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, JULY 20, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

391 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 391

Salmonid enhancement program annual report, 1981.

Fraser River Joint Advisory Board annual report.

Environment Canada annual report, 1982: Western Canada Long-range Transport of Atmospheric Pollutants.

Financial Information Act (Amendment Act) 1983 (Bill M203)

Introduction and first reading –– 391

Oral Questions

Government advertising contracts. Mr. Cocke –– 391

Appointment of government agents. Mr. Hanson –– 392

Colony farm. Mr. Rose –– 392

Sewage system financing. Mr. Blencoe –– 392

Rentalsman's office and court system. Ms. Brown __ 393

Washouts on Trans-Canada Highway. Mr. Reid –– 393

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

On the amendment.

Mr. Lauk –– 395

Mr. Nicolson –– 396

Mr. Davis –– 400

Mr. Howard –– 403

Ms. Brown –– 408

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 412

Appendix –– 414

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: In the galleries this afternoon is a fine

gentleman from that great constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon, Mr.

Alasdair Gilbert. I would ask this House to bid him welcome.

MR. REE: This afternoon we are graced by the presence of ten

members of the Canadian Order of Foresters from the Vancouver area.

They are in the gallery to listen to the high calibre of debate for

which this House is known. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. and

Mrs. H. Plumsteel from North Vancouver; also from North Vancouver is

Mr. James O'Donnell. From Vancouver we have Mr. George Ward, Mr. and

Mrs. R. Moon and Mrs. Dorothy Steer; from Burnaby, Mr. and Mrs. P. S.

Town and Mrs. Irene Sutton. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MRS. WALLACE: In the precincts today, but not in the gallery,

is a very important group from the Cowichan valley, 25 senior citizens

who came down to see the Legislature and visit Victoria. I would like

the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would ask the House to welcome Mr. John and Mrs. Carol Tyrrell, and their children Bruce and Anne.

As an honorary member of the Boy Scouts movement, I am honoured to

introduce to the House Austrian scouts Reinhard Zeger and Guido

Caratsch. Would the House please welcome these visitors.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. Heinrich) and myself, I would like to have members welcome a former

Prince George constituent, Mr. Peter Sorensen, who is now living in

Vancouver and is with the B.C. Construction Association.

MR. MICHAEL: Would my fellow members of the House join me in

welcoming three members of my constituency: Donna Calvert, the chairman

of the Shuswap School Board, and Oona McKinstry, school board member

from Revelstoke, and Jim Beblow from Salmon Arm.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I have two guests to welcome here today. One

is Ricky Bilous of Roblin, Manitoba, who is visiting his sister Marlene

Bilous of our research staff, seated in the Speaker's gallery. I'm very

pleased and proud to welcome one of my strongest supporters, who also

happens to be my grandson, John Van Dyk. He is visiting us today from

100 Mile House in the Cariboo. Would you please join me welcoming them.

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to welcome and introduce Mrs. Maryla

Waters, from my riding. She is a member of the Judicial Council and

director of the legal history project, University of Victoria, and has

been a tireless worker for the Bastion Theatre in Victoria, among her

other activities.

MR. CAMPBELL: We have in that gallery today four people from Winfield:

Mr. Pilling, Mr. Toovey and Mr. and Mrs. Jack Vanderwood. Would the House give

them a good welcome.

MR. REID: I would like the House to recognize that in the

audience today we have a gentleman from Burnaby. He's the general

manager of Metro Transit Operating Company, Mr. Bill Allan. Would the

House bid him welcome.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled three reports: the 1981 annual report of the salmonid

enhancement program, the fourteenth annual report of the activities of the Fraser

River Joint Advisory Board, and the 1982 Environment Canada annual report: "Western

Canada Long-range Transport of Atmospheric Pollutants."

Introduction of Bills

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ACT

(AMENDMENT ACT) 1983

On a motion by Mr. Skelly, bill M203, Financial Information Act

(Amendment Act) 1983, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CONTRACTS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Minister of Tourism. McKim Advertising has been identified as the

agency in the auditor-general's report which spent $5.3 million of

public funds without authorization, which failed to account for cash

advances, which operated a slush fund for ministry employees and which

laundered accounts from other agencies, charging double commissions. In

view of this information, has the minister decided to suspend McKim

Advertising as agency of record with the Ministry of Tourism?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The report from the auditor general is being studied in depth by myself and others, and will be acted upon in due course.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister confirm that Vrlak Robinson held

the account for advertising promotion of the Royal Hudson and other

special events for the ministry during 1981-82, and is in fact agency C

in the auditor-general's report?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no.

MR. COCKE: He can't confirm it. Again, will the minister

confirm that the Vrlak Robinson account was conducted through the

office of one Valerie Vrlak, special projects officer with the ministry?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: I have a supplementary. VrIak Robinson was

involved in laundering several accounts through McKim Advertising for

which double commissions were charged to

[ Page 392 ]

the government. Is the minister aware that McKim

Advertising and Vrlak Robinson are substantially owned by the same

parent company, the Spectrum Group of Los Angeles?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I will restate my first

answer to that hon. member. The report is being studied in depth and

will be acted upon in due course.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that he has

not suspended McKim Advertising or Vrlak Robinson, because of the work

that both agencies did on behalf of the Social Credit Party during the

election campaign?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, has the minister now received a full

accounting of the two unauthorized slush funds containing government

funds which were maintained by Vrlak Robinson, and has he decided to

table this information in the House?

Interjections.

APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNMENT AGENTS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier

regarding government agents. I have information that the position of

government agent in Penticton has been cancelled in the same way that

the position in Kelowna was cancelled for Mr. Tozer. My question to the

Premier is: why are you putting political appointees into government

agent positions, and do you intend to fill that Penticton job?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the question might more

appropriately be put to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who

is in charge of government agents; but I was not aware there was a

vacancy in Penticton. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, that response of the Premier just

indicates the route of patronage that this government intends to pursue

for government agents.

On a supplementary, I have information that ten government agent

positions had a closing date of April 27. Those jobs were paneled and

people were picked, but no approval has been given, because they're

going to make those political appointments. Why is the Premier pursuing

this course of installing political hacks in these positions?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, when the government has an announcement on policy to do with appointments, they will make it in the Legislature.

MR. HANSON: To the Premier, do you intend to pursue a

government policy of installing political appointees in the regions

which government agents now occupy and where they have jurisdiction,

and in deputy government agents' positions throughout this province? Is

that the policy of your government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if such a policy determination is made, the member will be among the first to know.

COLONY FARM

MR. ROSE: My question perhaps would be more appropriately

directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder),

but in his absence, since it is a shared jurisdiction with the Minister

of Health, perhaps I could ask the Minister of Health. In light of the

municipality of Coquitlam's endorsation of the GVRD's strong

recommendation to maintain agricultural and rehabilitative functions on

Colony Farm, has the Minister of Health discussed with the Minister of

Agriculture a way of reconsidering the decision to privatize the farm

contiguous to the Riverview Institution?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I haven't spoken to the

Minister of Agriculture specifically with respect to the Colony Farm. I

believe there has been some discussion between the ministries, and I

would be pleased to find out how far that has gone.

MR. ROSE: To the Minister of Health again, since the farm

manager reports that Colony Farm provides employment for about six

forensic therapists plus a hundred patients, and that it operated in

the black this last year, has the minister considered what other kinds

of employment opportunities could be offered should that farm be closed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We would look into what employment

opportunities may be available for those specific people, and we will

be pleased to bring the information back when we have it.

MR. ROSE: On a supplementary, will the minister also consider

what alternative therapeutic treatment might be offered those patients

should the farm be closed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, we will, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct my final

supplementary to the Premier. Perhaps it should more appropriately be

directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder),

but since the Premier is his boss perhaps he could answer it for us.

Can the Premier give us his assurance that, should that farm be

privatized — sold — it won't be removed or carved out of the

agricultural land reserve by the cabinet?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll be glad to take the question as notice for the Minister of Agriculture.

SEWAGE SYSTEM FINANCING

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Last year in a major policy shift the province imposed

tremendous costs on municipalities by reneging on its historic

commitment to finance sewer development by including those projects in

revenue-sharing, in effect paying the province's share with municipal

dollars. This year the province has dumped even greater costs on local

taxpayers by reversing the sharing formula for new sewer and water

projects. Will the minister agree to consider the reversal of the

cost-sharing formula in order to protect local taxpayers from

exorbitant tax increases?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I think if the member would give some study to the program itself, it says "revenue-sharing";

[ Page 393 ]

that means sharing the revenue. Revenue is down,

which means sharing is down. There will be no consideration to

reversing the decision — for some time, anyway.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary to the same minister. Can the

minister explain why the government has downgraded sewer systems from

an essential program to merely a desirable one, to be paid almost

entirely out of local taxpayers?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: In my opinion, all programs are essential. That program has not been downgraded.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the minister not recognize the fact that

much of the cost of new sewer and water facilities is a direct result

of project specifications demanded by the provincial government in the

interest of public health and safety? Will he not agree that the

provincial government should do more to pay for those essential

projects, at the very least by restoring the previous cost-sharing

formula?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I am unable to answer that question since it deals with future policy.

RENTALSMAN'S OFFICE AND COURT SYSTEM

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

if the Attorney-General has determined how many additional cases will

come before the courts on October 1, when the rentalsman's office is

closed and its mediating functions terminated at that time.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member will know that that bill, which is

before the House, will be debated, and that there is a phase-out of

that program in that bill, so the premise on which her question is put

is incorrect as to that date.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Attorney-General's

hearing is as effective as it should be. I asked him how many

additional cases. I didn't ask him whether the program was going to be

phased out or terminated abruptly. How many additional cases will come

before the courts as a result of that mediating role played by the

rentalsman's office being terminated?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to try again, Mr. Speaker. Last year the

rentalsman's office handled 5,700 disputed eviction notices. I'm sure

the Attorney-General must know that. Has the Attorney-General

consulted, or even discussed, with the chief justice as to whether the

court system would be capable of handling this additional number of

cases?

HON. MR. SMITH: We're certainly aware that there will be an

increase of business in the courts as a result of that legislation. So

the answer is yes, we have considered that.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the Attorney-General can advise us whether he has conducted any cost benefit...

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...analysis.

MS. BROWN: Not necessarily an analysis. I want to know if the

Attorney- General's ministry can give us any figures as to what the

additional cost will be as a result of the closing of the rentalsman's

office and the terminating of this mediation role.

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no, I cannot. It presumes additional cost, which is a presumption that may not be correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that your final supplementary, hon. member?

MS. BROWN: It's not final.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have other members standing.

MS. BROWN: Where?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: My assumption or presumption or premise, as the

Attorney-General stated it, was based on the fact that I assume that

judges are more costly to the system than rentalsmen are; but I could

be wrong about that. In any event, is the Attorney-General telling us

then that he is accepting this decision of closing the rentalsman's

office, phasing out its mediation function, and putting these cases

before the court without any kind of data or analysis, or anything

being done to find out the impact on the justice system?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is emphatically no.

We realize that it is going to cause additional burdens on the courts,

particularly small claims courts. There's no doubt about that. But that

is a matter that we realize is coming and one that we are planning for.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. second member for Surrey.

MS. BROWN: What is this, closure? I have a final supplemental.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I have recognized the second member for Surrey.

(Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

WASHOUTS ON TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a question of the Highways

minister? Inasmuch as tourism is a major industry of ours and the

Trans-Canada Highway has been closed and no notice has been given to

the general public as to when it will be opened, can the Highways

minister give us some indication as to when that highway may be opened?

HON. A. FRASER: As you know, where the failure of the bridge

has taken place is under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada. They're

working on it, It is my information that with our help the road should

be open on Friday of this week.

[ Page 394 ]

[2:30]

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There

appears to be an attempt on the part of the government to subvert the

intention of question period. I submit that this attempt is done

consciously, because I've watched this over the past number of days....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: The government has taken steps to ensure that

each day during question period certain cabinet ministers are absent

and thus not available to answer questions. Today the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was absent. When a question was posed to the

Premier about it, the Premier said: "Ask the Minister of Finance." He's

not here. There was an attempt to ask a question of the Minister of

Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). He's not here. I submit that

that is an abuse of what question period is all about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. HOWARD: I think, Mr. Speaker, if you were to use the

authority of your office, as you did just a moment ago, it would draw

attention to the government that it is abusing question period and

refusing to allow people the opportunity to pose questions. We might

have a more appropriate question-and-answer period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair is not able to order members to attend this House.

Further, hon. members, it is the responsibility of the Chair to

recognize members who are standing in their places during question

period. When more than one member is standing, it is only reasonable to

assume that the question period time be allocated somewhat fairly and

somewhat evenly during that period of time. Hon. members, those are the

rules which you have bound me to adhere to in this place. I ask for

your cooperation in seeing that if those rules are not satisfactory,

then steps available to us are taken to change them. Until then, hon.

members, the rules of the chamber must be adhered to. The Chair has no

alternative but to do so.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I think the Speaker

has several times in the past advised the House as to the procedures of

question period. I believe that he has said questions should perhaps be

allowed a very brief

preamble. The members opposite continuously make

mini-speeches prior to posing what are quite often very nebulous

questions. I think that if there is any abuse of question period it

falls upon the members of the opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on this point I will recognize as

the final speaker the second member for Vancouver Centre. But, hon.

members, we cannot enter into debate.

MR. LAUK: I was going to comment on Your Honour's comments with

respect to our House Leader's remarks. The point should be made, when you're

considering the procedures, that when question period was being investigated

by a parliamentary committee — chaired by myself, but also very capably attended,

occasionally, by the now Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — we recommended

to this chamber....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I was the chairman.

MR. LAUK: Well, I wonder how I signed all the reports, as chairman. Did we make an agreement about that?

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

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I've got lots of time. There's no problem.

The point, Mr. Speaker, is that when we discussed with the various

parties in the House — and those were the days, as hon. members from

Point Grey will know, when the House consisted of four parties — we

discussed how the question period would be divided. There was a

vociferous argument put up by all three opposition parties to the NDP

that question period should not be taken up by government

back-benchers, that a system be provided where inquiries legitimately

should be answered on an informal basis by members of the treasury

bench. This was always respected as a tradition in this House. I would

think that recognizing the odd backbencher is not a real breach of that

tradition, but if it were to become a practice, then, of course, it

would be an abuse of the understanding that this House had when

question period was first introduced.

May I recap for you briefly the history....

MR. SPEAKER: No! Order, please. The hon. member has made his point. All hon. members are aware of the rules of the chamber.

MR. COCKE: I would like to rise on the point of order that

the Minister of Forests raised. The Minister of Forests outlined the

fact that some of our members have long

preambles. Those long

preambles

are short

preambles compared to the filibustering that goes on over

there. When you are looking at this whole question I think that should

be taken into consideration as well.

MS. BROWN: On a new point of order, when a member of the

opposition has embarked on a series of questions to a minister, it

seems to me that out of interest, if nothing else, the Chair should

permit that series of questions to come to an end before deciding that

it is time to hear from another questioner.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The Chair had made that determination.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

[ Page 395 ]

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that I have five

minutes. I have received a copy of an

article from a newspaper that

appeared in the First Minister's own constituency of Okanagan South. It

appeared in the Central Okanagan Capital News and it's the kind of

article that I think should be brought to the attention of the House.

I don't necessarily agree with everything in this article, but I

should point out to you that this is the kind of reaction that is all

across this province and, indeed, the kind of press and official

reaction from across the country which I find alarming. British

Columbia is becoming not just the laughing-stock of the nation;

nobody's laughing any more. There is real fear not only in British

Columbia but across the country. Let me read some of the remarks of

this columnist on Saturday, July 16, 1983.

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

He says that "one of the worst attacks on human rights and freedoms

ever mounted by a democratically elected government in the western

world" is right here in British Columbia. He was pointing to the

legislation. He goes on to say:

"If a municipality or a school board or any other

public body covered by the restraint measures contained within the

Public Service Restraint Act questions Kaiser Bill's commands, they

will be subject to a $2,000 fine."

This is the kind of thing that's happening.

"Their legislation isn't aimed at curbing union power;

it's going to hit us all. Look at what's happened already. School

trustees, you are now redundant. Renters, on October 1 you will have no

more rights. Minorities, you have been told you had best leave. British

Columbia will no longer offer you any kind of protection. Teachers, you

may want to say the Lord's Prayer more than just in the mornings.

Employees, you are now eligible for instant dismissal for no reason,

without recourse to the courts. You who are poor or ill, and you who

are aged, they've decided that you contribute so precious little to the

B.C. spirit that they'd be better off without you. You were part of the

problem, but the boot boys have the solution.

"Bull rushes, I say. Mr. Bennett got votes by

promising lesser government involvement in our lives, not to set up a

totalitarian regime."

His words, not mine. "Totalitarian regime," says this journalist.

"Mr. Bennett promised no increases in health fees. Obviously that promise is no longer operative, to use a Watergate-era word."

Later on in the

article he says:

"Yes, this should be a lesson to us. Why do we vote

for politicians who won't tell us what their programs are? If the

government is brought to its knees and another mandate is needed, let's

make them spell out their programs and then decide whether they deserve

our vote. If Mr. Bennett campaigns on the basis of the fascist

legislation he introduced last week, I doubt he'll even win re-election

in his own riding, never mind a majority in the Legislature."

This is an

article appearing in a newspaper in the Premier's own

constituency. I say to you that this is a condemnation, not of the

opposition party in this province but of the majority of the people and

a majority of the electorate of British Columbia. That's why I urge all

hon. members of this chamber to look carefully at the motion that we

have now moved, that Bill 3 be postponed for six months before we vote

second reading of it. I reiterate my suggestion of yesterday, which I

know has gone largely ignored. But I'd like to repeat it because I

think it's a good suggestion.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It was a good speech too? Thank you very much.

I suggest that, to take away the criticism of an extreme right-wing

approach on the part of the government, the criticism that they are

going to fire civil servants on a political basis, we have an

independent commission appointed, and they will have six months to do

that if they vote for this motion to postpone second reading for six

months. On that note, I move adjournment of this debate until the next

sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

[2:45]

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 31

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Reid

Parks

Ree

Reynolds

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, now

that the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has failed in

his attempt to have the afternoon off to play golf, I would like to

bring to the attention of the House that that member quoted from a

newspaper

article during his speech on this motion, and I think it is

the policy of the House that when a member quotes from a document he

tables the

[ Page 396 ]

document. That member, when quoting from the

article by Dr. Michael Walker, very conveniently paraphrased and did

selective readings from the

article so as to create the false

impression that Dr. Walker had changed his mind. Just so that the

record can be clear and we can all be aware of the fact that Dr. Walker

has not changed his mind, I would ask the member to please table that

document in the House.

MR. LAUK: On that same point of order, the minister has made

an improper accusation. It is an untrue accusation. I did not

paraphrase the article. The minister has obviously been upset the last

few days, and that's his problem, but he shouldn't make false

accusations of other members.

I ask leave to table the

article I read this morning.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to debate the point with the member. I'm sure that the record of Hansard will very clearly demonstrate what was said and what is contained in the article.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, differing points of view are not subject to points of order in the House. They are matters of debate.

MR. LAUK: It becomes a matter of record, Mr. Speaker, when

one of the members of this House makes an accusation about what I did.

Under standing order 42 I have a right to correct that, and I do so. I

have filed the article.

I wasn't reading from Michael Walker this morning. I was reading

from Michael Walker yesterday, and Michael Walker.... It speaks for

itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The matter has been resolved. The document in question has been tabled.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, I am

offended by some of the statements made in this House from time to

time, and I'm offended by the statement made by the second member for

Vancouver Centre accusing another member of making a false accusation.

I think that kind of statement should be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time for.... That withdrawal

would be by the member to whom the incident referred. However, I would

caution all members that language in the chamber must be of a

parliamentary nature. We should all familiarize ourselves with those

rules, regulations and traditions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On that same point, Mr. Speaker, I think

that we have a responsibility not to make accusations against each

other in this House, and I would think that that member should withdraw

that false accusation. I would be offended if you were to allow that

member, in my absence, to make statements about me. I would be

extremely offended if some other member of this chamber could not ask

him to withdraw that particular statement. I really believe, Mr.

Speaker, that you have a responsibility to ask that member to withdraw

the statement that the Minister of Forests made a false accusation,

whether the Minister of Forests has requested it or not.

MR. LAUK: Obviously the Provincial Secretary did not hear the

exchange between the hon. minister and me, or he wouldn't ask for the

silly thing that he just asked for. What I said was that the minister

had falsely accused me of wrongdoing in this House, whether

inadvertently and so on. That's between the minister and me. If the

minister were absent from this House then certainly the Provincial

Secretary would have every right — and so would any one of his

colleagues — to demand a withdrawal, but we all know that's not what

happened. I don't know whether it's because of his twilight years that

his hearing is failing him, but he should not jump to conclusions.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Now may I recap the history of the question period...?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The member, in my opinion, did distort the intent of the

article of Dr.

Michael Walker. However, the record — once that document is tabled, and

once Hansard demonstrates what that member said — will speak for itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly we are

entering into a matter which no longer has any reference at all to

points of order. May we now return to the debate before us.

MR. LAUK: I'm not trying to delay the proceedings. The Hon.

Minister of Forests said that I deliberately distorted that article.

That is a false accusation. He is not entitled to make that statement,

and I demand that he withdraw it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member is again in

error. I did not say that he deliberately distorted it; I said that he

distorted it, whether it was intentional or not. The record shall speak

for itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, clearly we have some differences

of opinion. I would hope that no members have been offended by any

other members, and that the Chair could now recognize the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who's been trying to participate in this

debate.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that

since May 5 there really has been a change in British Columbia. A lot

of good people were defeated in that election, and in fact I suppose

that a lot of good people from both major political parties went down

to defeat in that election, and a lot of good people and a few new

faces got elected to this House. There were some new people seeking

election in the past election: both members for Surrey, one of the

members for Vancouver South, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the

member for Dewdney, the member for North Okanagan and one of the

members for Vancouver Centre. Those people were successful in their bid

for election for the first time. A few other people in the Social

Credit Party were not successful this time.

One of those people ran against my good friend and colleague from

Burnaby-Edmonds. He has been the head of the B.C. School Trustees'

Association. Many people

[ Page 397 ]

scratched their heads when Mr. Gary Begin ran for

the Social Credit Party. They thought this was a little bit of a

contradiction in terms. I think that from what he is saying now, after

viewing Bill 3 and Bill 6 — but particularly Bill 3, the bill before us

today — Mr. Begin is saying that if he had any idea that this was the

kind of legislation that the government was going to bring down, he

would not have been running for the Social Credit Party. That is on

record. That is what has been quoted in the media. I might say that I

had a conversation with Mr. Begin last evening. I won't go into what he

said in that conversation, because I consider it private, but it

certainly confirmed that he was accurately reported in the media.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would like to ask some of those members over there to reflect on

how they might feel, not in the flush of victory but in the chagrin of

a political setback, if they had not been elected into this House.

Would they perhaps also be looking at this in the same light as Mr.

Begin, and, indeed, should it make any difference whether you were

elected or not? Are all of you new members that soon detached from the

feelings and convictions you have through your backgrounds in local

government? Mr. Begin says that he has spent 12 years in local

government. He cannot tolerate this legislation. I knew a good many of

you before you were members in this House. I wonder how you could

forget so quickly, in a couple of months, about all those years you

served and toiled in local government, and turn around and say that

local government does not know what it's doing, that centralized

government authority in the hands of a very few people.... In fact,

authority is being centralized in the hands of the Premier, who said to

all deputy ministers: "Your loyalty is to me, not to your ministers."

That shows you the degree of centralization that has taken place in

this province.

[3:00]

How can one person govern this province? That one person is not

going to govern. That one-person centralization of control is going to

create a vacuum which only the most senior bureaucrats will pervade. It

is going to be Norman Spector and Doug Heal and Patrick Kinsella and

these other people who are going to govern, because one person who has

to show political leadership and carry the political battles in this

province is not going to be able in any way, shape or form to

discipline senior civil servants.

We have seen what I think amounts to criminal fraud uncovered by the

fine work of the auditor-general in one ministry. I cannot come to any

other conclusion when I see consecutive receipts issued from a taxi

company showing up in several different vouchers — through the fine

sleuthing undertaken by the auditor-general. She should be

congratulated on the work done. It is something which certainly must be

taken further. It should be turned over to a full police investigation

without any undue delay.

There is a great danger in this terrific centralization, as opposed

to the trusting of locally elected people. We also see the other trend

being set. The Premier is almost admitting that all government agents

throughout the province will be political appointees and that there

will be more political control.

This House is losing control. Certainly the official opposition does

not control the bureaucracy of government. But now even the government

side of this House is going to absolutely lose control to a few senior

political appointees, most of whom recently arrived here from Ontario.

That is the group of people who are going to seize power in the vacuum

that is going to be created, because the Premier is only one person and

he certainly cannot run this whole province. As in the days of the

kings, we are going to have people like the Richelieus and others grab

power, like those who sought political favour in the time of King Henry

VIII and other monarchs. Those same people are still around today. If

there is any responsibility for the people in this House, it is to make

sure that the people of this province retain control, not some of these

senior bureaucrats. That's where the abuses are taking place. Who are

we asking to take the blame?

If this bill is not hoisted for the next six months, we are not just

going to be firing 10,000 civil servants. This bill is aimed at 250,000

people in British Columbia. The trend has been set: chop by 25 percent.

MR. REID: Ability to pay.

MR. NICOLSON: There will be no ability to pay if this bill

goes through as intended, because nobody is going to be left working in

this province, my friend. If this benchmark goes through, if this quota

of 25 percent is carried throughout the public sector, it's going to

mean a direct firing of 67,000 people, not 10,000. If we don't hoist

this bill, it is going to mean that for every one of these public

service employees, three people will be fired in the service sectors.

I know travel agents in the tourist business. They have weathered

the downturn in the economy; they have weathered everything — until

this budget. Since this budget people are suddenly saying: "No job is

safe in British Columbia. We are not going to travel." There has been a

sudden drop-off in the last couple of weeks of people travelling. I

believe that if we show faith in this province and faith in the future

of this province we don't have to take this stubborn, Messianic bent,

this turn which flies in the face of everything that is ever practised.

If you are looking for a laboratory for this kind of economic

experiment, then I think the people of British Columbia are saying: "We

don't want to be the guinea-pigs. Try it somewhere else." Mr. Gary

Begin does not want to see the public education system part of this

laboratory. He doesn't want to see vivisection of our public education

system. Like many of you, he was a Social Credit candidate only a few

months ago, seeking for the first time to enter this House. By failing

to be sworn into this House as an MLA, he somehow seems to remember

where he's coming from. It certainly wasn't the kind of thing Mr. Gary

Begin ran for, and I don't think it was the kind of thing most of you

people ran for. I think the finest hour some of you could have would be

to show defiance.

I would like to quote from Sir Erskine May, and not quote from some

later author who has sought to update the word of Erskine May. This is

the real word of Sir Erskine May; I believe it is the last edition of

his book, Parliamentary Practice :

"The Legislative authority of parliament extends over the United

Kingdom and all its colonies and foreign possessions" — we must bear in

mind that he wrote this in 1883 — "and there are no other limits to its

power of making laws for the whole Empire than those which are incident

to all sovereign authority, the willingness of the people to obey, and

their power to resist." That great parliamentarian was telling us that

if the laws of parliament become too oppressive we do have the

responsibility to resist. I won't read any meaning

[ Page 398 ]

into his words, except that I think he was looking

at things like Guy Fawkes Day and other incidents in the history of the

British parliamentary system. Many of the freedoms and rights which we

enjoy today were not granted by the Crown but were taken from the

Crown. There is a willingness of the people to obey, but they also have

a power to resist.

Last night over 7,000 people showed that they do not want to come

under this kind of an abuse of parliamentary power. Yes, we do have

that supreme power. The legislative authority of parliament extends

over all of our domain, which is British Columbia, and there are no

other limits to our power for making laws except "the willingness of

the people to obey, and their power to resist."

I have felt for some time that this government has not really been

in control. There are abuses at the senior levels of government, but

who is going to be put into the firing line? Who will be the victims of

this kind of an experiment? Certainly not the people we see being

rewarded with increases of thousands and thousands of dollars. People

like Mike Bailey in the Premier's office, who got a 50-percent increase

in salary — up from $30,000 to $45,000. He was rolled back by all of

$1,300, so I stand corrected. He only got about a 47-percent increase

in salary. That is the kind of arrogance these newly elected members

should ask themselves about, and say, "Could I become like that if I

were to spend the next 30 years of my life in this organization?"

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, it seems like 30 years to me since he's been here.

There are abuses in the public service at times, and I'd like to

tell you about some of them so that we can focus on the areas that need

addressing — but not the many hard-working civil servants.

In the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources a couple of

years ago, when they were living high off the hog, the deputy minister

was the one who made all the arrangements to take the then Minister of

Energy to Broadway, for which he was dubbed "Broadway Bob." The same

type of thing was happening. This is the way they've been spending the

public money. I've got facsimiles of a couple of audit control number

vouchers. Voucher No. 399366 is one of the vouchers which was under

examination last year during public accounts. The payee was Mr. Roy

Illing, deputy minister, and the amount was $245.78. That's not a huge

amount, but what a symptom. It was reimbursement for hospitality

expense, for the purpose of introducing Mr. Bob Durie to the senior

staff of the ministry. Attending were Mr. Durie, Mr. H. Swain, Mr. P.

Hirschoy, Mr. J. Files, Mr. T. Chatten, Mr. W. Quinn, R. Davy, N.

Gillespie, W. Young, J. Lewis, R.H. McClelland, V. Ray, D. Ross-Jones

and guests. The event took place at the home of Mr. Roy Illing, deputy

minister. Attached were a bill from Safeway for $14.63; another Safeway

bill for $36.59; government liquor store, $73.22; WilloWay Low Cost,

$36.14; and a receipt for bartending of $80, for a total of $240.58.

On another occasion a business dinner expense was incurred for the

purpose of introducing Mr. R. Durie to the senior staff of the

ministry. In attendance were J.T. Files, Mr. E.R. McGregor, Dr. H.

Swain, Mr. P. Hirschoy, Mr. D. Horswal, T. Chatten, R. R. Davy, N. K.

Gillespie, J. Lewis, for a total of $274.50. Only two people on that

list of guests didn't attend the other house party. If you're getting

nervous because these new members appear to know more about relevancy

of debate than you and I, Mr. Speaker, I can't understand why. All but

two of these people had already met Mr. Durie at a cost to the

taxpayers of $240.58, but now they had to meet him again at a further

cost of $274.50.

[3:15]

I could also talk about how Mr. Illing rented a chartered fishing

vessel from Burnaby. It was brought over here, did a quick little trip

from the Pat Bay dock around to the Sidney dock, at a cost of some $800.

One could go on and on, but the point I'm trying to make is that

here we have house parties being put on for colleagues at taxpayers'

expense for the purpose of supposedly meeting somebody. The point is

that there is no control by this government. They have allowed this

type of thing to go on. The first time it happened was when the

provincial comptroller-general was overridden in order to force the

people of B.C. to pay all the bills for Mr. David Brown. Mr. David

Brown stayed at the Empress Hotel and so on. The comptroller questioned

the expenditures. The Premier wrote a letter and told him they had to

be paid. I think shortly afterward there was a change, twice within a

few months, of comptroller-general in this province. And now everybody

has the message — or had the message for many years since the

appointment of Mr. Brown and his subsequent departure — that you don't

question government expenses.

Mr. Speaker, these types of things have been happening at the

super-high levels of government, but the people being fired are career

civil servants, not people who've just arrived here in the last year or

two from Ottawa, or Ontario. We're talking about British Columbians who

are being summarily dismissed. We're talking about measures under this

bill which are going to see the loss of 200,000 jobs in British

Columbia, because when you take the loss of all public sector jobs....

We see what's happened today, the announcement about ICBC, a 15 percent

cutback. Mr. Speaker, it sounds very good until you suddenly are

sitting in your retail outlet and nobody's coming into the store.

This is the most economically stupid move that could possibly be

taken. It's being taken on blind faith. We see that Michael Walker

doesn't endorse this. He dissociates himself from it. We see that

former candidates who, but for a few hundred votes, could have been

sitting in this House disown this type of move; they criticize it. Mr.

Speaker, the target should be those cabinet benches, not these people.

I said the other day — and it is a matter of record — that by the

end of this year, during his term in office, the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) will have taken us from having $2 billion in liquid

accounts and cash in the bank to being $1 billion in debt. All of that

since 1980, when the present Minister of Finance took over.

If this bill is hoisted for six months we will have....

MR. REID: What did they spend it on?

MR. NICOLSON: What they spent it on, my friend, was avocado

and shrimp, tossed salad, ham glacé, buns, broccoli, rice pilaf,

strawberry shortcake, hot and cold hors-d'oeuvres and liquor. They

spent it on Broadway shows. They spent it on private trips down south.

They spent it on unauthorized accounts with McKim Advertising. They

spent it $240 at a time, but when you add it up it comes to $3 billion

of the taxpayers' money squandered.

[ Page 399 ]

Now who's going to have to pay? The people who are going to have to

pay, Mr. Speaker, are the loyal public servants. I've been in this

House before and have talked about some of the loyal public servants. I

can talk about Ted Rutherglen. He was a conservation officer. Ted

Rutherglen was a man who, if he heard a report of somebody poaching in

the middle of the night, would come out at 10 o'clock at night, or 2

o'clock in the morning, and do his job. Maybe because he did his job

too well, that man — an otherwise very strong and vigorous person —

died of stress and a very premature heart attack. I can show you other

public servants who have given very unstintingly of their time and

didn't put in overtime bills when maybe they should have, trying to

keep up with electrical safety inspections so that we could have a

decent standard of house construction. I can show you another man who

gave up his life for this province — dying in office of a premature

heart attack, having had a heart attack and gone back to work too

quickly. Those are the kinds of people we're talking about, Mr.

Speaker. We're talking about real people here.

If I had a choice, you could take all the new boys from Ontario —

all the hotshots — and send them back to Ontario. I'd sooner keep the

British Columbians who've been working here year in, year out. I'd

sooner back the people who believe in local government, who believe

that it isn't Big Brother who knows what's best for this province, but

believe that back in the communities we know what is required.

If there was ever a bill.... I regret, like many others, that maybe

we have talked about other pieces of legislation brought into this

House — the government reorganization act which was brought in about

1977 or '78. We used some pretty extreme language about that piece of

legislation, which said that you could reorganize government ministries

any way you wanted without recourse to the Legislature. But we thought

things might end there. We never had any idea that a government would

bring in such a huge amount of legislation. I'll continue to say it:

you people won this election, but this isn't why you won the election.

This is not what the people of British Columbia elected you for. I know

four Social Crediters who are already down the road because they've

been fired. I'm darned sure the people who work for you don't work to

lose their job. There is no job in British Columbia that is safe until

this legislation is put on the shelf and allowed to collect so much

dust that it's going to take an archivist to dig the thing out and look

back at this very sad little aberration in British Columbia history.

This particular piece of legislation deserves the kind of editorial

comment that it has received in the Kelowna paper; it deserves the kind

of editorial comment it has received in the Toronto Star ;

it deserves the kind of cartoons which have been put out depicting this

province.... Mr. Speaker, that doesn't sit well with me, because I

don't like to see British Columbia the subject of ridicule. I don't

like to see British Columbia the subject of caricature. I do not like

to see a once proud province held up as the only freely, democratically

elected jurisdiction in this country ever to embark upon a piece of

legislation which prohibits all public sector employers, be they

municipalities, school boards, Crown corporations — who are going to

have to compete to get the best people — from signing collective

agreements with their employees and honouring those collective

agreements.

Panama enshrines the right to a justified dismissal in legislation.

Mexico enshrines the right to a just dismissal in legislation.

MR. REID: Look at their budget — the worst in the world.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member for Surrey

would criticize a jurisdiction — Mexico — which produces more jobs a

year than you have ever produced in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: They have high unemployment because they have

the highest birthrate in the world, and if that member doesn't realize

that.... They do have Toyota and Volkswagen plants in Mexico, and they

also have the right to a justified dismissal. If some people would not

be so parochial, if when they travel they would open their eyes or go

somewhere besides from here to Hawaii and back, if they would look at

some other parts of the world and get out there and look at their

industrial sectors, they would realize that some of these so-called

third-world nations, in spite of their huge indebtedness to the various

world banks and in spite of their high birthrates. are at least trying.

They have succeeded in attracting automobile plants to their country,

while we don't have one here in British Columbia. They are

manufacturing just about every major kind of automobile that we in this

country are importing.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: There's another one — must have just come in —

talking about the unemployment rate in some of these countries. I'll

tell you, if we could produce as many jobs a year as Mexico has done,

we wouldn't have to worry about unemployment. Down there, in spite of

the fact that they have enshrined protections in statute for every kind

of worker — public sector workers, people who work in tortilla

factories, people who work in automobile plants, people who work in

mines, people who work as domestics....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: We hear about people being put in prison

without trial, yet we are bringing in legislation that is going to

allow $2,000 fines for people in this province who would seek to honour

collective agreements. For people who would seek to honour their given

word, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be $2,000 fines. If any mayor or

any alderman in a municipality honours a collective agreement, he is

going to be subject to a $2,000 fine. What direction is this taking us

in?

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Don't stop them, Mr. Speaker. I think they can

write a very good speech in favour of this motion to hoist this bill

for six months. Those members should not be dissuaded, because they do

nothing but feed one with more and more information.

This government got us into a tremendous financial hole in spite of

the warnings of the official opposition. We heard the same derision

when we moved reductions in office furniture expenses two years ago,

and again last year. So what have you realized? This year you've had to

cut the office

[ Page 400 ]

furniture budget by 54 percent because you didn't take our warning two years ago, or last year.

[3:30]

What are we seeing now? We are going to see more and more reductions

in services to people. This government doesn't realize that one of the

major things we have to do in this province is to generate wealth, and

we must also seek to redistribute it. Look at the wealth we've been

bringing in through the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. We've probably been

averaging about half a billion dollars through the B.C. Petroleum

Corporation, which, until the.... Well, I don't want to go back into

history, and I won't; let's say that prior to 1972 that money was

allowed to go right through this province. We trap about half a billion

dollars in revenues through the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. It only

takes 33 people to run the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, so even with the

way this government spends money it doesn't all go out in wages and

salaries. There are many hundreds of millions of dollars every year,

and that wealth gets redistributed. Part of it goes to municipal

authorities to assist them in various municipal works. It also goes

into consolidated revenue. But that money gets out into the community,

because in this country we have enjoyed the best type of medical care.

We've had a very good education system, a system which encourages our

tourist industry, a system of government that assists small business.

There is nothing wrong with redistributing wealth, because if that

half a billion dollars just sat there and did nothing it would not be

serving the people of British Columbia. Jobs in health care are real

jobs, just as jobs in mines are real jobs. Jobs in schools are real

jobs, as are jobs in the forest industry. Service and retail jobs are

all real jobs. If we cut out any one of those sectors, we do diminish

the others. That is the threat of this legislation. That is why Michael

Walker put some distance between himself and this legislation. With a

six month hoist, I would hope that this government could....

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

MR. NICOLSON: I hope this interruption doesn't take away from my opportunity to adjourn the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order will please be brief.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This gets into the same point of order

that was raised after the speech.... This member is implying that Dr.

Michael Walker has changed his opinion and is now against the

legislation brought down by this government; a reading of his

article

and a talk with that gentleman will prove exactly the opposite. This

member is misrepresenting, either intentionally or unintentionally, the

intent and meaning of what Dr. Michael Walker has said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order has already been

discussed and has been dispensed with. If the minister wishes to enter

into debate on the amendment or the bill, the minister has every

opportunity to do it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That discussion was as it related to what

was said by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). This

relates directly to what the member who is currently standing on his

feet — when he should be seated — has just said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: If this bill is hoisted for six months, many of

these people over there will be able to get some distance. What you

need is time to save face, so let's have the hoist. You'll look

reasonable; you'll give it the second look; you can save face. You'll

be praised in the editorials. I know you will be; you can have my word

on that. It's happened before and my experience is that that is the

truth.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, if that member wants to make any bet, I can give him some examples of where this has happened on previous occasions.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 30

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote against this

resolution. I'm going to vote against a resolution which hoists Bill 3

for six months because I believe that legislation of this type is

essential and vital at this time. I know that it has to be seen in the

context of other law in this province and other legislation yet to be

brought into this House, but it is important for several reasons.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

First of all, our financial affairs in this province are not as good

as they have been. They're still better than in any other province in

Canada, with the possible exception of Alberta,

[ Page 401 ]

but still we have expenses which exceed our income

at the provincial level by something of the order of 20 percent. That

is exceptional in any jurisdiction, and it's a situation which cannot

be allowed to persist for long. Fortunately with the turning around in

the world economy our income side will undoubtedly improve and the

deficit problem will not be as large in the next few years as it has

been in the recent past.

We've a deficit problem; we've also got a job problem, To deal with

the job problem — and jobs are important, both in the public and

private sectors — we have to move deliberately. We have had a

tremendous growth in the public sector, in the government side of

things, in this country, and we've had similar — indeed, parallel —

growth at the provincial level. We have record employment in the public

service in British Columbia today. There is room, because of this

tremendous increase in employment to provide people services, for

efficiency measures and for some pruning, but I want to prove to you,

Mr. Speaker, that while the measures which are being taken will hit

some individuals hard — and the manner in which their retirement or

release from service is dealt with has to be done sensitively —

nevertheless, some jobs have to be pruned from the public service.

While they are being pruned, it is clear, to me at least, that there

are other jobs developing, not only generally in the private sector but

also as a result of expansion of expenditures in the public and

government sectors and, indeed, in some of our Crown corporations,

which in total exceed the number of jobs we're likely to use in some of

our older-style ministries. In other words, in totality, when you look

at the Speech from the Throne, at the budget, at the various programs

and at the new expenditures which this government is making, on balance

it's a job-creating budget, not only in the private sector but in the

public sector as well.

[3:45]

When I hear that of a quarter of a million public servants in the

province, a quarter of that number are going to lose their jobs, and

that 67,000 public service jobs are on the line, I have to react. It's

totally false. If I were quantifying the numbers of jobs that may be

lost, I would say they're in the order of a few thousand. If I were

quantifying the number of new jobs that are going to be created in the

public service alone, it's of the order of ten or fifteen thousand. So

on balance, in the public service or in activities closely related to

the public service in this province, there is a creation of jobs. There

will be additional people working in a year and a half, two years from

now in the public service, or in closely related activities like the

Crown corporations, so it is an employment-creating process. The budget

certainly says this. The supplementary bills point in that direction.

So we're not, on balance, losing jobs.

Our public service is a first-class service. We've got some very

fine people, some very capable people, and some very dedicated people

in the public service, and a few of them will lose their employment.

Hopefully most will retire in the normal course of events, but some

will be lost in the efficiency-generating process. They must be dealt

with as sensitively and humanely as possible. I think we all agree with

that, Mr. Speaker. I think we all assume that will happen in a province

which has, by and large, treated its public servants well. It must

continue to do so with even greater sensitivity in the next few months.

But back to the numbers game the opposition has been playing.

They've been talking about a quarter of a million — or 250,000 — public

employees in this province. They're talking about federal civil

servants who are not affected, obviously, by this provincial

legislation. They're talking about municipal civil servants who may or

may not be affected. They're talking about the army, the navy, the air

force. They're talking about the police force....

MR. HANSON: Not true! Tell the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. HANSON: Read the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. DAVIS: Well, for anyone who looks at the numbers, close

to half of that 250,000 are under the federal government or federal

legislation, or are working for federal Crown corporations like the CNR

or for the armed forces, etc. Clearly this bill doesn't reach to those

people. It doesn't reach to a number of our other operations. Let's

take, for example, the health care side. Expenditures under this budget

are up 8 percent in real terms. Most of that money — indeed,

three-quarters of that money — goes to salaries and wages. It's

obvious, therefore, that employment in the health care services will be

up 5 or 6 percent, at the very least. So forget the health care side

when you start talking about cutbacks. This bill doesn't apply to the

health care side. It doesn't apply to hospitals, doctors, nurses, and

so on. So there's another large chunk — 55,000 employees — to which it

doesn't apply.

MR. LEA: Can we quote you?

MR. DAVIS: You can quote me any time you want, sure. The

universities and colleges are another very large group of people who

are not affected by this package of legislation. Their budget has

increased roughly 8 percent. That's nearly all salaries and wages. If

we don't have wage increases in this province, obviously employment in

that area is going to go up, not down. We need more people to help

train and retrain those who are looking for work.

So, clearly, in the health care and education areas we've got an

increase in employment. We've got the employment development account,

new projects, and new hospitals being built. Incidentally, British

Columbia's the only province these days that's building new hospitals

in some numbers, and adding to capacity. There's additional employment

as well. Those increases have to be of the order of 10,000 to 20,000

more jobs. So that is on the positive side.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: I know you don't want to agree, but that's a fact.

On the negative side, on the down side — and I'm sorry to see the Vancouver Sun

as well has incorrect numbers today.... They're repeating, in part,

what the opposition's saying. They're talking about a big drop — a 10

percent drop, I think they say — in the public service. They're talking

about the old-style public service, which has grown now to the order of

44,000. It was in the high 20,000s ten years ago. It grew to the high

30,000s when the NDP were in power. It's now of the order of 40,000. It

is the intention of the government to bring it back to around 40,000

from 44,000. That's

[ Page 402 ]

4,000 jobs that will not be there, at least if the

present declarations of the government are carried out 12 to 18 months

from now. Getting on to half of those are temporary jobs.

So we're talking about several thousand permanent jobs which are

going to be eliminated from the public service. Therefore I said there

would be no loss of jobs — in fact, an increase in the health care and

education sides, and indeed in the human resources side — because that

budget is up. Several thousand jobs are gone.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: The opposition is talking about 250,000 jobs in jeopardy, but its....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour has the floor.

MR. DAVIS: The fact is that the number of jobs in the balance

is 1 percent of the number the opposition has been talking about. The

hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said 67,000 jobs were in

jeopardy; he took one quarter of 250,000 — a number of that order. It's

not 67,000. It may be 2,000 or 3,000 on the downside, but there is an

upside of 10,000 to 15,000. Obviously some people are going to have to

change jobs. I suggest that some of these people who are leaving the

public service will be retiring in any case. Some part of this is

attrition. That is the order of magnitude. That is the reality of it in

terms of human beings, in terms of life.

The hon. member who last sat down used the word "vivisection."

Others have talked about fascism, jackboot government and so on.

Obviously it's nonsense. Some part of this trimming is needed. As the

Minister of Finance said in the budget, government has grown too large.

I think the opposition has even repeated that phrase a time or two.

Since 1971-72 the provincial government has more than doubled the

amount it spends for the average British Columbian. In roughly ten

years, government has become twice its former size in real terms, and

it's costing a lot. People are demanding most of those services; if

they don't also want a commensurate increase in taxes, government has

to be more efficient, and some modest trimming is necessary. This is

all that is taking place. Bill 3 requests the authority to proceed with

that modest trimming.

The opposition wants it hoisted for six months, which in effect

would kill it for 12 months. They don't seem to be at all concerned

with the fact that taxation is already onerous here, as it is across

much of Canada. People don't want to pay more taxes; indeed, many of

them cannot; certainly those who are unemployed cannot. They want the

government to be more circumspect, to downsize reasonably and

rationally, and to put money into other things which people clearly

indicate as their priorities. In the provincial sphere it is health

care, education and, due to the high level of unemployment, human

resources. That is where the increases in expenditures are taking

place. That's where the increased job opportunities are. Because they

haven't been quantified in terms of today's civil servants, the

opposition is assuming that it's nothing but cut, cut, cut. Of the

several thousand people who will lose their jobs in the old-style

ministries, three-quarters will probably be retiring in any case;

attrition, etc. will look after their leaving. I really don't have too

much trouble with that aspect of it.

What I think really gets the public upset is the clause in Bill 3

which says "without cause." I'm not a lawyer. I really don't know all

of its implications. What it suggests to the public is that a person

can be fired for any reason whatsoever and have no knowledge of why he

was fired. That may be the literal

interpretation of the clause. Public

servants in this province — indeed, most public servants across Canada

— are protected by the agreements their unions have with their

employers, be they governments, Crown corporations, whatever. Their

protection lies, first, in their agreement with the employer, and

secondly, with the general framework of laws in the province. All other

legislation isn't withdrawn as a result of this bill being passed.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the House to

recognize the fact that the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour has

the floor. Please give him the consideration of this House.

MR. DAVIS: To try to be succinct in this area, today in the Vancouver Province

a management lawyer, Mr. Tom Roper, is quoted. He sums up what he

thinks this legislation is all about: "What's going on is that public

sector employers" — the government, Crown corporations, whatever — "are

being given the same authority over their employees" that private

sector employers have always had in dealing with private sector

employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true!

MR. DAVIS: It isn't simply a jungle out there. If this bill

and its companion legislation passes, public servants will be in the

same position, in terms of protection from the law, that all the rest

of us have been all our lives. I don't think that is all that bad.

[4:00]

First of all, many of our public servants have special training and

special abilities, and have demonstrated their capability to do their

jobs. They're not going to lose their employment; they're needed.

That's one assurance they have. Secondly, they have very strong unions

to bargain for them. Thirdly, and this is generally true across Canada

today, public employees — I'll be glib: civil servants — are better

paid than their opposite numbers in the private sector. They're better

paid by the order of a third. That's the conclusion of people who've

done research in this area. They're better paid; they're needed; and

they're protected by a strong union. They have security during the

lives of each of these union contracts which may go one year, two

years, three years at a time. What else do they need? What else do they

want?

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: The hon. member says jobs. Ninety-five percent of

them will have their jobs one, two and three years from now. But 5

percent may have had to go in the interests of efficiency. In a

reviving economy that isn't that bad, either.

[ Page 403 ]

1 really think that this bill and its impact on the public service

has been overdrawn to an incredible extent. We're only talking about a

few thousand — admittedly very valuable — lives, very competent and

capable people. But on balance the number of jobs being created is

several times that. Those who are not going to retire anyway through

normal attrition can find employment. I'm sure that those who really

want to find a job — the majority, anyway — will be out there and

finding a job. I expect that the severance pay arrangements, the

recommendations and so on will be appropriate to their finding other

employment.

What does the opposition expect? We've had a public service growing

and growing and growing. We've got people-programs like health,

education and welfare growing and growing and growing. Is there no

levelling off? Is there no turning around in some areas? Is there no

intention of some greater efficiency? How would they handle it?

MS. BROWN: You said there were going to be more jobs.

MR. DAVIS: There are going to be more jobs in total, but

they're not necessarily going to be in the same ministry, in the same

profession, in the same area of skill. There's going to have to be

change and readjustment, and obviously there's going to be some upset —

considerable upset in some cases — in individual lives. This is what's

been happening wholesale in the private sector. It's regrettable, but

it's a fact of life. To introduce a small measure of this in the public

service is regrettable, but it has to happen. Some adjustment is

obviously necessary, especially at this time when we're already running

a massive deficit, when we've got the biggest public service in

history, when we're committing half of the income of every British

Columbian to government. Obviously we have to do some trimming. We have

to be concerned with efficiency and there has to be change.

We must maintain the merit principle. We have to be concerned with

seniority. I'm sure that the representatives of the public service

employees will insist on seniority as a concern.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to, please, restrain herself.

MR. DAVIS: Obviously we need a bill like Bill 3 — a bill, however, which has to be administered with sensitivity and with real care.

There's another element to this bill that we urgently need, Mr.

Speaker, and that is the other part of the bill. One says: "Downsize

government." The other part of the bill allows the administration to

trim or level or reduce income at the top. We have a large number of

public servants — I'll say dozens — in this province who are paid more

than the Premier. In my particular riding the superintendent of the

school district gets over $100,000 per year plus certain perks. There

are six or eight people in that school district office who get more

than $60,000. There are 50-plus — I'll call them public servants — in

School District 44 who are in administration, in head office. The

numbers have grown steadily while the number of young people in primary

and secondary schools has declined persistently for the past ten years.

The income of those people has gone up automatically at the same

percentage as teachers' incomes. Last year in 1981-82 it went up 17

percent. That's ridiculous. The school board should never have approved

increases of the order and magnitude for people who are purely in

administration and are not teaching.

We have people — admittedly good people — around the province who

are drawing, I think, unconscionable amounts from the public treasury.

I am sure that we need legislation like this to allow the government to

review these high incomes and set up a

schedule that makes sense to

ensure comparability for comparable ability and work effort across the

province and then pay them by that schedule. A few may leave because

they're not being paid what they used to be paid, but I expect that

they'll stay because they're living in British Columbia, along with the

opportunities and challenges inside the field of education. Most of

them will stay, anyway.

This has to be done if we're going to be not only more efficient in

government but more sensible. The public out there doesn't know about

these anomalies. I doubt if one in a hundred voters in North

Vancouver–Seymour really knows what the superintendent of schools is

paid in our area or what some of the other senior people are paid not

to teach. Those changes have to be made, and they should be made

urgently. Our credit rating as a province has slipped because we're

running a bigger deficit and we're not indicating the intention of

tightening up and improving efficiency to the extent that those who

will lend their money to us would like to see us do. Therefore this

matter is urgent.

I'm going to vote for Bill 3. I'm also going to vote against the

resolution, which says we should engage in a further copout and stall

it for six months. That would mean a period when we're not meeting and

would put off these tough decisions for another year.

MR. HOWARD: I don't know that I can declare as emphatically

as the member who just sat down that I will vote against this

particular amendment. I have some question in my mind about it because

at the rate we're going, we may still be here six months from now. If

the amendment passes, then, of course, what we're saying is that it'll

be long past six months from now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're delaying its passage.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, it's delaying tactics; you've identified it

exactly. Fascist legislation needs to be delayed. Hon. gentlemen

opposite may not like the fact that a number of members are debating

this, but you have to understand that in a political democracy the only

defence in this Legislature against fascist-type legislation is a

filibuster. That's the only one that's available. If we give up and we

abandon that responsibility and that right, then we roll over and play

dead to the steamroller of government opposite, and we can't

countenance that. Hon. gentlemen may not like it, but that's a fact of

parliamentary life and that's where we're headed.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: If the twofold Minister of Environment, Lands,

Parks and Housing, and whatever else it is, wants to engage in debate,

I'd suggest that's what he should do,

[ Page 404 ]

instead of chattering away from his seat making

inane comments designed for no great purpose but to vent his

frustration that he can't steamroller this bill through the House.

I listened with a great deal of interest to the member for North

Vancouver– Seymour (Mr. Davis). When one seeks to substantiate a

particular measure, as was done in this case, and uses inappropriate

statistics, adjusts the statistics to suit his own convenience,

misquotes statistics and generally plays what he says is a numbers

game, one is only entitled to conclude that he has a very poor case in

trying to substantiate this particular piece of legislation. He missed

entirely the part of the bill....

MR. DAVIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member

is saying at the very least that I'm misquoting statistics. He's going

further in implying that I am deliberately misusing them. I'm prepared

to table any of the numbers, any of the background material,

illustrating the veracity of those numbers at any time, for the

edification of the hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. Temperate debate is always in order.

MR. HOWARD: The member just touched lightly in passing on the

major question in this bill, which is the desire on the part of

government to have a state-controlled centralized authority over a

great bulk of public servants, and the right to fire them — to

terminate their employment without cause, without reason, without

justification or for whatever reason the government, whoever it might

be, would seek to employ. He said he was concerned about that, but he

touched over it.

The member, as I understood what he was saying, drew the army and

the navy into it and then said that of course it doesn't apply to them.

I don't know what he was talking about. We know it doesn't apply to

them.

He also said, Mr. Speaker — and in this I think the hon. member

either didn't read the bill or really wasn't interested in it — that it

doesn't apply on the health care side, doesn't apply to hospitals. Of

course it does. We have a Minister of Health in this province, and we

have a Deputy Minister of Health. The government of B.C. is an employer

under this act, and it applies to the health care side of the Ministry

of Health. A specific reference in the bill identifies as an employer

"a hospital as defined in the Hospital Act." He made reference to

universities. Another employer under this is "a university as defined

in the University Act." These are covered; they're not exempted or

excluded. It applies all across the board to every employee in the

public service at any level in the province of British Columbia under

provincial jurisdiction. It does not apply to the Canadian National

Railways; of course not. That kind of argument, based upon his desire

to use figures and statistics to try to make a case, indicates that

when he gets to the realities and the factual part of it, he's off base

completely.

[4:15]

He said, Mr. Speaker — I wrote it down, and if I wrote it down

inaccurately I'm sure the hon. member will correct me — that since

1971-72 government expenditures have doubled. That is the essence of

what he said. In the narrow context of that particular sentence, I

suppose that is accurate. But it's terrible misleading, because when he

started to refer to government expenditures, when he started the debate

with his opening remarks, saying that our finances are in poor shape,

he was really engaging in a debate condemning his own government. He

didn't want to go far enough though. So while his statement was that

government expenditures since 1971-72 have doubled, you may say that's

inaccurate; they've more than doubled. The facts of the matter are,

from the budgets presented in this Legislature, that they have doubled

since 1978-79. They have doubled in the last five years under this

government; and yes, more than doubled over the last 10 or 12 years,

whatever it is that goes back to the period he picked. I don't know why

he picked 1971-72. Is there something magic about that particular year?

No, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that profligacy started in

this province under this Social Credit government and particularly

under this Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The present Minister of Finance has introduced into this House four

budgets; and do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in that period of time

government expenditures have increased 85.11 percent? Why didn't the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour identify that? Why didn't he say

that's why we're in trouble in this province — because this government

and these guys opposite and that Minister of Finance didn't give a damn

about public funds? They acted like someone who had struck a gold mine,

like someone who had new-found wealth, drunk with authority and power

and someone else's money — and raised taxes to do it, in the process.

Let's look at precisely what has happened under this Minister of

Finance, and maybe we'll understand why we are in financial trouble in

this province. The fault lies exclusively and entirely on the shoulders

of the Premier of this province and his particular Minister of Finance,

the current minister.

I'll give you some actual figures for what went on here. In 1979-80

the hon. Evan Wolfe was the Minister of Finance; that was his last

budget. The estimates for the budget of that year were $4.56 billion.

The next year, 1980-81, was the first year the current minister became

Minister of Finance. In his first budget the expenditures proposed —

and they went above this, incidentally; I'm only talking about the

proposal, what they could foresee what they wanted to do — were $5.54

billion, an increase in one year of 21.5 percent, a 21.5 increase in

the squandering of public funds by this government in the first year

that this minister was Minister of Finance.

In his second budget, in 1981-82, the proposal was $6.61 billion: an

increase that year over the previous year of 19.1 percent, More

squandering of public funds, more living high off the hog at the

public's expense. Talk about shovelling money off the back of a truck!

Of course, I don't know how they could get the truck into those bars

they frequented, because that's where they shovelled it from.

In 1982-83 the third budget of this Minister of Finance had an

increase of 9.4 percent. That's when he was talking about restraint. He

cut back a little bit. And this year, the budget before us — if the

government ever gets the courage screwed up enough to bring the budget

back again, we may find this out — contrary to what the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour said a moment ago about an 8 percent increase,

or something of that sort.... The budget itself, on page 36, points out

the total operating expenses proposed in this coming year. Look at

those as a percentage increase over last year, and this year — in the

year of restraint — we're increasing the budgetary expenditures by 16.7

percent, not 8

[ Page 405 ]

percent as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said. I won't accuse him of

deliberately using figures here. I'll just say he was ignorant of the

facts, or using particular selected statistics in order to buttress a

poor case. But that's why we are in trouble in this province, if we are

in trouble financially. It's because we've had a government careless

and indifferent about public expenditures. In fact, they gloated over

it.

If you remember the budgets — the second or third budget brought in

by this Minister of Finance — how many times he made reference in those

budgets to, "We are increasing the expenditure on this, increasing the

expenditure on that, " and hon. members opposite applauded at their

desks until their hands were sore, applauding the increase in public

expenditure.

In the 1981-82 fiscal year, to get back and deal with this question

of fiscal responsibility — that was the second budget of the current

Minister of Finance — we in the New Democratic Party could see from the

estimates to the House.... That's all we had to go on; we couldn't get

back into the ministries to find out what waste and extravagance

existed there. We could only deal with the material that was presented

in conjunction with the budget. But we saw then, in 1981-82, that

something was seriously wrong. That level of expenditure, an increase

of 19.1 percent, was improper, obscene, and not in the public interest.

We identified, as you very well recall, four areas of public

expenditure that did not relate to programs or services to people, but

related to head offices, lavish travel expenses of ministers. We

identified travelling expenses, office expenses, office furnishings and

advertising as direct expenditures that the government was engaged in.

In addition to that, we identified BCBC payments, which are simply a

subterfuge to channel money out of public coffers into the B.C.

Buildings Corporation, and we identified the B.C. Systems Corporation

computer charges as another area.

In that year, the total amount of money that we identified just from

being able to look at the surface was $81.9 million, that we in the NDP

identified as being waste, extravagance, fat and lavish living: money

sucked out of the taxpayers' pockets, pocketbooks, bank accounts and

purses. We said that was wrong. That was in 1981-82. You remember, Mr.

Speaker, every single amendment we put forward in this House to reduce

those expenditures — just back to the year before; we didn't say wipe

it out completely. We know people have got to travel. We know they have

to have office expenses for paper and this sort of thing. They had to

do some advertising, no question about that. All we wanted to do was go

back to the previous year for a total saving of $81.9 million. And

every single one of those amendments was voted against by hon. members

opposite, including the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis). In that year he voted to spend $81.9 million more than was

necessary for running government.

The following year, 1982-83, we did the same thing when we went over

the estimates. That was another restraint year, so we were told. We

tried again to save the taxpayers of this province money, and again we

went through the same exercise in a serious attempt to identify to the

government — blind though it was at that time — and identify to the

general public that savings could and should be made in government

expenditures. We found another $76 million in that year, and every one

of those amendments was voted down by the government. You'll remember

that well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure. You were here. It may well be that

you voted against some of them yourself, when you were not Mr. Speaker,

of course.

One example is the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). He is

not here at the moment, but I would like to make reference to this to

point out the ridiculousness of what this government did two years ago.

We took the estimates for the Minister of Forests for last year and I

believe it was on vote 42, which is the minister's own office

expenditures, that we identified $713, a small amount of money in

comparative terms, as being an excessive request by the Minister of

Forests for the running of his office. What's $713 when you're talking

about $6 billion or $7 billion? It becomes pretty minor, and I make

reference to it to point out the case, Mr. Speaker, that the person who

led the vote against that particular amendment, just to save a little

$713 out of the minister's expense account, was the minister himself.

"No, siree, I want that extra $713." I don't know what he wanted it for

— maybe to send Christmas cards.

I wonder if you know that the general public in this province give —

they don't know that they do it, but they give — through an

appropriation, an amount of money to every cabinet minister so that the

cabinet minister can use the public money to go out and buy Christmas

cards and pay for the stamps on them to mail them back to the general

public. So if you got a Christmas card last year, Mr. Speaker, from any

member of the cabinet, the taxpayers paid for it. It didn't come out of

the minister's pocket. A small thing, but we need to talk in those

terms of small, identifiable items in order to point out how

profligate, wasteful and disgustingly obscene in financial matters this

government is being.

Now we are being faced with a pro-centralist, extremist,

fascist-type piece of legislation to make public servants pay for the

mishandling of the affairs of this province. I wonder why the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour didn't engage in that kind of debate, go

fully into it and explain really what it was he was doing and what his

rationale is for voting the way he says he's going to vote.

Never mind the financial part of it, Mr. Speaker. We're in trouble

financially because the affairs of this province have been mishandled

and mismanaged. When the accounts or the budgets, with respect to those

fiscal affairs, have been presented to this House, they have been

falsified so as not to show the true record. They show a picture other

than that which in fact it is. Just the other day the auditor-general

identified simply one area and said that there are many items in the Public Accounts that she cannot verify as being accurate, but as being false, and that's the situation we're faced with.

The government strategy on this bill appears to be to take the

extreme position: create public furor, attack the groups in the

province as they have done, and fire people by going to visit them on

Sundays and on birthdays and not letting them come back into the

office. They lock the doors, treat them like criminals and then

afterwards, after the furor has been created, they step back a little

bit and maybe make some changes. That was what the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour hinted at earlier today. That's what the Vancouver Province this morning seemed to indicate.

Let me read a word or two from an

article by Rod Mickleburgh.

"Sources close to the provincial government report that

regulations being drawn up to accompany the

[ Page 406 ]

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3) will include recognition

of employee seniority rights in determining public sector layoffs....

"Sources indicate the regulations will be unveiled as

early as August 8 and that much of the inherent unfairness (to use a

mild term) of the legislation, including loss of seniority rights, will

then be eliminated."

[4:30]

Is that the game the government plays? It seems decidedly dishonest,

if that's what government is up to, to lay out a case of wanting the

ultimate hammer, power and right to fire people without cause, and then

when the public clamour comes along, try to paint themselves as the

nice guys by saying: "Oh, we're going to dilute this somewhat. We're

going to prepare regulations in which we'll deal with the questions of

seniority." The legislation is still extremist and state control, no

matter what the regulations might or might not say.

The other

part is, given the history of this government and the

person who is attempting to pilot this bill through the House, it's

easy to make regulations and soften the blow against the people who

will be affected by this bill in the hopes that they will pull back and

say: "Oh, well, that's nice. We'll accept that part of it now." Then

later on they tighten up on the regulations in the secret back room of

the cabinet and place the hammer on them again. If that's the strategy

they're following, if there's any truth whatever to the

article that

Rod Mickleburgh has written this morning.... I've read his comments

over the years from time to time and have found him to be accurate,

fair and decent in his treatment of subject matters of this nature and

factual when he refers to such matters. So I'm not questioning the

truth of it; I'm just saying that if that is in fact what's going to

take place, it's all the more reason to delay this bill, all the more

reason to defeat the bill, because the government is asking for the

ultimate power in legislation so they can fiddle around with the

regulations as suits their convenience later on. The fascist

orientation of the legislation is in the bill, and will remain there so

long as it is in its present shape.

I want to talk about another brief item on mismanagement or

mishandling of public funds. This relates to a letter, I believe it

was, that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) referred to the

other day — a New Year's message from the minister. This was just a few

months ago. The

article in the Sun said that Chabot told the House the

government's objective had been to reduce government personnel through

attrition, but because of the change in economic circumstances in

British Columbia it wasn't possible; therefore they've had to take a

different approach to that particular problem.

Is the minister saying that six months ago he, the minister, and the

government didn't recognize what serious economic trouble we were in?

If he is admitting that — and to me that's what he's admitting — he's

got no business being minister. He's a mishandler and a bungler of

everything that's come under his control, and he's now saying: "Six

months ago I didn't recognize that we had economic difficulty in this

province. That's why I wrote that nice letter saying Happy New Year.

We're not going to fire anybody. We're going to let attrition take its

place." What short-sightedness is that? The quip made across the floor

of this House to that comment from the minister was the accurate one:

"The only thing that has changed is that an election took place in the

interim between last Christmas and now." That was a political message

at Christmas that the minister was using, and the minister was giving

the recipients of that letter misleading information. I say he knew it

was misleading at the time, but he didn't have the intestinal fortitude

to deal fairly and honestly with people in the public service. He

wanted to hide the true intentions of this government in the hopes that

if they got through the election, then they could bring in legislation

of this sort.

Let's see what the Kelowna Capital News has to say about that. This

is from an

article last Saturday. I won't read the earlier part; it's

talks about this particular bill:

"Yes, we can now cease casting our glances over to Chile"

— Chile has a fascist government — "or Poland" — Poland has a Communist

government; they both operate in the same way, by the state's domination

of citizen's rights, and that's the course on which this government

is set — "to make those superficial cluck-cluck noises. Sit back, sip your

tea and coffee. Enjoy one of the worst attacks on human rights and freedoms

ever mounted by a democratically elected government in the western world...."

That's pretty severe objective stuff, I submit.

MR. HANSON: Is that the Democrat ?

MR. HOWARD: No, that's not the Democrat . It's some paper published in the home town of the Premier: the Kelowna Capital News .

He goes on:

"...right here in our own backyard.

"But what the heck, let's say it while we still have

the freedom to do so. The next government salvo might include

imprisonment for anyone daring to publish anti-Socred material.

Impossible, you say? Consider that in the first round of 28 pieces of

legislation is one edict which hasn't received much publicity. If a

municipality or a school board or any other public body covered by the

restraint measures contained within the Public Service Restraint Act

questions Kaiser Bill's commands...."

I would never use a phrase like that in the House, Mr. Speaker. I

think that's going beyond the bounds of ordinarily respectable debate.

I'm only reading an editorial written for general consumption outside.

To proceed: "...they will be subject to a $2,000 fine." I notice

that's a part that hon. members opposite didn't deal with. Let's see

what this $2,000 fine says to members of a municipal council, a school

board, a university or a volunteer group on the board of directors of a

hospital society — dedicated public servants, volunteering their time

to run hospitals. If they receive a directive.... Remember, this is not

an order-in-council; it doesn't have the basic force of administrative

law. Maybe the word is not "directive," it's "direction." If they

receive a direction from a minister or the way I read this — a deputy

minister respecting the compensation of senior managers, as the

minister considers necessary or advisable, etc.... If they receive such

direction from one person about compensation for senior managers that

the one person deems acceptable or advisable, and don't put it into

effect, whether because of a contractual relationship or a principle

feeling on the part of any member

[ Page 407 ]

of those groups, there's a $2,000 fine. Is that a decent, fair way to treat human beings in a so-called free society?

The mere fact of a threat of a fine, the threat of a court case, the

threat of forcing people to appear before a judge, which is what this

would be.... The mere fact that that is included in a piece of

legislation indicates that it's fascist. That's the orientation in this

particular bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Would you prefer they go to jail?

MR. COCKE: Hey, did you hear that? Put it on the record.

MR. HOWARD: He does not have the courage to do that, just like the gentleman sitting behind him — a gutless wonder, snipes from his....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'm standing here on a question of

privilege. That Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is gutless and

hasn't got the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say directly what

he's saying here by innuendo. I'll forgive him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to withdraw the

unparliamentary remarks with reference to another member. That was an

unparliamentary remark.

MR. HOWARD: What was?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair clearly heard a personal reference

to another hon. member. I ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw

that personal reference.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Skeena please withdraw the personal reference.

MR. HOWARD: I'm trying to get to that, Mr. Speaker. I

withdraw that reference. I'll look that member in the eye and tell him

yes, I'll withdraw that reference, and I'll forgive him for the

insulting comments he made and forgive the people behind him for the

insulting comments they made in my constituency during the election

campaign, and the foul and vile type of campaign they advocated people

put on in that riding. You're forgiven.

If the Provincial Secretary wants to say anything in this debate, I

suggest he stand up and engage in the debate. Get involved in it. Never

mind standing there like a dog yapping and sniffing like somebody's got

pork chops tied around their ankles.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, that member has made

reference to comments that he claims I made during the election

campaign. I would ask that he either be specific or else withdraw any

inference that anything in any way dishonourable was said by me or

anyone else during the election campaign.

MR. HOWARD: Before you proceed, Mr. Speaker, I said no such

thing. And if the Minister of Forests would pay attention to what's

said in this House, he'd understand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena has clearly withdrawn

any personal reference to another hon. member. I will ask all hon.

members of the House to come to order.

MR. HOWARD: What I was talking about, before that rude and

offensive interjection from the Provincial Secretary, is that he is

asking this House to give any cabinet minister the authority to issue a

direction to a municipality, a university, a board of directors of a

hospital society, a school board and to any other of the number of

public sector employers identified in this bill and the

schedule to it.

Give him the right to determine what compensation a senior manager will

get and to force that down the throats of any of those groups. If they

disagree, take them to court and threaten with a $2,000 fine.

[4:45]

This is legislation that one would expect Jaruzelski or Pinochet to

bring in, but not a human being in this province — if that's the

appropriate designation to use. I only use that to mention that this

legislation does have within it all the trappings, all the structure,

all the domination that one would expect in a country that has a

totalitarian government. We may spend days and days and days dealing

with it, Mr. Speaker, and that process is the only avenue open to us.

When legislation, to put it politely, is as offensive and intrusive as

this, as undemocratic as this, there's only one way to approach it:

delaying, by every conceivable, correct means at our disposal, the

progress of it. That's what we are going to have to do.

To get back to this

article by Rainer Ziegenhagen in the Central

Okanagan Capital News , he knows what he's talking about. He said:

"That's right. These Socreds will brook no criticism as they do their

damnedest to dismantle our society and reshape it into what my mom and

dad fled a generation ago." A simple explanation of that person's

background indicates he knows precisely what he's talking about. Those

of us in this chamber, or many of us in any event — many that I know of

— didn't have to flee from some other country because of the politics

of that country. I was born here and I didn't experience any of the

things that this gentleman who wrote this

article did. As a kind of a

finale just to make the point, if one needs to make it: "Before this is

all finished doctors and teachers won't be the only ones who will be

told where to live and how to practise their profession. The guns are

aimed at all of us."

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to give the government some time to think

about its course of action, I move adjournment of the debate until the

next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

[ Page 408 ]

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A, Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Reid

Parks

Ree

Reynolds

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

MR. HOWARD: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker,

during the course of my closing remarks with respect to Bill 3, just

before moving the motion that we voted on, I was talking about the

$2,000 fine against municipal councillors and the like that is

contained in Bill 3. I heard the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

say something, which I misunderstood, and as a consequence of my

misunderstanding that, I engaged in a cross-fire conversation with him.

It wasn't till I sat down that my colleague from New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) said to me that what the Provincial Secretary hollered across

the floor was, "Would you sooner they went to jail?" — meaning

municipal councillors and so on. I thought he had said something else,

and I do extend my apology for misunderstanding him and for engaging in

the conversation with him.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in support of this

amendment, I am sorry that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis) has left the room, because he made so many erroneous statements

that I assume he said the things he said because he didn't have the

facts. I wanted to set the record straight, and I will tell you about

it.

First of all, what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said in

speaking against the amendment was that the Ministry of Human

Resources, because it showed an increase in its budget, would be

creating jobs. I think that statement indicated very clearly that not

only had that member not read the bill, but he certainly had not

bothered to take the time to took at his estimate book. What the

estimate book shows is a very clear decrease in the staff of the

Ministry of Human Resources to the extent of 500 people at least,

despite the fact that there is a major increase in the budget for that

ministry. If he had taken the time to find out where that increase

showed up, he would have found that the increase showed up in the

income assistance program, which is almost double. What that clearly

indicates is that the government is anticipating an increase in the

number of people in this province who are going to be drawing income

assistance. It is not an increase that is going to create jobs; there's

going to be a decrease of about 500 jobs, but there's going to be an

increase in the number of people collecting income assistance.

The March figures for this year tell us that there is something in

the neighbourhood of 207,346 people in this province collecting income

assistance at this time. This increase in the income assistance part of

the gain budget — almost doubling, as it is — must be the government's

way of acknowledging that it is going to be throwing people out of work

and increasing unemployment and that it has decided that it's much

cheaper to pay people income assistance than to pay them salaries to do

a job. I think that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour should

check the estimate books and read the bill at the same time. He'll

find, for example, that in all of the programs in the Ministry of Human

Resources there's been a decrease. There's a decrease in the seniors'

supplement, the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, the bus pass program,

the seniors' counselling service, and, as we know, the decision has

been made to wipe out the program dealing with physical and sexual

child abuse, along with a number of other programs. There's also a

decrease in the opportunities to independence, the community

residential care program — in the part of the budget that deals with

rehabilitation services — and the community contracted services.

When that member talks about the increase in Human Resources in the

budget meaning that jobs are going to be created in Human Resources, he

really is saying the very opposite of what's going to happen. What the

government has very clearly decided — I will repeat — is that it is

much cheaper to keep people on welfare than to keep them employed. The

government has decided that it would rather have people on welfare in

this province than have people working, and that's the reason why it

has increased its income assistance budget, although it has frozen the

rates. There are not going to be any increases in the rates, but it has

increased the budget for people on income assistance and decreased the

number of workers who are going to be working with those people and

wiped out a number of the very essential and necessary programs in that

particular ministry.

I am speaking in support of the amendment because I really think

that the government needs at least six months to re-examine some of the

far-reaching impacts that this act is going to have on the province as

a whole. I think they have not taken the time to look at the impact of

this reduction of the public service on the quality of life of the

people of British Columbia.

[5:00]

For example, I would like to know, looking specifically at the

Attorney-General's ministry, who the 500 people are who are going to be

released from that ministry. What is the service that they are

presently giving which is going to be either reduced or eliminated?

Which are the programs which they are presently involved in which are

going to be terminated? Programs dealing specifically with the

juveniles? Legal aid? What are those programs? When you look at the

estimates you see that the major decrease in the Attorney-General's

budget is not in his office staff or the kinds of things that he uses,

but comes in the provincial judiciary and the provincial court. The

provincial court is the court — if I can use the exact words of the

estimate — that deals with "family and children service, small claims,

criminal trials and justice of the peace services."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: And it will be dealing with the termination of the

role of the rentalsman in mediation of landlord-tenant disputes. I

tried to question the minister today in question period about the fact

that at the very time when there is going to be an increased impact on

this particular court as a result of the rentalsman's office being

eliminated, the budget for that is being decreased. The one thing I got

from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) was that there had been

[ Page 409 ]

really no research, no analysis done in his ministry of that

decision on the part of the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt).

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But in looking specifically at the Attorney-General, I want to deal

with a number of areas. First of all, I want to talk about the justice

system and how it has always been unfair and has always unfairly

penalized women who have the misfortune to have to pass through that

particular system. I want to read into the record a letter which the

Attorney-General received, which was signed by the women inmates of

Oakalla. It says:

"In an

article published June 29 by the Vancouver Sun

concerning discrimination against women prisoners due to the fact that

the new remand centre in Vancouver will only hold men, we would like to

bring to your attention the statement made by Bob Hagman, the director

of the new facility. He has stated that the remand centre will hold

only men because there are only 'six to eight women on remand at any

given time, and it wouldn't make sense to have a half-empty unit, as

the smallest one would hold 13.' We would like to bring to the

attention of the public and Mr. Hagman that at the present time there

are 31 women awaiting trial in Oakalla, and that is what the average is.

"Once again, it is obvious to us that the women

prisoners of British Columbia are being swept under the rug, with the

corrections branch already turning half of the Twin Maples correctional

centre for women over to the men, closing down Lynda Williams

correctional centre for women, and more than likely turning that over

to male inmates, and now not allowing women prisoners to benefit from

being placed in a new remand centre instead of Oakalla."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am a one-issue woman! And I am not apologizing

for that. I am not ashamed of the fact that I am interested in women's

issues, but I am ashamed of the fact that your government has never

ceased, on every opportunity it has had, to trample the rights of women

in this province. That's what I am ashamed of.

Somebody has to say something to you and to your colleagues about

the kinds of injustices that you continue to visit on the women of this

province.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Rubbish!

MS. BROWN: You really believe that the kinds of things that

this government — your government — continue to do to women and

children in this province are okay? And to speak out against that is

rubbish? That certainly says a lot about you and what you stand for.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if I may continue to read from this letter

signed by the women inmates of Oakalla — whom I will be very happy to

inform that the new member from Surrey, herself a woman, thinks that

this issue is rubbish; and I'll see to it that her comments are

forwarded to every one of the women who have signed this, and any other

bright and clever statements that she has to make about women in this

province I'll see to it that they get too....

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of Hansard , I'm quoting again:

"There are now only one and a half jails in British

Columbia to hold female offenders, which leaves us to be crammed into

Oakalla to await trial, and then stay there after we are sentenced as

there is now nowhere else to go.

"When we were sent to prison, we all realized we would

no longer have the rights of a Canadian citizen, but we held onto the

belief that we would be treated fairly, without discrimination against

sex, colour or religion. As the public cries out for help in dealing

with prostitution, drug addiction and other forms of criminal

behaviour, they have totally ignored the core of the problem, which is

the fact that women offenders are given little or no chance now of

choosing a productive lifestyle after being incarcerated. The programs

designed to rehabilitate women and give them a sense of worth and

accomplishment will be taken away by the closure of Lynda Williams. The

opportunity for many women to live in a much less hostile and confined

jail has been taken away by the admission of male inmates to Twin

Maples, and now female inmates will not be allowed to benefit from a

new remand centre.

"The outcome of all of this is simple. Society can

expect more and more female criminals. Young and first offenders will

learn the trades of the old-timers, and as the gloomy dungeon of

Oakalla bursts at the seams with women, the frustration, depression and

hatred — all the benefits of Oakalla — will be taken out with those

women when they are released onto the streets.

Sincerely yours,

The Women Inmates of Oakalla."

This, Mr. Speaker, is one direct result of the kinds of things which

will result from the implementation of Bill 3. This one letter, if no

other, would be sufficient reason to ask this government to hoist this

particular piece of legislation for at least six months, to look at its

genuine impact on that particular institution and on the kinds of

services that women inmates are not getting: specifically, the decision

to close the Lynda Williams home, to not include them in the new remand

centre, and to open up half of the Twin Maples to men. So I think that

the government should take a second look at that issue.

The other issue that I want to look at, again under the

Attorney-General's ministry, is this whole business of the government's

conflicting attitude toward alcohol. When I speak about alcohol, I'm

going to speak about women and alcohol too. So that's going to be

another one of my one-issue issues. I'm also going to be speaking about

men and alcohol, and children and alcohol too. The government views

alcohol in a number of different ways, so I'm breaking it down into

themes.

My first theme is the government's position of alcohol as an easy

source of revenue. We are told that the government anticipates a $330

million profit on 1982-83 sales of alcohol. This amount can be

increased at the whim of the minister. For example, Mr. Speaker, in the

1981 budget speech the Finance minister said: "I have asked my

colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to increase

liquor distribution markups to raise an additional $28 million in the

coming

[ Page 410 ]

fiscal year." This is easy money for the government to raise. The

government justifies this on the grounds that the money raised through

the sale of alcohol.... The government is a pusher; nobody pushes

alcohol in this province but the government. The government is a

drug-pusher; that's what the government is when it comes to alcohol. It

justifies this by simply saying that it raises additional money to pay

for some of the other services which it needs.

Theme number two is alcohol as a retail commodity, again sold by the government....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What does that have to do with the bill?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it has everything to do with the bill

when the programs dealing with alcohol are going to be cut. The Drug

and Alcohol Commission has been wiped out, its membership and support

staff fired, all as a direct result of the bill. What I'm looking at is

the hypocritical attitude of the government toward alcohol. It sells,

pushes, advertises and taxes alcohol, and then it wipes out the arm of

the government which deals with education and research and work to help

people who are alcoholics. It increases its role as a drug-pusher, and

then wipes out the Alcohol and Drug Commission, the educational

program, the research and all of the services to alcoholics in this

province. That's what it has to do with the bill.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm glad I told you. If you didn't realize that

that's what that drug-pushing government of yours was doing, it's about

time you found it out.

As I said before, the government in its role of selling, retailing,

taxing and advertising does a super job. But when it comes to its role

of dealing with alcohol as a potential health problem it fails

miserably. In the annual report of the Ministry of Health for 1980 we

were told that alcohol and drug abuse is a major problem in this

province, probably the highest in all of Canada. Yet the statistics

show us the kind of money that this government was spending: $7 million

on alcohol and drug programs. It takes in $365 million, it was spending

$2.7 million on the Alcohol and Drug Commission, and it's wiped that

out. The $3.3 million that went into special funds was wiped out last

year — the preventive program, the school-based program, the

Counterattack program. There is no money for all those programs dealing

with alcoholics.

I think it's about time that somebody talked about this hypocritical

attitude of that government towards alcohol. We are told again — and

I'm using some statistics from the Ministry of Health — that although

death