1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

1731 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 1731

Mr. Blencoe –– 1733

Mr. Rose –– 1736

Mr. Mitchell –– 1741

Mr. Lea –– 1745

Mrs. Dailly –– 1750

Mr. Nicolson –– 1754

Mr. Stupich –– 1758

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1763

Mr. Barrett –– 1767

Mr. Macdonald –– 1774

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1778

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1781

Division –– 1783

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1983

The House met at 8:05 p.m.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make introductions of some guests in the gallery tonight.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The B.C. Association of Broadcasters is

having a meeting in Victoria this evening. In the gallery tonight, I

would like to recognize the following people: Gary Milne of CHWK,

Chilliwack: Norm Wessen of CKCQ, Quesnel; Hal Davis of CKNW, New

Westminister; Bill Coombes of CHWK, Chilliwack; Walter Gray of CKIQ,

Kelowna; Fred Webber of the Skeena broadcasters; Tom Peacock of CKWX,

Vancouver; Ray Dagg of Target Media; Ray Peters of Western

International Communications; Noel Hullah of CHQM, Vancouver; Tom

Waterland from Merritt; Jamie Brown of CKOV, Kelowna; and Dennis Gerein

of CJAT in Trail. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: On behalf of my party, I'd like to join the

Minister of Health in welcoming these electronic luminaries who are

meeting in convention in Victoria today. As a long-time member of the

broadcasting committee in the federal House, I had an opportunity to

meet them, and many times I heard from some of the others, who are old

and personal friends of mine. Could I list three of them?

One I don't know particularly well, but when I was a teacher in

Kelowna, there was the Brown family who owned the main radio station.

They were extremely kind to me in my beginning career as a music

teacher. Also, when I first went to Kelowna, one of the people who is

not blowing my horn, but whom I taught to blow a horn, was CKIQ's

director, Walter Gray. I look forward to meeting him on November 11

when I come up with Mart Kenny's band to play there.

Finally, I wonder if I could also acknowledge how much I appreciated

the help, when I first went to New Westminister as a struggling,

fuzzy-faced youth of a music supervisor, of CKNW's director, Hal Davis.

Could I welcome them all, please.

Before I sit down, I saw the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) pointing at his own Adam's apple. I'd like to welcome him

back from wherever his latest travels have taken him.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I was

challenged to rise and take my

part in this debate. In one case the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) waved some dollar bills in order to

entice me up. Well, it takes neither challenge nor money to get me into

a debate.

I listened to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who has now forsaken the

labour movement, the sick, the elderly, the handicapped, students and so forth

in order to use people like myself — and hundreds of thousands like me who suffered

during the last war — as a vehicle to further his political cause. As we speak

to this amendment, Mr. Speaker, I have to refer to that because that was the

argument he used. His argument was: here we are bringing in legislation as was

brought in during the last war by the fascists, who brought all the suffering

and so forth. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to that sort of debate my memory....

I wouldn't want to be accused of accepting this. I want you all to know

that I don't accept it all.

As I listened to that terrible debate — that vile debate — my

memories go back to those days when the Prime Minister of the country

said: "No, there's nothing to worry about. There will never be a war

here. Hitler does not mean to declare war on us. There's no need to

arm. Carry on; all is well." But that wasn't so. It wasn't too long

after we heard those words that the trucks were driving down our main

streets with cutting-torches in desperation looking for metal that they

could quickly assemble in order to build arms and make ammunition

required to fight a war brought on by Hitler at that time.

As I hear that vile debate from the socialist side, I can't help but

think of those days when daylight would come and we would come out of

our shelters and walk down the streets to see where we could be of any

help. We would see tenement buildings half down, death all around,

curtains blowing in the breeze, pieces of bed-linen and clothing and

all of those things hanging from the branches of trees that had been

stripped of leaves by the blasts of the bombs dropped by those people.

I remember those days very well, and as we debate this amendment and

listen to this member using this vile description and applying it to

the government which I am part of.... I am one of those who not only

suffered under the deluge of bombs and the shrapnel but also took their

part in uniform.

I'm delighted that we have so many people here tonight from the news

media. I certainly hope they will have an opportunity to tell the

province but especially tell all of those people who came out to this

great land as I did, who suffered through those days, about what sort

of description is being used to describe the actions of this

government. This Bill 3 that they want to amend is not a bill that

brings darkness to this province but rather a bill that lightens up

this province.

I can recall very vividly the evening we walked down in the daylight

to see where we could be of any help, and saw a school that was used as

temporary quarters for those people who were bombed out, the

playgrounds full of temporary shelters, tents and so forth: it had

itself received a bomb. Devastation. As we hear the giggles from the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), it hurts me even more because there is

a member who has been protected by good government on this Island never

touched by war, never touched by those hardships that they accuse us of

bringing on, sheltered in a marvellous country in a marvellous

province. What does she do? She giggles. Mr. Speaker, at one point she

said: You're too touchy." They have the audacity to use such vile

descriptions in this place — to use such a terrible argument that

touches people like myself and then turn around and say: "You're too

touchy. You should take all the things that we say and not respond." I

can't help but respond, because I do feel hurt. So do thousands of

others in my age group, and I hope that they and their children and

grandchildren remember what your party is doing in this House. And I

hope too, Mr. Speaker, as we debate on this, that we will think back to

those days when Winston Churchill said: "We should not stop now.

[ Page 1732 ]

We should carry on and put an end to communism in

this world, which no doubt will be a problem in the future." As I take

a look at the Waffle Manifesto of the NDP," Independent Socialist

Canada," then I know for sure that Winston Churchill was correct, a man

of vision. He knew where the problem would be coming from, and now

we're feeling it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), with the

things that I got away from, and here he is hoping to perpetuate the

same mess that he and his type created in the Old Country.

I remember very well whenever the all-clear sirens went and we would go out there....

[8:15]

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: This isn't funny, my friend. This is very serious, and you people brought it on.

I recall very well when the all-clear siren went and we all thanking

God that we were still alive — those of us who were. You are the people

who would sit there and allow your colleague to enter into a debate

using such descriptions as he did against this party.

As we get into this debate, I can also recall that whenever the

Labour Party — which is the socialist party of the day — says, "Vote us

into office and we'll bring you all home, " and they're voted into

office, what do they do? They nationalize the railways and the big

businesses and move along ruthlessly, as they attempted to do in 1972.

Fortunately they didn't have too many days or they would have repeated

what happened in Britain. Mr. Speaker, that socialist party of the day,

called the Labour Party, moved right along and ran that country into

the ground, as we see it today. Thank God we have Margaret Thatchers in

this world to reverse that.

MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't think

we came here tonight to listen to a discourse on British politics. I

wonder if you could ask the member to get back to Bill 3, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is quite well taken, hon.

members. I will remind the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs that we

are debating a reasoned amendment to Bill 3, the Public Sector

Restraint Act, and if he could relate his remarks to the principle of

the amendment before us the Legislative Assembly would be well served.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with all due

respect to my colleague, I think quite a bit of latitude was given our

side in discussing this legislation, and I think it only fair that the

minister have the opportunity for the same kind of latitude. Besides,

we need the votes, and I'd like him to continue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Latitude is allowed, I guess, but if the

minister could relate his remarks to the amendment before us the

Legislative Assembly would be well served.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will do my best

to stay as close to the reasoned amendment as have the speakers in the

opposition. I would remind the member for Burnaby North that that side

has talked about politics in South America, Britain, Greece, Central

America — all over the place.

I can recall very well when their Labour Party, their socialist

party, moved into the system and took over. Those fellows who came back

from the war, thousands of them, very soon found that the dream wasn't

there. The government had taken over. Many of them came out to Canada;

many of them to British Columbia. But they're not satisfied with that

lesson. They want to do it to this country as well. It's for exactly

that reason that I am in politics here in British Columbia today. I

intend to take my stand and fight to the bitter end to prevent

socialism from taking over in British Columbia and, indeed, in Canada.

This reasoned amendment is just a bunch of hogwash. It's just a

stall; it's obstructionist. We know that bill brings light to this

province, not darkness, as suggested by them. That bill simply gives

back to the employer the ability to manage, which it lost because of

the pressures of people like those on the other side. The bill is a

promise to the people of British Columbia that they're not going to be

asked to continue bearing the heavy burden of government; that we are

bound and determined to turn this thing around and reduce the size of

government.

They fight tooth and nail to protect those who work for government.

What gives anyone the right to fight for some specialized group? I say

that no matter where you work you're entitled to do a good day's work

and you're entitled to receive a fair reward for what you do. I don't

think anyone is entitled to special protection because of what the

government.... As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would say that

because we are paid from the taxpayers' dollars we should be working

harder. We should be producing harder. We're not entitled to all of

those special things that are not available in the private sector. I

didn't hear them fight for all of those businessmen who suffered

bankruptcy or who are on the verge of it, for all of those people in

the private sector who were laid off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you did. Who had the task force for small business?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: They didn't scream for them. No, they're fighting for a group that they think should be specially treated.

I admit that the type of language, the type of demonstrations and

examples given by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) does touch a sore

spot with me, and I certainly hope that the press of this province will

make sure the message gets out. I hope all of those people who came to

this country for the same reason I did will get that message, to make

sure that the word gets through loud and clear that never again do I

want to see that happen to my country, and that is Canada.

I apologize for the initial outburst, but I want to assure you that

any time those members want to use something like this, they can expect

this sort of response. They sit and chatter and natter and fool around

and try to cover up for the mistakes of their colleague, try to look

busy; they blush, are embarrassed. I would like to know what was said

to the member for Alberni in caucus tonight. Did you dress him down?

He's not here. A further split in the Party.

Bill 3 is here, and it's here for the reason given to the people during the campaign. The people told the socialists

[ Page

1733 ]

what they wanted: they wanted this government, this leadership, because we

believe in restraint. Your leader said he would dismantle it. That was repeated

in Coquitlam not too long ago, when the now member for Coquitlam-Moody, in great

excitement, thought: "I'm going to jump over into the political scene

because Davey Barrett is going to be the Premier of this province, and I'll

be in his cabinet." What did he get? He's now a useless back-bencher

over there. Not only did he lose that, but he lost Sophie as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I will.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is an unparliamentary reference to a member. I'll advise the member to please relate his remarks to the amendment.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On the amendment, Mr. Speaker, this

reasoned amendment is an attempt to obstruct, not to amend. That bill

is here to follow through on a promise made to the people of this

province, who on May 5 told us what they wanted in a very resounding

way. They repeated it in Maillardville-Coquitlam just recently by

making sure they put the right party and the right representative into

that area. I oppose this nonsense of obstruction, this reasoned

amendment. I hoped these people would have learned that they can't

continue to use the sick, the elderly, the handicapped, the students,

the labour unions, the blind, and those who suffered during the war to

further their political cause.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like first this evening, as the second

member for Victoria, to congratulate my colleague the first member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson) for his excellent presentation, which started

early this morning and ended this afternoon.

I believe the first member for Victoria tried to give the government

some sane, rational and intelligent approach for the thing they're

trying to do. Unfortunately, the government seems incapable of

listening to reason or alternative approaches for running the province.

As the word "reason" enters into this amendment to the motion, I'd like

to reflect on reason. In my estimation, and the estimation of our

party, people in British Columbia are looking for a high degree of

reason at this time, for an intelligent and reasoned approach to the

very difficult problems that face certain British Columbians in very

obvious ways — a reasoned, intelligent, rational and thoughtful

approach to the problems. In my estimation, and I think in the

estimation of thousands of British Columbians, the government has

embarked on something the result of which I don't think they know. It

has very little to do with reason or reasonableness.

Mr. Speaker, I think the word "reasoned" amendment is appropriate at

this time, given the state of this Legislature and the hours and hours

we have debated. The opposition has come down to propose a reasonable,

intelligent alternative to what you're doing. I most sincerely urge the

government to rethink. I urged the government to rethink on Bill 6 and

on other pieces of legislation. In debate on various bills I have given

alternative approaches and constructive ideas to try to resolve some of

the things that they are trying to accomplish.

[8:30]

If there is one thing the people of British Columbia feel — and that is why

the opposition is still here and is taking its present position — it is that

the government has overstepped the mark. They have misread what people supported

in terms of that word "restraint." Nobody has trouble with trying

to save dollars in difficult times. Nobody has trouble with trying to ensure

that the taxpayers of British Columbia get a fair return for their dollar. that

essential services are maintained and that those in greatest need in our province

are protected and helped in times of trouble. But it’s our belief that

in Bill 3 the government has gone beyond restraint.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

It is our belief that the government has gone beyond restraint, and

that for some unknown reasons they have decided to carry out a mission

that if they carefully look at the package.... Bill 3 is certainly on

the top of that package, which if it is carried out, will radically

affect British Columbia for a long, long time. The impact will have

horrendous implications for the social fabric of the province. I urge

the government to consider and reason with their consciences — because

I know that many of those members across the way are equally concerned

about what's happening in this province; there's no question about that.

I have to wonder if the government intended to do away with things,

or workers, that are an integral component of a civilized and

progressive society. I refer to such things as child-abuse teams,

family-support workers or grants to handicapped people, so they can

take....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm really trying to be reasonable. Mr. Speaker,

but unfortunately certain members continue to be extremely rude in this

House. It's most unfortunate.

I don't think the government or many members across there realize

the full implications of their package, and particularly Bill 3. If

there was ever a time in the history of this province, and what's

happened in the last two or three days in this House.... It's now time

to take a second look, and we're prepared to participate in that second

look. It's time to adjourn this House for about a month. Leave things

where they are.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this is the very reason I'm saying

we need to rethink and to adjourn this House. The government — as

portrayed quite clearly by some of those members over there — is not

prepared to think again on some of their actions.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, gentlemen. Please give the member on the floor an opportunity.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, over the last few days I think all

of us.... If we were to go in the corridor or have a coffee quietly

together, even though there appears to be a wide gulf between us

politically and philosophically, we might admit that perhaps we need to

take a little break; we need to look very closely at some of the things

that are being suggested for the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 1734 ]

There's a lot of rhetoric that's gone on for the last few months —

no question about that — and it's going to happen in this chamber. But

there have been some sincere objections to some of the things that this

government is trying to do. I'm trying to stay away from being — you

know, it's the opposition speaking. There are some things in there that

are indeed highly objectionable, and maybe they should be rethought. I

urge the government once again to perhaps step back, take a month off,

talk out in the communities, talk to....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, if I may I will try to continue. Perhaps you will give me some protection from the members across the way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the members please give the speaker

every courtesy and opportunity to take his place in debate, and I'm

sure he will extend the same to you when it's your turn.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will.

Again I reiterate that there are pieces of legislation and some

implications in Bill 3 and other pieces of legislation like the human

rights legislation that we'll be debating perhaps in a month or so. I

think people of all political stripes are deeply concerned. There is no

question about that. The government has taken a lot of heat and a lot

of attack, and I know in political life it's very difficult to back

down a little bit —very difficult. But there is nothing wrong with

admitting to the people — and I think people respect you a little more

— that perhaps the message has been one of concern and maybe there are

ways to accomplish what you want.... I don't necessarily agree with all

you want to accomplish, but maybe there are ways to accomplish what you

want without taking away some of the roots, some of the fundamental

components that make this province a very fine place to live.

Maybe just once, given that we are in a watershed time in this province, given a watershed in history....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a well-used term, Mr. Member. We are at a

critical crossroads in this province. We are, however, Mr. Speaker, one

of the richest areas in the world and we have an incredible future.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You think money grows on trees.

MR. BLENCOE: No, I don't, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I really would ask you to allow me

to complete my

part in this debate without interruption from certain

members of the government side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If the members on the

government side would please allow the member for Victoria to have his

say, and if the member for Victoria would please direct his speech to

the Chair, I'm sure we'd have less interruption from the government

side.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not only did

the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) make an interjection, but

he also rose on his feet and made that interjection. That is a clear

breach of the standing orders, and if that practice is going to start

in this House it will lead to absolute chaos and anarchy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may just make an aside, Mr. Member for

Nelson-Creston, there is a saw-off in that both you and the Minister of

Forests stood up without acknowledging under what point of order you

were standing.

MR. NICOLSON: He did not indicate that he was on a point of order. That is my point.

MR. BLENCOE: What I'm trying to do at this late hour.... I

fully expect we'll be going through the night again. What I'm asking on

behalf of my constituents and I think many other British Columbians is

for this government to admit that perhaps the time has come to take

another look at certain pieces of legislation.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) discussed some

of his personal thoughts about wartime and what he went through. I

respect his words and his concerns. However, he decided to make an

attack on the NDP for trying to.... The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly)

was saying that perhaps there were some analogies that could be drawn

between other regimes and a certain history of what was happening with

this government. The minister took great exception to that. However, I

would remind the government and that minister that if they are students

of history they only have to take a look at where certain things

started in terms of governments that became extremely dictatorial and,

I believe, counterproductive in civilized societies. If you took at

your history, many of those jurisdictions started with things like Bill

3. When you have a government that seriously considers firings without

cause....

MR. PARKS: Have you read the bill and the amendment?

MR. BLENCOE: I've read the bill and other pieces of

legislation that eradicate or dramatically affect things like human

rights. If you take a look at your history, you have to say that it's

those kinds of moves that have led to other things. Those are the types

of pieces of legislation that I think the people of British Columbia

would like this government to reconsider. It's a reasoned amendment,

Mr. Speaker, at a time when British Columbians want a reasonable

approach to the problems of this province.

I would like to share with these members across the way what I have

said in the past: people of all political persuasions have become

deeply concerned with many of the pieces of legislation that are before

this House. Recently Victoria city councilI passed a resolution asking

the government to remove and take another took at Bill 3. The fact that

Victoria city council did that was interesting. I think it also

indicates that that local council had some deep reservations about what

the government was trying to do. But the most interesting fact is that

one of the members of that council is a man whom I respect highly, a

gentleman named Frank Carson. Alderman Carson is a man that I worked

with at the local level for many, many years. He is respected in Social

Credit circles. He voted for that motion. Mr. Carson is a

well-respected member of this community. He's a well-known Social

Credit member,

[ Page 1735 ]

Mr. Speaker. He has run for your party in Oak Bay. I believe that he

is a personal friend of the Premier. He has done a number of things for

this government in this local community, has represented your view on

many things and has taken a course of action on your behalf. Yet that

gentleman — perhaps one of the most well-known Social Credit people in

this region — asked you to reconsider Bill 3.

[8:45]

MR. PARKS: He is not in government.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'm trying to say that there are people on

all sides, in all walks of life and in all economic positions saying to

this government — and that's why you have a reasoned amendment before

you — that maybe, just maybe, you've gone a little too far. If you want

to accomplish certain things, you don't have to take a 2-by-4 and hit

people over the head to do it.

It's interesting that a most prominent Social Credit member in this

region — one of the most highly regarded people in this area — has

supported a resolution that asks the government to reconsider and

withdraw Bill 3. That's got to tell the government something. There are

other people. The Leader of the Opposition talked about Mr. Gary Begin,

one of your Social Credit candidates, who has said that if he had known

what you were going to do, he would never have run for you. I think

that's the real point. I think people, in their wisdom — the majority

of British Columbians — decided to vote the Social Credit government

back into office. That's their democratic right. They did that. But I

don't think the people of British Columbia voted for the various pieces

of legislation that you've brought before this House. I believe they

don't think you have a mandate to impact radically upon the very social

fabric of this province. I urge you to think again about what you want

to do.

Many have asked why the New Democratic Party has decided that it

feels so strongly about various pieces of legislation before this House

— and in particular, Bill 3.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: If the government would conduct business at a

normal hour, then we could get down to some normal business for the

people of British Columbia. But we have an abnormal government in

British Columbia at this time.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can give me some protection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: They don't want to hear these things, unfortunately.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I know you are new to that job. Mr. Speaker, but perhaps you could....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon. members on the government side

would please come to order, and the second member for Victoria would

direct his comments to the Chair and not to the galleries or to the

members, we might have less difficulty and fewer interjections.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I have been listening to the

member for Victoria addressing the Chair and not playing to the

galleries, but asking the government to make certain changes in

legislation that he finds absolutely intolerable. That isn't playing to

the galleries, and I feel that that was an unfair comment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Would the second member for Victoria please continue.

MR. BLENCOE: I was trying to say that we have an abnormal

government in some abnormal times, and it would appear that we are to

be forced into abnormal times, trying to debate various pieces of

legislation. That's unfortunate, because we still feel strongly that

what we should be doing is trying to debate the legislation in an

intelligent and forthright manner and to give you constructive

alternatives, When you decide to try to put legislation through this

House by wearing down Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in such a dramatic

and draconian fashion, it's very difficult to do certain things. This

is the very reason why this government should adjourn this House. They

will not listen to reason. They have gone beyond reason in the province

of British Columbia. They're beyond it; they're incapable of listening.

It's a very sad day for the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have approximately 14 minutes.

MR. BLENCOE: I alluded earlier to the fact that the

government has taken a lot of criticism from many sectors. One of the

critics I referred to is perhaps the most prominent Social Credit

member in this region, Mr. Frank Carson. The churches, however, have

also had a few words to say, and I'm not referring only to the Bishop

of Victoria, who is, I believe, a very fine gentleman. Many churches of

all denominations have had certain things to say.

When the Social Credit government, or any Socred, gets attacked by

the church, I know it really hurts. The former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett,

always felt that he was very close to the churches, and some very

famous quotes came from that gentleman about his affiliation with and

feeling for church organizations. I do not believe W.A.C. Bennett would

ever have incurred the wrath which this government has incurred from

caring people of all religious denominations across this province. He

would never have allowed it to happen. It hurts the Social Credit

government because they've always felt they've had a handle on the

church organizations. When the very groups who support them as a party

attack them at their roots, they know they are in trouble. That's the

reason I'm saying to take another look. Your own supporters are saying:

"Take another look."

Certain members of this government have attacked those church

organizations. They have attacked Bishop de Roo in particular as

somehow not fitting in with what the Catholic Church is saying today. I

have some very important statements from the Pope, and I would remind

this government that the Pope represents 400 million people. He talks

about labour and the rights of workers. I want to read what the Pope

[ Page 1736 ]

has to say on certain things, which I think is very

important as this government believes it has the support of churches

across this province.

In a recent encyclical entitled Laborem Exercens , he states:

"In order to achieve social justice in the various

parts of the world, in the various countries and in the relationships

between them, there is a need for ever new movements of solidarity of

the workers.... This solidarity must be present whenever it is called

for by the social degrading of the subject of work, by exploitation of

the workers, and by the growing areas of poverty and even hunger."

The Pope then goes on to talk about the priority of labour.

I imagine that some of these members are going to accuse the Pope

of being Marxist. That's the next line. This government has an

incredible capacity to call those who criticize their policies pinkos

and communists, or they dismiss them. That's what we've come to in this

province: disagree with the government and they tell you you're some

nut, or that you're far out. That's why we need to rethink. This

government is pitting one group against another and creating fear in

this province. They are creating political mileage by turning people

against each other, particularly people like public servants and

teachers.

This is what the Pope had to say about the priority of labour:

" Every human being sharing in the production process, even

if he or she is only doing the kind of work for which no special training or

qualifications are required, is the real efficient subject in the production

process.... The means of production, the whole collection of instruments,

no matter how perfect they may be in themselves — machines, factories, laboratories

and computers — are only a mere instrument subordinate to human labour."

The Pope is saying that workers and the work they do are superior to the profit motive.

The Pope goes on to talk about the rights of workers:

"The principle of the priority of labour over capital is

a postulate of the order of social morality.... From this spring certain

specific rights of workers corresponding to the obligation of work. The human

rights that flow from work are part of the broader context of the fundamental

rights of the person."

[9:00]

If there ever was a time in the history of this province for this government

to consider a reasoned amendment, to reconsider its legislation, to discuss

with the groups that represent all political thought in this province, that

time has come. If the government is prepared to do it, I am sure our party is

quite prepared to meet with whomever you wish. It could be a standing committee

for full discussion of certain aspects that have created concern in this province

— out of the heat of this arena so that we could enter into some sane and rational

discussion of the issues. I'm sure our party would consider that approach.

There has to be a new approach and a new attitude on the part of the

government. In my estimation and in the estimation of our party there

is a deep cynicism in this province that is spreading: that the

government is unprepared to listen to people who say, "Change your

course." Certain things that you want to accomplish may be acceptable,

but how you do it is critical; the end never justifies the means.

I'm just about finished. I'm not going to take my full time.

The NDP has decided that there are certain bills we cannot, in all

conscience, support, as they violate some fundamental democratic

rights. We've said that over and over again. Bill 3 is a violation of

the rights of public servants. No matter what you say about public

servants, they are human beings, and they are entitled to their rights

like anybody else.

The only recourse the New Democratic Party has is to try to say to

this government — indeed, it sometimes takes a long time — to rethink,

and also to let the community and the province know exactly what's

included in some of these pieces of legislation. If people took a look

at some of them, particularly Bill 3, in terms of the incredible

centralization of power in the hands of a few, it would further worry

the people of this province.

I said earlier, and I'm going to repeat it, that there is nothing

wrong with a government saying it wants to take another look. I think

we would all benefit by that. I think the people of this province would

certainly benefit by that. Maybe there are some fair, just and legal

ways to accomplish certain of the things you want to do.

The reasoned amendment is a serious one, and there's a time when

reason, intelligence and fairness have to come into play. I ask this

government to consider their actions and discuss with the people of

this province what they are doing, because I don't think they want many

of the things you support and want to introduce.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 11

Skelly

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

Macdonald

Barrett

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Nicolson

NAYS — 25

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Bennett

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Parks

Ree

Reynolds

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

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the reason that I and my caucus voted

for the adjournment is that we didn't feet that we should be sitting

here in the evening anyway. Consequently, before anybody gets too

comfortable on the government side....

Interjections.

[ Page 1737 ]

MR. PARKS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, It was my distinct

understanding that the hon. member for Coquitlam Moody was attempting

to reflect on a previous vote of this House. It is my understanding

that such actions would be out of order, and I would wish you to so

direct the hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam Moody will continue.

MR. ROSE: I would like to congratulate my colleague from

Maillardville-Coquitlam for a brilliant piece of deductive logic,

analytical thinking and knowledge of the rules. I hope that if I ever

get in trouble and I need somebody to protect me legally...

AN HON. MEMBER: From a traffic ticket.

MR. ROSE: ...from a traffic ticket, that he won't be my last resort.

I was attempting to explain to the House, not to reflect, and I

think there is a difference between an explanation and a reflection. If

you look in the mirror, that's a reflection. But if you look in the

mirror and the mirror asks you why you voted Socred, that's an

explanation you have to give. So I think there is a basic difference

between a reflection and an explanation.

[9:15]

I really wanted to launch into my little part of this evening's

performance having to do with the reason that we do not believe that we

should be subjected, as members, to this kind of shift work and

legislation by exhaustion. So we have voted and will continue to vote

against this kind of attempt on the part of the government to make

certain that you exhaust the opposition so that it will no longer be

able to perform its duty. That's what its job is in this House — not

merely to obstruct, which I've tried to explain many times.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Just a minute. That hon. member over there last

night was beautiful in his sensitivity. He was shouting "sleaze-bag"

across the hall at me for about 15 minutes. I don't know how he's

equipped in terms of his vocabulary, but I was trying to explain what I

thought was a kind of a sleazy approach in that particular bill to a

political formula having to do with what grants and what boards were

going to be asked either to add to their budgets or to take away

therefrom. The minister of noise pollution is in here again, as he

always is — the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) — whenever I

get up. I don't know. I think I bring out the worst in him. I think

he's probably a rather pleasant gentleman, and he's got a tremendous

workload. He's got a lot of things to do, and I suggest that he ought

to go and do them: or perhaps he might be quiet and listen for a little

bit, because I know that if he had a lot of students in his school who

behaved the way he has done tonight, he would certainly be very

concerned about them and would perhaps take some sort of disciplinary

measures. I don't know about that for certain, because I.... Well, I

was in his school one time, I think, in the great white north.

I think that the people in the audience should know that the only

way we have in the opposition of making our opposition known to the

public and to the people in the government is this way. We do not have

the option of sitting over there and shouting sweet nothings.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Seven people.

MR. ROSE: I see the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Schroeder) over there talking into his beard. He's raising his two

fingers, and he may want to leave the room. I suggest that he consult

the ex-principal, if that is permissible. He's drinking water in school

and, by god, he might be chewing gum, for all I know. Because that's

what he does most of the time, the Minister of Agriculture — chews his

gums. I don't know what he's talking about when he says "seven," but

there were 11 people here tonight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we please get back to the motion at hand on Bill 3.

MR. ROSE: I was talking about the motion and the business of

humanity and justice. The Minister of Agriculture was attempting to

harass me with obscene hand signals. We had seven of us showing up.

What I'd like to know is where the other four came from. We had 11

here, and we're only supposed to have seven. That's our team. The other

14 or 15 are waiting in the tunnel. We're going to wait until you

people go to sleep, like you did when you wrote this legislation. When

you go back to sleep.... I think that this is extremely serious. I

think that this is an extremely important amendment. It is not only a

reasoned amendment; it is a most reasonable amendment.

I hope that because I'm facetious, you don't think I'm foolish.

Because I don't think you'll be wise just because you're grave and

because you have a long face. I don't want to trivialize this debate.

The opposition has not trivialized the debate. It's the government that

has trivialized the debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're stalling, and that's all you're doing.

MR. ROSE: I want to make certain that the minister has his

usual opportunity to interrupt me, as he does about every two or three

minutes. He suggests we're stalling. We're doing what we have to do as

an opposition. We're taking the only course that we have left open to

us. If you have a stream-roller majority government, once it comes to a

vote, the government always wins. The government is stubbornly

determined to have this piece of legislation, amended or unamended —

although I understand there is an amendment proposed for it, with which

I will deal in a minute.... They're going to get it. It's just a matter

of time. It's just a little waiting game. What's the hurry? You have to

pay the Legislature anyway. What's the big rush? What's the mad rush to

get all this through? You want to legitimize those people that you're

going to savage on October 31: that's the reason. You've been doing it

without the legislation: firing people, laying them off, pink-slipping

them, putting them down, intimating them, whipping them, banging them

all over the place, ruining their security. What's the hurry? You're

destroying their mental and physical security. That's why we have this

amendment.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am going to attempt to read this amendment. I don't expect....

Oh, there goes the minister of noise pollution. The Minister of

Environment is leaving. He's leaving, and I am pleased to hear that. I

hope

[ Page 1738 ]

he doesn't make too much racket, because my office

is right next to him, and when I'm through with this, I want to have a

little snooze too. I hope he won't be beating up on anybody in there.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I'll stay to see if you ever come up with anything intelligent. I've been waiting for three months now.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, this administrator, this king of

intelligence tests, would probably not know what intelligence was if he

ran into it in the street. But in case he thinks he might get something

intelligent out of me, then I would welcome him to stay, because I hope

that maybe we could come to a meeting of minds, since we both share the

same kind of profession. I might be a little bit more glib than he is,

and he objects to that.... The other thing he was yelling across the House at me last night was that I was cute.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I never said that. I object. I won't go that far.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm pleased and relieved at that retraction,

because it would certainly make me nervous, considering that my office

is right next to his. If he has retracted that, it does my poor little

timorous heart a lot of good. I'll be able to sleep better tonight

knowing that he doesn't feel that way. But I think someone did, over

there in the corner. I think it might've been the member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf).

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That shows how much effect you have — I didn't even know you were there.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for speaking while the Minister of Environment is attempting to interrupt me.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: He's polluting the air; I'm going to check on it.

MR. ROSE: The minister of noise pollution has just come up

with his latest profound utterance. One of the things that bothers me

about this whole debate is that it's not a debate on a particularly

high level.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, you're doing the debating.

MR. ROSE: Well, I was just....

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's been a

long-standing custom of this House that members are honourable, and

therefore we refer to hon. members by their appropriate ministry, title

or constituency. I suggest that possibly the member for Coquitlam-Moody

should refer to the Minister of Environment, and Lands, Parks and

Housing, by his appropriate title to show his appropriate

responsibilities.

MR. ROSE: I would certainly like to thank the hon. member for

North Vancouver–Capilano for his advice and ammunition — or is it

admonition? Perhaps I made a mistake in calling it ammunition. I'm

sorry; I thought he was a big shot, or a man of large calibre, or

perhaps a huge bore. [Laughter.]

MR. PARKS: Where did you get your speaking notes from?

They're excellent — not the least bit relevant, but they're pretty

funny. The gallery loves it.

MR. ROSE: I think the gallery's entitled to something. After

all, the citizens of this province are getting hosed left and right by

politicians; they might as well get some fun out of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we please proceed with the debate on the amendment to the bill at hand.

MR. ROSE: What bill was that, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's William number three.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a motion, and

the motion is that Bill 3 be passed at second reading. But we have what

is called a reasoned amendment. It is not an unreasonable amendment;

that's why it's called a reasoned amendment. The amendment reads:

"That the motion be amended by leaving out all the

words following 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is

the opinion of this House that every consideration of humanity, justice

and policy demands that this Legislature oppose measures which would

encourage practices of political patronage through powers of arbitrary

dismissal of public employees.'"

I'd like to congratulate the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson)

for proposing that motion, because I think that he's really got to the

nub of our concerns. I think we should congratulate ourselves as well,

because it is our job, as I see it, to come and oppose this with all

the skills that we have, within the rules available to us. It would be

much simpler if we just folded. I can hardly name a member in the whole

House, even an honourable member, who wouldn't rather be somewhere else

this evening — especially when I'm speaking. But why are we here? Well,

we're here first of all because we were ordered to be here because of a

motion, to make certain that we have the legislative process proceed —

by exhaustion, by force, by powers of numbers or by the tyranny of the

majority if necessary. Otherwise we would all be somewhere doing other

things that might be even more productive than what we're doing. But

our job is to oppose legislation and we're here to do just that; we

don't do this in any sense of frivolity and we don't wish to trivialize

it. We want to do our job. It would be much simpler for everybody

concerned if we just shut up.

I don't know if anybody out there in the great outside, in the Great

White North or wherever, even knows what is going on in here or cares

very much. But it doesn't take a great mass of people to care. The

people who are supposed to care are the people who were sent here to do

just exactly what we're doing now. It would be much easier, more

ordered and fun for everybody concerned if we could get together and

cooperate on a piece of legislation, as a municipal council might do,

where we didn't have hard and fast party lines, where all the bad guys

were sitting over there — with their headsets on — and all the good

guys were over here. The bad guys think the good guys are bad guys and

vice versa. I don't think that gets us anywhere. That isn't the way we

work. We're locked into a system that is so old, traditional,

inflexible and historic that we even continue, in spite of the fact

that we don't wear

[ Page 1739 ]

swords any more, to have our seats two

sword-lengths apart to keep us away from one another's throats, chests,

groins or whatever might be handy to a sword.

MR. REID: We're not. We're on this side.

MR. ROSE: Well, not on your side. As a matter of fact, I was

thinking of having a barrier put up there — perhaps an electric fence.

I find that my friends over there in the "Loyal Rump" really are my

friends. I'm not intimidated by them, except when they start yelling at

me. I'm really more worried about them when they're not yelling at me

because then I have to maybe proceed with a written speech, which I

find very difficult.

What I'm saying is it would be nice if we could all cooperate and

work out the best systems. In my experience in political life, aside

from municipal council, I have never yet found a parliament where that

kind of cooperation is generally possible.

[9:30]

So we proceed with these pejorative motions, suggesting that this bill is inhumane

— notice that I'm getting back to the bill and the amendment, Mr. Speaker —

and somehow unjust. The amendment refers to its injustice and its blind, short-sighted

policies. We can't work it out together here because in spite of the reasonableness

not only of this amendment but of a number of others, the government does not

accept it. It's our job to oppose things often when we don't really

need to oppose them that much. I can give you some examples of that in this

most recent session. We had to oppose things that we didn't really feel

we wanted to oppose — things that we ultimately voted for and will vote for

— because we felt that the only way we could gain time to give the public a chance

to know how serious, how vile, how pernicious some of this legislation is was

to blockade the whole package. I would like a system in which we could work

together on behalf of British Columbians.

This is what my colleague the second member was talking about. He

said: "The time for rancour and name-calling may be over — or should

be." I don't think it will happen. The only experience I've ever had in

my political life, aside from municipal council, where we worked

together to try and sort out certain kinds of problems was when we had

task forces on particular issues. I was a member of a task force on

alternative energy. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

was one of the few people who took the trouble to make a presentation

to this, and I congratulate him. He was also one of the few people who

took the trouble to make a presentation to the MacDonald commission.

The members of that task force consisted of four Liberals, two Tories

and one New Democrat. We all worked together; we didn't try playing any

funny stunts to upstage one another in front of certain kinds of media.

There were task forces on the disabled and a number of others about two

years ago, when the federal House operated that way. They did excellent

work and came up with excellent reports.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sure both sides of the House

find your comments most laudatory. But if you would, please restrict

your words to the debate at this time, which is on the reasoned

amendment of Bill 3.

MR. ROSE: One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that people in my

party think that this motion is worth supporting is that we're

concerned about Bill 3 and its effect on humanity and justice. We think

it's actually going to encourage political patronage. I would like to

elucidate and give a few examples of why we think this may be the case.

What we've seen here in this bill and in a number of other bills

associated with this bill is the fact that any form of opposition that

exists out there and is publicly institutionalized, such as the Human

Rights Commission, has been cancelled or effectively strangled. In the

past college boards were elected, and that system worked particularly

well and was a unique part of the British Columbia tradition. We notice

that those college boards are now going to be entirely appointed by the

Minister of Education, and we're concerned that that kind of approach

leads not only to political patronage but also to a complete absence of

any kind of opposition or alternative thinking on the part of those

college boards. We think that those positions that were once elected

will now be appointed. I would point out the words because I notice

you're getting a bit restless, Mr. Speaker. You seem to be seeking a

little bit of advice from the ex-Speaker, the bearded Minister of

Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're right. I am getting a bit restless.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, with all humility and respect I suggest you not do that, because you're disturbing that minister's slumber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, hon. member, I would expect that your

comments with respect to other legislation before this House are

somehow setting the stage for you getting back to the matter before the

House at this moment, which, of course, is the reasoned amendment. I'm

sure you will do that, and I will cease being restless once you have.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, you just took the words out of my

mouth, because I was attempting to relate how this measure, if allowed

to proceed, will lead to subtle forms of political patronage, or at

least a possibility of such.

I was also going on to say that part of the package of which Bill 3

is a member contains some other measures which affect publicly funded

advocacy groups — I speak of the rentalsman, the Human Rights

Commission and the college boards. A

section in this bill permits

someone to be fired without cause, as an example of how people can be

intimidated to say only the right things — if you like, to spout only

the party line. That really concerns our party.

I don't think it's fair to trivialize it. I notice that when my

colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), was attempting

to put forward the same kind of proposal that I am — that we find ways

to cooperate and compromise — a substitute for serious political debate

was catcalls and ridicule. That's all he got for his very conscientious

and serious attempt to put forward some way out of this morass, this

abyss, this Mexican standoff in which we find ourselves. I think as

politicians and citizens of British Columbia we owe it to the people of

British Columbia not merely to oppose. A stubborn opposition, a

stubborn public and a stubborn government cannot be good for our

province. It can lead to all kinds of things, including political chaos.

[ Page 1740 ]

When you have political chaos then you have the situation where a

dictator or some strong man moves in and then there isn't any

opposition. It would be much nicer if we had some kind of reasoned

opposition where we debated what we had to do, made suggestions, found

those suggestions were acceptable — if they were any good — and adopted

them without the fear that somehow it showed weakness if you adopted

some suggestion that came from a member from the opposition, from

outside or even from a trade union or a church group.

We've been through about two and a half months of what I think has

probably been — in my recollection — one of the stormiest times in our

recent history. There has been a dramatic turn in the direction of the

government from what we've had over the past generation, when we had,

in effect, labour peace, a social contract in which there prevailed an

understanding, if not explicit at least implicit, in which working

people and their government worked together to provide themselves with

the kind of safety net — security measures, if you like — things that

make us civilized such as measures like the Human Rights Commission to

protect human dignity, to protect visible minorities against bigotry,

to protect people against discrimination in housing, employment,

education or whatever. We developed a whole series of these measures,

including safety net measures and social welfare, help for abused

children, opportunities for training and legal aid for people who

needed it and couldn't afford it. Then all of a sudden in early July it

all went out the window. Naturally there's going to be a reaction, Mr.

Speaker.

People can only take a certain pace of change. By tradition we are

not revolutionary. Canada has always been built on consensus. We have

never gone through the bloodbath of a revolution, as did the French and

the Americans and a number of other countries. Consequently we found

that as we evolved we developed a consensus, which is what we have in

Canada and which has been admired throughout the world. If, in spite of

all the things that we say to one another and about one another and the

difficulties and the viciousness, if you like, of the legislation, and

no matter how much we use these highly emotional words, if you ask most

people in the world where they would like to live, it will still be

Canada. We should never forget that. If we have to make our choices, it

will still be Canada. But with Bill 3 and the other measures that are

contained in this package of 26, including the dirty dozen, it will not

be quite the same Canada we have come to know.

That is what bothers people more than anything else. They didn't

expect it. They didn't expect that one day, suddenly, the rug would be

pulled from beneath them and all the things that they thought — all the

assumptions that they made about their society — were suddenly going to

be removed. When I say "all," I'm exaggerating. They haven't all been

removed, but there has been a sudden shock and a sudden change of

immense proportions — at least proportions that are much larger than

people anticipated. They are not used to them and they are not ready

for them. They react that way. There are people who get sufficiently

emotionally involved to occupy a cabinet building down in Vancouver.

There are also people who are going to become emotional enough not to

do what the Filipinos have done because of Ferdinand Marcos, but

certainly they are going to be upset enough to make their views known.

They aren't going to be burning buses or bras or anything like that,

but they are certainly going to take to the streets and rally

peacefully and let people know how they feel about things — even if it

is a simple thing. I don't mean to trivialize it or degrade it, even if

it is a relatively simple thing, but it's very big for many school

teachers to take job action and have a study session in Prince George

today. A lot of people may think that's a dumb move, but what else can

they do now for four or five years? There is no such thing as recall.

In the United States we have a system called recall. When there is

inhumane legislation that leads to patronage or the absence of social

justice....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm going to call you to order.

For the benefit of the entire House I'm going to read a part of Sir

Erskine May that pertains to reasoned amendments. Personally I feel

that the hon. member has been digressing somewhat extensively beyond

the principle of the reasoned amendment and hence this course of

action. The sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 531, reads: "The

principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The

amendment must strictly relate to the bill, which the House, by its

order, has resolved upon considering and must not include in its scope

other bills then standing for consideration by the House."

I would suggest that means that we will be listening to debate on

this amendment purely pertaining to Bill 3 and not to any other bills

before the House at this time. With that direction, hon. member, please

continue your debate on the reasoned amendment on Bill 3.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think your

excerpt from May related to the fact that the motion had to be in

order. The motion had to relate directly to the bill. The motion has

been found to be in order or else we wouldn't be debating it. On the

question of whether or not I was doing a few figure eights round the

edges of the bill, I must admit that sometimes I did digress a Iittle

bit. I will certainly bring every power of my intellect to bear on

remaining in order. But I have a certain sort of respect and even

humility about the powers of my particular intellect. Therefore I might

be caught out again, but I will certainly do my best not to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair and I'm sure the rest of the House will appreciate that.

[9:45]

MR. MICHAEL: I do.

MR. ROSE: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), just took his marriage vows again.

I don't think people should be blamed unduly because they react to

the inhumanity found in Bill 3 and also in the amendment or to the

injustice of being fired without cause. They react and protest because

that is the duty of a citizen in a democracy, within the confines of

the law. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who was once a very active

person in a number of causes and may still be, would agree with me.

When we have a system of injustice or intolerance or somebody is

struggling for better working conditions or higher wages or whatever,

it is his duty as a citizen to work not only by himself but also with

his fellows and his peers to seek redress from that injustice, in any

legal and peaceful manner. That's what people are doing. They're

reacting to the injustices they see in this, because they're concerned

about the ultimate. What is the ultimate?

The ultimate is that people are going to be so whipped into line by the absolute removal of opposition, from normal

[ Page 1741 ]

sources such as the school boards.... And you say:

"Why would that occur?" Because in Bill 3 there's a $2,000 fine if

you're not good boys and girls. They're going to be concerned about

this if, for instance, they're nurses or policemen. Again, policemen

and nurses — I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will be interested — and

dozens of people fall under this and can be influenced by political

patronage. If that doesn't square with the amendment, Mr. Speaker.... I

don't know whether you have a copy there before you, but I'm doing my

best to keep right on it, and I am.

Who are these people who are going to be affected by this? Board of

Parks and Recreation under the Vancouver Charter. If the poor people on

the board don't do what they're supposed to, they might get a $2,000

fine. The B.C. Assessment Authority. What if a powerful politician

doesn't like the assessment on his land or building? Can the assessor

be fired without cause? Could this lead to silencing opposition or to

political patronage? I submit that that's a possibility. This is what

the motion suggests. Now, Mr. Speaker, you're going to say to me:

"Well, we've got an amendment to fix up all that." I know if you were

in your seat over there instead of that big chair, Mr. Speaker, that's

one of the things you'd be saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not as Speaker.

MR. ROSE: I know. At least I know how to read Erskine May.

What if I were a member of the B.C. Buildings Corporation or the

B.C. Development Corporation? Supposing I turned down a grant to a

Socred businessman: he wanted it badly, and he knew some people. Under

those conditions, is it possible that political patronage could be the

result? Mr. Speaker, that's not an irrelevant question; it's not an

insignificant question, nor is it a trivial question.

MR. MICHAEL: Nor is it a logical question.

MR. ROSE: I'm always logical, Mr. Speaker, unless I can avoid it.

What if I were a member of the B.C. Ferry Corporation? Supposing I

was a deckhand, or something like that, and I was putting up signs in

Shuswap-Revelstoke or North Vancouver–Capilano, or somewhere, and

somebody who saw me didn't like me. Could I be fired without just

cause? Is that a possibility? What would you do, Mr. Speaker?

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I

recollect an earlier ruling of the Chair, the member speaking to the

reasoned amendment is not permitted to read the list on the bill. Maybe

you would be kind enough to remind him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair remembers a similar ruling some

hours beforehand, based upon the practice of this House. I would ask

the hon. member to desist from doing it.

MR. ROSE: I think I'm permitted to read the list, Mr.

Speaker, provided I table it at the conclusion of my speech, and I'm

prepared to do that.

I'm attempting to set up an argument in which I am asserting the possibility of a number of people....

We have a vast network of people working for the public service. I know

this is of concern to the members opposite. They think that 25 percent

of them should be gone. That really concerns the 25 percent of them who

might be gone, too. So it could be a lengthy list that I have here, but

I think it's important for members of the House to know the magnitude

of the problem and how far into every town, hamlet, village or little

burg the long arm of the government can reach in this way. This is very

sinister. This is something we should all be concerned about.

The Housing Management Commission, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Institute of

Technology, British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, B.C. Railway, B.C.

Steamship Company — the good old Marguerite

— B.C. Systems Corporation — as long as we have it: before we give it

away, like we give away most things — B.C. Transit System, B.C.

Utilities Commission, Capital Regional Hospital District, City of

Vancouver, Compensation Stabilization Commissioner, Greater Campbell

River Water District....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, hoping to assist you in the fact

that you have less than three minutes remaining, perhaps you could

leave the list and go back to some of your very logical and interesting

discussion on the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I think I've said enough to indicate that there is

a very large measure of concern out there about the direction which

this bill is taking. While we no longer have in it the two offending

words "without cause," we've got an amendment before us that I don't

find particularly reassuring. We've got the offending words "without

cause" removed, but we'll now limit the firings to situations where the

employer — meaning the government — has insufficient funds, or where

there's a reduction or elimination of specific programs or a shortage

of work. So those three particular things are supposed to cover it all

up and reassure us. I know that the public sector really feared the

"without cause" provision. It made teachers and police and others on

the hit list — of the list that I mentioned, because they're all

possible candidates for the hit list....

In conclusion, when we recall that the three things that are

justification for termination are insufficient funds, reduction or

elimination of specific programs or a shortage of work, I ask you this:

could a teacher be fired without cause, for instance, if he dared to

campaign against an incumbent school board member? Could a pro-choice

nurse be fired without cause if she campaigned against a pro-life

hospital board member? Could a policeman be fired if he uncovered some

evidence embarrassing to a crooked politician? I ask you this. They're

going to continue. You want to get rid of a politically active teacher?

Simple. Eliminate her program. You'd like to axe a pro-choice nurse?

Plead insufficient hospital funds. You want to nail a nosey cop? All

you have to do is assert a shortage of work. So what we've got is a

distinction without a difference, and this party is not buying it.

MR. MITCHELL: When we started this sitting earlier on this

evening, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) was the

leadoff speaker. I'm sorry he is not here, because I want to say that

when I sat here and listened to that minister wrap himself into the

flag of patriotism, I was sick. I represent a riding, Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew, that has more military personnel per capita, who have more

medals....

To listen to this man talk about patriotism.... I say this about the

Battle of Britain. When he condemned the social democrats, known there

as the Labour Party, he failed to mention that the government that led

Britain through that war

[ Page 1742 ]

was a coalition government of both Conservative and

Labour. Clement Atlee, at that time, was the Deputy Prime Minister of

Britain. I would like to say that when you do have problems, and you

have problems of the magnitude that Britain faced in that war, you use

the talents of every person from every political sector. You use the

ability of all the country to mobilize and find the answers that are

needed to solve the problems. As my colleague said earlier, when we

have the problem that we face today, you're not going to solve that

problem by smashing one

section of the workforce. You're not going to

create the atmosphere that will pull us out of this depression by

putting more people out of work.

I listened to the minister tell how he immigrated to Canada. I

didn't immigrate to Canada. I was born here, but my parents immigrated

to Canada in 1912, for the same reason everyone else has come to this

country: because it is one of the greatest countries and one of the

richest. With the work of the people of this country it can be the

greatest. You are not going to make it great by destroying one group,

by pitting one against another.

I listened to the attacks on the public service personnel that this

bill and this amendment deal with; you say, what about those in the

private sector? Having worked in both the private and the public

sectors, I can say without any hesitation that whatever sector I worked

for, I worked. The money I earned went back out into the community,

because the community was paying my wages. It didn't make any

difference whether they were paying me as a construction worker or as

police officer; they were paying me for the service I was performing.

If the services are needed, then the community is prepared to pay. You

don't attack people; you work with people.

I listened to that minister and many government members stand up and

talk about the great May 5 election, and I'd like to reminisce a little.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, while you are reminiscing, I

would ask you to attempt to get a little closer to the principle of the

motion. As long as you tie in your reminiscing in some way, I think

that would be in order, but in the last four or five minutes I don't

believe you have.

[10:00]

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was definitely

getting back to humanity and justice; that is in the amendment. I know

you are going to allow me a little of the same leeway you allowed the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) in reminiscing about

the years during the Second World War when he lived in Britain. I know

you're going to allow me that same latitude.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: When I first became a political activist, I

used to come down to this House and sit up in the gallery. That is one

of the reasons I personally like the night sittings: because they

allowed people like me to come down and see and bear what is happening

in the capital city of British Columbia. I sat in those galleries in

1946, 1947, 1948. I participated as a worker in the election of 1949,

when the coalition government was returned to this House with 40 seats

out of 48. I remember sitting up in the gallery, looking down at that

little rump group of seven CCFers and one independent labour member,

and hearing the catcalls and the ridicule that came from the 40 members

who sat as the coalition: how they bragged about demolishing the then

CCF; how they laughed and ridiculed and said they were the greatest.

That was in 1949. In 1950 there was a by-election. In one short year,

because of the policies, and the ridicule, and the power that that

government had.... They had absolute power. Mr. Speaker, as an

ex-serviceman, you know as well as I do that absolute power corrupts

absolutely. Within a year there was a vacancy in that House, and I was

chosen as the candidate in 1950-51. I knocked on doors throughout the

Esquimalt riding. I talked and I listened.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Although the

story that the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is telling is

very interesting and probably has a lot of merit, it will probably

eventually end in his telling us how it was that he personally got to

this House. But I'm having a very difficult time ascertaining how on

earth it has anything even remotely to do with the principle of the

amendment now before this House.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe

that the remarks being made by the hon. member for Esquimalt are in

order, according to the amendment to the motion. The amendment talks

about the consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands, and

that's a pretty broad-ranging debate. I think it's beneficial to the

debate to hear a person who's had so many years in public life tell us

about the history of this province. We can then better understand the

humanity, the justice and the policy demands that have been in this

province before us so we can better make up our minds. I think he's

absolutely to the point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, the meat of the motion

before us reads: "...which would encourage practices of political

patronage through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees." I

beseech you, Mr. Speaker, to tell me how the debate which we have heard

from that member in the last 15 minutes has anything to do with

encouraging practices of political patronage, or anything to do with

arbitrary dismissal of public employees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter of relevancy, hon. members, is, I

would suggest, sometimes somewhat difficult to determine. But as I said

earlier today, the hon. member on his feet at the moment has been

around this assembly for quite some time and I'm sure he's aware of the

requirements for relevancy in these matters. Perhaps the Chair might

just ask him if he would please try and bring his remarks a little

closer to the reasoned amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: Before I get back to the debate, I hope this interjection will not be taken off my 40 minutes.

What I am getting to — and it's quite obvious in this reasoned

amendment — is the political patronage. I just can't understand that

ex-judge who can't read something that is very.... The practices of

political patronage are what I was getting to, Mr. Speaker, when I said

that in 1950-51, when I was knocking on doors in Esquimalt. I was

hearing of the political patronage that was taking place under that

powerful coalition government. As you all know, I was elected as a

result of that election. I came from the galleries down into the fourth

seat up in the back row. What I'm saying, and I repeat it, is those

were the exact same words of the Minister of

[ Page 1743 ]

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) when he was

standing in his place here at the beginning of this sitting: that they

won the election, they are going to govern, and the 45 percent of the

voting public that our group represents will be forgotten. Go back into

history and read what happened in 1952, when that powerful coalition

government went back to the people. They were wiped out. Only nine were

returned in the '52 election. And by the time we got to the '53 general

election, there wasn't one of them left. Neither was I. But I'm saying

that it is not who wins the election, it is the policies the government

in power institutes that keep them in power.

Let's go back to that election of May 5. I think it's important when

we're dealing with political patronage, humanity, justice, to go over

some of the programs that the Social Credit Party campaigned on. I

wouldn't like to take anything but the facts. I know I can't hold this

up, but for your benefit it is a full-page ad out of a Vancouver paper,

put in by Social Credit, asking the voters of Vancouver–Little Mountain

to vote for the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and

for the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). I'd

just like to read some of the facts that this government campaigned on.

I'll read it right out of the government's own ads that they presented

to the public.

It starts off: "Good jobs are made by hard work, not by wishful

thinking." I find it interesting. "Grace McCarthy spearheaded the

programs that turned tourism into the third largest industry in British

Columbia. Grace McCarthy was made Deputy Premier because of the work

she has been doing in the areas of health, housing and economic

recovery, work that must be allowed to continue."

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing

I would like better than to have that member read that ad in this

House, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the

amendment now before this House. I would ask that under standing order

43 you once again, possibly for the last time, ask this member to come

to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I would hope the hon.

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, if he persists in reading from the

article, would relate it to the amendment before us. Anticipating that

this is what you are about to do, I would ask you to continue.

MR. MITCHELL: It definitely relates to this bill. This is

Bill 3, and the amendment we are debating now is part of Bill 3. Bill 3

relates to public servants in the province of British Columbia, and

this is what I'm relating to.

As I said, I will read it out, especially for the member for

Omineca: "...Deputy Premier because of the work she was doing in

health" — that is a public service — "housing and economic recovery."

All of these things are facts put together by the employees of the

public service of this province. It definitely ties into what the bill

is about. This was before May 5. After the election, what happened to

the Deputy Premier? She was fired as Deputy Premier. This is the whole

issue of this campaign, the issue of what this bill is doing, This bill

is part of a package that is part of the budget debate. It is phony. It

is as phony as this ad that the Deputy Premier was going to come from

the great riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain. But she was fired.

I'll go on to another one which I think is really interesting. I'm

sorry that the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain is not here.

It talks about the great things he has done.

"Doug Mowat's contribution to the community is genuine."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, just before you continue, I think the hon. member is aware of the fact that we do not name names in this assembly.

MR. MITCHELL: You're right. I'm just reading....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a moment

ago the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) drew your attention to standing

order 43, which directs that the Chairman or the Speaker, "after having

called the attention of the House...to the conduct of a member, who

persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own

arguments or of the arguments used by other members...may direct him to

discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr.

Speaker shall name him." Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member

for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is persisting in irrelevance — not only

entering into irrelevance, but persisting in irrelevance. Mr. Speaker,

I would ask you to consider taking the available remedies which are

within your power as Speaker under standing order 43.

[10:15]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with the point of

order which you yourself raised, perhaps earlier, before the one just

raised by the House Leader. The point of order was that the member was

using the name of an hon. member rather than title, but it has long

been held as practice that when you are quoting a newspaper article, or

reading information, that is permissible; in fact the only reasonable

thing one can do is to actually read it as it is written down in the

material being quoted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that matter has come up before, hon.

member, but I think perhaps it is also a matter of degree. If there is

a persistence about it, I think then it's changed somewhat. So I would

leave that also up to the discretion of the hon. member.

The member for Omineca rises on another point of order?

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you

know, I'm a generous man, and I took no exception to the fact that the

hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was using names. What I took

exception to was the fact that the material in which those names

appeared had absolutely nothing to do with the amendment to Bill 3

before the House tonight. I agree with the hon. Minister of Health that

unless that member is brought to order in regard to relevance as laid

down in standing order 43 in the standing orders of this House.... I would ask that you take appropriate action.

MR. NICOLSON: Now that we're dealing with the second point of

order. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that rather wide scope was

established on this particular motion when the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) started canvassing the Second World War, the

Labour Party, his alleged....

Interjection.

[ Page 1744 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Well, perhaps it was started by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), but certainly the debate that I heard....

I'll apologize for the interruption, Mr. Speaker. There has been rather

broad scope established in this particular debate, and it would be

rather regrettable if suddenly one particular member were singled out

for a practice established by others preceding him.

DEPUTY MINISTER: Thank you, hon. member. I hear what you're saying.

Yes, you are probably quite correct. I have heard quite a bit of the debate

that has come forward on this reasoned amendment. But may I suggest that perpetuating

a thing like this is really not going to accomplish anything. There is a requirement

to follow the rules, and there is a very hard and fast rule about relevancy

in debate. I think there has been enough discussion. I think all hon. members

are aware of the requirement for relevancy, and once more I would ask that the

hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew please try to the utmost of his ability

to make his remarks relevant to this amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate your attitude,

and I know that you're going to allow me to refer to the first speaker

of this sitting this evening. When he stood there and waved the Waffle

Manifesto around.... He waves it around with every speech he makes

in this House. For four years I have watched him wave the Waffle

Manifesto around as if it is something we are responsible for. When he

waves that around, the Speaker of the House allows it. And you have one

of the new acting Speakers try to do a closure on me? If you're going

to have law in this House, set down by the Speaker, if he allows

certain actions as related to certain bills, and if the Waffle

Manifesto is all right but Social Credit ads are not, then I say that

you're not going to pull closure on me. The Minister of Health knows

that, and I know that you're going to protect me. The member for

Omineca has lots of fun in trying to put me off-stride. I'll tell you,

Mr. Speaker, that that member will not put me off-stride.

I would like to make that one reference and then I'll put this away.

Dealing with the second member, it talks of the great work that he did

with the Human Rights Commission. What does this bill relate to? This

bill relates to the firing of all the employees of the Human Rights

Commission. They campaigned before May 5 on human rights and on the

great work that the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr.

Mowat) did, and then they bring in a bill — Bill 3, which we have

amended, asking for humanity and justice. The Minister of Municipal

Affairs kept referring to this great May 5 election. The May 5 election

was based on fraud, deception and propaganda.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we are

going to have that kind of definition, that the election campaign was

based on fraud and deception, perhaps it should also go into the record

that the perpetrators of that lost the election.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The member will please continue.

MR. MITCHELL: If I lost the election, I guess I should be

thrown out. Maybe that's a way of getting rid of me. I believe, if you

took at the first day of this session, there is a bill on public orders

that said I was elected, that I won this election.

I'd just like to get back to my program. I'm glad the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing is in here, because I hope to get around to

him, if I don't have so many interruptions from the member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf) and those others.

Let's read another Social Credit ad: "B.C. jobs depend on a

government which supports restraint." What does it say? I won't read

the name. "The Premier's government has led the country with programs

of restraint on government spending and restraint on public sector

wages. These programs have been accepted as fair and equitable and have

helped to reduce the spiral of increased costs in both the public and

private sectors." These programs have been accepted as fair and

equitable. This is not my speech; I'm reading from Social Credit

advertisements.

What are these programs? They are embodied in Bill 3, where you can

literally be fired without cause. These are the programs that the

government campaigned on before May 5, but the program that this

government is bringing in is just as rotten and rough and brutal as the

programs that the coalition government brought in between '49 and '52,

when they were wiped out of the political history of the province of

British Columbia.

I'll go into other ads. I have a lot of ads. I like to keep them,

because I know that the ads that the government party campaigns on are

not the programs the government brings in. Here's one on ending ferry

strikes and saving jobs, which says: "We believe the unions involved

should be given an alternate means of resolving their labour-management

disputes so that they can keep the ferries running." That's what they

campaigned on, but what are they doing? They're bringing in a piece of

legislation that can threaten them and cause fear so that they will

submit and bow down and be walked over. The campaign was that they

should have alternative means. There have not been any alternative

means. They have brought in a hammer to hammer the workers who are

working in the public sector. It's interesting to go through these.

Here's another one. This is from the Social Credit candidate in the

capital city of British Columbia. He went through the typical Social

Credit Party propaganda that came out prior to the election. "Job

creation plans, security for present jobs...." That's one of the

campaign promises of the Social Credit Party in the capital city of

Victoria. "...emergency health centres: no increases in user pay." The

one that's really interesting says: "Fairness for renters. The renter's

tax credit should be reinstated immediately by the re-elected Social

Credit government."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please, hon. member. I'll only

take a moment of your time, but I would like to read, particularly for

those who sit in opposition in this House who are speaking to this, the

resolution which came forward from your own member. This resolution

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

of humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose

measures which would encourage practices of political patronage through

powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees." Having said that,

hon. members, I would like once again to direct your attention,

especially that of the speaker, to standing order 43, which deals with

the very important matter of relevancy.

[ Page 1745 ]

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I know you are not taking any

directions from any of the back bench or the cabinet, but everything I

have said has referred to this bill. Everything I have said refers to

Bill 3.

MR. KEMPF: Tell us how.

MR. MITCHELL: The renter's tax credit is dispensed by public

servants. The rentalsman department is part of public employees. This

is dealt with in the Public Sector Restraint Act, and the amendment is

to that bill. I have to keep on repeating it because I know you are a

slow learner, but I know the Speaker is a man of compassion, a man of

integrity and a man of a lot of ability. I keep on getting interrupted.

I find it hard that this government really is afraid to have some of

the facts that they presented to the public before May 5 brought to the

attention not only of this House but of those wonderful people who come

down and listen to us, those wonderful people who read Hansard ,

the press who are sitting in their little cubbyholes listening to what

is going on in here. Every time I get started on a particular program,

we have completely spurious interruptions from a certain member who has

appointed himself as my number one heckler. I really don't think he is

very effective.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? Mein Kempf?

MR. MITCHELL: I was going to comment on that, but I really don't think it would be appropriate.

I'll carry on with this wonderful amendment that one of my

colleagues presented to this House, after he set, I believe, some type

of record for speaking continuously to one bill. He was not allowed the

normal interruptions and release from the arduous task of standing here

hour after hour, Mr. Speaker.

[10:30]

MR. KEMPF: Point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: You sit down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't really think you're

persisting in this, but you are certainly giving me the impression that

you're having a great deal of difficulty getting back to the amendment.

We do have an hon. member standing on a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: Regardless of the points of order that I have

stood on before, I would ask, Mr. Speaker. that you ask that member who

has just taken his place how he can relate the debate of the last five

minutes to the amendment before us. Just to assist you, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to read from the standing order that I have cited, standing

order 43, which in part reads....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have the standing order right in front of me, hon. member.

MR. KEMPF: I'd like to read it, nevertheless, for other

members of this House who apparently have not read standing order 43

and for the edification of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, whom

I have on occasion seen with a rule book, but I'm not sure that he can

read it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is the duty of the Chair to

apply the standing orders of this House, and I think that it follows

that if the Chair sees a requirement that a standing order be read, the

Chair should also read it. I certainly appreciate your concern, and I

appreciate your trying to help the Chair, but I’m well aware of this

standing order and I'm going to bring this for the last time.... This

is the last time, hon. member; I've been much too lenient. If you

persist in not speaking to the amendment, I will have to ask you to

discontinue your speech. Also, your time is almost up.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I did ask that these continual

interjections from the member for Omineca not be deducted from my time.

I know the Premier won't let you get up and talk, so all you do is work

out your frustrations by harassing the members who are getting up to

speak on this debate, who are bringing the facts and the truth to this

debate. Mr. Speaker, when I was so rudely interrupted by the member for

Omineca, I referred to my colleague who presented this amendment and I

was going to read the amendment that he presented. I really can’t see

why I've been continually harassed. They attempted closure to try to

cut me off in debate, and I never got around to bringing some facts to

the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), because it

directly came to this particular amendment that I would like to read....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but your time is up.

MR. MITCHELL: You're not going to allow me to deduct the time that the...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry. hon. member. You time is up, according to the official....

MR. MITCHELL: That's a type of closure you're doing. I thank you for your persistent support of me and for holding me from that wild man.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refresh my memory and

others in the House by just going briefly over the amendment so we

understand what we're talking about. The motion basically says that "it

is the opinion of this House that every consideration of humanity,

justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose measures which

would encourage practices of political patronage through powers of

arbitrary dismissal of public employees." It says that we want to

oppose measures which would encourage practices. So what are those

measures that we would oppose?

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

Through this debate we have talked on this side about the need for cooperation

among different sectors of the province in order to pull in unison toward an

economic recovery. When we talk on the bill the members opposite will say to

us, either in debate or by remarks across the floor, "Where would you get

the money?" implying that the measures that they are taking and that we

are opposing in this amendment are correct measures. What are those measures?

First of all I think it's germane to the debate, Mr. Speaker, that we take

a look at a little bit of history to see what conservatives were saying during

the last depression, to see whether anything has changed. They talk about neo-conservatism

in this country

[ Page 1746 ]

and in this nation and in North America and in

Great Britain. But really it isn't neo-conservatism; it is old

conservatism with neo-faces. In 1932 in the United States they had a

conservative government and a conservative President by the name of

Herbert Hoover. I'd like to read a short excerpt about the Depression

and what Mr. Hoover, that arch-conservative, had to say and to see

whether or not there isn't just a ring of what we're hearing today from

these neo-conservatives, and to see whether we don't have almost

exactly the same situation going on now in the province.

As for the leader of the government's executive branch, when the

bonus marchers begged Herbert Hoover to receive a delegation of their

leaders he sent word that he was too busy. He wouldn't meet with them.

Sound reminiscent? Reinforced police patrols surrounded the White

House. Barricades were erected to close nearby streets to traffic. A New York Daily News

headline proclaimed: "Hoover Locks Self in White House." In July the

President had the army, with fixed bayonets and tear gas, drive the

veterans out of Washington. He handled the Depression with equal

firmness. I'm a little behind 1932, but it's leading up to that. In

December 1929 he had said: "Conditions are fundamentally sound."

Remember the Premier coming back from Japan, being met at the airport

and asked about the depression that we were afraid was developing in

the province? He said: "Nothing to worry about. Everything is perfectly

sound." As everyone else knew we were heading into a depression, the

Premier was still insisting that everything was economically sound and

there was nothing to worry about.

In March 1930 he said the the worst would be over in 60 days. In May

he predicted that the economy would be back to normal in autumn. In

June, in the midst of still another market plunge, he told a delegation

which called the White House to plead for a public works project:

"Gentlemen, you have come 60 days too late. The Depression is over."

In his December 2, 1930, message to Congress he said: "The

fundamental strength of the economy is unimpaired." When asked why that

was so, when so many unemployed men were selling apples on street

corners, he said: "Many people have left their jobs for the more

profitable one of selling apples." His secretary noted that the

President was beginning to regard some criticism as unpatriotic.

Are we getting that again? Those who criticize the government and

its programs are immediately labelled malcontents at best, and commie

sympathizers at the worst. It is shocking that we are in a state that

any criticism of the state is met with countercharges of not being

patriotic, that somehow you're out to tear the structure of society

apart.

In 1932 his tune had not changed. In April of that year a visitor

was authorized to report that conditions were getting better. The

President was in high spirits over the economic improvement. When

delegations came to the White House, begging him to endorse direct

federal aid for relief — what we now call social assistance — or

increased spending on public works, he refused. He said: "As long as I

sit at this desk, they won't get by."

He couldn't bear to watch suffering, so he never visited a

bread-line or a relief-station. As his limousine swept past men selling

apples on street corners, he turned his head so that he wouldn't have

to look at them. Even Time

magazine, after more than two years of maintaining a facade almost as

cheery as Hoover's, noted in 1932: "The nation's needy have gone

through three hard winters without a dollar's worth of direct aid from

the federal treasury." Hoover said: "Nobody's actually starving. The

hoboes, for example, are better fed than they've ever been. One hobo in

New York got ten meals in one day — he wasn't starving." Having decided

that economy in the President's kitchen would be bad for the country's

morale, he continued eating at the most elaborate table ever set in the

White House, even when the only other diner was his wife, Lou. Dinners

were always seven courses. While Hoover, always dressed in a black tie,

ate his way through those courses, Marine duty officers in dress blues

would be standing around in the doorways all dressed up to watch the

President and his wife eat as people outside were starving from a

formidable Depression.

When after months of haggling, Congress finally passed a public

works bill, the President called it an unexampled raid on the public

treasury and warned: "We cannot squander ourselves into prosperity."

It's all being said again, Mr. Speaker. Nothing has changed. The

conservatives are still the conservatives; they're neither progressive

or neo. It's the same old nineteenth-century Great Britain

laissez-faire capitalism that this government would have us go back to.

Those are the measures that we're talking about, the kind of measures

that this government is taking. Now would it cause insecurity, do you

think, as the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) pointed out,

when we get down to the practice of political patronage maybe being

encouraged by the kind of action that this bill is taking?

I for one don't believe that the government is deliberately setting

out to pass this bill with the idea that there's going to be patronage.

It doesn't work that way. I don't think that the honourable members are

dishonourable in that respect. The danger is that you're leaving the

door open. You're taking the check and the balance out of this province.

[10:45]

Mr. Speaker, I worked in the media and there was no censorship. But

censorship nevertheless happened, because you were always tempered by

what your editor or your publisher wanted you to write. He didn't

actually come down to you and say: "We want you to be biased in a

certain way. We don't want you to report certain things and we want you

to report others." You knew what would be acceptable and what wouldn't

be acceptable. The thing that happens in the media in that kind of case

is that they censor themselves by wanting to survive in the system. The

danger of patronage in this bill isn't the fact that ministers are

going to demand it. It's the fact that people are going to be afraid to

make decisions based on sound principles. For instance, when that

Social Credit supporter comes for a grant to the British Columbia

Development Corporation, hanging over the head of those public servants

will be the knowledge that they are not protected from political

repercussions; and the knowledge that they are not protected in some

form of professional civil service is going to do the dirty trick on

its own.

The point that disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that I don't

honestly believe this government sees any danger in it. It's like much

of the other legislation. They don't really see the danger which

they're bringing to this House and to this province. And that is a

frightening thought.

If they were only scallywags, out to do the province in, in the name

of self-interest, then we could deal with the problem, because the

people would take those scallywags and they probably wouldn't even let

them serve this term of office — if it were possible in our British

parliamentary system.

[ Page 1747 ]

People would be very angry if they thought that you

were just scallywags out to feather your own nests. It would be easier

to deal with scallywags and crooks, because they would be easily

recognizable in our society. The problem is that they're doing

something not based on their plan to be scallywags and crooks; they're

doing something that they actually think will help the province of

British Columbia, and that, as I said, is the frightening part. They

believe the message that they're giving us.

They're not lying to us. They're not being a bunch of phonies. The

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) got up and spoke

earlier in the evening, and I believe that he believed, as the truth,

every word that he was saying.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Can you say the same thing?

MR. LEA: Yes, I can say the same thing. Everything that I'm

saying I consider to be the truth. The choice that people have to make

is which side of the House they agree with.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They already made that choice on May 5.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Labour says they already made that

choice. I said the Minister of Municipal Affairs told the truth, from

his point of view. If the Minister of Labour is telling the truth from

his point of view — if he honestly believes that the people of British

Columbia thought, from the government's promise of continuing

restraint, that this was what they were going to get — then the

minister is either naive, misinformed or out of touch.

It makes them a little nervous, as I suppose it makes us nervous when we....

When I was listening to the Minister of Municipal Affairs earlier, it

wasn't without some truth. No side has a monopoly on truth. But as the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said, in this House we are

precluded by party politics in certain ways from dealing with things as

our conscience sees. But the time has come. In my opinion, we are in a

time of crisis in this province.

I think it worthwhile to discuss the crisis that we're in. When we

get back to the measures which we oppose — and which brought this

around — we have to talk about the measures we're taking in dealing

with the economy of this province, because the government says it's the

lack of revenue that is causing the problem. I believe that if we as

politicians were honest, we would be telling the people in this

province that it's not just short-term problems that we have.

I was speaking to the vice-president of a very large forest company

the other day, and I said: "What's going on? You're closer to the

government than I am. Do they honestly believe what they're doing?" He

said: "Yes, I think they do." He went on to say: "One of the things

that they think is that if the housing starts in the United States pick

up to a certain point, then we're going to go back to the good old days

of '78 and '79." I asked him if they honestly believe that the forest

industry is going to go back to where it was in '79, regardless of the

housing starts in the United States, and he replied that they did. He

said: "They're time-locked."

I know the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) knows that we

have a situation in the forests of this province that is of crisis

proportions. I'd like to describe what I mean. On the Queen Charlotte

Islands, in the timber supply area.... That's not including the TFLs,

Mr. Speaker; that's the land base that is managed by the Forest

Service. As a matter of fact, the minister dealt with it, and I thought

that a fairly good job was done. I think he is a fairly good minister

in many ways. If he didn't have the influence of other cabinet members

he would be a lot better.

We have an approximate annual allowable cut in that timber supply

analysis area of about 600,000 cunits. Within between 25 and 30 years,

which isn't a long time, they have what they call in the forest

industry a falldown area, The annual allowable cut will drop from

600,000 cunits to about 300,000 cunits, and if we don't change our

practices that 300,000 will not be sustained either.

The forest industry is in bad shape, but it's not just the economy

that we're going through now. We have structural problems in the Forest

Service and the forest industry that are of crisis proportion, and we

don't even discuss them. Are we afraid that if we tell people the

truth, they're not grownup enough to understand it? The problems we

have are deep-rooted and structural, and we have them because we have

not diversified our economy. I guess we could go back in history and

point to whose fault it is, maybe with some accuracy, maybe not. I

don't even know whether at this point it matters much. The point is,

are we going to deal with it now? Are we going to need this kind of

legislation and amendment year after year, when down where we live we

know that the problems aren't that simple? It isn't a matter of saving

some money in government and the economy is going to get better, that

things are going to be rosy. Nobody believes that, at least not the

people from the industry I talk to. Whether it's the forest or the

fishing industry, we are taking our renewable resources in this

province and making them finite. That's the stupidity. I don't blame

anyone in particular, but you have to hand Social Credit a great deal

of the responsibility for where we are. They have been in government

for 27 out of the last 30 years.

The fishing industry? I think we have to blame the federal

government to a great degree. The same thing is happening in the

fishing industry: we're fishing our stocks out; we're making it a

finite rather than a renewable resource. We've allowed too much capital

out on the fishing grounds, with too much efficiency. The same fleet

could catch all the fish we could allow. Never mind the trollers and

the trawlers and the gillnetters. We have a crisis situation in the

fishing industry. Laying off a few civil servants isn't going to cure

it; it isn't even going to get us through the bad time that's coming.

We've got problems, and we're not dealing with them. We're trying to

cover them up in a smooth public relations package like Bill 3.

The government doesn't want to admit that we have the problems.

because somehow they think they're going to be blamed for not having

all the answers. People don't expect government to have all the answers

anymore. They've listened to too many governments of all stripes that

said they had them. It's always been a dismal failure; trying to run

things from the centre is always going to be a dismal failure. People

are also doubting the thoughts that we've had on our side of the House

over the years. When there's an ailing private sector industry, a big

one, that has all the bureaucracy and inefficiency that big brings,

people now don't say that the answer is to nationalize it and have a

bureaucracy made of up of civil servants replacing the private sector

civil servants. People don't believe that either.

Interjection.

[ Page 1748 ]

MR. LEA: I hope they're starting to.

So if we're going to insist on large Crown corporations to do our

business for us, I don't think we're meeting the needs or the wishes of

a lot of people in this province. The big companies are just as

inefficient and bureaucratic. The only difference, when. you go down to

get a pencil from stores in the civil service or Imperial Oil, is that

you use one colour for the company and another for the forms, but there

are seven copies. It's the same thing. It's a group of human beings. I

can't tell the difference. It doesn't mean that those human beings

working in those companies, whether it's a Crown corporation or a

private company, aren't doing their best within the system. But I think

we had better take a look at the system we're asking them to work in.

People are feeling alienated — from the companies they work for,

from the government they've elected, regardless of stripe. They're

afraid and they don't know what to do. They know that we as legislators

are not even addressing the problems that they perceive we have. The

government on one side won't admit anything is wrong. Politically I

guess they can't afford to, because people would turn against them.

They've got to keep saying things are rosy, like Hoover. They feel

that's politically the way to go.

And on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I don't think we've dealt with it either.

I've mentioned this before. I think the first thing we have to do,

in order to start dealing with the problems, is admit we have them. We

must admit we have the problems, or we'll never get to work on them.

Because they don't have the answers, the government is afraid they've

got to cover it up. So they bring in a bunch of legislation that they

call restraint legislation, like Bill 3, which is nothing more than the

result of their frustration at not having the answers.

[11:00]

Where are we going to go, Mr. Speaker, if the politicians in this

province don't start admitting something that the people out there

already know? All you have to do is go to my riding on the Queen

Charlotte Islands and talk to a small logging operator. Talk, in a

quiet moment, with the people involved in the large forest companies.

Talk with the people who are involved in the fishing industry. The

answer you'll get from them as to what is happening I believe will be

very close to what I'm telling you. I don't think I'm exaggerating; if

anything, I think maybe I'm not putting the arguments forcefully

enough, and with enough clarity.

So here we are, not through sinister thoughts, but I think through

mistaken policies brought around by the government's own fear and

frustration of the voters. That's something, Mr. Speaker, when you get

politicians afraid of the voters. I don't know where you go from there.

Run through the list of legislation accompanying the budget. Look at

Bill 3 and say to yourself: "If I thought Bill 3 would solve our

problems, I'd vote for it." It won't solve our problems. In reply to

the minister, it will not go a long way.

If the government really believes what they're saying — that

economic recovery is just around the corner if we tighten our belts,

and tightening our belts will help economic recovery.... It's one thing

to believe that. But it's pretty hard to believe it when you start

examining the facts. Even if housing starts in the United States are

going full out, 25 percent of the people in the forest industry are not

going to go back to work in the forest industry — not in the near

future, and not ever. We've been fooling ourselves into believing that

if only we can, through good forest management, manage the forest base

to meet any demand, however insatiable, our problems are over. That's

all we have to do. We've been doing not a bad job of managing the

forest base, and we're watching it fall behind.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You're a very astute countryboy politician — speaking through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister from Columbia River.

We have here a motion that basically says to the government: think

it over. If we are ever going to have economic recovery, it's going to

take the cooperation of all sectors of society and all sectors of the

economy. We are going to be in this kind of trouble for some time to

come, and while the government feels this is the answer, the test of

time will tell the people of this province who is correct. I'm

convinced that the government is not fooling with this legislation;

that they intend to pass it through "legislation by exhaustion," or

whatever parliamentary and legal means they can employ.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

So we are actually going to see the test of time on all of this

package. We're going to find out whether causing unemployment will help

us to bring around economic recovery. We're going to see whether taking

money out of the tills of the small business community is going to help

them survive the depression. I had a Social Credit ex-cabinet minister

estimate to me that he felt the effects of this bill on Victoria would

be approximately $300 million a year in lost revenue to the city of

Victoria. I honestly have to admit that I haven't checked that figure

out; I'm telling you that that's what a Social Credit ex-cabinet

minister who knows Victoria well told me.

In my wife's store, for a while, the British Columbia Government

Employees' Union people were marking their bills to let merchants in

Victoria know how much of the money they were getting in their tills

came from public service workers. We were surprised — and I've talked

to other merchants who were also surprised — at the number of dollars

that came into the stores and into the service areas of Victoria that

were....

AN HON. MEMBER: A big payroll.

MR. LEA: A very big payroll. And it's important not only to

the people who are making the money but to the merchants, those people

who sell the goods that the public servants buy.

I'd like to tell you a story. I think it's germane to the bill

because it'll let us know the attitudes of each other, and that's

important. I was riding on the ferry from the Queen Charlottes over to

Prince Rupert and there was a good Social Credit supporter on the ferry

at the same time. This was before the last election. I won't mention

his name; you'll see why.

He said: "Graham, I've got a problem."

"What's your problem?"

"Well, actually, I'd like to vote for you, because I think

you're a good MLA, but I can't vote for you because you're NDP.

I'm actually Social Credit and I'd like to vote Social

[ Page 1749 ]

Credit, but I can't stand the Social Credit candidate. I've

got a real problem. What do I do?"

"Well, " I said, "what do you dislike about the NDP?"

"I'm a small businessman, and I just can't stand the trade unions.

The NDP's connection with the trade unions just means that I can't vote

for the NDP. That's the way it is."

"Well, I guess I'm a lot greedier than you are." That tweaked him,

Mr. Speaker, because he couldn't imagine anybody greedier than himself.

Not many of us can, can we?

So he said: "What do you mean?"

I said: "I want my customers to be trade union; it's my staff I

don't want to be trade union. I like my customers to make all sorts of

money, because if they don't I won't survive."

"You know, I've never looked at it that way before."

"Further, if you were going to open up a new business, and you had

your choice of starting it in a town where there's a pulp mill with a

trade union belonging to it or another town where there's no trade

union, where would you start your business? Be honest."

"Well, I have to be honest, " he said. "I'd start it in the town with the trade union."'

So things are not always what they seem.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Could you repeat that? I missed it.

MR. LEA: You missed it? I'll repeat it when we go and have a coffee.

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I do believe that the citizens

of this province — maybe not the politicians — are frightened, and

maybe it takes the kind of fright we have in society today to make us

pull together. Maybe it takes the fright we've had before we'll start

cooperating with one another as opposed to beating one another over the

head.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You’re serious about that leadership, aren't you?

MR. LEA: I sure am. I'll tell you why I'm serious, Mr.

Speaker: I think the things that I'm talking about tonight have to be

said, and I intend to say them in my bid for leadership. I intend to

talk about the problems we have and the fact that we are not addressing

them. Because we haven't addressed them sooner, we're watching a

government that’s caught in a completely open economy where we import

almost everything we consume and sell almost everything we make: a

completely vulnerable, non-diversified economy that has made us suffer

more in the depression that my other areas. We were vulnerable because

we had had no plan of action by the governments of this province to

take us into a diversified economy. We have been absolutely satisfied

to do nothing more, whenever we had to increase our economy to

facilitate new growth of population, than ever widen the extraction

process. I suppose, up until now, it has served us fairly well; we've

gotten away with it. Well, it's over. Unle