1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

813 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Business bankruptcies. Mr. Stupich –– 814

Change of B.C. Transit colours. Mr. Macdonald –– 814

Reappointment of McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 814

Financial irregularities in the Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Cocke –– 815

Tourism information programs. Mr. Cocke –– 815

Financial aid for post-secondary students. Mr. Rose 815

Health collective funding. Mrs. Dailly –– 815

Trading in Sunmask shares. Hon. Mr. Hewitt replies –– 816

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 4). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis __ 816

Mr. Stupich –– 817

Public Service Restraint Act (Bill 3). Second reading

On the amendment

Mr. Barrett –– 821

MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in

celebrating the visit of a very good friend of mine from Portland,

Oregon, Miss Aletha Chavis. She and her daughter Jennifer are visiting

the capital city today. I'd like everyone to join me in welcoming them.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a

Mr. Alan Blackwell. Al is the present president of the Western Guides'

and Outfitters' Association, and is a longtime friend and constituent

of mine. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

MRS. DAILLY: Would the House join me in welcoming my two

nieces, Alison and Celia Gilmore, who are here with their mother Mrs.

Gilmore and their friend Geraldine Glennon.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Visiting with us today are 12 MLAs from the

state of North Rhineland-Westphalia in the Federal Republic of Germany.

They are here on a mines safety inspection tour, and are visiting with

us in the gallery and in the buildings today. I would ask members to

make them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: On behalf of the MLA for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace), I would like to introduce constituents who are visiting here

today from Cobble Hill. Would the House join me in welcoming Ross

Prellwitz and his two children, Jeremy and Laura.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are

three senior people from Air Canada: Mr. Bill Rowe, Mr. Zachary Clark

and Mr. George Kennedy. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Also, in the members' gallery today are Mrs. Sue Beauregard and her

son Kevin, visiting from Kamloops with their Victoria friends, Patrick

and Nigel Slater. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. D'ARCY: Visiting with us today from the lovely community

of Rivervale, British Columbia are Miles and Linda Dean, and their

daughters Stephanie and Andrea. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of

introductions. First of all, from the legal fraternity I have two

guests who are practising lawyers in Victoria: Mr. Vincent Reilly and

Mr. John Bracken, whose grandfather was the first cousin of John

Bracken, leader of the opposition in Canada many years ago.

I also have Mr. Carl Burke and his wife, Gisela, who are from Boise,

Idaho. He is the regional chairman of the American College of Trial

Lawyers, and also is a member of the United States National Parks

Advisory Board.

My final introduction is Mrs. Jan Grant, a friend from Hornby Island.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to join with the member

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in welcoming Alan Blackwell, who is a long-time friend

of mine as well; I'd also like the House to join me in welcoming a half

dozen people from northern B.C. whose names I'll read and then indicate

their purpose in the capital. Pat Moss, Jim Nyland, Louise Bergener, Peter Rodsuth,

Arnie Tomlinson and Don Ryan. This group is from the north, and their concern

is Kemano 11, or the Kemano completion project. They are here making representations.

I hope the House will welcome them.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to

introduce some visitors to our Legislature today who are guests of my

deputy minister, Isabel Kelly. Her cousin, Michael Weir, is the

director of Dr. Barnardo's Homes in Northern Ireland. They are

facilities for underprivileged children. He is accompanied by his wife,

Teresa, and their two children, Rachael and Corrin. I would ask the

House to make them very welcome to Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is also a very special day

for one of our senior House officers. At this time I would ask the

Sergeant-at-Arms if he would be good enough to approach the table.

[2:15]

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, today

represents the final day of service to this House by Mr. Alan Myles

Hutchinson, who is our Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. Hutchinson has served the

Legislature for 24 years and through three Premiers. He has been in the

House longer than any sitting member. Mr. Hutchinson served with the

RCMP. That service was interrupted during World War II when he served

with the RCAF. His wartime service included flying as air gunner in

Burma and Ceylon with the RCAF on Liberator aircraft.

After the war Mr. Hutchinson returned to the RCMP, retiring from the

force in 1958 and joining the Attorney General's department. In 1959

Mr. Hutchinson joined the Sergeant-at-Arms staff. In 1961 he was

appointed Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms under the late Denny Ashby. In

December 1971 Mr. Hutchinson was appointed Sergeant-at Arms and has

served in that capacity for the past almost 12 years. He has had 24

years of service in the Legislature. Although it may be difficult to

believe, on his last day today, Mr. Hutchinson is 81 years of age. On

behalf of the government side of the House we would like to express our

appreciation for the devotion of service to this House, to the province

and to our country. We wish him the very best in retirement.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition, we want to join with the Minister of Health and other

members of the government of our House to wish Mr. Hutchinson well in

his later years after he leaves this place. Many of us are jealous of

his tenure here and wonder how we could accomplish remaining that

length of time. He has been a distinguished and a gallant gentleman. He

has served his country overseas, as the Minister of Health indicated,

both in Burma and in what was then known as Ceylon. We are appreciative

of his kindness and the manner in which he has related to members of

this House. We wish him well in his years of retirement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members are invited to attend a reception

at 3:30 this afternoon in the Ned deBeck Lounge in honour of the

retiring Sergeant-at-Arms.

[ Page 814 ]

Oral Questions

BUSINESS BANKRUPTCIES

MR. STUPICH: Statistics Canada figures show that business

bankruptcies in British Columbia this year have increased by 50 percent

over the previous year, while there has been a decrease in such

bankruptcies nationally. In view of the continuing serious crisis

affecting small business in B.C., can the Minister of Finance advise

why British Columbia small businesses continue to lag behind the rest

of the country in terms of economic recovery?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that if one looks

behind the raw number of bankruptcies in British Columbia, one will

note that the number of business incorporations is quite significant as

well. The two are interrelated, as the member will know.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister:

why don't you double the number of incorporations again so that the

number of bankruptcies won't look nearly as bad?

However, I will ask if the minister has decided to introduce

legislation protecting small business from foreclosure and bankruptcy,

along the lines of

chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy code, for example.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I must rush to point out that

we on this side of the House, unlike the socialists, do not decide who

goes into business and where and when, as the socialist government

would. It's something called the right to succeed, and something also

called the right to fail, if that must occur.

With respect to the second part of the question, I would suggest to

the member for Nanaimo that there are bills on the order paper which

directly address the question he has put.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot to say that the

budget that was introduced six weeks ago and that we've forgotten all

about is perhaps part of the reason these businesses are continuing to

go bankrupt.

Has the minister decided to undertake a detailed analysis of B.C.

bankruptcies with a view towards removing injurious taxes and fee

increases from those businesses which can least afford them?

HON. MR. CURTIS: A very important aspect of research

conducted not only by the Ministry of Finance but by other ministries

in government is an ongoing review of business incorporations, of

business success and of business failures.

CHANGE OF B.C. TRANSIT COLOURS

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the Provincial Secretary,

having in charge B.C. Transit. The bus stop poles in the lower mainland

are being painted blue from brown at a cost of $70 each — and to the

confusion of the dogs. The buses are being painted in the Socred

colours of red, white and blue at a cost of $600 each. The brown vinyl

seats in the buses are being changed to blue at a cost of $300,000 for

material already ordered. I ask whether the minister has authorized

this work.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's a very interesting question, Mr. Member, but put to the wrong minister.

MR. MACDONALD: I would never knowingly ask a question of the Provincial Secretary. I made a horrible mistake.

The same question to the Minister of Human Resources, having in charge B.C. Transit.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to

the question from the hon. member for Vancouver East. First, let me say

that some time ago the board of directors of B.C. Transit made a

decision to have a common colour combination throughout B.C. Transit.

You're perfectly right, Mr. Member: it has been adopted as red, white

and blue. It is a combination of colours which is very attractive. They

have decided to have a consistent colour combination throughout the

whole transit system; I would question the figures you used for the

cost of doing so. I would be very pleased to let the member know if

indeed his figures are correct, but I would question the figures he

quoted as being very much too high. Finally, I would tell you that the

conversion of the colour combination on the older buses to the new

consistent colour combination includes our remarkable handicap program

which was introduced in the last four years. It's probably the most

effective custom transit service for handicapped in the country. It

will carry on throughout individual transit systems, several of which

have also been initiated by this government in the last four years in

the province of British Columbia. It will also extend to the SeaBus and

to the metro Vancouver and Victoria transit systems. They will all be

done on an as-needs basis, including the posts at the various bus

stops. They will not be done unless needed. However, the member brings

up a very good point. If it is confusing to the public, I shall ask the

board of directors of B.C. Transit whether it is in the best interests

of the travelling public to have the bus stops all done at once.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how we got to

discussing the handicapped, but my supplementary question to the

minister is: since the handicapped are losing that $50 a month under

the CI program, and this expenditure for frills, decoration and

subliminal Social Credit brainwashing is going to cost half a million

dollars in a so-called period of restraint, would the minister not

reconsider these frills at this time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the question from the member

is now couched in language which is meant, I know, to be totally

inflammatory, and is totally incorrect. First, I think you

misunderstood — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member — my answer.

The repainting is being done on an as-needs basis. It is not done as an

extra frill but as a maintenance program, which is carried on at all

times during transit operations. It has been for many years and will be

in the years to come, in order to preserve the vehicles in which we

have a very large investment.

REAPPOINTMENT OF McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial

Secretary. I think he'll understand this one. Last week the Provincial

Secretary professed ignorance regarding the agency that handles the

entire government advertising account. Will the minister now inform the

House whether McKim Advertising has been reappointed as agency of

record for the provincial government?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and bring the answer back as quickly as possible.

[ Page

815 ]

FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES

IN THE MINISTRY OF TOURISM

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, isn't that incredible?

I have a question for the Attorney-General. The Premier could

probably answer it because he directs the whole operation, as I see it.

In any event, 27 days ago I asked the Attorney-General to bring the

police in to investigate serious financial irregularities in the

Ministry of Tourism. Has the minister now decided to bring in the

police, or will he continue to delay?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the member for that fairly put

question. The process of having officials of my ministry examine all

the material before the auditor-general, and what arises out of that,

is proceeding expeditiously, and will continue to proceed despite the

efforts of gentlemen on the other side of the House to prejudge and

prejudice the rights of persons involved, and also to prejudice the

right of the Crown to pursue and secure information. Those things will

take place regardless of their questions.

TOURISM INFORMATION PROGRAMS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the age of stonewall is with us. The

only reason we're in the bind we're in — as the Attorney-General

suggests — is because of the fact that it's not gone to the police in

the first place.

I direct this question to the Minister of Tourism. The tourist

industry is publicly complaining that business is substantially down,

even when compared to last year's low level, in part because of the

poor job of informing the potential visitors of the premium on the

American dollar. Will the minister confirm that the information

programs in the Ministry of Tourism have been thrown into chaos because

of the preoccupation with problems arising from the auditor-general's

report?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members' questions, as we know, must be questions, not expressions of opinion, representation, argumentation or debate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is no, there is no truth to his allegations.

MR. COCKE: Just one supplementary question to the Minister of

Tourism, Mr. Speaker. Is there any problem with paying the bills at

McKim? Are they getting paid?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Take it as notice.

[2:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have all my advisers from the other side of the House. It's amazing how clever they are from sitting over there.

Mr. Speaker, the government is not having any problems at the moment in paying

its bills.

FINANCIAL AID FOR POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS

MR. ROSE: My question is to the Minister of Education. As the

minister knows, because he decreed it, students must maintain an 80

percent course load or lose eligibility for the provincial grant

portion of student assistance. Now we find that because of government

cuts, a number of post-secondary courses will be reduced and thus many

students may be unable to enrol up to the requirement of 80 percent. I

wonder f the minister could tell the House what action he or the

government has to avoid this catch-22 situation for students who might

be denied financial aid because they are unable to enrol in a

full-course program occasioned by the cutbacks at the post-secondary

level.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have no plan whatsoever

with respect to that. It seems to me that somebody who is attending a

university or college on a full-time basis has an adequate number of

courses to make selection from, and I don't think putting the amount of

80 percent on is asking too much for the taxpayers of British Columbia,

when the amount of money which in fact is being advanced is in the form

of a grant.

MR. ROSE: Just on a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, can the

minister explain to the House why the federal requirements are 60

percent of the course load and why the minister has decided to limit

the number of part-time students who are able to take advantage of this

by putting it up to 80 percent locally?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, this government is

trying to do something with its deficit. It seems to me that if we ask

for an 80 percent enrolment it is not unreasonable. If the federal

government wants to continue to put out at 60 percent — or, I suspect,

even less from time to time — that's their prerogative. Our policy and

our position is 80 percent.

HEALTH COLLECTIVE FUNDING

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health advise

why the government has withdrawn funding from the nine-year-old health

collective in Vancouver, which makes extensive use of volunteers to

offer counselling on pregnancy and birth control?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of

agencies throughout the province who were advised that their funding

through the Ministry of Health would no longer be available after a

certain date — I think it was September 1 or a date near that. That was

one of the series of agencies. I do not have the specific details

relative to that agency but, if the member wishes, I could bring back

some of the information relative to that one agency.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a question I took as notice a week or so ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

[ Page 816 ]

TRADING IN SUNMASK SHARES

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) raised a question concerning Sunmask Petroleum Corp. and the

allegation of a possible leak of budget information prior to budget

day. I have now received a response from the superintendent of brokers.

I am advised that investigators from the superintendent of brokers'

office examined the trading in Sunmask Petroleum Corp. shares on the

Vancouver Stock Exchange for a period beginning May 15, 1983, through

to July 19, 1983. I am further advised that the trading is consistent

with activities of the company as reflected in the information made

known to the public through news releases, etc., and the investigators

did not discover any information that would lead them to believe that

changes in the volume or share price might have been the result of a

leak of budget information or of any related legislation.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the report should be made public; it should be tabled in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, that is not a point

of order. It could possibly be addressed in another question period in

response to a question taken, but it would not be a point of order. For

example, hon. member, tomorrow at 2:15 would seem an appropriate time

for that question when it would be in order.

MR. HOWARD: But is it not that if a document is quoted or

referred to, it should be tabled? That's what I'm basing my request for

tabling on.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will take that question under advisement and bring a reply back to the House.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with leave, public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 4.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Amendment Act,

1983, was one of the bills introduced on budget day some five weeks

ago. Essentially it deals with two aspects of measures that were deemed

appropriate by the government, one of them made public on November 10,

1 have a few comments to make, but in order that there be no doubt, I move second reading of Bill 4.

In addition to minor administrative amendments requested by Ottawa

under the terms of the tax collection agreement, the bill proposes

adjustments to the Income Tax Act. The most noteworthy is the

introduction of legislation to repeal the renters' tax credit and the

provincial personal income tax credit.

As I indicated a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, on November 10 of

last year I announced that due to the economic circumstances of the

province at that time these credits were to be suspended for 1982 at

least. As the budget indicated and as the Premier and other ministers

have indicated, and as many people in British Columbia know, there has

been little significant improvement in the fortunes of the province in

the interval. So we are confirming the decision to repeal both credits,

certainly for this year and possibly for some little while to come. In

taking this measure, Mr. Speaker — and I appreciate that there are

other elements — it is important to point out to the House that through

these measures the government will save approximately $82 million of

taxpayers' money annually. The decision was taken after considerable

review and reflection on the basis of the fact that with a deficit of

something for last year in the order of $978 million, and for this year

a forecast $1.6 billion, this money among other money was needed for

more urgent social and economic programs serving the people of the

province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the existing statutory

provisions concerning tax credit receipts issued by political parties

in the province. It's interesting to note that the province currently

has 11 registered political parties. Under the existing legislation a

political party, once registered, has an unlimited lifetime to issue

tax credit receipts. Most members will know, Mr. Speaker, that in the

most recent election — this year — only the 11 registered parties

fielded candidates; the remaining three, although they had sought

receipting authority and stated to the appropriate officials that they

would field candidates, did not in fact do so. In order that continuing

public money is not made available to political parties with apparently

no political intent, this amendment introduces a requirement for annual

registration of a party's receipt authority. This requirement in no way

impinges upon the ability of a political party to raise funds by

traditional methods; however, a political party seeking funded support

from the public must show a continuing public intent.

Finally, this bill, as is usual with an amending act of this nature,

undertakes to amend various sections of the Income Tax Act to bring the

administrative, enforcement and collection provisions in line with the

Income Tax Act, Canada. Under the terms of the tax collection

agreement, British Columbia has again agreed that it will maintain its

taxing statute on the same basis as the federal act. These changes are

among those requested by the federal government, and they arise, in

turn, from previous amendments to the Income Tax Act, Canada.

Mr. Speaker, other points with respect to the second

section of the

bill would perhaps be more appropriately dealt with in committee. I

assume the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is going to speak on this.

I indicated the number of parties fielding candidates and not fielding

candidates in the May 5, 1983 election. It might assist the House to

review very quickly those parties.

The parties fielding candidates included the British Columbia Social

Credit Party, the New Democratic Party of British Columbia, the

Progressive Conservative Association of British Columbia, the Liberal

Party of British Columbia, the Communist Party of Canada, the Green

Party Political

[ Page 817 ]

Association of British Columbia, the Western Canada

Concept Party, and the Western National Party. The parties not fielding

candidates in the most recent election included the Libertas Party of

British Columbia, the Real Share Value Party and the Unparty Party of

British Columbia.

I look forward to comments by members with respect to Bill 4, and I move second reading now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. minister.... I mean the member for Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH: You're looking a little too far into the future, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: We shall see. The minister says: "long." With

the record this government has built up for itself in the past seven

weeks, it may not be all that long.

Apparently the government has once again flipped the roulette wheel,

and has now come up with Bill 4. We met first on June 23, seven weeks

ago last Thursday. On July 7, five weeks ago last Thursday, we started

discussing a budget. After a few people had an opportunity to take

part

in that debate, we completely abandoned discussion of the advice given

to us by the Lieutenant-Governor of the province when he delivered his

opening speech. I've reminded the members of this previously, Mr.

Speaker, but apparently no one on that side of the House is

particularly interested. I'm going to try to keep reminding them, and I

hope eventually to get an opportunity to remind people out of the House

just why we're here.

Reading from the opening speech....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this is introductory to my remarks

about the bill. The person speaking from his seat on the other side of

the House said: "What about the bill?" I'll come to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, why are we here? The bill is one of the reasons we're

here. The Lieutenant-Governor urged us in his opening speech by saying:

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

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

as individual members and as the Legislature of our magnificent

province." As a government, we serve the needs of the people in this

province by developing programs, by debating those programs here in the

Legislature, eventually by approving them, and then by putting them

into action. Every one of these programs, of course, requires the

spending of public money. We discuss the spending of that money not

when we discuss the programs in the House, not when we discuss

legislation such as we have before us right now, but when we do the

budget debate. That's when the government tells us their spending plans

for the year. We might have expected to find in the budget some

reference to this bill before us now — a bill that is changing a

measure that was in the previous budget. But the government, for

reasons best known to itself.... Perhaps it's lack of intestinal

fortitude; perhaps there's some game plan of which we're not aware. I

suspect even the government isn't aware.

[2:45]

The House Leader, when he introduced discussion of this bill today,

said, "Adjourned debate on Bill 4." We've had seven bills; this is the

eighth bill introduced in second reading. Each one of them proceeds in

debate for awhile.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if those on the other side side

would stand up so they could be identified, we would all know who's

making these bright remarks. Individually apparently they don't have

the intestinal fortitude to stand on their feet and say these things.

They say it's our fault. Is it our fault that the budget has not

been debated? We didn't introduce the budget. Daily the government asks

for leave to proceed with business other than its plans for spending

public money, other than its plans for diverting the moneys that might

have been spent in line with the program being cancelled by the

legislation before us now. That's the kind of debate we should be

having. Certainly it's not the opposition's responsibility to control

what's happening in the House. It's up to the government to see that

the budget is debated. The government prefers to sit.

On a daily basis — perhaps even during the day, for all we know —

the government prefers to swing the roulette wheel again to see what

number comes up. And if it's a number we've already discussed, then

they spin it again until it gets to one of the 31 public bills now

before us that has not yet been discussed, and say: "Let's have a whirl

at that for a few days or a few hours and see what happens." They're

playing a game. The government is not prepared to talk about its

spending program. The government prefers, on an ad hoc basis, to pick a

bill from time to time; today it has come up with Bill 4, amendments to

the Income Tax Act. What a way to run a province!

The minister talked about the administrative measures in this bill,

which brings the Income Tax Act in line with the federal Income Tax

Act, saying that these changes were sought by the federal government. I

did take some encouragement from that. It's the one thing he said on

which I can most heartily agree with him. Mr. Speaker, you may recall

that during a previous budget he warned us that B.C. might break its

tax collection agreement with Ottawa and decide to go into a provincial

income tax system. I'm pleased that is not before us now. I'm pleased

he is still amending our Income Tax Act so that it is compatible with

the provisions of the federal Income Tax Act, pleased we are still

cooperating with the federal income tax people. I would hate to see us

go to a provincial income-tax-gathering bureaucracy. Certainly, if they

were trying to reduce the number of people on the government payroll,

that would be the wrong way to go.

I was interested in his remarks about registration. There can be no

argument about the need for registration. I wonder whether those

parties took advantage of the provisions of the legislation,

particularly the ones that did not field candidates. Later on, I

suppose we'll have an opportunity.... The minister may want to comment

on that, should he ever get as far as closing debate in second reading.

I don't think the government wants to proceed that far with any of the

legislation. It's beyond me, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure beyond you, what

their plans really are for the future of the Legislature.

The minister announced this policy in November of last year, he

said, in response to the economic conditions of the time, and after

considerable review. To me, "considerable review" means that by

November they had spent some time looking at revenues and expenditures,

and had come to the conclusion that they needed to chisel this $91

million....

[ Page 818 ]

I believe he used the figure of $82 million — I'm referring to the

budget figures. The figure of $82 million might be more accurate, or it

might refer to the current year rather than to 1982. I don't know; it

doesn't matter. We're talking about $80 million to $90 million. After

considerable review — which indicates to me that they had spent some

time on it — the government decided that in order to balance the books

it was necessary for the government to chisel some $80 million to $90

million from those people in our community who are least able to afford

that particular loss. But it was necessary to balance the budget. He

then tells us that by the end of the year, although there was no

indication of this in November, or not that I can recall.... The budget

that presumably was going to be balanced by the end of the year, or

close to balanced — or why bother? — by chiselling this $80 million to

$90 million from the poorest people in our community was actually $978

million in the hole. I suppose they achieved something; they did, by

this device, get it below the magic figure of $1 billion.

It's a lot of money. I can recall sitting in this Legislature when

the Minister of Finance of the day proudly stood up and told us that

for the first time in the history of the province our total budget was

$1 billion. Now we find that when the Minister of Finance predicted

that we would be in a breakeven position, our deficit for one year was

actually in excess of $1 billion. The budget expenditures approved by

the Legislature provided for this $91 million to go to the poorest

people in our community. Had that money been spent in accordance with

the wishes of the Legislature, our deficit would have been in excess of

$1 billion.

That was quite an achievement for the Social Credit Party in such a

short period, a period of only six years. They had been government for

only six years, and had managed to turn a province that had not had a

deficit for some thirty years into a province that had a deficit — and

not a small one, but a deficit of $1 billion — as large as the budget

introduced in, I believe, 1965. They managed to create that much of a

deficit in a period of only six years, quite a record for even the

Social Credit Party. Of course, the minister told us that this year the

deficit is going to be in the neighbourhood of $1.6 billion. In

passing, and as I have said before, I don't believe that figure any

more than I believed the figure last year, when we were told we would

have a balanced budget.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening

to the would-be leader of the socialist party for the last 25-odd minutes and

I would venture to say that by liberal terms he has probably spoken about 5

minutes out of that 25 on the principle of the bill before us. If we are going

to have rules in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, they should be followed, particularly

in debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well made. Relevancy in debate is always a parliamentary necessity.

MR. STUPICH: I suppose this isn't relevant to the bill

either, but I made a note that I started speaking at 14:45, 10 minutes

ago; and the minister has been listening to me for 25 minutes? One of

us is wrong. I suspect he is wrong again. He is often given to

exaggeration, often given to making absolutely no contribution, whether

speaking from his seat or speaking from his feet. In this case I think

he is making no useful contribution to the debate either, but if he

wants me to speak about the legislation — and I know it would make it

easier for you if I spoke about the legislation — then I'm going to. In

doing so, I'm going to refer to the minister's own remarks. The wonders

of Hansard ; they are really up to it; I have his remarks here in Hansard , and from Hansard I want to read what the minister had to say about this bill.

The Hansard is dated May 19, 1981, page 5663; the bill is

entitled Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981. Now it is 1983; that is the

only change. It's the same minister. In the March budget speech....

This year, of course, the budget speech was in July. April, May, June,

July — three and one half months later. It took them three and one half

months to get around to wiping it out. The minister told the people of

this province, warned the people of this province, that if they voted

Social Credit the poorest people in the community would be asked to

forgo $91 million in grants that they would otherwise expect to get —

tax credits that had been approved by the Legislature. He told them

that; he warned them. They didn't believe it, and they voted Social

Credit anyway. It was that same minister that brought in this provision

in March 1981. Eighteen months before — more than that; about 20 months

before — he told them they were going to lose it after it had been in

effect for just one year.

They never got around to doing anything about it. The House had been

in session and there had been considerable review. The minister must

have known, when the House was sitting, that they would to have to look

at this, they would have to do it. He chose not to say anything about

it in the House. He could have brought the legislation in then but he

didn't, The House could certainly have met much earlier than June 27,

1983, but it didn't. Some people filed applications for those credits

because it was the law of the land; some people didn't file, knowing

they could always make their application at a later date in the event

the Socreds were defeated. But the minister, in March 1981, spoke

glowingly about this program, about the importance of it, the cost of

it and what it was doing for the poorest people in the community, and

that is what this bill is all about.

That is why I am quoting the minister's remarks from Hansard :

"...in the March budget speech for the 1981-82 fiscal year, I announced

several major changes that will affect British Columbia personal and

corporation income taxes in the 1981 tax year" — as was done in the

budget speech in 1983. "These changes are contained in the bill before

us, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981." Many of the changes contained in

the 1983 budget, delivered on July 7, of course are now before us in

legislation — legislation that comes before us briefly, and then we

lose sight of it and something else comes up; but nevertheless it's in

the legislation. The one difference was that in 1981 the government was

prepared; they had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and debate the

budget first and tell us how they were going to spend the money they

were raising from the taxpayers. This time they don't have the grit to

do that.

Perhaps I could touch on a few of the main points which are contained in this bill.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm continually being asked to refer to the

bill; well, I'm quoting the minister's own words: "One provision is for

the new provincial personal income tax credit for the full year of 1981

and subsequent tax years." Well, there weren't very many subsequent tax

years, were there? On May 19, 1981, the minister, speaking on the

Income Tax

[ Page 819 ]

Amendment Act, 1981, said that the tax credits

being provided for in that legislation would be available to B.C.

taxpayers — and I have to emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that we're

talking about the people in the community least able to afford to give

up some $91 million, people who would spend it in their communities and

who would get the economy going to that extent at least. Those are the

people who are being denied the $91 million.

[3:00]

The minister told the people.... His speech is in Hansard ,

Mr. Speaker. After years and years of persuasion on the part of the CCF

and the NDP, we finally got elected, and one of the first things we did

was institute a Hansard . So we can now remind the minister that

on May 19, 1981, he told the people of this province that the tax

credits he was granting them in the legislation before us on that day

would be available in 1981 and "subsequent tax years." It was great,

wasn't it? They all knew that they were going to get this, because,

after all, Social Credit promised it to them. No worry there; they

always live up to their promise, election after election. They make

promises and they always live up to them.

Mr. Speaker, I would be out of order if I started listing the very

long list of campaign promises broken by this administration, so I

won't bore you with those details. There will be other opportunities.

But certainly here's one promise that the Minister of Finance made on

May 19, 1981: that these tax credits would be available in 1981 and

"subsequent tax years."

There were a number of provisions in that legislation. Of course we're dealing today with certain specific ones. Reading again:

One provision is

for the new provincial personal income tax credit for the full year of

1981 and subsequent tax years. The credit will be equal to 3 percent of

the tax-filer's personal exemptions less 1.5 percent of the tax-filer's

personal income.

That was a principle that I heartily endorsed; we all did at the time. The minister told us why he was doing that.

You will note

that I've used the term "tax-filer" and not tax-payer. This is a very

important distinction and one that has been generally overlooked in the

commentary immediately following the budget this year. The word

"tax-filer" is used because the tax credit is fully refundable.

Therefore many British Columbians who do not pay income tax, such as

students and senior citizens with low incomes, will still be eligible

to receive the full amount of the credit in the form of a cash refund

from the government. To claim the credit, all they shall have to do is

file a 1981 tax return.

It was great legislation.

I met people in my constituency and helped them file their tax

returns. Many senior citizens who were barely getting by appreciated

what the Social Credit government had done for them. They certainly

were not paying income tax, and some of them had not filed income tax

returns for years. But when I made it known to them that by filing a

tax return they could get a significant cash bonus that would give them

a little extra spending money at that one time of the year, they truly

were appreciative of what this great government had done for them. When

I told them that it wasn't just this year, that it was available in

1981 and would be available in subsequent tax years, they really were

very appreciative of what the government had done for them. That's in

line with what the Lieutenant-Governor asked us on opening day: that we

should be doing something for the people of the province. In that

respect the government did something for the people of the province.

As I said, I met senior citizens and students. Some of the students

at Malaspina College were having a hard time. They were getting by, but

some of them were living pretty hard on pretty skimpy rations. They

very quickly became aware that simply by filing a tax return, if they

were not in an income-tax-paying position, they too were entitled to a

significant credit — a credit that for some of them made all the

difference between being able to continue their education and having to

drop out at the end of that semester, the end of that term, or even

before the end. It was a good program, it was good legislation, and we

congratulated the government at that time for bringing in that kind of

legislation.

That was legislation that was — as the Lieutenant-Governor adjured

us — doing something for the people of the province. This year the

government is concerned because some legislation is taking longer than

they expected to pass through debate in this House, The difference is

that the legislation in those days was doing something for the people

of the province. The legislation we've had come before us up to this

point in time is doing something to them. There are words that I could

use in describing that, but then Hansard wouldn't print them.

So what's the point? Nobody would ever know I said them. In those days

the government was trying to do something for the people of the

province, and in that Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981, indeed they were.

The students appreciated it, and no doubt some of them forgot, didn't

notice it was going to be withdrawn. No doubt some of them remembered

the importance of getting that money sometime in 1982 — remembered that

and voted Social Credit. They know now, of course, that when the

Minister of Finance said it was available in 1981 and subsequent tax

years, he didn't mean anything by that. It was available in 1981, and

that was the end of that program. As long as this government is in

office, it'll be the end of that program.

Going on with the minister's speech on this bill — and what could be

more in order than to quote the minister's own remarks? — I'd like to

point out that the basic amount of the credit will be 3 percent of the

tax-filer's personal exemptions. This formula has been used instead of

a fixed dollar amount for two reasons. First, the formula will target

more benefits to those tax-filers claiming more dependents. What could

be better than that? Talk about progressive tax legislation! This is

very progressive. Mr. Speaker, it was also good legislation for the

elderly. So those most in need will receive more under this formula. As

the Lieutenant-Governor told us, that's what we should be talking about

in this session. Those are the people we should be trying to help — the

people in our community who are most in need — instead of taking out of

the pockets of the people most in need money that they can ill afford.

The minister gave an example. The maximum credit for a single

taxpayer will be $95. To some people in the community $95 doesn't sound

like a great deal of money — $95 once a year. But if you're barely

getting by in a hand-to-mouth existence — as some of the elderly are,

as some of the students are — that $95 payment in one lump sum in May,

June or whenever the tax refunds come in, is extremely important. For a

single pensioner it would be $155. Mr. Speaker, it may not be the case

in your riding of Prince George, but I can assure you there are single

pensioners in my riding of Nanaimo to whom that $155 meant all the

difference between existing and living a little. It was important. It

was good legislation. For a married taxpayer it would be $178. That's

not much — not much for the recipient, certainly not much for the

government. But, that was doing

[ Page 820 ]

something for people. To say to a married taxpayer,

"Here's $178 to eke out" — in some cases — "your miserable existence"

was good. For a married taxpayer with two children under 18 years of

age, it would be $214. A person had to be in pretty dire circumstances

to qualify for that $214. For a married taxpayer with four children

under 18, it would be $246. For married pensioners it would be $235.

These are all good arguments in favour of the legislation that was

brought forward for second reading on May 19, 1981. Because it was good

legislation....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The second member for Vancouver Little Mountain

(Mr. Mowat) said something about being sick. I'm not sure whether the

Sergeant-at-Arms should help him, or....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: In any case, he had six.... I don't know what

his income situation was. I don't know what tax credit he gets. But if

this provision were actually in effect for 1981 and subsequent tax

years, as the minister promised, that particular member wouldn't need

it for 1983. So I expect that that particular member will stand up and

vote — when we do get around to voting — in favour of withdrawing this

from the people who need it most because he's not in a position of

needing it now, and, contrary to what the Lieutenant-Governor urged

upon us, he is not terribly concerned about doing something for the

people who need it most, not being one of those. That's not atypical

for the members of the Social Credit Party.

The second reason we've chosen this formula is that personal

exemptions are, as hon. members know, indexed under the Income Tax Act.

Therefore, if inflation continues to increase in future years.... Even

today inflation is continuing, certainly not at the rate at which it

was in 1981 but we still have some inflation. The level of benefits

under the tax credit will also increase proportionately without any

further legislative action being required. Mr. Speaker, it's a pity we

couldn't have left it at that. It's a pity we couldn't have left the

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981 untouched. I would have hoped that the

government would have come in and said that the need is greater — that

the elderly, the students and low-income people generally actually need

more assistance now and that the legislation instead of the bill before

us now.... There is nothing wrong with the bill we have before us now

except that it withdraws something that it should have been increasing.

That's a minor technicality that the minister could certainly change if

he chose to, without great cost to the treasury but with tremendous

benefits to the recipients.

Going on with the minister's speech: "The basic credit will, of

course, be reduced by 1.5 percent of the filer's personal income so

that if the tax filer has no taxable income he or she will receive the

full basic credit. However, as income rises the tax credit is designed

to phase out." Excellent legislation and an excellent approach. The

minister is to be congratulated for having thought along those lines on

May 19, 1981. But congratulations do not go to him today for being so

niggardly as to take out of the pockets of the poorest people in the

community money that they need to maintain, in some instances, a very

low standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, I'm reading again from the minister's speech: "It's

estimated that at least 40 percent of all British Columbia families and

75 percent of the elderly will benefit from this credit." That's some

commentary on our day. Here we are on August 15, 1983; I don't know

what those figures are today but I would suspect they're higher, if not

much higher. I would expect that there are more than 40 percent of B.C.

families which would benefit from the legislation that was introduced

then and the program that we're cancelling with the legislation before

us now. I would expect that more than 75 percent of the elderly would

be getting some benefit from the program being cancelled in the

legislation that is before us today. It is a commentary on our times

that so many people in our community need the very low level of

assistance that was offered in the program which was approved very

quickly in 1981 — the program that is now being withdrawn, although to

all intents and purposes it was withdrawn when the minister spoke

publicly in November 1981.

Mr. Speaker, don't we have any concern at all for these people?

Don't we have any concern as members of the Legislature who are doing

not too badly? Don't we have any concern at all for the fact that 40

percent of B.C. families and 75 percent of the elderly would benefit

from this low level of assistance? Mr. Speaker, are there not other

things the government could have done to have saved that $91 million?

Are there not other approaches they could have taken? If they're going

to be $1.6 billion in the hole, was it necessary to scrape the barrel

by another $80 million to $90 million to deny this kind of assistance

to the people who need it most? I would hate, as Minister of Finance,

to stand up and say that I'm bringing in a budget — Mr. Speaker, we

haven't talked much about a budget, but we have one — that shows

spending of $8.6 billion. It would have been $8,691,000,000 — that's

not necessarily the exact figure, as I don't recall the figures of the

budget exactly — if we had continued this program. No one would have

noticed the difference in the total budget, but to the recipients, who

were receiving in some cases as little as $45 and in some cases as much

as $245, it would have made a tremendous difference.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we debated in 1981 wasn't simply

handing money out to people. It wasn't just making this provision for

the poorest people in our community, the ones who needed it most. It

also provided ways in which that money was going to be raised. It

provided for tax increases and for corporate tax increases. It provided

for another tax reduction for people who were paying income tax in low

brackets; it also provided for some tax increases for the high income

people. So the minister wasn't simply giving away surplus money when he

was speaking to us on May 19, 1981. He didn't say, "Well, we've got too

much money here," or, "The economy needs an extra boost," or, "The

elderly or the low-income people need some help and we're going to give

it to them out of what we have in consolidated revenue and in some of

our surplus funds."

That wasn't the case at all, Mr. Speaker. The minister introduced a

program so that he got that money back. He raised taxes. There was some

argument, certainly, about the way in which he was raising some of the

taxes, but he did raise taxes to recover this. He didn't give the

figures at the time, so I just don't know whether the money raised was

more or less than the money that was paid out to the poorest people in

the community. But he didn't tell us during the course of his remarks

that it was actually going to cost more to make

[ Page 821 ]

these benefits available to the poorest people in

the community, that it would cost more to make those benefits than he

would get by increasing the taxes he did. And I would think that if

that were the case, then he would have done so.

You'll recall some of the tax increases, Mr. Speaker. You may

remember the surtax on the higher income taxes. Certainly there was no

opposition about that. I heard of no complaints from the people in the

high income tax brackets. I don't think any one of those.... The

surtax, as you may recall, Mr. Speaker, was a percentage of the income

tax being paid. When the provincial income tax exceeded $3,500, the

excess was subject to a 10 percent surtax. What's wrong with that?

Nobody paying that kind of income tax, to the best of my knowledge,

made objection to paying a surtax so that the poorest people in the

community would have a little bit more money to spend.

Mr. Speaker, we're now saying to those poor people: our deficit is

$1.6 billion. Last year our deficit was $978 million. We have to get

that back somehow. Our deficit would have been higher than $978

million, so we can't afford to give you some $80 million to $90

million. It would mean our deficit would be in excess of a billion

dollars for the first time in the history of the province. This year

our deficit would have been even larger than $1.6 billion if we

continued this program.

But, of course, the tax increases that he imposed, when he discussed

this legislation on May 19, 1981, are not being withdrawn in the

legislation before us now. He's not doing that; he's continuing to

collect those extra taxes. And of course, it's not before us in

this.... If we get around to discussing the budget, we will talk about

other tax increases that were brought in. The corporation taxes were

increased; in some instances they were lowered. They were giving and

taking on that.

In the course of his speech, the minister said something very true:

no one likes to pay taxes. "What we have attempted to do with Bill 10"

— in those days it was Bill 10 — "is spread the burden as evenly and as

equitably as possible." Mr. Speaker, that's a very sound and very

laudable principle. What the government should be doing, if it's going

to follow the advice of the Lieutenant-Governor, is to spread the

burden as evenly and as equitably as possible. And to a large extent he

achieved that with the introduction and the passing — with little

opposition — of Bill 10 in 1981. Now we're going in the other

direction. Now the minister, in a niggardly way, is saying that the

poorest people in the community, relatively speaking, are going to have

to bear the brunt of his attempt — some four or five years down the

road, he has said — to balance the budget.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this legislation. I believe the

government needs time to reconsider its position on this legislation. I

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS — 46

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Baines

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

Reynolds

Reid

Parks

NAYS — 1

Macdonald

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

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

the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) could indicate how she voted. I

was not aware of her voting in the affirmative or negative.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe the roll was called, and the roll will speak in that case.

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

PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised. Perhaps

the House Leader has made an error in calling this bill. If the

government wish to reconsider, I could understand because a week ago we

were promised the regulations. That's right. We were promised the

regulations and the reason we were arguing for a hoist, which I am now

speaking toward, Mr. Speaker, is because we were expecting the

regulations. This is all the more reason for this hoist motion.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

[3:30]

It was just one week ago that the press were told that there would

be regulations coming down on this nefarious bill. Just one week ago

the people of British Columbia were told that the

interpretation would

be in the regulations. The opposition took this unusual step to ask

that the bill be lifted from the floor of this chamber for six months

to allow rational discussion of those regulations and the impact of the

bill.

Like other citizens in the province of British Columbia, we believed

that the government was telling the truth. We believed the government

again, even though we have been disappointed time and time again. They

have not told the

[ Page 822 ]

truth in the past, but we believed them again when

they said that the regulations would be down last Monday. The minister

concerned said that they would be down last Monday. Is that not right,

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker? The minister himself informed

the press, incorrectly as it turned out, that the regulations would be

ready last Monday. Did anybody in this chamber see those regulations?

Has the minister seen those regulations? Mr. Minister, if you are

convinced that you're on the right track, support this motion for a

hoist or bring in the regulations.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll send you over a copy.

MR. BARRETT: Ah, Mr. Speaker, a pleasant device from that

minister. Sit down and he'll send me a copy. You've had eight days to

send the press a copy. What's holding you up? What are you afraid of?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I respect this House too much to....

MR. BARRETT: Do you respect this House too much to tell the

truth? I'm not twisting. I'm just asking the minister that question.

When this hoist that we're debating now was brought in to the House, he

told the press that he would give them regulations last Monday. Where

have you been for the last seven days? Mr. Speaker, what can we believe

when that minister speaks? Not very much, because he told the press

that those regulations would be ready last week.

I'll bet you that the caucus hasn't even seen them yet. And they're

the first group to be kept informed, particularly all those new MLAs

who are called in and informed step by step of what's going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the bill?

MR. BARRETT: That's very good.

Those back-benchers are told what's going on day by day. That's why

they welcomed the elimination of the Crown Corporations Committee. The

member is leaving.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're fumbling for time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, did you hear that interruption from

that outstanding minister? We're "fumbling for time." No, the people

fumbling for time sit on the government benches. Where are the

regulations that they promised to the people of British Columbia over

one week ago? It's the most contentious piece of legislation introduced

in this chamber in 50 years. That minister says that we're fumbling for

time, when they promised one week ago that they would have the

regulations, and broke their promise — another lie. They haven't got

them. Fumbling? My friend, it's an absolute falsehood to suggest one

week ago that you'd have the regulations and not deliver. They say that

we're fumbling. What are you afraid of? Why don't you come in this

chamber and keep your word? Bring in the regulations so that we can

have the debate that you said would happen one week ago. I'll tell you

where the filibuster is going. The filibuster is coming from a

government that doesn't know where it's going. It can't produce those

regulations, so it's been stalling on this legislation itself for over

ten days.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'll give you some reasons why this bill should

be hoisted. The minister thinks it's humorous for him to put in his

mindless interjections. I don't mind mindless interjections; they

reflect the source.

Let us deal with all that we have in front of us in terms of

evidence as to why this bill should be lifted. I refer you specifically

to the

section that deals with the only regulations we have, pending

the government bringing in amendments:

section 6. I want to make the

people of British Columbia aware that we really are reaching 1984 in

this legislation. Does that minister or any of the back-benchers

understand the

interpretation of the existing regulations? I want to

read this particular

section to you, Mr. Speaker, so that we will have

an idea of what we're dealing with that is brand-new and frightening in

the province of British Columbia. It says: "The compensation

stabilization commissioner, appointed under the Compensation

Stabilization Act, shall, by regulation, designate a list of senior

management positions for the purpose of applying this

section to senior

managers who hold those positions." When we talk about senior managers,

we're talking about all municipal employees, all Crown corporation

employees, everybody who is covered in this act; included are

supervisory personnel for police and fire departments, for schools, etc.

Listen to what they can ask in terms of government control of police

and other services. Listen carefully to this particular

section which

has not had the public scrutiny it should have: "

(1) The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations...to establish,

maintain and apply systems of classification of senior managers and of

job evaluation, following principles that ensure objectivity.... The

cabinet is taking that power unto itself. It may "establish classes of

senior managers and expand, reduce, divide, combine, alter or abolish

existing classes.... Do you know what that means? If you've got a

policeman or a series of policemen responsible for giving

assignments.... There may be an assignment to investigate the alleged

criminal or civil violation of a law by a politician. Under this

particular

section the policeman who assigns that job could indeed have

the classification wiped out and his job gone. That's a convoluted way

to get police control; that's a back-door approach.

Let's read the next paragraph, buried away at the end of this bill,

so we understand exactly how this bill can be used by the government to

politically control police investigations in this province. I ask the

lawyers to examine this closely. It's pretty frightening for anybody

who believes in equal freedoms and the fights of individual citizens

before the law — anybody familiar with the Orwellian philosophy of Big

Brother. Let us understand exactly what this

section will do when

passed into law. This is what it'll do. This

section says that the

cabinet — i.e., the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, that group of

politicians over there, who are hardly trusted as things go now — "may

require public sector employers to supply to a minister information and

employment of senior managers employed by them" — these corporations —

"notwithstanding any enactment respecting confidentiality, or any

contract.... What this means is that if this legislation passes, any

cabinet minister will have the authority to write a letter to a Crown

corporation, a municipal police department, a city fire hall, a

hospital, or anyone

[ Page 823 ]

working on the railroad and say: "Send me the

personnel file on X, Y or Z." Mr. Speaker, in this modern day and age

can you tell me what business it is of any cabinet minister to have

delivered on his or her desk at any time, day or night, the complete

personnel file...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. BARRETT: "Why not?" says somebody over there. Very

interesting. I'm glad that I heard that interjection because it reveals

the basic ignorance that some of this mindless legislation has been

written in.

MS. SANFORD: It sounds like Pinochet.

MR. BARRETT: Pinochet? It's Orwellian.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I know that the minister over there thinks

it's very funny. How would you like that minister to look at his

seatmate two seats down, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Ritchie), who unfortunately was the subject of police investigation?

The Crown prosecutor in that case said that that minister should be

prosecuted when he was an MLA, and that member got up and thanked the

Attorney-General for stopping the proceedings. It's a matter of public

record. A police investigation on that MLA led the public prosecutor to

say that there was evidence that warranted criminal prosecution against

that MLA, and the MLA admitted that the Attorney-General interfered for

him. His words were: "Thank God for the Attorney-General." This is a

government that has an unparalleled record of members being charged

with criminal activities.

MR. REE: You weren't in government long enough....

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, if you have any evidence of

any wrongdoing by any of our members or me, go to the police. Isn't it

interesting, Mr. Speaker, what he said? The reason why there weren't

charges against us is that we weren't in government long enough. He has

accepted the philosophy that anybody who comes to government is ready

to be a crook. Well, I tell you, the only proven record for that thesis

is Social Credit, right here in the Commonwealth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: I take exception to those comments.

MR. BARRETT: You take exception? You joined that party that

has the only record of having a sitting cabinet minister go to jail.

You take exception to that? Quit the party. You joined the party that

has an MLA who admitted publicly that the Attorney-General saved him

from prosecution. You take exception to that? You quit the party. I

tell you, Mr. Speaker, that government has been scandal-ridden ever

since it took to itself the name of Social Credit, and now it wants

control.

MR. REID: Hello Hollywood!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter about our little

friendly exchange; not at all. Nothing can erase the record of the

criminal activity of individuals who have been associated with that

government. Nothing can erase that record. If you wish to associate

yourself with that party, that's on your conscience, but don't you come

in here and support legislation that will now permit any single cabinet

minister to call up the file of any senior police officer and go

through that file and have subtle influence on whether or not that

police officer is demoted, promoted, or comes under government

scrutiny. What business is it of any cabinet minister to have the

personnel file of any senior police officer, unless there's an attempt

to intimidate? If there's no attempt to intimidate, why do you have

this

section in the bill to begin with?

I ask you this, Mr. Speaker: is there any other jurisdiction in the

British Commonwealth that allows cabinet ministers direct and open

access to the personnel files of police chiefs, police superintendents,

or senior management people of corporations without any hearing,

without any legal protection, and without any access to subsequent

developments of reasons why action was taken? Hidden away in this bill,

along with everything else that's Orwellian, is a direct, written legal

access by this government to supervise, to scrutinize the senior files

of police in this province,

[3:45]

Do you not recall, just two weeks ago, the ads in the newspapers put in by the police federation of British Columbia?

MR. REID: In bad taste too.

MR. BARRETT: In bad taste? I'll tell you, Mr. Member, any

time a government fools around with independent police investigations

in a free society, that's not bad taste.

MR. REID: Typical union move.

MR. BARRETT: The law is for all people, and the law should

not be interfered with at any time by an attempt to interfere

politically with the work of the police. What are you accomplishing by

this? What are you afraid of with the police?

MR. REID: Nothing.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you don't have to be, but there's a record

over there that obviously is. You'll be around a bit longer and maybe

you'll get that whiff in your nostrils for the same kind of activity by

this present government, and by previous governments. You blow some of

that cabinet air up your nose and boy, you'll begin to wonder how your

head changes too. It's a dangerous ether those fellows breathe. They're

the only group that's ever had a cabinet minister go to jail.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The smell of a decaying leader of the opposition.

MR. BARRETT: I would rather be a decaying leader of the

opposition, upholding the principles of justice, than a corrupt

minister and in a corrupt government trying to take control any day of

police supervision in this province. I would challenge that member to

come on television and defend this government's legislation; and tell

us why you want control of the police in British Columbia. What are you

afraid of?

[ Page 824 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Go outside and say that.

MR. BARRETT: I certainly will say the same thing outside. What are you afraid of? What do you need control of the police for?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're a slippery, slimy....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Just a moment, we've got a little problem here.

First of all, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw any imputation of dishonourable motive to the minister.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any imputation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. And I'll ask the hon. minister to withdraw his comments that he made to the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I'll withdraw the comments, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

I might add, hon. members, we should always bear in mind that we're

all honourable members in this Legislative Assembly, and imputations of

dishonour are quite unparliamentary.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I've always assumed — almost always

assumed, but by rule 100 percent assumed — that everybody was

honourable in this chamber. Based on that assumption, why do we need

this control over the police? If the government is not concerned about

interfering with justice, not concerned about the working of normal

police investigations, why is this

section in here: "(

c) require public

sector employers to supply to a minister information and records

of senior managers employed by them, notwithstanding any enactment" —

listen to this — "respecting confidentiality, or any contract."

What other legislation no longer respects the confidentiality

between senior management and public sector employees related to their

personnel file? You might as well put wiretaps in here. If you don't

respect confidentiality, what stops you from putting a wiretap on

people in terms of their employment? I don't know why they need this

kind of authority. I don't understand why they want to open the file on

everybody, directly to cabinet ministers. Some of the cabinet ministers

are harmless, Mr. Speaker — not by intent, mainly by birth. But there

are others who may get bad advice and travel in bad company. I don't

know what kind of company would be negative for them to travel in, but

it could happen.

MR. MOWAT: Rugby players.

MR. BARRETT: Rugby players have a code of their own. They

would never agree to allow the state to address any file to a cabinet

minister, to check in on who's doing what to whom.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I hear the minister say "silly."

Then take it out. These are your own words and your own legislation.

Faced with this and nothing else, when we were told a week ago that the

regulations would come in.... It's your bill, not mine; it's your

words, not ours. It's your intent, which we disagree with.

Every police supervisor in this province can have his or her file

called up by any cabinet minister and reviewed for their record. That's

the old school principle. The same thing. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker,

that there indeed may be one or two people over there who hate people

who don't agree with them politically? Now I find that difficult to

believe or understand. I thought this was a free society where the

exchange of intellects over various points of view in politics was

freely accepted, welcomed and encouraged in a free democratic society.

But there may indeed be some mindless people who view socialists as

dangerous. Or there may be mindless people who view capitalists as

dangerous. Given this kind of legislation in the hands of a cabinet

minister, checking on the personnel file would allow that cabinet

minister to determine who should or shouldn't have a job, based on

their political faith.

I'm sure that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) feels

okay as long as the socialists aren't in power. But supposing the

socialists were elected and they used this legislation the way you may

use it. Then what? Why, you'd be out of a job. Had you ever thought of

that, through you, Mr. Speaker, that a government that passes

legislation may be subject to it itself, and its own biases may come

back to haunt it? Legislation should be fair. Legislation should be

just. Legislation should not be subject to bias of race, creed,

politics or anything else. That's exactly what this legislation that is

now before the House will allow cabinet ministers to do.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Fair Employment Practices Act.

MR. BARRETT: Fair Employment Practices Act, my friend?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It was fair.

MR. BARRETT: It certainly was. Is this fair to you? Do you

believe this is fair? Do you believe that as a cabinet minister you

have the right and should have the right to call any senior management

person's file on your desk? Do you believe that you should have that

right? Without any explanation, without anything, do you believe you

should have that right? There it is in the bill. Do you want me to read

it to you again?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No comment. You've got to kill time somehow.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, through you, I ask that minister,

do you believe you should have the right to call any senior management

person's personnel file on your desk at any time — or any Crown

corporation or any police department? Do you believe you should have

that right?

Interjection.

[ Page 825 ]

MR. BARRETT: All right, I'll read it to you. Do you believe you should have that right?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't know if he wants to check on McGeer or not. But there may be some academic rivalry there.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is perfectly clear. It says, and I

point out that they may "require public sector employers to supply to a

minister information and records respecting the duties, compensation,

notwithstanding any enactment respecting confidentiality or any

contract." That means, Mr. Speaker, that that minister, above all, will

be free to call any file at any time on his desk, ignoring any

contract, or any agreement on confidentiality. If I'm wrong in

interpreting that, I ask the minister to nod his head. Are you going to

support this legislation? Nod your head.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Ah, Mr. Speaker, I will venture....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let us vote and I'll show you.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you'll vote, but you won't speak. You won't

get up and defend this. Any of you have yet to get up and defend this

legislation in the chamber. You've been hoping it'll slip through. You

promised there'd be regulations. You hoped that everything would go by

and be forgotten. Right after the election you dreamed that this would

happen — that you'd bring in this kind of legislation. This is the kind

of legislation that is totally alien to the British parliamentary

system. There is no other jurisdiction in the British Commonwealth that

has this kind of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: There will be.

MR. BARRETT: Ho, Mr. Speaker! I'd ask that member to tell us

what other province intends to bring in this legislation. I ask if the

federal parties believe in this legislation. There's no support for

this legislation. Those emotional words are thrown around out in that

community, and sometimes we say people are going too far when they

describe this government in emotional words. But you know, this kind of

legislation was passed in Nazi Germany. Yes, it was. It allowed cabinet

ministers access to people's files.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Tell us about communism.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we live in a democracy. Are you a fascist

or a communist? Both the communists and the fascists have this kind of

legislation. What side of the camp are you on? Are you a communist or a

fascist? You're the only party in the whole Commonwealth that supports

this. Are you extreme right or extreme left or extreme crazy? Take your

pick. You're the only one that has this kind of legislation.

Communists, fascists and crazies — I give you three choices. The first

two don't count in your case.

I've heard a lot of debate in this chamber, and I've seen a lot of

bills go back and forth in this House, but I have never yet seen

anything like this that would allow a cabinet minister to call

anybody's file up on his or her desk and make decisions about that

person's future, based on the whim of the cabinet minister. It does not

even respect any contract, and it says so right there. If the employee

has a contract with the municipality, police force or anything else the

contract is wiped out. "Notwithstanding the contract" — it says so

right here. What do you need those sweeping powers for? What have you

got in mind? It's a question of confidentiality. Only Nazis or

communists would bring in this kind of legislation; it has no place

whatsoever in a democratic society.

I have not heard one single cabinet minister defend this legislation

on the basis of freedom, justice or the rights of individuals in the

courtroom. I've not heard one government spokesperson say why any

cabinet minister should have access to the files of policemen, firemen,

school principals, doctors who work in the public health sector or

anyone else. There has been no public explanation of this part of this

bill. The focus has been on the other

section dealing with dismissal

without cause. But this

section deals with political interference with

any senior employee of any municipality, Crown corporation or service

related to the Crown. If they don't believe this, why is this in the

bill?

What kind of government is it that needs to have supervision over

senior police officials? Some people in the community might say they

fear something. I wouldn't say that. They look like a fearless bunch to

me; they just won an election. They won't be afraid for another three

and a half years. So what do they need this for now? They don't even

have to be pleasant right now, and they haven't been. When there are

demonstrations against this legislation and wanting a hoist the Premier

says: "Oh, I had as many people out to my tea party." Isn't that funny?

He wouldn't have said that when the election was on, Mr. Speaker. You

and I know that, but that's a game with politicians. You don't have to

be polite, honest or open — you just won an election.

[4:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We would expect that the government would at least justify this kind

of legislation. When we asked for a hoist we recognized that this is

precedent-setting legislation. We know, for example, that there is no

other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth that has this kind of

legislation. We know also that the government itself has not publicly

defended the legislation that has been presented to this House.

Furthermore, we know very well that the government does not intend to

offer any explanation to the people of British Columbia.

When the ads related to this bill and the hoist that we're asking

appeared in the newspaper, the police professionals of the province of

British Columbia took the unprecedented step of placing an ad in the

paper which said: "How can we possibly investigate a politician with

this bill hanging over us?" That police question has not been answered.

Those regulations have not clarified this question. Tucked away here in

section 6 is an even more insidious

section dealing with access to

personnel files.

It has bothered not just politicians but also people in the

community who have supported this government. If I may refer to the

Kelowna Courier , a newspaper

in the interior of the province of British Columbia, the

letters-to-the-editor section, dated July 25, 1983, contained this

particular letter about the reason for having a hoist: "In response to

Mr. C. Koncewiez. He should read the Bill of Rights; then he would...."

[ Page 826 ]

Mr. Speaker, may I bring your attention.... Well, I'd like to be up

there, too, Mr. Speaker. Maybe you want a little recess. There's no

quorum, How can I convince a majority if there's no quorum? I brushed

my teeth and took a shower this morning. They're not offended by any of

that, but there's no quorum, so I have to call that to your attention,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have determined that a quorum in fact does exist.

MR. BARRETT: A quorum exists, and an intelligent quorum it is.

I want to go back to the letter I was referring to while I had the attention of the House:

"British Columbia has historically violated the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Canada has agreed to

follow as a member of the United Nations. The government of British

Columbia in the past has ignored human dignity and equal inalienable

rights of all members of the human family."

And this is a letter from a Social Credit member. When do I ever read letters

from Social Credit members? Not very often. I continue to read:

"In all fairness to Mr. Barrett and the NDP, they have

historically supported human rights at all times. I supported Mr.

Bennett." That's not me, Mr. Speaker; I am just quoting the writer of

this letter — "I worked as a scrutineer on his behalf during the recent

election. I believed that he would be able to create employment and put

most of our workers back to work. At no time did he indicate his

intentions to bring in these bills".

Well, Mr. Speaker, it was a Socred, and Socreds are not naturally

suspicious of their own party. Those of us who have seen the Socreds

operate know. If I may continue:

"The B.C. Government is breaking

article 23,

subsection 1, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed

by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948,

which Canada has agreed to uphold."

I intend to file this letter with the House, because I know the rule

is that if one reads from a document it should be filed in the chamber.

Notwithstanding previous rulings, that indeed will be my practice in

this chamber. Mr. Speaker, having said that, I quote:

"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of

employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection

against unemployment."

That is what it says in the UN Charter.

"On the human rights bill, historically British Columbia

government commissions have always ruled in the government's favour, usually

leaving the victim with a ruling that the charges are unfounded."

That is correct, and I agree with that. This is a letter from a Socred, a Social

Credit member writing in the Kelowna Courier just a few weeks ago.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't hear myself think with all

that noise. Could you call the House to order, please? Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, for calling order in the chamber. It is not often I read from

a Social Credit letter, so I would like a little silence.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Killing time.

MR. BARRETT: I will kill time as long as you attempt to kill

freedoms in this province. I'll kill time as long as you attempt to

kill the justice in this province.

I have been elected in this chamber for a short period of my life;

much longer in this chamber and every other chamber of the Commonwealth

has been the right of privacy for individuals from political harassment

from cabinet ministers. That right is going down the tube in this bill,

and I will fight it as long as I can and in every way I can on behalf

of everybody in this province. I will do it within the rules of this

chamber too, because I have a right to speak. There is no

section in

this bill yet that says opposition members are not entitled to speak,

but maybe they will call our files too and scrutinize them in a cabinet

minister's office. Yes, once the government embarks upon this course

and taking such power unto themselves, anything goes.

Let me continue reading from this thoughtful 14-page, 12-chapter

letter from this Social Credit member. I am quoting from this letter

written by Mr. Jay Hunter, who was a scrutineer for the Premier. "I

have received many reports that government employees in the Kelowna

area were phoned by members of the Social Credit Party and were

threatened that they would lose their jobs after the election because

of their support for the NDP. I find these reports appalling." I find

this paragraph shocking.

What evidence would there be from any person — Social Credit,

Liberal, Conservative, NDP — such that a government would interfere

with anybody because of their politics? There was never any evidence of

that until this bill was introduced. This

section says clearly that if

this bill passes, cabinet ministers will have the power to call

employees' files to their desks — personally, on the request of any

cabinet minister at any time. That includes firemen, school principals

and police superintendents. It will be direct political interference in

their doing their job. It says in this section: notwithstanding any

confidentiality, notwithstanding any contract. Do you know of any other

jurisdiction with a parliamentary form of government anywhere in the

British Commonwealth that has these kinds of provisions written in a

law? There are none anywhere else, in no democratic government that I

know of. This kind of legislation existed in Nazi Germany and exists in

communist totalitarian states. Take your pick: extremism of the right

or extremism of the left.

Mindlessness is not an excuse. Although some backbenchers may

retreat into that rationalization, it is not acceptable as an excuse. I

will not accept mindlessness as an excuse.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I believe that you have to be

intelligent to have someone read to you and absorb what they are

reading to you. Whether or not you yourself can read is another

question. But I am reading to you.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: People who turned on the Zyklon-B gas had the same kind of attitude.

MR. REID: Oh, order!

[ Page 827 ]

MR. BARRETT: Order? Mr. Speaker, I asked the member and I

asked the cabinet to get up and defend this bill and tell me of

anywhere else in the British Commonwealth — in the parliamentary system

of government — where a cabinet minister can call up files in violation

of confidentiality and of contract, have those files put on the

cabinet's desk, and interfere with the employment of police

superintendents, school principals, medical doctors employed by the

government or of any other person whose file they want, as a whim,

brought up on the cabinet desk. I have not had an indication from any

government member that they intend to give another example from the

British Commonwealth, where we believe our freedoms are protected by

law, where those laws are violated by the cabinet itself. No other

province, country or single jurisdiction in the whole British

Commonwealth of Nations has this kind of legislation. We have not seen

one cabinet minister defend this kind of legislation or defend this

section. We have not witnessed the regulations that were promised to us

eight days ago. We have these mindless interjections from well-meaning

people who let their names stand for office. It could have been a

broom-handle in some constituencies. Broom-handles or not, they're here.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: These mindless interjections from that very fine

member.... And he is a fine person; I can tell that by looking at him.

He's an honourable gentleman; I can tell that by looking at him. But I

don't want him or anyone else on those benches looking at people's

files, by law, to interfere with what they're doing.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, I don't want to raise odometers. It took 24 hours to figure out that word.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to reading this letter, to where I was before

I was so rudely interrupted by that intelligent discourse. It says:

"It has also been reported that a direct line was

installed from the Capri Hotel to the Hotel Vancouver, so on election

night the Premier could talk to supporters without having to wait for a

dial tone. The reported cost of the special telephone line was over

$500. If this is true it can hardly be called restraint."

Mr. Speaker, I shouldn't have read that paragraph, because it's not appropriate to this debate...

Interjection.

[4:15]

MR. BARRETT: ...except for the title of the bill — that's

right, Mr. Member. I'm going to skip a paragraph, because, again, I

think it would be questionable whether it is in order. I'll go on to a

paragraph that is in order.

"On the political spectrum I am middle of the road, so

I cannot support a socialist party. But I can't support a fascist party

either. So I will not hesitate to tear up my Social Credit Party card.

"Yours truly,

Jay Hunter, Kelowna."

This is a man who scrutineered for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of my remarks, in about three weeks' time, I

will recall through my precise file that I quoted this letter, and I

will ensure that the rules of this chamber are obeyed by asking leave

of the House to table it. As a matter of fact, I could do this right

now. I ask leave of the House to file this so the members can

scrutinize the loss of the scrutineer Mr. Jay Hunter.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Do the members want a recess to scrutinize the authenticity of the document, Mr. Speaker? You don't think so? Thank you.

Now I want to get down to my file. I want to read some of the

reactions of those notorious non-NDP newspapers in their editorials. I

want to read some editorials from the Vancouver Sun and the

Province, none of which supports the New Democratic Party, Lord forbid.

I want to read to this chamber what these editorials are disseminating

to the population as their

interpretation of this government and this

bill. Woe betide me if I should use such strident language; woe betide

me if I should be critical of the Socreds. How dare a lowly socialist

like me criticize this wonderful right-wing extremist government. So

rather than my doing it, I'll go to the right-wing newspapers and see

what they say about this government.

July 20, 1983: "The budget revisited" is the title of this

editorial. It says: "There are some signs that the Social Credit

government has begun to realize that it can best weather the storm of

protest over its budget and legislative package through conciliation."

The opening paragraph is one of a friend to a friend. After all, it was

the Vancouver Sun that supported the Social Credit Party in the last election, and it is the Sun that is holding out the hope for conciliation between friends. That's why the opening paragraph.

"Criticism of the program is quickly sorting itself into

predictable carping from those who always reject Socred policies, and concern

from moderate supporters...." You see how the editorial writers separate themselves from the opposition.

Automatically, anybody who is critical of the Socreds is a carper. But all of

a sudden they're caught. Their favourite government is now in a position

where it's going to be criticized by the editorials, so the editorials have

to place themselves above the common folk, close to the right-wing extremism

of this government, and say: "We don't mean to have carping criticism. Just so long

as you understand it's your friends who are criticizing you." Not opponents

like me, although on occasion I'm willing to be your friend. I've been

seen in public with a Socred before.

"...and concern from moderate supporters and those many

British Columbians who, thankfully, still count themselves in the middle of

the political spectrum." They're not on first base or on second base; they like to be in the middle.

Safe Canadian politics: stay in the middle. But there's no middle ground

left in B.C. It's rapidly disappearing. We've got an extremist government.

So even the Vancouver Sun editorial writers are finding they can't balance

from one foot to another; they've got to take a stand, and it's making

them nervous.

Listen to the next paragraph as we lead into this mild criticism of

this extremist government: "It is now possible to point to the most

reasonable areas of concern about the budget and accompanying 26 bills,

and to single out some examples of government awareness of that

concern.... Apart from the expected outcry by the public service

lobby...." Those people only lost their jobs and have to pay their

mortgages; their security's gone. The Sun says that

[ Page 828 ]

apart from that devastation there are some other

concerns. How nice of them to deign to consider that there might be

other concerns! Aren't we all thankful for these wonderful

middle-of-the-road editorials not taking a position on anything, being

on everybody's side forever and ever, until they get their fingers

caught in the cookie jar? What are they worried about? Well, they've

got to take a stand. And what is the stand that they have to take? You

know, Mr. Speaker, and I know, what's bothering them: the extremism of

the legislation. We don't mind your chopping off civil servants. We

don't mind your laying off people and taking away their bargaining

rights. We don't mind any of that, but when you start interfering with

the police, we think we've got to leave the middle road.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Listen to what they say. "Apart from the expected outcry by the

public service lobby, much concern has to do with the way the

government has gone about its plan. Reducing the size of government

does not necessarily mean firing without sensitivity, notice, cause,

compensation or consideration of seniority." They're saying if you're

going to execute somebody, give them a chance at how they'd like to be

executed. Would you like gas? Would you like to be hanged? Would you

like to be shot? Not that we disagree with your executions, go ahead

and gas 'em, shoot 'em, or hang 'em, but at least give them a choice,

because we're in the middle and we like to have a middle position. Our

middle position is: if you're going to kill them, give them a choice.

Now we go further. There is even a suggestion in here of a smite of

concern at the loss of the Crown corporations committee. It's an

extremist position, I know, but find some succour and comfort from an

unnamed back-bencher who will be stripped of perks because that job

goes. I wouldn't suggest that it is anything more than a matter of

principle that that opposition is involved. But it is. It hurts. The

perk loss, too.

MR. KEMPF: Sit down and I'll tell you about it.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we now have a pledge from that back-bencher to get involved in the debate.

MR. KEMPF: If you're going to talk about me, sit down. I'll tell you about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm not talking about you behind your back.

MR. KEMPF: Sit down!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, throw him out, will you? They threw

Reynolds out. Why should they pick on that guy? They're both Tories.

Why throw one Tory out and let the other one stay in here?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps if we could return to Bill 3, we might maintain orderly debate. Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your protection.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, they're attacking the Chair. The next thing you know, they'll bring in a bill attacking the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Privatize him.

MR. BARRETT: Privatize the Chair! They'll bring in an outside

lawyer to be Speaker, then they'll call his file and check on him. What

kind of rulings will we have then? Can you imagine, under this section,

how we'd pick a Speaker, Mr. Speaker? No more elected Speakers. We'd

get another used car dealer to roll back the rulings in this chamber.

That's what we're going to get, Mr. Speaker. I can see it now. I can

see our new Speaker going around kicking tires as a prerequisite for

getting a job in this chamber. I can see it now. They'll check his

scuffed foot to see whether or not he's done the rounds.

But, Mr. Speaker, no levity. Let's go back to the serious middle-of-the-road position of the Vancouver Sun ;

this above-the-fray approach, this paternalistic understanding that on

occasion there are differences of opinion between us gentlemen of the

right, and let's push all that rabble on the left, or in the trade

union movement, or those intellectuals, out of the way. Let's deal

gently, as gentlemen, with how we keep them in their places. Do it with

grace. Do it with dignity. Do it with style. If you're going to hang,

if you're going to shoot, if you're going to gas, give them a choice.

Don't shoot them all. Don't gas them all. Don't hang them all. At least

give them a choice. Well, we've moved the Vancouver Sun a little bit: freedom of choice and how you want to terminate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to the next paragraph in this wonderful

editorial that is challenging the basic foundations of this extremist

government. "Provincial Secretary James Chabot seemed to recognize that

when he said the government may allow long-term-public servants who

find their jobs disappearing to demand transfer." How gracious! Isn't

that wonderful? If you've worked 20 years for the government, and you

are fired overnight, the Provincial Secretary appears to be aware that

perhaps you should be considered for some other job. How wonderful, Mr.

Speaker, that we have such an understanding Provincial Secretary, who

shows such liberalism and sensitivity to the needs of somebody who's

worked 20 or 25 years. Alleluia! The Vancouver Sun has found a way out for the Provincial Secretary. Now that takes some doing. But they've found it for you.

MR. MACDONALD: A pussycat gauleiter.

MR. BARRETT: A pussycat gauleiter! They've touched the

central nerve of kindness in that whole government. It's embodied

through that Provincial Secretary who once played Santa Claus in a

rented costume some 30 years ago and developed a conscience since that

time. Well, our new Santa Claus seemed to recognize that when he said

that the government may allow long-term public servants who find their

jobs disappearing to.... Oh, listen to this. As a further endorsement

of the kindness of the minister, it goes on to say: "Mr. Chabot also

promised that those laid off will receive their superannuation

benefits." Isn't that wonderful! After 20 years of working for the

government, and then getting the sack, the minister said: "We may even

give you your superannuation benefits which you paid for and worked

for." Isn't

[ Page 829 ]

that gracious of the good lord sitting on the

government bench, Lord Chabot, elevated to a new position of godlike

decision through this legislation? If anybody is going to play God in

that cabinet it might as well be the Provincial Secretary. He has fewer

illusions than others over there.

The legislation allows them to play God over people's lives. Even

though we debate it in this chamber, it will be the first time, if this

bill passes, anywhere that a working person will no longer have the

protection of contract, the protection of confidentiality, something

that people have given their lives for in the struggle of freedom in

this Commonwealth of ours. Some people remember those things and bring

those principles with them to this House. Other people don't. But be

that as it may, we believe in the rights of every citizen, regardless

of race, creed, colour or political affiliation, and no government

should have the power to call up people's files onto cabinet ministers'

desks. What for? What do they need the power for? What do you want it

for? What do you want the power to call up somebody's file onto your

desk for?

You know I remember when the Provincial Secretary was in the

opposition. Had we brought in this kind of legislation, there would

have been no person more quickly to his feet.

MR. MACDONALD: He's never been in opposition.

[4:30]

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he was in opposition. I remember, he was a

freedom fighter then. I remember that he would have nothing to do with

Liberals or Conservatives until he married them. What a strange

marriage — political marriage, if I may say that. I remember when that

member was a freedom fighter sitting down there, and he'd disdain the

Liberals and Tories. And now, much to the shock of a whole generation

of children in this province, we've seen this kind of handholding going

on in public — politically. There he was walking down the hallway with

his arm around a Liberal — politically. There he was embracing a Tory.

That embrace brought forward this kind of legislation and that

minister. "Mr. Chabot," it says — and I quote, because I cannot use the

minister's name in the House, Mr. Speaker — "also promised that those

laid off will receive their superannuation benefits. Labour minister

Bob McClelland and Premier Bill Bennett say the government will be fair

in paying severance." Well, isn't that nice? Fair in severance. They

had a contract. It was written and protected by law, and all of a

sudden the middle-of-the-road newspaper has to interpret that the

government is being fair: they may even uphold the law. Well,

considering Social Credit's record I suppose it's fair when it

considers that it may uphold the law. But it's breaking the law in

existing contracts in this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, but they're right-wing extremists, so they're acceptable, because they're right-wingers. We all know, as the Sun

says, that the Labour minister, Bob McClelland, and Premier Bill

Bennett say the government will be fair in paying severance. Oh, thank

you, master! Thank you so much on behalf of all the serfs in this

province. You have been so kind that you may even live up to the letter

of the law in firing people. I mean, goodness gracious me, is it not a

wonderful day when an editorial in a moderate newspaper that supports

this right-wing extremism says, why goodness, they may even live up to

the law? Are they implying that that's a change of record by this

government? Perhaps they're referring to land deals or something like

that. I don't know.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on and read this editorial. It says:

"In other fence-mending gestures the Premier rejected the ugly

impression that he thought civil servants were doing a lousy job." Do

you remember that one? On a Friday he went down the hallway and said:

"Aw, we're laying them off because half of them aren't doing their job

anyway." I accepted that remark because I thought he was talking about

his cabinet, and then I was shocked to discover, halfway down the

article, that he was attacking some poor clerks in the bowels of this

institution who gorge up the working papers that the government

operates from. How unkind to treat those $900-a-month minions down

there, locked to their desks in fear by this government. But Monday

came and Heal got to the Premier. That $75,000 a year clean-up man

said: "Pssst, some of them may remember you insulted them, so clean it

up." So the Premier said, well, he didn't really mean what he said when

he said what he didn't mean; on the other hand, he didn't mean what he

said when he said that he didn't mean he said it when he said it. But

if you're misinterpreting what I said, you must understand that the

reporter was told what I said, but he's misinterpreting it because I

didn't mean what I said when I was interpreting it to the reporter. But

if the reporter is misinterpreting what I misinterpreted to the

reporter, he must understand that I really meant what I said what I

didn't mean what I said and I didn't mean what I said when I said it.

So have you got it straight now? And the reporter said, "Yes," and the

editorial said: "Isn't it nice, he's backed off."

That's the way it happened. I remember it clearly. They typed,

verbatim, one of his statements in the newspaper, and it was a puzzle

where the verb was, where the adjectives were, and where those adverbs

were flying all over the place in the past tense, present today on

behalf of the Premier. I understand that his speeches are going to the

archives. That's right. I understand that all of the Premier's

utterances are going to the archives.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, they should go there before he utters them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're going back into the computer.

MR. BARRETT: They're going into the computer? No wonder they can't unlock that formula.

I'll go on to read this editorial as I make this case, and will make

this case over the next three or four months, as I express my freedom

and right to stand in this chamber — with complete bladder control.

Mr. Speaker, I go on. "Human Resources Minister Grace McCarthy said

that in the event of firings, 'I want our staff to be the first to

know.' " Can't you see it being delivered with a Smile button: "You're

fired. Smile." I can see it now. They spent tens of thousands of

dollars for that whole Smile program. I wondered what they were

spending that money on. Now I've got it; I've figured it out. She was

going to tell them first: "You're canned." But she was wrong. They

heard it by radio dispatch and she missed the pleasure of canning them

all personally. What a shock and disappointment it was to her

[ Page 830 ]

maintenance of that first-name relationship she has with the staff.

"Pat McGeer, " the former Liberal.... I'm not quoting the

paper here. I remind the House that he is a former Liberal. I remember when

he used to sit over there and say that Social Credit was an abomination on the

face of this earth, that Social Credit passed the worst legislation. "Social

Credit is a terrible gang. Social Credit is awful." Then he joined them.

That's how much respect he had for his opinions, Mr. Speaker. He went over

and sat with them. "Pat McGeer, the cabinet minister responsible for universities,

tried to reassure faculty that the government will not interfere with tenure

or academic freedom." This is the point that I want to make. The good doctor

— the second member, is he, from Point Grey or the first member? — was asked

in the newspapers the other day: "Does this legislation affect the tenure

of university professors?" Out in the hallway he said no. Then they asked

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot): "Does the legislation impact

on the tenure of university professors?" He said yes. Mr. Speaker, do you

want this House to pass legislation on which one minister answers no to a question

and another minister answers yes? It's been over six days since that contradiction

appeared and they still haven't straightened that out.

I want to defend the right of the Provincial Secretary to continue

to communicate through examples at the lowest common denominator.

There's one thing I cannot stand and that is to allow the intellectual

disparity of the backgrounds of cabinet ministers to interfere with

their communication. I believe that the Provincial Secretary, although

not the possessor of a BA, an MA and a PhD, like that member down there

piled higher and deeper.... Even so, that minister has a right to

communicate through the lowest common denominator. If he says yes, then

how can the minister say no to the same question? Who's telling the

truth? Is the truth being told? It has to be. Somebody's telling the

truth over there. One of them said yes and one said no. I don't know

how to ascertain which one of them is telling the truth. This is a

clear-cut empirical argument. It's a classic case of abstract logic.

The question is: will university professors have tenure under this

legislation? The minister for universities says yes; the Provincial

Secretary says no. The rest of the community is confused and not

wanting to brand either one of them a fibber. I don't wish to brand

anybody a fibber, but we have a problem here that would even pose a

serious problem for the most highly skilled clerks that we have in this

chamber. We can't say: "A member lied." We can't say: "Somebody's not

telling the truth." When two ministers were asked the exact same

question, one of them said yes and the other said no. Do you know what

I would prefer to believe, Mr. Speaker? I'd prefer to believe it was a

misunderstanding.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He speaks like a professor and I don't.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. I said that you appeal through the

lowest common denominator — no ifs, ands or buts. There one thing about

the Provincial Secretary. When he says no we hear it loud and clear —

when we ask for leave. We know what he means.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have this problem. To resolve the problem we

come back to the subject of my whole argument — to remain in order.

That is, we should have a hoist of this bill so that the two ministers

can straighten out exactly where they're going in terms of interpreting

this bill to the community. After all, how will the Vancouver Sun

handle it editorially if we have a contradiction between two ministers?

To continue, here is something I want to read: "...and Pat McGeer, the

cabinet minister responsible for universities, tried to reassure

faculty that government will not interfere with tenure or academic

freedom." This was written before the Provincial Secretary was saying

that under this legislation there would be no tenure.

Listen to this next paragraph. This may be a bit of a warning to the

official opposition, but I want to read it anyway. I'm relating it to

the hoist. It says:

"While it is to be hoped that they and their

colleagues will practise what they preach, it is worth noting that the

government can satisfy some moderate opposition and still stick to its

intentions."

Go back to giving them a choice: gassed, hanged or shot.

"Many of the savings on civil service salaries are to

be retained on a program of layoffs that put more emphasis on

attrition. The point about cost is true in another area of criticism:

the fear that the government will weaken the ability to enforce human

rights in British Columbia."

That was the purpose all along, but that's a separate bill, and the editorial is out of order, so I'll go on from there.

I want the chamber to hear this quote from the Premier; this one is

in writing, so it may be incorrect. It attributes these remarks to our

Premier: "Those who would attempt to confuse the situation or create

fears where no fear should be extended are not serving the interests of

British Columbia." That's what our fearless Premier said. Did you hear

that? Now I want to know which one of those two cabinet ministers is

creating fear, by the Premier's own definition, by confusing the

situation. One cabinet minister says yes, there will be tenure, and the

other cabinet minister says no, there will not be tenure. Do they not

indeed fall under the definition given by the Premier of this province

of confusion and not serving the people of British Columbia?

If I may leave the Vancouver Sun to its own devices, I will turn to that new tabloid document now known as the Province .

Interruption.

MR. BARRETT: Someone has told that child what is in the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You made her cry. You scared her.

MR. BARRETT: That accusation demands a legislative inquiry. I

would expect at least a 20-minute recess so we can interview the child

to see whether or not it has indeed been affected by my oratory. If

there was ever a case for bringing back child-abuse rules, it's the

fact that I'm speaking here today and having that effect. If for no

other reason, those child-abuse programs should be brought back

immediately. Isn't that right, Mr. Member —

former-Tory-three-day-Socred-get-nominated...? Thank you for your

liberal gesture. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad for the contribution of that

former Tory member. He was a three-day Socred, and he won the

nomination. Boy, when it comes to packing a meeting, you've got it,

man; you did a terrific job. But you're not in the cabinet. What went

wrong?

[ Page 831 ]

[4:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't be either.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, he will. I've got my money on his

making it to the cabinet. I want this bill hoisted so we can lay proper

odds on the chances of whether or not that member is going to make it

to the cabinet.

Back to the bill and the reason for a hoist. I want to pose a

problem that would cross any normal Clerk's eyes in terms of dealing

with the

interpretation of a bill. Here's the Vancouver Province attacking this government. Would you believe the Vancouver Province ? I shall read from this editorial in the Province ,

page B-2, Thursday, July 21, 1983, the three-star edition — the three

stars do not apply to the editorial, just to the time of the edition:

"No one should expect them to come out swinging with

their names in the headlines, but some of B.C.'s top employers are

concerned about the consequences that could flow from Bill 3 and are

anxious to see the government move back a bit from the brink. How far

they can influence Victoria to take a softer line is not clear."

Listen to these words chosen by the Province .

It's very important to listen to these words in order to understand the

frame in which this editorial viewed this government. These are not my

words:

"They fear this blitzkrieg legislation may throw the

province into a long war of attrition that will do nobody any good. If

Victoria's ears are open, it will hear the warning."

Blitzkrieg! It's not the word of the humble loyal

opposition. The word is taken from the editorial of a Vancouver

newspaper, the Province ,

which describes that government as introducing blitzkrieg legislation.

Where does the word "blitzkrieg" originate? It was the Nazi government

in Germany that used blitzkrieg tactics. It's the Vancouver Province by association, this word and the legislation, that is making the point I'm trying to make.

"Bill 3 will cut 7,000 workers from the civil service

by removing their rights against dismissal without cause. Whatever the

employers think about the civil rights aspect, they are hard-headed

enough to see the damage that B.C. could suffer if the bill goes

through. When the province is moving gingerly towards recovery, Bill 3

could provoke a labour-management confrontation of monumental

proportions.

"The businessmen know that what B.C. needs is better

labour-management relations, not another confrontation that will

blacken further the province's reputation. They correctly fear that

Bill 3 will upset a trend towards some moderation in the workplace

relationships brought on by the recession, but nevertheless clearly

discernible. Victoria should try to understand the long-range view of

the major employers who wish for some moderation in the government's

approach.

"If Victoria were to achieve a quick-fix to its own

problems with legislation that causes more difficulties in the private

sector, how much will B.C. have gained? Nothing. A government that

believes in financial realities should be able to see that."

That's an admonition from an editorial in the Province , which supports private enterprise, a newspaper that, like the Vancouver Sun , has serious questions about this.

Mr. Speaker, the editorial was referring not so much to the dismissal without

cause, but to this particular

section here, and the reason I want this bill

hoisted: the

section that would allow cabinet ministers to call up on their desk

the file of any senior police official, any senior medical official, any senior

fire official, any senior level of management in a Crown corporation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Get off the chair.

MR. BARRETT: I've got my shoes on. I'm not like your colleague over there who took his shoes off.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, protect me from the vicious interruptions of my good friend the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your good friend? Withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: He's my good friend. It proves that I have an

unlimited ability to accept human behaviour and a diversity of opinion

by calling that man my good friend. My good friend is wrong. My good

friend is misguided in this legislation. My good friend is not acting

on his own. My good friend the minister gives different answers than

the minister of Education; nonetheless, as a social worker my heart

goes out to him and he remains my good friend, mainly because the rules

dictate it. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, it is my good friend, that

minister, who is introducing legislation that has no equal in the loss

of freedoms, the loss of rights in arbitrary management decisions by a

government; no equal anywhere in the British Commonwealth or, for that

matter, in any democratic administration that I know of on the face of

this earth.

If we were in the United States, this legislation wouldn't have gone past first reading.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Because they have a bill of rights as a result

of their Declaration of Independence. We now have a new Charter of

Rights in Canada, weak as it is. Thank goodness we've made that small

step. But the provinces can opt out of that Charter of Rights. Did you

know that? They can opt out, and this legislation would allow this

province to be Orwellian. It is only four or five months away from

1984. I guess that is why they want the legislation through by December

31. They want to be the first to go legally into 1984 with the

Orwellian model. This legislation will allow any cabinet minister to

call up any policeman's file. Supposing, that history repeated itself

and a member of a Social Credit cabinet was under investigation by the

police. It has happened once before. Supposing a member of the cabinet

was under investigation by the police. Under this bill the police

superintendent responsible for the investigation could have