are not yet

finalized, I wonder if the minister could advise why the government is

breaking up the assets of the farm by disposing of the livestock and

the agricultural equipment in a series of sales that are going to be

held toward the end of October and in November.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Several proposals are before the ministry

with regard to the dispersal of assets. The decisions on those are not

yet final either.

MS. SANFORD: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the dates on

which this equipment is going to be disposed have already been decided.

There seems to be some conflict in what the minister is saying and the

information we have about these sales. The dates have been finalized,

and I understand there were some announcements made today on the radio

concerning them, so we're not getting the full story here, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I have heard several dates suggested, but the dates have not yet been finalized.

MS. SANFORD: Has the decision been made to sell the equipment and livestock separately from the land?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The answer is yes.

MS. SANFORD: Has the minister decided that the land will be retained for agricultural use, as a condition of sale?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Something over 700 acres are in the

agricultural land reserve. As far as I know there is no application

before anyone to have them removed.

MS. SANFORD: Since the land is now under the jurisdiction of

BCBC, I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether or not

he's decided that that land would be better transferred to the property

management division of the Agricultural Land Commission?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The direct answer is no, that decision has not been made.

INDEPENDENT LOGGING IN INTERIOR FORESTS

MR. SKELLY: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. The

B.C. Independent Logging Association has asked for a meeting to discuss

the failure of the government to invoke the contractor clause of the

Forest Act in the interior of B.C. to provide additional work for

independent loggers. Why has the minister refused to invoke the

contractor clause of the Forest Act in the interior?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The contractor clause as it refers to

tree-farm licences is in effect in the interior of British Columbia.

What the member is referring to is the use of that clause within forest

licences. The contractor clause provides that up to 80 percent of the

wood can be directed to be harvested by contract. As it happens, in the

interior in excess of 95 percent of the timber harvest is already

harvested by contractors. So it makes no sense to me to invoke a clause

which would be meaningless in this application.

MR. SKELLY: The independent loggers in the interior were told

that they would get the protection of the contractor clause in forest

licences in the interior in 1982 when they were created. Why has the

government failed to live up to the commitment if it didn't make any

sense at the time the commitment was made? Why did the government make

the commitment in the first place?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The commitment was made to the

independent loggers that the provision would be included within the

forest licence document for the use of the contractor clause. That

provision is within the forest licence document, and should it become

necessary it will be invoked. That's what independent loggers have been

told.

MR. SKELLY: The independent loggers have asked the minister

for a meeting. Has the minister agreed to set up a meeting involving

himself, the Premier and the Highways minister, as requested by the

independent loggers in the interior?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I think the member must be working from

rather old data. I meet regularly with all sectors of the forest

industry, including the Independent Logging Association. I met with

them, together with the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) within

the last six weeks to two months; I can't be specific as to exactly

what the date was. I meet with them on a regular basis, and I believe

the Premier has met recently with the Independent Logging Union as well.

MR. SKELLY: When is your next regular meeting?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Whenever there is a need to meet with

them, I'm more than willing and able to. I certainly don't need the

critic from the opposition to advise me when and if I should meet with

what specific groups in British Columbia.

TRAVEL EXPENDITURES FOR CABINET MINISTERS

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Premier with respect to

travel expenditures and entertainment for cabinet ministers. The

decade-old tradition in this Legislature in the budget estimates is

that travel for individual ministers is identified in each ministry

estimate by vote. In the new estimate book all travel and entertainment

for cabinet ministers is lumped in one vote under the Provincial

Secretary, called protocol and services. That budget has been increased

by $200,000 for travel within Canada. Can you advise the House why this

measure to break with tradition was taken and why that money has been

hidden in one vote of the Provincial Secretary?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question would possibly be

better considered in another theatre than question period. It may

illicit a very lengthy response. Nonetheless....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll take the question on notice for the Minister of Finance.

[ Page 1441 ]

MR. HANSON: I have a new question. The same situation exists

with travel outside of Canada, which is now lumped into one vote with

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

Phillips). That vote has been increased by $75,000 for travel and

entertainment outside of Canada. Can the first minister indicate to

this House why this action was taken and why that additional $75,000

has been added to the vote? What services and employees have been fired

to make that expenditure allocation increase?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There are a lot of questions. One of them,

the reason for the accounting change, I'll take on notice. I'm

surprised, though, that the amount is only increased by $75,000 because

over this next fiscal year the ministers of this government will be

travelling extensively to market and help sell British Columbia

products. We had this debate in the election, and the leader of the

opposition, who's now speaking a lot from his seat, said that recovery

was based on more government spending. We said that the recovery for

British Columbia had to take place in the private sector. We're going

to do our darnedest to encourage investment in this province and to

develop additional markets.

Because of government action we will have a more predictable climate

in which to do business, and we will not have unrestricted spending

that would make our tax regime so high in the future that no business

could afford to come here, let alone stay here, let alone employ our

people in a productive competitive world. I'm pleased that part of the

question was asked because the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development has already embarked on the first leg of a major initiative

of the government, which will be followed up by a number of major

marketing trips around the world not only to markets that have

traditionally been a part of British Columbia's economic growth, but

also to new markets such as the market the minister is travelling to as

part of this European trip — for the first time he will be visiting

Yugoslavia as well as visiting Great Britain and France.

The member well knows that British Columbia's future prosperity is

tied up with export markets. Two-thirds of British Columbia's economic

product is gained through exports. Therefore exports are our way to

bring about an even stronger recovery than the tentative recovery that

is underway at the present time. I know the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Hanson) understands full well that we are in a very competitive

world, in which the world recession has now made it necessary for every

government to do what it can to assist its private sector in obtaining

markets and capital investment to create the jobs that our people want.

To somehow believe that jobs will be created by the government as an

employer of last resort is nonsense and has been rejected by the voters

of this province.

If we are going to get productive and competitive jobs in the

private sector, then it is not government's role to replace the private

sector, but to do everything it can to assist them in finding markets,

and above all, to make sure we don't have a runaway cost of government

in this province that will impose taxes such as those proposed by the

New Democratic Party before the election on May 5, in which they

threatened the job of every British Columbian because....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... high government costs would lead to high taxation.

[2:30]

HON. MR. McGEER: I wonder if the House would indulge me while I make a brief introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McGEER: We have a very old friend from the Point

Grey constituency in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, and to regain a

positive spirit I wonder if all sides of the House would join in

wishing Mary Watkins welcome to our Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the same leave to make a late introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would like to introduce Shirley Seixes, who

used to be Shirley Dowell. She was for many years an alderman in Oak

Bay, and a member of the capital regional board. For about 10 or 15

years she was a fierce champion of residential rights in Oak Bay. Now

living in Hawaii for part of the year, she is here visiting with her

husband. I would ask the House to make her welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you please inform us as to how much of his allotted time this member has left?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the time is now at three hours and 26 minutes.

MR. BARRETT: Is that all?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: May I inquire further, Mr. Speaker, if he is the designated speaker, and under what order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I am.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will take his seat.

Hon. members, the Chair has been asked to consider the application

of standing order 45A as it relates, obviously, to the amendment before

us. I am therefore addressing my attention to the words "all other

proceedings, " as they appear in

section 45A of our standing orders. In

reading the standing

[ Page 1442 ]

order as a whole, it is my opinion that those words

contemplate a substantive motion, not an amendment or a subamendment.

If we were to take this particular argument further, we could clearly

see that on any amendment or subamendment the Chair would then have to

recognize a person as a designated speaker. It is my opinion that this

is not the intent of the standing orders; that ample opportunity is

given under the main motion — for example, for the leader of a

political party or for the designated speaker — to address the

particular motion without any time constraint whatsoever. To argue,

hon. members, that this same right would apply to every amendment or

subamendment would be to prevent the orderly business of the House.

Over the past many days the Chair has searched our records, and has

been aware of no specific ruling on this case. I would be prepared to

listen to any observation or discussion that members might have on this

particular subject, but I must conclude that my view and my feeling is

that the opportunity for unlimited debate applies only on the main

motion. To address the matter as having the opportunity to debate

unlimited time on every amendment could conceivably keep the House tied

up entirely on one specific avenue. On that particular matter, the

Chair will entertain views.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, when there is a dramatic change of

practice in this House, it is not customary for such a change to be

initiated in what is to me an obvious ploy by the government, one which

has been well calculated and well thought out to raise this point of

procedure after weeks of delay in calling the bill, in which time it

could have been debated.

I am not asked to be a commentator now on a new

interpretation of

rules. There is no previous example of any attempt at closure under

this section, as you've said yourself, and there has been no formal

complaint to a committee of this House to examine this particular

section for a new

interpretation.

Mr. Speaker, I say categorically that what is being done here today

is politically motivated by a government that wants to invoke closure

but doesn't have the courage of its own convictions to do it the normal

way.

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

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I will listen to

submissions on the point. If the member could address the Chair it

would greatly help, rather than making....

MR. BARRETT: If I am to make a submission to the point, am I

going to be given assurance that I will continue in my place in the

debate until a decision is brought down, or am I going to be faced with

a fait accompli decision that is going to be made after I am allowed to

say a few words?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition is worthy of being addressed by the Chair.

At the outset, hon. members, I stated that it was the opinion of the

Chair that the ability of the member to speak past the regular time

limit was in serious doubt. That is my opinion. I have at this time

asked for submissions from members who feel that there is another

avenue or further information that should be considered by the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Before I make a submission, Mr. Speaker, I want

to know whether a decision is going to be made immediately or you are

going to take it under advisement.

MR. SPEAKER: That will depend on the submissions, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there was no notice or warning to

the opposition that such a question was going to be raised. There was

no notice to the House Leader or members that a ruling would have to be

reviewed. There was no normal procedure of a House committee looking at

a rule. We are faced with a fait accompli, and I ask the Chair clearly:

is the Chair saying that after a few submissions from me and perhaps my

colleagues a decision will be made immediately, or will there be a

reserved decision so I can continue my expected place in the debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in the absence of any reason for

the Chair to interpret the rules otherwise than as they are clearly

spelled out, the member would lose his place and the debate would

continue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not take this situation

lightly. It is unprecedented, as is stated by your own comments, in

terms of no

interpretation in this House prior to today under the

question of designated speaker on amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to give up my place in this chamber in the face of any manoeuvring by the government.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, the inference — even the vaguest inference — that the

Chair in any way is interpreting the rules in anything other than the

way they are written and for any other reason is totally unacceptable

and out of order. I have given what I believe to be a fair and honest

interpretation of the rules as they stand before us. It is not my

place, hon. members, to change the rules. That is in the power of the

House. It is my duty to interpret the rules when such

interpretation is

asked or when challenges are made. In this case the Chair has given the

opinion that the Leader of the Opposition has extended his speaking

time past the allowable time based on the current standing orders. If

there is argument or some further submission on that particular point,

the Chair is prepared to hear it. But, hon. members, any inference

otherwise as to the ruling of the Chair is unacceptable and will not

and cannot be tolerated.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you are asking me to give an

opinion on a new ruling and couching my opinion on the basis that if I

don't accept the ruling I am guilty of accusing the Chair of some

previous collusion with the government. There has been no reference,

Mr. Speaker, in making your ruling, to any previous occasion in this

chamber where such a ruling has ever been made before — no traditional

example of

[ Page 1443 ]

either a previous ruling or examples from May or

Beauchesne. Because of that and because of the urgency and the

immediacy, obviously without the Chair's knowledge an attempt was made

for an

interpretation before any contact with a House committee, any

contact with Whips or House Leaders or anything else. It is a

politically motivated desire to put the Chair in a position of making

an arbitrary ruling very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I have no disrespect for the Chair. But

when the Chair is placed in the position of making absolute rulings that are

brand new, that have no precedent, and a government insists on that ruling,

the only

interpretation I can have is closure. I repeat: I do not intend to

be subject to closure by any government as long as I have breath in my body.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, possibly at this time it would be appropriate if members would consider page 17 of Standing Orders .

If they would take the time to read page 17, in the second paragraph

under "Other proceedings, " it says: 'All other proceedings" — all

other proceedings, hon. members — "not otherwise specifically provided

for." If you would give that your close attention I think you would

find that in this particular case there is great merit in the

application by the Chair of the standing orders.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if I am not permitted to speak,

then you'll have to carry me out of here by force. I demand my right to

speak. You're not going to use a cheap trick to get me out of here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you don't want that and I don't want that. None of us

want that. But I'll tell you, in a free democratic society, the rules

of the House must be consistent, based on decisions over a period of

time, not arbitrarily brought in or forced by a government. Mr.

Speaker, I know the rules; you know the rules. I tell you clearly, and

I tell this chamber, and I tell the people of this province: I do not

intend to be stifled by any trick of government to bring in closure in

this House, and I intend to take my place in this debate under the

rules as they exist.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the House should address itself to the debate that is at hand, because I have important comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. On a point of order, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

[2:45]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your concern in

this matter. I had thought that you were asking for input before you

considered whether or not to allow the member to carry on, I thought if

I could make a comment from a layman's point of view.... You have

mentioned that the member opposite has spoken for over three hours and

you also mentioned that you had looked for a reference for some

interpretation, and found none, which would suggest to me that this

matter has not arisen before, where there has been an unlimited amount

of time given to a motion to hoist. The principle of the bill, which is

debated in second reading, of course, allows the designated speaker or

the Leader of the Opposition unlimited time, and I think it's fair to

say that dealing with the principle there should be the opportunity for

unlimited debate, but in the hoist, certainly the period of time of 40

minutes normally given — but in this case in excess of three hours —

should be enough time. Forty minutes should be enough time to allow any

member the opportunity to rationalize the reasons they're putting

forward for the hoist. If they wish to have unlimited time to express

their concern over the principle of the bill, that unlimited time is

offered to them in the second reading.

MS. BROWN: Sleazy....

HON. MR. HEWITT: I commend you, Mr. Speaker, for attempting to address the question. I just offer those points of view from where I sit.

MS. BROWN: Sleazy government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. member, I will ask the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) either to come to order or to

leave the chamber. I will not tolerate those remarks while we are

discussing an item of vital importance to the business and operations

of this chamber.

The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the comments offered by the

minister are editorial and have nothing to do with the ruling. Whether

a member wishes to or does not wish to participate in the debate under

the existing rules is the responsibility of the member — not an opinion

of the minister or anyone else as to how much time should or shouldn't

be taken, but purely on the basis of this rule book and the practice of

this House. The people who determine whether or not members have

handled themselves well in this House are the electors. It may not

serve the opinion of individual members, but a speech of 40 hours or 40

minutes or 40 seconds serves the purpose.... It is the conscience and

the elected responsibility of the individual member to determine how he

or she carries out their duty under the rules.

There is absolutely no precedent for limiting a designated speaker

on a hoist motion. None whatsoever! The amount of time that a member

takes as a designated speaker is on that member's conscience. It is not

the opinion of members of this chamber. This chamber will be here long

after we're dead, Mr. Speaker, and the only reason it will be here long

after we're dead is if we uphold the rules and avoid making decisions

on rules based on urgent political expediency that may be determined by

members but in the long haul history washes aside. The rules in this

chamber are more important than any desire by the government to bring

in closure.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to threaten the

Chair, but I do want to tell you that in this unprecedented manner of

closing debate on a designated speaker, I do not intend to give up my

place in this chamber that some people out there told me to do in terms

of coming here and serving the citizens of this province. No government

has the right to close off opposition debate no matter what trick is

being used. I do not intend to give up my place. I have a right to

speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Not at this time, hon. member. We're addressing....

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1444 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, this is a most

important issue that this House has embarked upon at this time. It

serves no purpose whatsoever for members to either approach the subject

with emotional speeches that are not dealing with a point of order or

to throw comments across the floor which serve no meaningful

part in

helping us to arrive at our decision. I would ask the House to bear

with me for one moment.

Hon. members, if there is any more substantive argument the Chair is

prepared to hear that at this time; otherwise, the Chair is prepared to

render a decision on the matter.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to make one point to Your Honour. You

have asked the House to give you opinions about the meaning of some

particular words in that standing order. I submit to Your Honour that

doing that, you are playing — inadvertently perhaps — handmaiden to the

position of the government that wants to invoke closure. The only

argument that should be permitted with respect to the opinion expressed

by Your Honour about that should have nothing whatever to do with the

distorted opinion expressed about that standing order by the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) or anybody else on

the government side. We are talking about fascism by the back door.

We're talking about closure, and they're involving the office of the

Speaker in it. That's what we should be debating, Mr. Speaker, and not

whether any particular word in there means a particular thing. Clearly,

right from the beginning when the former Speaker, who never

distinguished himself in that office in any way....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member has been

here long enough to know that such a remark is totally out of order. I

would ask the member to unequivocally withdraw the remark or to

withdraw from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Yes, indeed I will.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must ask the member to unequivocally withdraw the remark....

MR. HOWARD: I said that I did. You weren't listening.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. HOWARD: The former Speaker stood up in this House on a

rehearsed basis and said, indirectly: "We, the fascist government, are

going to impose closure." And that, Mr. Speaker, is what you should be

debating in this chamber, not some obscure

interpretation of some rules.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we are all honourable and equal

members in this House. A party, a cabinet or any other device is a

fiction when it comes to the right of individual members to speak in

this House. I therefore say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the unlimited

right of any one member to speak is an offence against the basic

concepts of parliamentary democracy. This idea about a designated

speaker which has been creeping into our rules offends the basic

representative nature of this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Read the rules.

MR. DAVIS: The rules are moving away, if in fact that's what

they're doing.... If they give one hon. member the right to strangle my

right to speak with his vocal chords, that is a degradation of this

Legislature and I'm opposed to it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As a relative newcomer to the House I have noted...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: ... that many times any ruling by a Speaker

has been used as a precedent in this House to allow that same practice

to continue in future. What I see happening here, and I think it is a

major concern of this House, is that we have a member through a

practice and a belligerent attitude trying to establish a precedent

which is contrary to what the rules allow. Should you find, Mr.

Speaker, that any member, because of being adamant in his position, is

allowed to speak at length on amendments or subamendments, that, if I

read it right, forms a precedent that in future on any amendment,

subamendment or anything at all in this House we can have designated

speakers ad infiniturn. I think that is what we have here. The Leader

of the Opposition is trying to establish a precedent which the rules do

not allow. That is the tragedy here, and the abrogation of democracy.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is fast approaching the

opinion that there is little new evidence being brought before it.

However, in deference to the Leader of the Opposition I will allow his

remarks at this point.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, when you ask for new evidence,

you're asking us to comment on a brand-new ruling. If the arguments of

the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) and the minister

have any weight, then there is no reason to change the rules which we

all function under. Whether they think I'm belligerent or have B.O. or

they don't like my politics is absolutely irrelevant. What is

important, sir, is that my right to speak not be impaired as it exists

under the existing rules. Had there been reason to shut me up before,

three hours and 40 minutes would not have gone by. The only reason that

I spoke three hours and 40 minutes is that under the rules, I am

permitted to be the designated speaker.

There is a history to this section. It was spawned on a debate in

this chamber which I participated in in the normal process of changing

the rules. This

section was specifically added because the Leader of

the Opposition of the day and the present Premier, Mr. Bennett, went

around this province screaming, yelling and crying: "Not a dime without

debate." This

section was put in because of that. I said publicly then

that this rule would guarantee the right of any member, as a designated

speaker, to speak in an unfettered manner, and that if the Social

Credit Party was so concerned about "not a dime without debate, " that

opening would be enshrined in the standing orders.

[ Page 1445 ]

[3:00]

I find it ironic that as we stand here today and have an

interpretation of this ruling, which the government when it was in

opposition said did not exist.... It has pulled a complete reversal in

using closure on a

section on which they said, "Not a dime without

debate." Mr. Speaker, there is no precedent; the rules have not been

changed; and a ruling of the Chair in an obtuse manner, without any

precedent, cannot be accepted by any member who loves this parliament.

It just cannot be accepted, and I cannot accept it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

The Chair has heard sufficient at this time, and clearly we are now

engaged — I'd ask the Leader of the Opposition to take his place — upon

a debate. The Chair stated at the outset that it was of the opinion

that the rules clearly do not allow a member unlimited opportunity to

speak on amendments and subamendments. Equally, hon. members, that

opportunity clearly is at hand in main motions. The rules, if taken....

Hon. members, the rules clearly in this case do not present an

opportunity for unlimited debate on either amendments or subamendments,

and the Chair so rules.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you are rushing to a ruling.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you are rushing to a ruling. There

was no notice given to the official opposition that this matter was

going to be raised.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

[Interruption.]

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms, you will remove the Leader

of the Opposition from the Chamber forth with. I will ask the member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to take his place forthwith.

Sergeant-at-Arms, you have been given an instruction to remove from this chamber the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, so we can understand I what the

rules of this chamber are, let us clearly distinguish between a member

who is asked to leave for one reason and a member who is asked to leave

for another. In this case, members of this chamber are well aware that

when the Chair rises, members are immediately to take their place and

cease debate. Any violation of that will result in the ejection of the

member for the remainder of the sitting day. That was the reason and,

hon. members, that concludes that particular matter.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if Rene Beaudoin were here today he'd be damned proud of you.

MS. BROWN: This is the most disgraceful thing this House has ever seen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. For the last time, I'd ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to keep her remarks to herself.

Hon. members, so we may clearly follow the process, the Chair had

ruled, on the standing order that the time period clearly was in

excess. That is the ruling of the Chair.

MR. HOWARD: It may be anti-climactic, but it's the most challengeable ruling any Speaker has ever made.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Waterland

Brummet

Schroeder

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

A. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Smith

Bennett

McGeer

R. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

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

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if it would be possible to acquire a black flag and drape today's Votes and Proceedings with it.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, after you made

your last ruling I clearly heard the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe) refer to your ruling in this House with he words "Sieg Heil

Nazi tactics." Obviously those most disrespectful words — at least in

my opinion disrespectful and unparliamentary — are shared by other

members of the opposition. I would ask that you ask the hon. second

member for Victoria to withdraw those remarks against this House and

your honourable chair.

[3:15]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear the remarks, hon. member.

But the claim has been made, and if they were aid I would ask the

member to withdraw the remarks.

MR. HOWARD: If the Speaker does not hear what has taken

place, then he can't ask somebody to withdraw whatever is alleged to

have taken place.

MR. SPEAKER: I stated, hon. member, that the Chair had not heard the remarks but that another member has taken

[ Page 1446 ]

offence and has asked that the offending remarks be withdrawn.

MR. BLENCOE: My remarks were not directed at the Chair; my

remarks were directed at the government. I believe them to be

appropriate remarks, Mr. Speaker, after what has happened today.

MR. PARKS: On the point of order, the hon. second member for

Victoria has seen fit to affirm the fact that he made those remarks. He

also affirmed that he made those remarks against the government. Be

they made against the Speaker or against the government, they are

clearly unparliamentary. I have surely been, along with, I think, all

members of this House, affronted, and I would ask the hon. member to

withdraw them.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the second member for Victoria to withdraw the offending remarks.

MR. BLENCOE: I did not affirm anything. I did not say it to any individual member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. An hon. member of

this chamber has asked another hon. member to withdraw a remark which

he finds unparliamentary. Traditionally, if the remark has been made

and if the member asks for a withdrawal, a withdrawal is forthcoming.

I would ask the second member for Victoria if he would withdraw the remark that was made.

MR. D'ARCY: On the points of order raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Parks) regarding real or imagined remarks by the second member for Victoria,

if we are to take your request and ruling literally here, it could be said that

after everything said by a government member an opposition member could rise

and say: "Mr. Speaker, we find that entire speech unparliamentary."

By the same token, a government member could get up after every speech by an

opposition member and say: "Mr. Speaker, I find that unparliamentary."

The fact is that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam found

something unparliamentary. That's his privilege. The member for

Victoria does not feel it was unparliamentary, and that's his

privilege. Since the Speaker didn't hear the remark, I fail to see the

relevance of the entire thing or why we're taking up the time of the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Obviously the member has very little understanding of the parliamentary traditions that face this chamber.

MR. ROSE: As a member who sits here next to the loud and

raucous rump, day after day, if I were to get up and object to

everything that was said over here, just below your level of hearing

but loud enough for the rest of us to hear — most recently, and I'm not

sure it wasn't from the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, we were

described as gutless hypocrites because we take a strong stand — then I

think we'd be jumping up and down on points of order all day. I think

the whole thing is nonsense, and you should let it go right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, possibly this is an appropriate

time to remind ourselves of why there are rules regarding parliamentary

language. If members were to adhere to those rules, we would not find

ourselves in this particular position. Nonetheless, the particular

phrase referred to by the member to the Chair does require a withdrawal

if the remark was made. If the remark was not made, hon. members, the

Chair is obviously powerless to do anything about it. Therefore I will

ask the second member for Victoria: if the remark was made, would he

withdraw the same.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a little while

ago a number of members in this chamber accused the government of being

fascist. I assume that's parliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Okanagan North on the hoist of Bill 3.

On the amendment.

MR. CAMPBELL: Bill 3 allows the government to downsize part

of the public sector. It allows the government to control part of the

expenditures in the public sector so that the deficit will not increase

beyond $1.6 billion. That is a large deficit.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It is hoped that in the next year we would again have a balanced

budget, as we should have every year, but because the revenues of the

province have dropped — revenue from forestry dropped by 51.2 percent

in 1982-83 — the revenues are simply not here. It is essential that

Bill 3 be passed, so that the government can control their

expenditures. In spite of the controls that will be implemented by Bill

3, the total budget will still increase by 12.3 percent. The Human

Resources budget will increase by 13.9 percent, even after the

downsizing of some of the Human Resources staff. The Education budget

will increase by 7.3 percent in spite of decreased revenue.

You could say: "Well, why doesn't the government balance the budget

this year?" It's because the government has compassion for the people.

There are people out there who are unemployed, and there are people out

there on welfare who have not been able to secure employment, so this

government, as a government of compassion, has increased the deficit to

cover these types of expenditures.

On health, with a 7.3 percent increase, this government has always

placed the number one priority on health, and it is essential that

costs within the health system are brought under control. The average

daily hospital costs in the ten largest hospitals in the province went

from $14.08 a day in 1955 to $328 a day in 1983. That is an increase of

nearly 20 times in 18 years. This government has to have legislation in

place to control these costs, or before long the total budget will be

spent on health, human resources and education. While these are very

high priorities, Mr. Speaker, highways must be maintained, other

services of government must be maintained, and there must be funds for

them.

[ Page 1447 ]

When we look at some of the user fees being charged in the

hospitals, they've dropped from 7.1 in 1955 to 2.6 in 1983, and that

shows that the government is picking up a greater portion yearly of the

cost of these services. We know that in this budget every resident in

this province will receive $3,000 in the form of government services in

the fiscal year 1983-84; that's $3,000 for every man, woman and child

in this province. The health care costs in this province will be $800

for every man, woman and child. As I look at the people in the gallery

up there, when they go into the hospital and they're in there for ten

days and it costs them $8.50 a day.... If they are in there for ten

days, it's $85, and if they're in for five days, it's $42.50. That's

for the ones that use it. But it will cost the taxpayers of this

province $800 whether you're using it or not. That shows what a great

medical plan there is in British Columbia. The Premier of this province

has seen fit to make sure that the people of B.C. are covered under one

of the greatest medical plans in North America.

Human resources will consume $500 for every man, woman and child in

British Columbia. That is a high price to pay for the unemployment we

have. When the private sector employs more and more people, we'll be

able to take another look at human resources, and hopefully the cost of

the human resources budget will decrease. That is the only way that

this government can control expenditures: by encouraging more and more

investment in the private sector, having more and more people working

in the private sector, and downsizing government so that the government

expenditures are under control.

The education system in British Columbia today requires a government

expenditure of $3,900 for every student. In the budget it has been

determined that in the next three years the pupil-student ratio will be

decreased by just under two students. The pupil-student ratio will go

back to the 1976 level. That appears to be a small price to pay to get

our budget in British Columbia under control.

Part of the way that this is going to be brought under control is

through Bill 3. There will be downsizing of government. Mainly it will

be through attrition, but yes, there will be some people laid off. They

will be laid off from the higher echelons, the middle echelons, and

there will even be some from the bottom. Mr. Speaker, if the government

is going to control expenditures, it is essential that they have the

method to lay these people off so that the costs of government can be

controlled. In the private sector the cost of production has always

been controlled, because the marketplace controlled it. The marketplace

controlled it there. In the public sector, as long as we keep on

looking for the taxpayers of this province to keep on paying an ever

greater portion of taxes, what is going to be left to invest in

industry, in plants and in production equipment so that the revenues

can be generated in this province to support the social programs that

we desire?

[3:30]

Mr. Speaker, we have to be able to pay for these programs. In

1983-84 we will be borrowing $600 for every man, woman and child in

British Columbia. We cannot keep on going through the act of borrowing

to pay for the services that we are presently consuming. If we do,

we'll be on a course like that of the federal government, which keeps

on borrowing for the services today that our children and grandchildren

will be paying back. I believe the people of this province have pride.

They wish to pay their own way. They realize that you cannot borrow

this province into prosperity. It's a socialist philosophy to borrow

into prosperity. This government realizes that prosperity must come to

this province through the private sector, through productivity,

production and people working.

It is absolutely essential that we approve and pass Bill 3. People

at all levels — the business sector, senior citizens, the employed

sector and the union sector — realize that there has to be a downsizing

of government, that it has to be affordable by the taxpayers. The hoist

of Bill 3 must be defeated. This bill must be passed. We cannot keep

going on and on talking about bills. Filibusters by the opposition are

costing this province hundreds of thousands of dollars. Certainly they

are entitled to their say. That is their democratic right. They are

elected to expound their philosophies and their

interpretation of the

bill to the people. We would not wish to close that off at all. But,

Mr. Speaker, after all that has been said and said and said — and the

repetition goes on, and the dollars keep being spent needlessly — there

comes a time when we must pass these bills.

On May 5 the people said that they wanted to downsize government.

The opposition said in the Port Moody by-election that people would not

support tough restraint measures. People did support tough restraint

measures because they realize there is no alternative. The opposition

can filibuster in here, but the people out there cannot be deceived or

filibustered. They realize that this is essential, that this government

was elected to do a job. The members in this House intend to do a job.

These bills will be passed.

I support Bill 3, and I would urge all members on the opposition

side to reconsider their position. As I said earlier, they have a duty

to perform, to expound their views on this. But there comes a time when

the people out there don't buy that anymore. I now ask them to get

behind this bill in all parliamentary dignity and say: "We've had our

say. The government has had their say. Let's not waste time and

taxpayers' dollars at the rate of $100,000 a week." Taxpayers' dollars

are being wasted because of this opposition filibustering. It's $80,000

a day to run the House. If the House wasn't running, it would cost

$60,000. That extra $20,000 a day is wasted money. I urge the members

of the opposition to reconsider their position, to come behind the

government and support this good bill. The public out there realizes

that this government needs to pass it.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, September 19 will go down in

democratic parliamentary history as a dark day, because in our attempt

to point out to the people of British Columbia the kind of legislation

this government is bringing into being, our right to speak has been

disallowed.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it is well and good to ask members

to withdraw certain phrases, and the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe) withdrew a phrase when he was asked, not long ago. But, Mr.

Speaker, I submit that by their deeds shall ye know them. I suggest

that this bill is an example — an outstanding example — of their deeds.

The Duncan United Church minister wrote a letter recently, an

expression of concern over Bill 3: "I would like to express to you my

deep concern over the proposed enactments. The callousness and the

injustice are being well spoken to today by various people and groups.

It is against the foundations and the building of this province and

this nation.

[ Page 1448 ]

Its excess was something against which the people of this nation

fought in 1939 to 1945." I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what did we fight

against in 1939 to 1945? "We fought for freedom against a fascist and

Nazi regime." This is the minister of the United Church using those

words to deal with this legislation. So I wonder if my colleague should

have been asked to withdraw those words, Mr. Speaker. Certainly what we

have seen in this Legislature today leads me to believe that he was

perhaps correct.

It is essential that the reading of Bill 3 be delayed. It is

essential that this government, which has already indicated that it was

wrong in the first instance and has attempted to appease the public

outcry by bringing in some cosmetic amendments to the legislation,

again review its position and do more than bring in cosmetic

amendments. It is vital, if we are to continue as a free people here in

British Columbia, that more than cosmetic amendments be placed on the

order paper relative to Bill 3.

When you see church leaders around this province — like the minister

of the United Church, like the archbishop from the Anglican Church, the

Rev. D. W. Hambidge, and the Rev. John W. O'Neill, president of the

British Columbia conference of the United Church of Canada — coming out

with statements like the one they issued on July 28, surely that

government must recognize the error of its ways.

The government talks about employment. We saw the latest labour

statistics, Mr. Speaker. What this government is doing, so far

illegally and without benefit of legislation, is already turning the

economic position of this province downward, while the rest of Canada

is going upward. Those statistics spoke amply well and true of the kind

of results that occur when we have a short-sighted government, an

ingrown government, an inturned government, bringing in legislation

that will destroy not only our human rights but also our economic

rights. Every step that they are taking is doing nothing to help build

up the economy. Instead, it is moving in the other direction. We've

seen that with those labour statistics.

And why? I want to quote from the letter from the Anglican

provincial synod of British Columbia, signed not only by the Anglicans

but by the United Church as well.

"Much of the proposed legislation seems to bear down

on the very people most in need of government support and help; those

with particular needs, and presently drawing on the specialized skills

of agencies within the department of Human Resources to assist them in

meeting those needs. The people who are likely to be unable to help

themselves are the ones most likely to be affected, not least children

with special problems and single parents."

We believe all persons should have access to all levels of service,

including medical and paramedical care, without regard to their ability

to pay for it. They shouldn't have to call for help from churches or

other agencies with which they may have little or no association.

Surely they ought to be able to look to their government for help as

members of this province. We believe that all persons should have

access, and we believe that "all" means all, as much in the case of

medical care, education and social services as in the case of

parliamentary

interpretation. It doesn't mean part or maybe. I suggest,

Mr. Speaker, that that is not the case if this legislation is enacted.

The member who has just spoken has talked about the high cost of

medical care and suggested that the taxpayers are paying too much and

that more of it has to be borne by the individual. That means that

medical care is not available for all people.

He's spoken about the cost of education. If you remove the access to

education from those who cannot afford to pay, then all people do not

have equal access to education. In the long term, society will pay for

that, much more so than they will if they provide the educational

facilities. There are people in society who are disadvantaged, who are

weaker and who need more assistance. As a humane society, we would

ensure that that assistance was there.

Under this bill the word "all" changes its significance. Under this

bill there are different classes of people. There are those who can pay

and those who cannot afford to pay. Those who cannot afford to pay will

be deprived of the right to medical care, to extended education and to

the special assistance needed by those disadvantaged people in society.

We talk about rights. This bill gives certain people in society the

right to die because of lack of medical care, the right to go cold

because of lack of ability to pay for shelter and the right to go

without proper education, proper knowledge, because they cannot afford

to pay. It gives them the right to be discriminated against. That is

what this bill is doing, and that is why we are so adamant that it must

be delayed so that the government will take not just a second look but

a third look.

[3:45]

Why are we changing our human rights legislation? Why are we going

out and terminating people, still continuing to pay them, and in the

name of restraint refusing to let them work at their job? Is there some

fear or concern on the part of some members of government that some of

those human rights workers are going to come up with something that's

going to be embarrassing to them? Why is the rentalsman's office being

closed down? Why are some of those people locked out of their offices?

Were they getting too close to something that's going to be

embarrassing to the government? What else are we to think? They're

still being paid until the end of October. Is it restraint to pay them

and not let them work?

The government has to reassess its position. It has to take a third,

a fourth or a fifth look — however many looks are necessary — to ensure

that this bill does not become enshrined on our statutes. That is not

the British Columbia we have all come to believe in, to love and to

admire. That is the British Columbia that is drawing remarks right

across the country — right around the world, in fact — as to what is

happening here, and this bill, as much as or more than any other, is

the one that's doing it. It is, you might say, the cornerstone of a

package of very regressive legislation. That is why we are adamant that

the bill must be delayed.

Certainly I'm not alone. A lot of people who supported the

government at the polls on May 5 had no idea that this was the kind of

legislation that government had in mind. I have a letter from a

constituent of mine who lives at RR 2, Duncan:

"As a proud British Columbian and one of your

constituents, I would like to state that I'm appalled by the outrageous

measures proposed by the Social Credit government in their recent

budget. Not only am I convinced that severe government restraint will

only prolong the current worldwide recession, but the proposed

undermining of civil liberties in this province is almost too

frightening to contemplate.

"Two years ago we were seeing all our troubles blamed on 'welfare burns'; now it is the 'civil servant

[ Page 1449 ]

burns.' Who will be next? Perhaps we will have to get rid

of 'old-age pensioner burns' by popping them all into gas ovens.

"Please do everything in your power to stop this government in its destructive course."

And government members complain when our members make remarks about

dictatorial or neo-fascist attitudes. Those are the kinds of letters

we're getting, Mr. Speaker. Another one, again from Duncan, Old Lake

Cowichan Road:

"I wish to express my extreme dismay at the irresponsible

actions of the government during the past week. While I understand the need

for our government to give the appearance of being responsible fiscal managers,

the reason for the election of some of my fellow citizens is, in my view, not

to be shrewd manipulators of the citizens in order to maintain an AA credit

rating."

And they didn't even achieve that! In their shortsighted economic approach they blew it. They lost their triple-A credit rating.

He goes on:

"While I do not have a strong background in any kind

of union movement, I cannot comprehend the stupidity that seems to be

inherent in Bill 3. Where common sense dictates that in a period of

uncertainty, such as the one we are now in, every effort should be made

to ensure that those who are working to provide the essential services

related to health, welfare, education, advocacy, protection of the

Commonwealth, etc. should be given a reasonable amount of security. Our

government appears to have identified a new whipping boy in the public

servant, and withdrawn all incentive and replaced it with fear.

"Where locally elected people were carrying out an

exceptional job of squeezing education cuts out of every penny, our

government places control in the hands of the public servants. It is

obvious that my fellow citizens who happened to get the majority of

seats in the last election do not have any guiding principles for their

policies, but are being jerked about by international forces that I

assume they were elected to protect myself and my family from.

"I appeal to you, as my MLA, to express my view that

the policies being implemented are not only inconsistent and

counterproductive, but also a direct affront to what I consider to be

my, my family's and my neighbour's rights to a protection and service

by my government; the opportunity to be a productive and producing

citizen; and to protection from the manipulation of my life by

international forces."

Those are pretty strong words, Mr. Speaker, and the kind of letter

that we've been getting over and over again from so many people in all

walks of life.

Here's another one:

"The Social Credit Party was elected by the people of

British Columbia to restrain government spending. Under the terms of

this budget, government spending is increased in spite of the layoffs."

I think that is an important fact. We heard a speech not long ago

about how we had to curtail to get ourselves out of debt. This

government has continually increased the deficit, has continually

increased spending. They are the first government — I was going to say

the first in the history of this province, but certainly the first for

many years — to have borrowed money for operational costs. This

government has been a disaster as far as economic management or

financial affairs is concerned, and yet they pretend to be great

financial managers. This government is talking about restraint, about a

bill that is going to curtail, chop, hack at the public service,

chopping out much-needed services, putting more and more people on

unemployment. At the same time, it is beefing up its own offices,

beefing up its own travelling expenses, increasing its budget by over

12 percent, and doing nothing at the upper levels to make the kind of

cuts that would at least give some degree of credibility to what they

are talking about.

Another letter:

"I am writing to express to you my strong opposition to

the current budget and legislation now before the Legislature. Some fundamental

questions are raised by this legislation which need to be addressed by the government

and by the the citizens of British Columbia. How do we perceive a democratic

society?"

That is the question this person is asking. How should governments of the province

be structured? Who is served by the government and its agencies, and to whom

is the government answerable?

I think those are questions that have to be faced. The government

attempts to hide behind the fact that they were elected on May 5, and

makes a pretence of saying this was the program they were elected on.

That is not the case. There was no indication that human rights

protection was going to be destroyed, wiped out, certainly emasculated,

during the election campaign.

I have a lot of East Indian people in my community, and I think one

of the most poignant things that has happened to me as a MLA, as a

result of this legislation, was when a member of the East Indian

community came into my office to see me on an entirely different matter

to do with a grant he was trying to get. After we had discussed that

and dealt with it, I asked him how his community felt about the current

legislation, and do you know what his reply was? He said: "We are

scared! We left our native country and came to Canada because we felt

we would have freedom here, we would be protected; that there would not

be the kind of problems there were in India and Pakistan. We are scared

as we see this program coming down, because it is the beginning; and we

know what that beginning leads to." And then he said: "You know, in my

country if you know the right people you can kill someone and never be

punished." That was his assessment, and that is frightening and

disturbing.

I believe the government should consider what they are doing, and

how it is affecting people out in the community who are faced with

these kinds of changes — changes in a democratic system that we have

built up over long years of trial and error to come to something of

which we can all be very proud here in British Columbia. It's not

perfect, but it's a system that relates very well to our mixed

community, one that ensures that people with skin of a different color,

or eyes of a different slant, do not face discrimination, one that

ensures that the disadvantaged who, through accident of birth or

accident at a later time, are forced to live in a very restrictive

environment.... We have legislation on the books of this province that

recognizes their needs and supports their concerns. Now we see that

legislation being changed. It won't change all at once. If it did,

there were would be such an upheaval in this province that you wouldn't

[ Page 1450 ]

be able to continue to govern. As it is, it's changing so much and so quickly that we have seen some of that upheaval.

[4:00]

The difficulty is that you do it little by little. You slip it in: a

little bit here, a little bit here, and before you know it, those

hard-won rights are gone. We've seen a lot of specific things change.

I've spoken about many of them today: health care, education, human

rights, the rentalsman. You take away rent controls with one hand. This

morning I heard the minister responsible for housing admitting: "Well,

when rent controls are gone, those rents will go up. Some of those

people living in those lower-priced places will be forced to pay more.

Then they'll move out of there into some better accommodation, and that

way there'll be more vacancies in the lower places" — and on and on.

Somehow this is going to create more people to build more rental

accommodation. There'll be more pressure, so the prices will go down.

At the same time he's admitting that people are going to have to pay

more. While those people in the low-income brackets are being called

upon to pay more for their shelter on the one hand, on the other hand

the government is saying: "Well, we're going to take back your CIP,

your incentive grant, your extra $50." That's hitting at both ends.

That is just one example of the unfairness and the unfeelingness of

this legislation and this government.

In its original form, Bill 3 said that workers in this province can

be fired without cause. I know there are amendments on the order paper.

Those amendments do little or nothing. They set up a lot of words, with

no real meat, because they really do not change the original intent.

There is no change from the original intent. It will still be strictly

at the discretion of the cabinet and Treasury Board. It will still have

no regard for agreements signed in good faith. It negates so many of

the things that we have worked for for a long time.

People are very concerned. I received a copy of a letter sent to

the secretary to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. The writer of this

letter was so distressed and disturbed that the government was

apparently not listening, not just to the opposition but to what the

public was trying to tell them, that he wrote to the

Lieutenant-Governor asking him to intercede. The letter is addressed to

Mr. J. Michael Roberts, Esq., Secretary to His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor, and goes like this:

"Thank you for your kindly reply letter of September

1, 1983, to my earlier letter to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

Rogers. I do not propose to enter into disputation or to inconvenience

you in any manner of necessity of reply. However, I believe you to be

in error. No constitution within the Commonwealth requires the personal

representative of the Sovereign to pick up a pen and to put it to paper

and to sign his or her name thereto. Choice is involved, and for choice

to be authentic it must be dual; that is, it can only be choice if the

opposite to doing a thing, namely to not do it.... We believe that in

not doing it the Viceroy is interfering. Indeed, the Sovereign's

representative must not be interfered with in his or her freedom of

action."

I might just say that this letter was in response to a letter that

he had sent earlier to the Lieutenant-Governor asking him to take some

action. He had a response which indicated that the Lieutenant-Governor

could not take action, and he's making the point that perhaps if you

decide not to take action that's just as positive as deciding to take

it. It's a fine point, but it's certainly worth considering.

I would suggest that there may be more than one individual going to

the Lieutenant-Governor to ask this very thing, because there is a lot

of concern in the general public about what's happening. That concern

is evident to me wherever I go around this province, certainly in my

own constituency, but when I travel to other areas the concern is still

there. The concern is about the right of a government to move as

dramatically as this government is proposing to do to destroy the

rights of the citizens of this province.

You see, the one thing that concerns me perhaps more than any other

thing — and I think also concerns a great many people around this

province — is that in this and every piece of legislation we are

considering there is inherent a drawing unto itself the power of

decision-making and a taking away of the local control. There is a

trend and tendency to make cabinet supreme, to negate the powers of the

Legislature, to put less and less in legislation and more and more in

regulations and to allow decisions to be made behind the closed doors

of cabinet without consultation with the Legislature and without

allowing locally, democratically elected people to involve themselves

in the decision-making process. That is very dangerous for this

government. Who knows what changes there may be in government, and if

we have those kinds of power enshrined in legislation in this province,

which allow not only elected cabinet members but appointed officials to

make decisions that more rightfully belong in the hands of locally

elected people, then democracy does die.

I can only go back to the letter I quoted in the beginning of my remarks from the United Church minister in Duncan:

"It is against the foundations and the building of

this province and this nation". He's referring to the legislation. "Its

excess was something against which the people of this nation fought in

1939 to 1945. I believe to have even the possibility of misuse of

government powers incubating within such instruments as Bill 3 is to

attempt to lie down with a hungry tiger. I really do think that the

issue is the destruction of democracy or not. I find this battle being

fought on the eve of 1984 to be most ominous."

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the hoist motion on Bill 3.

I feel that it is incumbent upon all of us to get on with the

legislation that this government has in place. The Public Sector

Restraint Act is a part of the strategy; it's a part of the package to

bring about economic recovery and hold down the cost of government.

I think the opposition should give serious consideration to putting

away from their filibuster program, the Art Kube program, and getting

on with the job of running the province of British Columbia. We're all

aware of the job and responsibilities of the opposition: that is, to

oppose the government where they deem necessary, but certainly not to

obstruct as we have had the example put before us for this last two and

a half months, Mr. Speaker.

[4:15]

In looking at the record of the provincial government and their

treatment of employees who have been displaced over past years, it is

my feeling that the record is one of which this government and the

opposition can be very proud. There is no reason for me to believe that

this government will not

[ Page 1451 ]

continue to be more than fair in its treatment of its employees — certainly much more fair than the private sector.

For some time we have had legislation in place — and I'm referring

to Treasury Board order no. 57 — which outlines the rules to be

followed when reorganizational shuffles have occurred over the years

since July 1980. The rules governing displacement of workers are

covered very clearly and concisely in Treasury Board order no. 57. It

bewilders me why the opposition would choose not to trust this

government when looking at our past actions and treatment of government

employees.

I will not go through all of the sections in Treasury Board order

no. 57, but I think it would be of some interest to this House to cover

some of the items and schedules contained in that order. Under this

order, if reallocation of workers is not possible, there are certain

benefits that the employees are permitted to apply for. Certain rights

and privileges are contained in this order. There are provisions here

for a joint staffing committee made up of the union, the ministry and

the Public Service Commission. I am informed that in cases referred to

that committee there has not been one single case that has not been

resolved amicably on behalf of all those concerned. The rights and

privileges include retraining at full cost to the government. Employees

selected for training under this order, Mr. Speaker, have received

their full basic pay for the period of training.

I would submit that this government has taken a very fair approach

in the past. Indeed there is no doubt in my mind that when all of the

air is cleared on the debate on Bill 3, and the regulations are in

place, there will be few — and I doubt if there would be any in the

private sector — citizens in the province of British Columbia who will

not look back in history and look at the performance of this provincial

government and say: you have been more than fair; you have been

equitable in your treatment of your employees.

One of the provisions that is in this Treasury Board order that has

been used by scores and scores and hundreds of employees in the

province of British Columbia has to do with early retirement. It's a

provision that this government brought in and made law on July 9, 1980.

It has a provision under

section 16 that employees who are 55 years of

age or older and have completed ten years of service are entitled to

certain rights and privileges on early retirement. If they choose to

take early retirement, being 55 or older, with ten or more years of

service, they are entitled to stepped-up pension privileges. As an

example, those with ten years of service are entitled to an extra two

and a half years' pension. Two and a half years, Mr. Speaker, on the

formula in which the government works, is an extra 5 percent of their

pay. If they have 25 years of service, they are entitled to an extra

five years of pensionable service. Under this section, as I interpret

and read it, a person with 25 years of service, 55 years old, would be

entitled to retire with 60 percent of their normal earnings. Now if the

normal earnings were $30,000 a year, that's a pension of $18,000 a year

indexed. I think that's very fair. As I say, looking back at the

history of how fair this government has been with its employees, and

then listening to the debate of my friends in the opposition, I wonder

sometimes what's going on. I don't know if they're being misinformed or

getting directions from outside sources to create concern and confusion

and frustration among the citizenry of British Columbia, or whether

they're getting their orders from those who coughed up considerable

sums of money during the election campaign, or just exactly who's

running the show in that opposition. Mr. Speaker, I have a very

difficult time understanding that.

I should also point out one of the other little plums that the

government has thrown in here on this particular Treasury Board order,

and that is in regards to the paying out of sick leave. If someone

decides to take an early retirement, there is a provision in here that

they can receive 50 percent of their accumulated sick leave credits.

Now I say to you: is that not fair? I say to the members of the

opposition: is that not a fair approach for this government to have

taken in the past?

We've got the sick leave payment, we've got the pension payments,

and now we get on to the severance pay. Let me read the short

provisions as set out in this Treasury Board order regarding severance

pay for people who have been caught up in this reorganization of

departments or divisions. "For the first year of completed employment,

three weeks of the current salary. For the second year of completed

employment, an additional three weeks of the current salary, For each

completed year thereafter, one-half month of the current salary for

each completed year." When an employee has been working we'll say for

12 years, not only do they get the pension entitlements, their sick

leave entitlements, they also get one year's pay — one solid year's pay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I'm not hearing correctly, or I'm

not receiving the communications correctly — I have a very difficult

time finding out, sitting here and listening to delays and

procrastinations — but the costs of running this Legislature range

anywhere from $70,000 to $90,000 a day. And members of the opposition,

speaker after speaker after speaker, take the full allocation of 40

minutes — not 30 minutes, not 32, not 36 minutes, but the entire 40

minutes. Mr. Speaker, if they were putting forward some news or some

suggestions or some positive criticism, I could understand it, but I

find it nothing other than mischievousness.

I repeat: the job of the opposition is to oppose; what I have seen

in my two and a half months in this Legislative Assembly is

obstruction, and the taxpayers are tired of it.

I am sure there are a lot of other MLAs like me who are waiting

anxiously to get on with the building of the recovery program for the

province of British Columbia. They are looking forward to getting back

to their constituencies and giving leadership to the private sector,

working with the trade unions involved, with the municipalities and the

economic development departments, and assisting this great province on

its road to economic recovery. We are not going to be able to do that

while we are sitting in this Legislative Assembly listening to

mischievous obstruction of the legislative process.

If we are to have a successful democracy, there should be proper

attention given to the true role of the opposition. I repeat: that true

role is to oppose and not to obstruct. I call upon my friends across

the chamber to please let us get on with the job of building a greater

British Columbia. Let's get on to building a stronger private sector

and balancing the budget, so that we can give better goods and services

to those people who are underprivileged, to those people who need

better education, to those people who require better hospital care and

to those people who are unable to find jobs or to carry on with their

jobs because they are incapacitated in one way or another. To give

these people a better life we need to have better productivity and we

have to work toward full employment. We are not going to do it sitting

around this Legislative Assembly obstructing every single bill which

comes before us.

[ Page 1452 ]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker is suggesting

that the members on this side of the House are obstructing. The member

knows quite well that there's no way the opposition can successfully

obstruct in the end. They know that standing order 57 gives them the

power to call the question at any time during any debate if they so

wish. The government has a majority of members on that side of the

House, which ensures that it can exercise its authority legally without

any reference whatsoever to those of us on this side of the House — a

simple procedure. But what we experienced this afternoon was something

that quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, horrifies me even more than I thought

possible.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Now the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is

suggesting that I'm reflecting on the vote. Mr. Speaker, we're speaking

on a motion to hoist Bill 3 for six months. We have been speaking on

that motion for some time. We had a member, the Leader of the

Opposition, speaking for over three hours. Now they suggest that he

should sit down because he's been talking too long. If by reflecting on

that situation I'm out of order, then perhaps the whole Legislature is

out of order, and perhaps we should just abolish the opposition.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I believe you will, Mr. Minister of Forests. Did

you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) says he will wipe us off the map and abolish Her Majesty's

Loyal Opposition. I'm quite certain that they will do just that after

what we experienced and witnessed this afternoon.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. Let's proceed, speaking to the hoist on Bill 3.

MR. BARNES: This is a sinister and very tragic period in the

history of British Columbia. I never thought I would experience a time

when the government would go this far — to change standing orders right

in the middle of a member's debate. We've accused the government of

changing the rules in the past. I recall them thinking it was quite

cute when I said that they had constructed, at taxpayers' expense, a

great, big, beautiful, gargantuan structure called B.C. Place Stadium

and that the field was too small. I asked them what they were going to

do about it. They said: "If it's too small we'll change the rules so

that it fits." That's the first time I'd ever seen anything like that,

and we thought it was funny. Now we find that when they don't like the

way the debate is going, they change the rules again — right in the

middle of the debate. I'm having great difficulty, Mr. Speaker....

[4:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think I appreciate the way you

feel, but we are supposed to be speaking to the hoist of Bill 3. If you

wouldn't mind, hon. member, would you please bring your attention to

that particular point.

MR. BARNES: I am speaking directly to the hoist, and this is

what we were trying to suggest when we were making the point as

strongly as we possibly could, under standing orders, with the full

right of the opposition to speak as long as we wished under those

orders, and being subject only to the government's desire to invoke

section 57, which gives it the right to call the previous question.

That is their right; you can always call the question. You can always

use closure. You don't have to change the rules. The rules are quite

adequate as they are. I am offended and I think that British Columbians

are offended.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You don't like the rules.

MR. BARNES: I think we should ask the Minister of Agriculture

and Food to speak in debate when he has an opportunity instead of from

his seat.

Mr. Speaker, what are we facing with Bill 3?

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to the hoist.

MR. BARNES: No, we are talking about more than a hoist; we

are talking about wiping out democracy. I have sat in this House for a

number of years, and the more I watch those people over there, the more

I wonder where they come from. Who are those people? Who are you, so

arrogant that you sit over there and smile and make smart remarks when

you are hurting people and crushing people in this province?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I come from British Columbia. Where do you come from?

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you where I come from. I came here of

my own free will, from the United States. I took out my citizenship and

I committed myself to this province and to this country. I care about

it. But I wonder about you, when you stand in this House and throw out

the Leader of the Opposition for speaking within the rules. You people

invoke your big super-power, a very well-orchestrated attempt to try to

stop us from defending the people's rights in this province. I find it

reprehensible. It is terribly offensive.

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

member on his feet has made several references that the rules were

changed. I think it was made clear that the rules of this House were

applied, not changed, and I think he should get back to the debate

rather than keep making inferences at the Speaker of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, on a number of occasions since I

took the chair you have in effect been referring to a vote that was

previously taken in this House. I believe to do so is incorrect under

standing orders, and I would be more than pleased — I appreciate the

fact that you feel offended — if you would please just talk to the

hoisting of Bill 3, the motion to set the bill aside for six months.

MR. MITCHELL: Further to the point of order of the minister,

what we are saying and what he failed to say in this point of order is

that the rules have been enforced in a different way than tradition has

allowed them to be in the past. I think when you change the way a law

is interpreted, you are changing the rules.

[ Page 1453 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We still must bear in mind that we are not

debating what transpired earlier this afternoon, nor are we debating

the rules. At this point we are debating the hoist of Bill 3, and the

Chair would appreciate it if the first member for Vancouver Centre

would proceed to debate this hoist.

MR. BARNES: I don't mind confirming the fact that I don't

feel good about this. You said you can appreciate my feelings but I

must speak to the hoist motion. But I can tell you, it is about time we

showed some feelings in this place. It is about time that we began to

realize that we are not without feelings. All of us have them; all of

the people of this province have them, I think the government believe

they should put feelings aside and follow their dictates with no

reference to reality.

Bill 3 is a confiscation bill. It takes away people's fundamental

rights. It takes away the procedures that have protected them from

those who would offend our right to exist and coexist in this society.

It is a very frightening thing, People are talking about fascism. I'm

not sure the public understands what fascism is, but if you take a

little time to research it you'll find it is something that has no

place in British Columbia and certainly no place in a free and

democratic society. You've taken away everything that really matters to

people. You're telling them to have no feelings.

Let's reflect on just one department that you are destroying and

telling people that they must accept it under Bill 3, the Public Sector

Restraint Act. There is no attempt to restrain on the basis of economic

reasons, to try to save dollars. This is why people are saying that it

must be fascism; it must be something else; the government has another

agenda. It is an agenda that is unfolding little by little. We watch

your actions, not just today; we've been watching your actions in every

department: the removal of planning opportunities for regional

districts; the right of people to self-determination. You've taken away

people's right to complain, with respect to being treated equally in a

democratic society. You've taken away their human rights legislation.

You're making it difficult for people to go to court; they're having to

pay to protect themselves from landlords who would abuse their rights

as tenants. The education system is being dictated to and being told

that it must follow some formula that you've decided on here in

cabinet, with no regard whatsoever for the special needs and uniqueness

of different regions in this province. You've simply told people: "You

don't count. We know best."

I don't know where you got your formula from. I don't know where you

got the idea that you have the absolute and final solution to the

economic and social problems of this province. How can it be that

you're so well endowed? Who did you consult with? Who did you refer to?

Give us some names. Tell us some people. Show us how it happened. Who's

involved? Why aren't there people out there supporting you and saying:

"Yes, we were involved in the planning of the government's new

restraint program; we endorse it because we understand it"? I have yet

to see anybody come forward and say: "We endorse and support the

recommendations of this government, because we were democratically

participating in a process." Who? Was it your hired professional

people? Your pollsters? People who have their own ideas about how this

province should be run, perhaps for personal reasons? It's a very

sinister project that you've embarked upon.

I for one am not looking at this from just a political point of

view; I'm looking at it from a humanitarian point of view. After all,

the government is supposed to be here for the people. It is supposed to

care about the people. It is supposed to refer to them and involve them

in those decisions that affect their lives. You're not doing that, Mr.

Speaker. You seem to relish the idea that you don't have to do it,

because you keep referring to May 5. Every time we say something on

this side of the House, you say: "May 5! We won the election; you

didn't." You want us to get lost. You don't want us to participate. You

don't want us to criticize.

It's a big joke when that member tells us that we're supposed to

oppose but not to obstruct. Under the parliamentary system, there's no

way we can obstruct, because you have the ultimate right of closure —

if you had the courage to do it. Instead, you want to play these cheap

games and try to offend our right to do our job.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Now the Minister of Agriculture and Food is

saying that I am out of order. He doesn't even want me to reflect on

any of these things. He just wants us to shut up and sit down and be

quiet. They do not care.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Now he's talking about rules. He says we have

rules. This is the offending thing, Mr. Speaker. This is what makes it

difficult for us to come into this House and be rational and go down

the sections of the bill and get involved in all the details. Those are

just smokescreens. None of those details really matter. You people will

change everything when you get ready. That's what you did with your

Regulation Act. You brought in the Regulation Act in the first place so

that you could circumvent statutory responsibility, so that you would

have the right to designate and change and withhold information at will.

You are taking over this province. You are taking it over and you're

going to keep it, and you don't care who you hurt. Because most of the

people who lost in the last election were supporting us you're going to

crush them by denying them economic opportunity. You're taking away

their fundamental rights and making it so difficult that in the next

four years they will probably have to leave the province. We know

that's going on. It's pretty obvious.

Mr. Speaker, do you think it's an accident that some 50,000 people

will come out in front of this Legislature and protest — that it's for

no reason? Do you think those people enjoyed coming and standing there,

wall-to-wall people? And the Premier had no time even to address them.

He's the same Premier who was telling them to trust him and give him

their vote before May 5, and suddenly he has no time. Do you think it's

an accident that we had an unprecedented situation where people

occupied his cabinet offices at the courthouse in Vancouver —

peacefully?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Do you support that?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Member, you just listen to what I'm saying.

If you have any understanding whatsoever you won't ask what I support;

you will listen to the unfortunate situation that caused those people

to behave that way. You have provoked and provoked. You are doing it

with confrontation;

[ Page 1454 ]

you are doing it with arrogance. That's why those

people are doing it, and when they do it you tell them they're going

bonkers. You say they're going bonkers because they can't take it. You

drive people up against a wall, Mr. Speaker, and then you are offended

because they become emotional and start acting out and becoming upset.

You say they have no self-control and that those people should not be

behaving in the way they are behaving, and this is what makes us angry

on this side of the House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was

under the impression that we're speaking to an amendment to Bill 3.

This member has been speaking for perhaps 15 or 20 minutes now and he

has not yet addressed the subject which is under debate. Unless that

member is completely intellectually bankrupt, I would suggest he begin

to talk to the matter before the House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. members, can we have order, please?

Will the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre please proceed and please speak to the hoisting of Bill 3.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, we are speaking because we protest

this legislation. We would like to see it withdrawn and we're asking

that it be held at least for six months. I am giving you my reasons why

we feel this way. We do not trust the tenets within this legislation.

We do not trust the theme of it or the motivation behind it. If that

member is offended by that and if he considers it to be intellectually

bankrupt not to deal with his smokescreen details in this legislation,

so be it. I can tell you that I for one know when a game is being

played, and this is a sham. This government has a diabolical scheme in

all of its legislation. We were talking about the dirty dozen, but I

can tell you that even those outside the twelve that we've been

concerned about are all sinister. They affect the lives of the people

of this province in a very serious and sinister way.

The Ministry of Human Resources is one of the most sensitive and

most important ministries. Human beings are equal to the natural

resources — the forests, the land and the water. But that ministry is

on a plan to demoralize the people of this province by making it very

difficult for them to survive in a highly competitive society that has

become materialistic and dehumanized. The Ministry of Human Resources

of all ministries should try to set an example and try to give people

encouragement instead of demoralizing and instead of being offended.

[4:45]

Not only are the clients who are in need of assistance being

offended by having their programs cut back, but they are being told to

go back to the community and to try to fend for themselves as best they

can. They're being told to go back to families that as you know, Mr.

Speaker, do not exist in the way they did in olden times. They're

telling them to go back to the nuclear family, which, as you know, are

breaking up at a rate of something like 500 percent per year compared

to what they were doing even five years ago. The homes are breaking up

because of the pressure and the economic difficulties. He talks about

going back to the extended family and having them pick up the pieces.

Where are those families? Mr. Speaker, where are those volunteers and

those church organizations and institutions? The ministry is now

telling us that this will no longer be covered under the ministry's

responsibility but that the public will pick it up because of the good

will and desire and good Samaritanism of the public. Those are all

noble ideas and they are virtuous, but where do they exist? What is

going to happen to the people? What is going to happen to those

families?

The one last resource we have in this province, if we were to enjoy

the independence of government and to rely on one another and have all

of those virtues more than just as a dream but as reality, is the

family. But I can tell you that the family is under great pressure and

great stress today, in part from circumstances beyond this government's

control. Times are tough all over, but let's not be devious and play

political games with people's lives. When we talk about the family we

are talking about a very delicate institution that was once able to

provide services for the individuals in the family. It was able to give

them confidence and security. People had a place to go, and the family

was respected. It was indeed a main institution in our society, but

today that institution is under great stress and it is virtually

non-existent. It is now common for people to say "I love you" and get

married today and six months or a year later be divorcing, with all of

the obligations and responsibilities of having brought new people into

the world and not having the cohesion to carry on as a family unit.

Those tragedies are common today.

For the Ministry of Human Resources to say we are going to leave

those people to their own devices and take away the support programs

that we have for them — obligations we have for them through statutes —

is a tragic and irresponsible act on the part of the government. I am

very dismayed by the direction the government is going. I'm dismayed by

the thrust of the legislation and by the insensitivity of Bill 3.

Public Service Restraint Act indeed! We're restraining families. Those

are not just public servants, not just faceless people, people who are

abused and stigmatized generally because they're in a class of people

so easy for the politicians to offend as a group. Whatever their

history may be throughout the world — as public servants, as a class of

people — whatever their shortcomings may be, whether some of them are

guilty or not of having goldbricked, so to speak, a few times, or

whether there is evidence that some of them are redundant, I can tell

you that they are still British Columbians, they are still human beings

and you certainly cannot generalize that they're all as useless and

irrelevant as this government seems to think they are. I think that is

offensive and divisive, and breeds contempt against a class of people

that makes a democratic society unsafe. That is the danger of your

gross generalizations and of comments like the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) saying those people are going "bonkers"

and that they're not capable of taking the stress of the job, and are

therefore incompetent and incapable of helping others. When you think

about those kinds of remarks, it makes you wonder where we're heading

in this province, where we're really going.

A lot could be accomplished. In fact, a tremendous amount could be

accomplished through consultation with those very same people you're

offending. A tremendous amount could be accomplished if we were to

refer it to the tenants we wish to abuse and tell them they have no

rights. A tremendous amount could be accomplished with those people who

have given up on trying to get into the marketplace and find legitimate

jobs and opportunities within our system, who are involved in illicit

activities, who have abandoned all hope of ever being able to live

legitimate lives and are

[ Page 1455 ]

abusing themselves and society out of desperation —

and most of them don't care anymore. I'm thinking particularly of young

people who walk the streets in the evening in the West End and in other

parts of Vancouver and this province. Those people are discouraged.

What is the government doing to assist those people? What kinds of

initiatives do we have that involve the young people and give them hope?

This is what bothers me about this bill and about all of the

legislation. You want us to come and talk about the detail that you

have with respect to how you're going to come up with certain formulae

in working with the trade unions on some of these local issues. But

there's a fundamental problem that frightens us. People are not opposed

to economies within the marketplace and to saving government tax

dollars. The public's not opposed to that. But we have not had one

shred of evidence that the restraint program has anything to do with

the economy.

There is no evidence to support the idea that by removing family

support workers, taking away those coordinators who work with

volunteers in the Ministry of Human Resources, cutting back on the

counselling services for women with post-partum depression problems or

on any of those programs for helping with the mentally retarded, for

instance, or on the volunteer incentive programs for people who were

giving most of their time for a cost of about $1.25 an hour to the

provincial government, which was cost-shared federally.... There is no

evidence that by wiping out those programs the government is in fact

saving money.

That's the problem we're having: we are suspicious, because if the

government was saving money it would show us where the money is being

saved. We don't see any money being saved. All we see are a lot of

people being fired from the public service — cutting back on people in

the helping professions — and we had the Minister of Human Resources

say that we can no longer hold their hands and that they've got to

stand on their own feet. Mr. Speaker, that flies in the face of

reality. People have to have their hands held. Even the politicians

have to have expense accounts to fly around in those Lear jets; just

today in question period the Premier himself made it quite clear that

$75,000 was hardly enough for him and his ministers to fly around

trying to promote the economy of British Columbia, and that they need a

lot more money. All we're saying is that so does everybody else; so do

the senior citizens.

When you think about how cynical the government seems to be in just

about everything it does, it leaves us too stupefied to find words to

describe.... Take the cost of living for senior citizens. What is the

government doing to help those people at least maintain their present

standard of living? Their costs are going up every day. New formulae

are being put out through orders-in-council, through regulations, that

make them pay a greater percentage of their incomes toward rent than

they were paying last year. There was no reference to the realities of

those people being able to survive. The government hasn't cut back its

programs for the cabinet, yet it has cut back the programs for the

people. But what's the difference between a cabinet minister and a

citizen on the street? What's the difference between a minister of the

Crown and someone who is on social assistance? The kinds of things that

the government is doing just aren't credible; it doesn't seem to be

motivated toward trying to encourage people to help us get through

these difficult times.

Furthermore, what is the government doing in the way of innovating ideas as far as creating employment for the youth?

What are we doing with our indigenous people? What are we doing to

show that we can become self-sufficient by being innovative and using

ideas that would allow us to make the best use of our own natural

resources?

This bill is totally irrelevant as far as the problems of British

Columbia are concerned. It seems to be an attempt by the government to

try and turn the direction of this province — the history of this

province — around. I suspect we will see the day when you privatize the

public schools. That may be a prediction that won't be too far away.

You've already set them on a tight budget and you figure in the next

four years that they'll be spending exactly what you want, and you'll

have control. And then pretty soon you'll eliminate the public schools

altogether and say: "Well, if you can afford to get an education, then

pay for it; if you can't afford it, that's too bad." You're going to do

the same thing with medicare, the same thing with all of the services

that people have relied upon traditionally and have worked very hard to

have in this province, including human rights.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go to court.

MR. BARNES: "Go to court, " you say. But I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, ever since you abolished, without having

an act to back you

up, the Human Rights Code in this province, you have been having — by

the day — a backlog of complaints. What's happening to them? What's

happening to those people who are being discriminated against for

whatever reasons, the men, women and children, people of different

cultures? Where are they? What are they doing? Who's looking after

those cases?

You see, we don't feel very good about the way you're doing

business. You are a government which believes that you can do things

retroactively — just push them through now and pass the laws later.

We've been debating bills that you made a fait accompli over a year

ago, mainly the personal tax and the renter's tax credits. We've been

talking about those, but as you know, they're already law. You are no

longer giving people those benefits. And the same thing with all of

this. You fired all the people under Bill 3, and now you want us to

debate it as sanely as though we're going to have some legitimate role

to play in making a decision with this government. It doesn't really

matter what we say on this side of the House. It doesn't really matter

what we say or how we say it or who we refer to, because you're going

to do exactly what you have intended to do since May 5 — which was a

secret, by the way. None of us really knew what the government was

going to do. I'm sure you would not have been elected had you told the

people you really were going to make some ideological changes, some

fundamental changes, to the structure of parliament, to the structure

of government, to the structure of the value system in this province.

Mr. Speaker, what can you say? What will you listen to? Are you

listening to those people who are signing petitions and asking the

government to let them participate, let them have some input? Are you

listening to the city of Vancouver, the mayor and council, who have

asked for permission to sit down and talk with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs as well? They have asked to participate with you. Are

you cooperating with the members of the regional districts throughout

this province, who are saying they want to be involved in the planning

of their local communities? Do you really care? I don't think you care.

[ Page 1456 ]

These members — that government on that side of the House — are

going through a charade with us. They are playing games with the people

of this province. I can tell you that we are indeed watching a

revolution of the most sinister kind. As you know, soon after the May 5

election, when you had made a few moves, one of the columnists had a

headline in the Vancouver Sun that said Bill Bennett was on his

way toward a revolution. People didn't like it. They said: "That's a

dirty word. What do you mean, 'revolution'? He wouldn't be in a

revolution; he's just going to make a few modifications to the system."

No, you're scrapping the system. You're dismantling it. You're changing

everything. You're destroying people. You're taking over. You're

confiscating this province for your own sinister reasons. God only

knows what they are, but I can tell you that the people of this

province are seeing a major change in all of the institutions.

I suggest that we are going to have a very serious problem with the

public unless you people start to listen. Sure, there are only 22 of us

over here and we're suggesting that you hoist Bill 3, but we reflect

the views of at least 45 percent of the people of this province.

Probably a lot more are concerned now that they've seen the legislation

you've introduced. I know you're not listening. You weren't listening

to the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, and you're not going to

listen to anybody. And you want us to be responsible? They want us to

stand and talk to them as though we are parties to the decisions they

have to make.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, standing

order 43 suggests that the speaker should be relevant. It occurs to me

we should be talking about the hoist and I don't get much feeling that

we're talking about the hoist. Would you remind the member to speak to

the hoist?

[5:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. I'm sure

the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre can speak with relevance to

the amendment before us.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the government

hoist it for more than six months. But I have no choice in the matter.

We're just members in the opposition. All that we seem to be able....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You're lucky that you're there.

MR. BARNES: I must acknowledge that there is some merit in

the suggestion of the Minister of Municipal Affairs that I'm lucky to

be here, because in the last campaign we spent less than $50,000. I

know that a good quarter of a million was spent to try to remove me.

Maybe we were lucky at that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the members on that side of the House to

stand and tell us what they are really after. What do they want? What,

is so important...?

MR. REID: Democracy.

Interjections

MR. BARNES: They say democracy, cooperation, justice. You know, Mr. Speaker, if we had....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Just a moment, please, hon.

member. It's getting loud in here. If we can contain ourselves we can

be well served.

MR. BARNES: It would be very enlightening if the public of

British Columbia had a chance to hear the remarks being shouted by

those members at a time when people's lives are being destroyed. People

who have invested a great deal of effort in trying to be good citizens

and contributed to the betterment of this province are being fired

without due process. They are just cut off and left to survive on their

own with no planning, no warning, no opportunity to be part of this

great dream of economic recovery. They are simply told that they are

the problem. I find that what you people are doing is not yet

discovered. I don't think the public fully realizes the nature of these

pieces of legislation that you're bringing in.

You're spending $8.4 billion. It's a restraint budget, yet you have

a deficit forecast of $1.6 billion. You're firing people working for

$1.25 an hour — cost-shared by the federal government — who are only

making $50 a month. You're going to fire those people who are helping

people, and you say that you are saving money. I don't understand it.

Why would you budget for a deficit of $1.6 billion and then fire all

those people, saying that you are trying to save money? Where is the

rationale behind that? You're not trying to save money. You're spending

more money on yourselves, on your travel expenses....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I can tell you one thing: when you hear members

protest in this Legislature but the, same members will not go outside

and talk to the people who are demanding to have an audience with this

government, then you know that they are really not the brave soldiers

that they pretend they are. They are hiding behind protocol, trying to

change the rules and increase the police force to protect them. You

don't go out and talk to the people anymore, as you did before May 5. I

haven't heard one of those cabinet ministers go out and address the

public, or talk to some of the demonstrators or listen to what they're

saying. You call them a bunch of names. You've come to that. You

weren't calling anybody any names before May 5, and now you're calling

them names. You're calling the opposition names. You're offended by

everything that we protest against. You're asking us to be responsible

and help debate some of these details in Bill 3 and some of the other

pieces of legislation.

Reflecting again on how I felt this afternoon when I watched the

actions of the members on the other side of the House when the Leader

of the Opposition stood to speak on the hoist, after three hours.... He

had been speaking already, and right in the middle of his debate you

decided that he should not be able to speak any more. That's what I

mean by changing the rules. I think that's the nature of things in this

province today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again we are reflecting on a previous vote, which is unparliamentary. Please proceed on the hoist.

MR. BARNES: I'm really impressed to know that the government

is able to insist on following the rules when it pleases them, but when

it doesn't please them they're not prepared. If you really were

concerned about the rules, you

[ Page 1457 ]

would have stopped the Leader of the Opposition

after he had spoken for 40 minutes, not after three hours. But you

thought: "Hey, we've got to stop this. We'll change the rules."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I must caution you that we are on the amendment to hoist Bill 3.

MR. BARNES: You must admit, however, that what I'm saying is

relevant to this motion, because it was around this motion that this

issue came up. It's this motion that I'm concerned about, and this is

why I say that the bill has to be hoisted even if we only have 40

minutes to talk. Even if we're not allowed unlimited time, I can assure

you that we will continue to oppose, although we're just 22. Eventually

that government is going to have to go to the people of this province.

You're going to have to face them and listen. You're going to have to

take some of the responsibility for the wrecks that you've caused in

people's lives and in the economy. You know what I'm talking about. You

know what you've done, and you know you are not listening.

We have challenged every ministry to show us documented evidence

that they have worked out these cost-effective programs and to show us

where the cost-savings savings are. They do not have that. All they

have are opinion polls about what people think, and their attitudes,

and that is what they are basing it on, preying on the insecurities of

the people of this province, those who happen to have accumulated

wealth. You want to tell them: "If we protect your wealth, will you

help us destroy those people who are trying to take it away from you?"

This is the kind of politics you are playing. It is divisive; it is

divide and conquer. You are not concerned about trying to create a

community of cooperation. You are deliberately trying to exploit

confrontation. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that with the initiative you

are taking you are going to put some delicate people against each other

in this province, especially in the field of human rights.

I would like to ask what is happening to those people who have

grievances and are trying to get due process, who are trying to have

their cases heard? You know what the Minister of Labour is saying:

"Well, just wait until we get the legislation passed. When we get Bill

27 passed we will look up your case."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time under standing orders has expired.

MR. BARNES: Well, I am glad to know you are following the

rules. It is nice to know. I suppose it is convenient. But I will be

opposing this legislation.

MR. PELTON: I don't intend to take up a great deal of the

House's time this afternoon. I know you were concerned, Mr. Speaker,

but I wasn't really concerned when I saw the red light on for a few

minutes, because what I have to say will not take very long. I do rise,

though, in opposition to the hoisting of Bill 3.

I think I am a true believer in the democratic system that we all

live by. The reason I really oppose this is that I have sat and

listened very carefully to, I would say, 90 percent of the debate that

has taken place on the bill itself and on the hoist. It seems to me

that there were some very good things said, both on this side of the

House and across the floor. I don't argue with that for one moment.

Some good points have been made. But I would state, Mr. Speaker, that

my main reason for standing at this point is that I believe that

everything has been said that needs to be said. We are really not

accomplishing anything by this hoist motion. But I would like to take

one or two minutes, because of the things that have been said about

this, and address one or two of them to let those members who are

interested have my opinion on where we stand on these various points.

One thing that has been stated a great number of times is that the

government is not compassionate. I really can't accept that, because I

believe it is an obligation of government not just to be compassionate

on any given day but to retain the capacity to be equally compassionate

as they move down the road, in a meaningful kind of way. I suggest that

this is not an easy thing to do. Everyone in this House is well aware

of the great difficulties that our province has experienced and is

experiencing on account of the weakness of world markets for forest

products and the other resource products that we export. We are all

aware of the very high rates of unemployment that have resulted from

this and the severe shortfall in government revenu