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 )

FRIDAY, JULY 15, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

313 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Blencoe –– 313

Mr. Lauk –– 316

Mrs. Dailly –– 322

Mr. Stupich –– 327

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. GABELMANN: I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to ask

leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a

definite matter of urgent public importance; namely, that the House do

now adjourn to debate the firing of the director and staff of the human

rights branch and the Human Rights Commission of the Ministry of

Labour, and the prejudicial effect of this action on human rights in

British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I will reserve my decision on the matter and

bring an answer to the House at the earliest opportunity without

prejudice to the member.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Visiting the Legislature today, and

probably later with the press gallery, is a long-time friend of mine

and my family's from Ashcroft, and the editor of the Ashcroft-Cache Creek Journal , Mrs. Ida Makaro. I would ask the House to welcome her.

Orders of the Day

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: Yesterday, I referred to the United Nations'

principles and statements of human rights. This morning I would like to

refer to something a little closer to the current government — the

principles of the Social Credit Party.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: This is positive. We'll soon see how they

support their own basic principles. Let me just go through one or two

of these and ask them whether they have indeed disbanded and thrown

away these very principles they supposedly tell the people of British

Columbia.

The first principle that they supposedly endorse is this: "The

individual is the most important factor in organized society, and as a

divinely created being with both spiritual and physical potentials and

needs, has certain inalienable rights which must be respected and

preserved." That's the first principle of the Social Credit Party. With

this particular bill and a number of other things they have brought in

in the last few weeks they violate the basic principles and

fundamentals of their party. I would suggest that the very members of

their party will be sad with the things they are doing in this chamber.

Item 2: "The major function of democratic government in organized society

is to secure for the people the results they want from the management of their

public affairs as far as such results are physically and morally right."

They refer to morality in their principles. They have no morality in this particular

bill when you can fire without cause, no just tribunal, no appeal process, and

no equity. They are violating their second principle. I think they should tell

the people of British Columbia that the principles they supposedly espouse have

been thrown out the window with this piece of legislation and others that they

have brought down in the last few weeks.

One of the other principles is a very important one, because there

is deep concern in this province about the things they are doing and

the violation of basic human rights and democratic principles. "Social

Credit is unalterably opposed to fascism." Right across this country

and this province, newspaper, columnists and editorialists are writing

that there is indeed something happening in this province that we all

should be concerned about, and it is the violation of basic human

rights.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that these members should go back and read the

very principles that they supposedly endorse. I asked a member of my

staff to try to find this. We had to hunt high and low for it. We went

over to the Socred caucus office. The staff there said: "Oh, we don't

have a copy, because we're in government. If we were in opposition we

would need one." They don't need principles when they're in government:

that was the reaction of their Socred caucus. They don't need copies of

their principles. We know why: because they brought in legislation that

violates their own basic principles.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I have a copy of what I guess is their current constitution. I hope

they will be revamping it in their next meeting, because they have

certainly thrown out this constitution. "To foster and encourage the

universally recognized principles of Christianity in human

relationships." There is no Christianity or anything to do with human

relations in the legislation this government is bringing down — nothing

at all.

They also refer to one of their basic principles, which is to

abolish poverty and privation. They have created and will continue to

create further poverty and privation in this province. They are firing

hundreds of people and they will continue to fire thousands more, I

suspect not only in the public sector but they'll be moving on the

private sector in terms of draconian legislation about rights.

I'd like to close, Mr. Speaker....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BLENCOE: They want me to close, sure. They don't like to

hear this stuff, because they know that they've got to go back and face

their party members. They are violating their own principles that they

supposedly endorse and tell thousands of British Columbians that they

uphold.

I would like to talk a little bit about labour law and about some of

the things that happen in this country that have been endorsed and

should be supported. I have a copy of Canadian Labour Arbitration

by Brown and Beatty. It is said that this book is a landmark event in

the world of Canadian labour law. Mr. Speaker, this government is

already suspending

section 93 of the Labour Code, which states you

cannot be dismissed without cause. The Labour Code is being dismantled

by this government. They are also moving on some fundamental areas in

terms of arbitration and jurisprudence, how workers can get tribunals.

I'd just like to quote from this recognized Canadian document, a

landmark in labour law, and I would remind some of these speakers about

these principles.

[ Page 314 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who wrote it?

[10:15]

MR. BLENCOE: I already referred to that. If you would listen

you would hear it. Listen, for a change, Mr. Minister. "Grievous

arbitration is an exercise of self-government through which the parties

to a collective bargaining relationship devise and participate

significantly in their own judicial features of the arbitration

process." Mr. Speaker, there will be no more arbitration between

employer and employee. They will be gone. Industrial jurisprudence, in

terms of arbitration, is very important. I suggest the members get hold

of this book because it's a landmark.

MR. MOWAT: How about something positive.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm being positive. You people are not the positive ones.

"The arbitration jurisprudence has been produced with

the collaborative efforts of judges, lawyers, law teachers and, most

importantly, non-lawyers who are experienced in labour-management

relations. These hundreds, even thousands, of participants in the

process have pooled their collective wisdom to think through the many

subtle issues which can arise in the administration of the collective

agreement. That process has not been impaired by a hierarchy of legally

binding precedent. Instead, the analysis in any arbitration award must

survive in the free marketplace of ideas" — they support the free

marketplace of ideas, I hope — "persuading through its quality of

thought" — this is important — "rather than constraining by the force

of authority."

We have a force of authority in this government, Mr. Speaker, that

is throwing out basic human rights. It is allowing this bill to come

down so that people can be fired without cause. It's totally

unacceptable to thousands and thousands of British Columbians, and

should be repealed as quickly as possible. In my estimation, no job, no

person and no group is going to be safe from this government when they

can throw out human rights at will. It's clear where they're going in

the next year or two. It's quite clear.

They support and will spread the notion that if workers spread

stories and innuendo about their fellow workers and fellow British

Columbians, they will be able to protect their jobs. They're going to

have to protect their jobs because this government has decided that

they can fire people without cause. The only way they're going to be

able to protect themselves is if they curry favour with their employer

and spread stories and innuendo about their fellow employees. The fear

and mistrust that's going to be created by this bill in the public

sector will create incredible problems, not only for the public sector

but for all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, the government, in my estimation, is prepared to set

one

section of the community against another, and that's what it's

doing. You are using fear tactics on the people of British Columbia.

You are setting them against each other, and it's reminiscent of other

jurisdictions and times in history. Out of this carnage they hope to

achieve economic victory and increase their own power, so that in years

ahead they can reward themselves, their friends and allies. We've

already seen how that happens. We've already seen that if you need a

job in this province the best way to do it is to marry a Bennett.

This bill should be seriously thought about by those members over

there. Many of them, I see, have not come into this chamber since we

started this debate, because they can't face it. They know what it's

about. The more intelligent, caring members on that side know what it's

all about. This government talks about restraint. They say the reason

they're having to fire the human rights branch and to suspend — not

suspend, eliminate — human rights in this province, because that is

what this bill does, is that it's saving the taxpayers' money. This

government's record on financial matters is the worst in the history of

this province. It is now accepted by economists on all sides. They have

built up the biggest debt this province has ever seen — $12 billion.

They were told that the economy was starting to falter a long time

ago. Did they do anything about it? No. They got us into B.C. coal

deals that are now costing the province millions of dollars, at the

expense of child care workers, children, child abuse programs....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes, Mr. Minister. That's another Columbia

River Treaty, another cost of millions to the taxpayers of British

Columbia, at the expense of millions of taxpayers' dollars that you're

going to eliminate from social services. You're firing the child-care

workers; you're eliminating them.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It's getting a little rambunctious here. Only one member at a time.

MR. BLENCOE: They want to go home, Mr. Speaker. They've had a rough week. British Columbians are turning against this government.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can control the minister.

MR. REID: Quit misleading the House. Tell the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard that. The hon. second member for Surrey will withdraw the comment.

MR. REID: I withdraw the comment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stand up and withdraw the comment.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, they can't handle this kind of criticism, because they know it's true; they know it's accurate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poppycock!

MR. BLENCOE: There goes a lawyer who should know better.

[ Page

315 ]

Let's talk about the financial reasons why we're having to cut social

services and child-care workers and abuse programs. The national financial markets

have recognized what they've done to the financial capability of this province.

The rating has dropped. The cost this year to taxpayers will be $5 million minimum.

Over the next few years that rating will cost us $120 million — taken right

out of programs that go to people and services. Through their mismanagement

they are forcing cuts in these very essential programs. Just on this particular

aspect $120 million is going to be lost in the next few years.

The leader of our party talked about B.C. Rail and $45 million and

shoving it off the back of a truck — $45 million that could have gone

into these programs that provide help to people in need. But no, shovel

it out the back to cover up. Cover it up.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Has anyone ever fired you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Again the minister doesn't like the truth; we know he has trouble with it all.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If I want your opinion, I'll ask for it.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could have some order from that minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad you have some control over him.

I'd like to refer to some of the clauses in this particular act and

what it's doing to an agreement which this government signed in good

faith with the members of the public sector. Let's see what they're

getting rid of under the guise of restraint, while cancelling the right

to appeal being fired, which all civilized societies allow to remain

and preserve and protect.

The employee can be terminated without cause. It's going to

eliminate a very important section,

section 10(2). This government

endorsed it. They are a part of this. "Dismissal. A minister or a

deputy minister may dismiss any employee for just cause. Notice of

dismissal shall be in writing and shall set forth the reasons for

dismissal." Notice for dismissal, just cause. Justice: that's what

you're eliminating.

An employee can be unilaterally relocated, reassigned or reclassified whenever

the employer decides. It wipes out a very important clause, 12(4). This is

the clause currently in the agreement that this government signed, but didn't

tell the people of British Columbia and certainly didn't tell its loyal

public servants it was going to destroy. "It is understood by the parties

that as a general policy employees shall not be required to locate from one

geographic location to another against their will. However, the employer and

the union recognize that in certain cases relocations may be in the interest

of the public service or the employee. In such cases an employee will be fully

advised of the reason for his or her relocation, as well as the possible result

of a refusal to be relocated." That was an agreement, fair, just and reasonable.

That's going. I know no other country in the world that is prepared

to remove people and send them to another part of the country or

province without discussion. Do you know where that happens? In the

Soviet Union. Yes, that's true. It's the only country in the world

where that happens, and this government is going to be doing that. No

appeal. Relocate. You've got to move or you lose your job. That's what

happens in the Soviet Union, and that's what this government is going

to be doing here: suspending the very point of discussion about where

they should work,

The just cause is a very important and very critical factor in this

bill, but that particular aspect is also very important. At will, you

can upset a family — one, say, living in the city of Victoria for 20

years — and you can say to them, with no recourse, appeal or tribunal:

"You move or else." There's no other country in the world where that

happens, except the Soviet Union, and that's fact.

Mr. Speaker,

section 4 of this bill leaves it totally up to the

cabinet as to whether they should give a fired employee severance pay

or not. Severance pay can be suspended at will of cabinet. The

centralization and the control that is being shown by this cabinet and

this government in terms of pulling in decisions that are made at the

local level by other duly elected and democratic.... They are pulling

them to themselves so that they are going to make the decisions. The

implications of that have to worry all British Columbians. Where else

are they going to move with those kinds of powers? I would urge the

government — particularly those members who have some feelings left for

working people in this province — to reconsider this bill. It is

getting international attention, Mr. Speaker. We are becoming known as

a province that is bent on suspending basic human rights, and that

can't be accepted.

[10:30]

I would suggest that when certain members — I hope there are some

reasonable people in their own party who have worked long years for

their party — read their own principles, they will see that what

they're doing this week violates the very principles of their own

party. I suppose they can say: "Well, we don't have any principles any

more." Is that what they're saying, Mr. Speaker? We all know what

happens to governments and people who don't have any principles. We

live in a civilized society that supports basic truths, basic ideals,

basic principles. This government is set on a course that is going to

eradicate some of those fundamental things. I would urge those members

who have been members of other parties to think about what they're

doing. Mr. Speaker, I hope they will repeal this bill; pull it back. I

now move adjournment of this debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 18

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

[ Page 316 ]

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

Heinrich

Hewitt

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. SPEAKER: Could I remind hon. members that standing order

16(2) states not sooner than two nor longer than five minutes for the

taking of a vote. Once the bell has rung it is impossible for a member

to enter the chamber to have his vote recorded.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we've been

admonished not to talk across the House during a division. During a

division the House is technically not really in session, waiting for

the vote. On what standing order does the Speaker base these

admonitions for us not to chat with one another across the hall? Could

he explain that to me?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, general maintenance of order in

the House is a long-standing tradition in every House in the

Commonwealth, and is one which should be adhered to in this House as

well, applying equally to both sides of the House. I must say that on

occasions each side of the House shares the same amount of blame as the

other. It falls under no particular side of the House to be disorderly,

hon. members, but it does fall upon the Chair to see that order be

maintained.

MR. ROSE: Well, I would just, again, ask for your advice. As a stranger in the House....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROSE: As a relative newcomer, I have watched....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I've thought of it.

I've witnessed many other assemblies. During division I've even

noticed that members go and talk to one another. Would that be

permitted in this House, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a great deal is permitted between

the time of the calling of the vote and the recording of the vote, but

nothing permits any kind of anarchy to exist. Order at all times will

be maintained. I'm sure I can count on all hon. members for their

support in that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, I'm going to have to

ask the hon. member if he would kindly withdraw his reference to

himself as being a stranger in the House. As the hon. member is perhaps

unaware, under standing order 23, if he is a stranger in the House, he

would have to withdraw from the House. I'm sure he would not like to do

that at this early stage of his political career in British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: I think the hon. House Leader of the government misunderstood me. I said I had never been in a stranger House. [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, I'd like to declare a draw.

MR. SPEAKER: A draw has been declared, hon. members. Continuing on debate....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if I recognize the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), the debate will be closed.

MR. LAUK: I'm indeed surprised, Mr. Speaker, after all of the

heckling of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) and the upset

responses from some of the cabinet ministers — the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and others — and from the back bench,

that no one rises in debate on this bill, one of the most draconian

pieces of legislation in the province of British Columbia. Do they

admit their guilt, Mr. Speaker? They certainly do. They haven't got the

guts to defend this bill. The second member for Victoria was

interrupted — not only midstream, mid-paragraph, mid-sentence, but

mid-syllable — by Leather Lungs from Peace River, by the Minister of

Education and others, who were greatly upset, and by the hon. member

for Little Mountain.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, he's not a twit.

These people constantly interrupted the second member for Victoria.

Now they have an opportunity to get up and give these tremendous

arguments in defence of....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It's the high-pitched voice? Is that what you have

to say, Mr. Provincial Secretary? Is that the level of criticism that

you have?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, shall we address the Chair?

MR. LAUK: Why don't you listen — I say through you, Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. Provincial Secretary — to the debate that's taking

place? Don't give us this juvenile cross-comment about the high-pitched

voice, or some other nonsense. You have an opportunity to stand up in

this debate. Why don't you? Are you such cowards that you sit there and

have to shout at us when we're defending rights? We have a legitimate

point of view, Mr. Speaker. It's a legitimate point of view to be

expressed freely in this chamber. If you're so confident

[ Page 317 ]

about your point of view, why aren't you up defending this bill? You're just cowards. It's an admission of guilt.

[10:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the direct reference

to other members of the chamber in that tone.... I would ask that the

member, on reflection and in keeping with parliamentary tradition,

withdraw the remark.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I withdraw the charge that the hon. members are

cowards, Mr. Speaker. Weak-kneed, I think, is the expression.

Lily-livered. A suspicion of the absence of backbone. But not cowards.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The minister from the North Peace said: "Is this

the.... I'm sorry. I went into words longer than one syllable. I'll

return, for his benefit, to monosyllabic words so the hon. minister can

understand.

Since May 5, and certainly in the face of this bill.... I wonder

what Abraham Lincoln would say if he were in this chamber today. Do you

remember Abraham Lincoln? The only time the member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain remembers Abraham Lincoln is when he gets one of those little

pieces of paper from the United States with a picture of Abe Lincoln on

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a great man.

MR. LAUK: Yes, especially when you have lots of his pictures

in your wallet. Abraham Lincoln said: "You can fool some of the people

some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time,

and you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't

fool all of the people all of the time." If he had been here on May 6

he would have said: "But you can sure fool the majority of the people a

hell of a lot longer than I thought."

We told them that this kind of legislation, or something close to

it, was in the Social Credit election pouch; it was hidden. The

election promises and policies of the Social Credit government are very

much like the Australian marsupials: you can see the head and the ears,

but the majority of it is still in the pouch, and that comes out the

day after the election.

I want to make a brief comment that if this bill is going to be

enacted, I wish the government would fire, with cause, some of the

planners of B.C. Place. That's what I'd like to do. Let's have them

look at the Crown corporation of B.C. Place. I heard today an economics

professor at the university argue that there's no room for non-profit,

non-market, and low-cost housing at B.C. Place — the largest urban

centre site in Canada. What a cop-out that is. I'm fed to the teeth

with dealing with these phoney academics in Vancouver and British

Columbia.

In 1979 I warned people about a recession, and this fellow, an

economist, out at Victoria said: "Oh, political tomfoolery." Now we're

getting this utter nonsense by these inflationary economists talking

about maximum density in Crown-held land in the centre of a city. Using

this same argument, we should build highrises in Stanley Park. He says,

"I've had a look at the land economics," and he submits a six-page

report to the city of Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him.

MR. LAUK: Michael Golberg. I don't care who he is, where he

comes from or who he's working for. What he says is utter and complete

nonsense. He's using as assumptions that the dollar value of everything

is the sole economic basis for development. There's someone else in

this House who believes the same thing, the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and I want to deal with

him in a moment.

This kind of utter nonsense has got to stop. I charge that the

government should instruct B.C. Place to develop a livable,

mixed-housing project in that area, because to do otherwise would be a

travesty and create a concrete jungle in the centre of one of the most

beautiful cities in the world. I'd like to hear the members for

Vancouver–Little Mountain, the minister and the second member (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy and Mr. Mowat), contribute to that debate in due course,

and let's deal with that. By the same argument, why not take Stanley

Park and build highrises and parking lots and movie theatres? Because

Goldberg says that if the land is so valuable, you've got to build

higher and higher to get your return on the value of the money.

Having just concluded my remarks on B.C. Place, I will now return to the principle of the bill.

Here's the hon. member for darkest Surrey. There's only a small

comer of Surrey that's dark, and that's the group that voted for you,

Mr. Member.

MR. REID: Thirty-seven thousand of them.

MR. LAUK: You got how many?

MR. REID: Twice more than you, I'm sure.

MR. LAUK: How many votes did you get?

MR. REID: Thirty-seven thousand.

MR. LAUK: You're right.

I want to talk about the Minister of Universities, Sciences and Communications.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're wrong and he's right.

MR. LAUK: Would you get your head a little bit over this way?

It's shining in the light up there, Mr. Minister. It's getting in my

eyes and I can't read the charter of rights here. There's a good

gentleman: thank you.

Recently the constitution was hammered out in a kitchen while the

Premier of this province was asleep. The Premier was in a coma while

the rest of the country decided on the constitution, and next morning

he said: "Well, here it is." Too many digestive cookies; he couldn't

stay up too late to negotiate the constitution. Anyway, for better or

worse we've got the Charter of Rights. But, after Bill 3, I wonder if

we still do. Here's what

Section 2 of the Charter says: "Everyone has

the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion,

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom

of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful

assembly; and freedom of association."

Section 3 says: "Every citizen

of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House

[ Page 318 ]

Commons or of a legislative assembly, and to be qualified for membership therein." Those are great rights, aren't they.

Equality of rights:

Section 15 says: "Every individual is equal

before and under the law, and has the right to the equal protection and

equal benefit of the law without discrimination, and, in particular,

without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin ...

mental or physical disability." Now we ask ourselves: why are we so

worried about Bill 3 if the country has such a Charter of Rights that

will protect us, even from the right-wing Social Credit government? Why

would we be so afraid of Bill 3?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The only thing in stone around here is between your ears, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker is amused.

If these rights are enshrined in the Charter of Rights of Canada,

why is the opposition taking such objection to Bill 3? I refer you to

section 33 of the charter, which says: "...the legislature of a

province may expressly declare in

an act of ... the legislature ...

that the act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a

provision included in

section 2 or sections 7 to 15...." — the ones

that I read. Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? I predict that the next

step of this government will be to make, under

section 33, a resolution

to opt out of the Charter of Rights. I predict that this government is

drafting resolutions now, and amendments to statutes, that will allow

this right-wing, steamroller government — this jackboot government — to

get out of its rights and responsibilities as declared under the

Charter of Rights.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, a billion dollars of the taxpayers' money had to bail it out. Now what do you call that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's nonsense.

MR. LAUK: It's not nonsense, don't be such a twit. You know it's not nonsense.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Did you hear the Provincial Secretary attacking

Doug Collins, his closest friend? I happen to have it on solemn

authority that the Provincial Secretary writes some of Doug Collins's

best speeches.

I am disappointed that the hon. Mr. Science isn't here. Because Mr.

Science and I have an ongoing debate in this chamber about several

things. I almost wanted another division to see where he was. Do you

remember Mr. Science, the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) ? He was the one who recommended a

tunnel across Georgia strait. Do you remember that? He wanted to build

a tunnel. The longest exhaust pipe in the world — cars jammed up;

costing $12 billion, or whatever. That's what Mr. Science thought of —

the resident genius, the resident Einstein of the Social Credit Party.

Do you remember last year, or the year before? He came out with an

announcement. He didn't even tell his cabinet colleagues. I remember

the Provincial Secretary rolling his eyes up to the top of his head as

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications announced that

he wanted to build an airport right where they were building the ALRT

system, along Terminal Avenue. He wanted to build a STOL aircraft

airport along Terminal Avenue. But I understand he's changed the

proposal.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Stick to Bill 3.

MR. LAUK: You're name again is...? Darkest Surrey, is it? Stone-age Surrey.

He wanted to build an airport on top of the ALRT system. I'm getting to that. All this mumbo-jumbo.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But here's what this hon. minister had to say on May 5, 1982 — you

remember that — you were here with me. He came in and he said: "What we

have to do is stop inflation in British Columbia." He had just come

back from Argentina and had figured out how to do it. He went to

Argentina and said: "They know how to do it." They know how to reduce

unemployment — it's called the Disappearing Persons Act — and control

inflation. He was bragging here, Mr. Science was. Here's part of what

he had to say. He argued for the draconian, right-wing measures of

Argentina. May 5, page 7406 of Hansard .

HON. MR. CHABOT: What year?

MR. LAUK: Nineteen eighty-two. That's foreboding, isn't it?

Here's what he said: "You protect the people who, through the

cumulative effect of government policy, are the ones creating the

problem." He's pointing the finger at us and talking about public

service and teachers and doctors and so on.

"When a restraint program is put in place in British

Columbia, it's intended to redress that balance. It's intended to take

less out of the private sector, which cannot afford to provide it, and

to give less to the public sector, because there isn't that much coming

from the private sector to support them."

[11:00]

Here's the cherry on the cheesecake:

"Not all dollars in an economy are equal. There is a

hierarchy of dollars. The most valuable are those that lead to future

manufacturing ... and the research work that leads to inventions."

He likes that — inventions.

"These are the most valuable dollars because they

ultimately lead to manufacturing.... The least important dollars in

terms of economic leverage are those dollars that come from the public

sector, because they don't lead to the production of goods, exports or

any of those things that provide for multipliers."

There is no economist anywhere in the world — even Mr. Goldberg —

who would make a silly statement like that. Totally not true. I'll

carry on with the quotation:

"Those jobs in the public sector are only used for

consumer leverage and nothing more. They're the least important. But

the most unfortunate weakness of

[ Page 319 ]

democracy is that the currency of elections is not dollars but votes."

I'll repeat that for you:

"...the most unfortunate weakness of democracy is that

the currency of elections is not dollars but votes. The hierarchy of

votes goes in the opposite direction, but if democracy is to survive

and if the free world's economic system is to survive there must be a

rationalization between the value of dollars and the value of votes."

Where have we heard that before?

"There must be a proper balance between the private sector

and the public sector. I think you can see that if the most votes go to people

who will take the most out of the private sector, they will do the most damage

to an economy, and eventually a country will collapse and the horrors of depression

will arrive.... Our government may be too small to reverse the current of

the world, but ... we understand the nature of the imbalance and the corrective

actions that must be taken...."

That was one year before the election day of this year. He was

foreboding this kind of legislation. We call him a Liberal? He was

never a Liberal. He's not even a democrat. He's saying: "Isn't it a

pity that we measure votes instead of dollars? Isn't it a pity that

people have the vote?" That's what he's trying to say. The man that

gave you the tunnel and the airport on Terminal Avenue is the man

that's calling upon this House to support Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that we've come to this. The government

has gone too far. I think there was a general sympathy out there that a

reduction of the civil service and bureaucracy was one of the actions

the government should be taking. But largely that sympathy was based on

misinformation that was spread by the Social Credit Party and other

parties in this country — misinformation that somehow there was a

qualitative difference between the private sector and the public

sector, that somehow the human beings that were bureaucrats and experts

working for government and Crown corporations were somehow different,

qualitatively, almost subhuman, in relation to the kind of people who

were working the the private sector. They characterize the bureaucrat

as being the worst parasite in our economic system. They characterize

every dollar spent on public services as being a dollar stolen or

wasted — "money out of the back of a truck," they used to say. By

dehumanizing the bureaucracy, by constantly repeating to themselves and

their followers that somehow public servants are not human but subhuman

— it doesn't matter how well trained they are, they are just not as

good as the same kind of expert or professional in the private sector —

that enables them, without human understanding and compassion, to fire

them as subhumans. It's the same process that takes place during war.

When we declared war on the Japanese, all of a sudden the Japanese are

subhuman. In Vietnam the North Vietnamese were subhuman. If it's the

Russians the Russians were subhuman; if it's the Germans the Germans

were subhuman. We've always been able to spread that kind of false

doctrine and collective psychology in order to do what is considered a

necessary but distasteful act.

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications and others

started doing this a year ago. They began to look at the public service

in precisely those terms: they would not refer to individuals. There

was a day in this House when one of the greatest moments of the week

would be when a senior public civil servant would be on the floor of

the House on a retirement or a special award. There was a day in this

House when any kind of attack on the public service was considered

almost a breach of parliamentary rules. Now it's commonplace from the

Social Credit benches. It's the kind of unfortunate demagoguery that

will cause much pain among the people being fired from the civil

service, and it will cause much fear in the community. It's all so

unnecessary.

Efficiency in the civil service is one thing, but this

across-the-board measure without legal protection for the human rights

of those people affected is a scandal; others here have described it as

such, and it certainly is.

There are those who say: "How can you use such extreme language to

criticize this bill? How can you attack this bill by describing it as

fascist, right-wing jackboot legislation and so on?" Let's review it.

Nowhere else in the country is there any citizen who can be fired

without cause. Nowhere else in the country can any citizen in the

private sector, working for the forest companies or the manufacturer,

be fired without cause. Now at the pleasure of the Crown 250,000 civil

servants can be fired without cause. Who is the Crown in British

Columbia? It's the Social Credit government.

It is no exaggeration to say that this bill takes fundamental human

rights away from 250,000 civil servants.

Section 15 of the charter —

and I commend this to the lawyers who will be representing the

thousands of civil servants who will be summarily fired by this

dictatorial government — says: "Every individual is equal before and

under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal

benefit of the law without discrimination.... The reason I predict this

government cannot afford to let Bill 3 stand without opting out of the

Charter of Rights is that section. The lawyers of this province who

will represent those civil servants will certainly go to court under

section 15 of the Charter of Rights, and I'll tell you, I know the

judges of our courts of Canada, and they'll win. The judges of the

superior courts of British Columbia and Canada will not allow this kind

of discriminatory legislation. It is offensive to

section 15 of the

Charter of Rights; they know it, we know it and so does the government.

So what's the next bill? I predict that the next bill will be under

section 33 of the charter, which says that any legislature can pass an

act and make the Charter of Rights not applicable to that act. Of

course that only lasts for five years, but they can renew it. No wonder

they were in favour of the Charter of Rights; they knew they didn't

have to pay any attention to it. I say that the next step will be to

opt out of the Charter of Rights to support Bill 3 and whatever other

draconian legislation they're bringing in.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I hope I'm wrong too, Mr, Leader. As far as I'm

concerned, I'd sooner win the point of pulling back the legislation

today than win political Brownie points. I suppose that's why the NDP

is always out of office. We take the issue on behalf of people; we

don't play political games in the back room. When we win elections

they're honestly won; they're won in the open, in the light of day, not

in the back rooms and the sleazy telephone boiler rooms and what have

you. We win them honestly. We win them with fairness and with decency.

You know why you are silent, don't you? Sure, we know we can't win

elections sometimes by being straightforward and honest all the time,

and that's why we lose them.

[ Page 320 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members will come to order. The interjections are quite unparliamentary.

MR. BARRETT: They're true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: They will cease.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Health is here. During the campaign

he said that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), by claiming

that there will be increased hospital and medical user charges, was

lying. Those are his words, not ours.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I saw you on television with my own eyes; you said that he was a liar.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, he would have sued me if I had said that.

MR. LAUK: Oh, you haven't received the writ yet?, Don't hold your breath — I mean, hold your breath.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are once again becoming quite unparliamentary. Perhaps we could return to the principle of Bill 3.

MR. LAUK: I must say, in deference to the Minister of Health,

that he called the member for New Westminster a liar during the

campaign. It wasn't in parliament.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's okay during a campaign, says the member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston). She thinks that's okay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That statement, though, is still unparliamentary in the House. Now if we could return to Bill 3.

MR. LAUK: All right. The member for Surrey figures that those

tactics during the campaign are okay. Now, after May 5 we've got to

become parliamentarians, for her sake. This is the double standard of

the Social Credit Party. It's always been their double standard.

MR. BARRETT: And double-cross.

MR. LAUK: A double-cross in this sense: the Minister of

Health said, "No increase in user fees," and we've seen increases. On

May 16 the Minister of Health wrote to the Council of Senior Citizens

and told them that the government was not considering abolishing rental

controls or reducing rent controls in any way. You did that. I have the

letter with your signature on it. Would you like it tabled in the House?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would, yes.

MR. LAUK: Okay. I would be delighted. Will you resign if you did?

Say anything, do anything. We'll say anything one day. If you don't

like these principles on Monday, on Tuesday they'll reach in their

briefcases and say: "How would you like these?" Change every 48 hours.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Will you resign if you can't table that letter?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I will. Will you resign if it says...?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Listen, a deal is a deal; isn't that right, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the Legislature is the Legislature, and we're on Bill 3. Would you address the Chair, please.

MR. LAUK: Isn't that funny? The Socreds could have cabinet

ministers go to jail and they could be charged with criminal offences.

They can do all of this kind of stuff. But a letter stating one thing

on May 16.... Did the Premier not talk to the Minister of Health and

tell him that rent controls were being abolished? You didn't know by

May 16?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the whole thrust of this debate

is clearly beyond the scope and principle of this bill. Many remarks

are being made which are quite unparliamentary and inappropriate in

this House. I'll ask all hon. members — the minister, the Leader of the

Opposition, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) — to come to

order.

[11:15]

MR. LAUK: My point is simply this: the minister expects me to

resign if I can't produce the letter — which I can — but he won't

resign if he made the statement.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's unkind.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's also unparliamentary. The member will return to the bill, and we can avoid all the comments.

MR. LAUK: The sections of the bill which are offensive — all

of them — are such that they breach a fundamental human right. They are

totally discriminatory. There is no other person.... For example, in

MacMillan Bloedel or any other private corporation, if you fire a

person you can fire him without cause but not without cause in the

legal sense; in other words, if they are fired they have recourse in

the courts. The only way that a civil servant has a recourse to the

government is by the Charter of Rights amendment,

section 15, about

equality and non-discrimination because you can't bring an action

against the Crown for wrongful dismissal. The government knows that.

Interjection.

[ Page 321 ]

MR. LAUK: Crown corporation employees can bring actions for

wrongful dismissal, and some government agencies, according to the law.

Still, it's a principle of the law that you can't take an action

against the Crown. People still try it. Here we have an amendment that

takes away any opportunity for the courts to enforce rights, because it

gives statutory authority to the government to fire without cause.

Those are legal points. It takes away the legal property rights of

the civil servant, but what about the fundamental breach here, which is

frightening in a free and democratic society? What if it's determined

by the Minister of Health...? I know he personally would never do this,

but what if a minister in that position determined that certain people

in his ministry were New Democratic Party sympathizers or supporters?

Or what if he determined that they were Liberals or supporters of some

other party? What if they spoke critically of some policy of

government? In the past, governments, through this chamber, have passed

laws giving protection to the civil servant against discrimination, but

now that's being eliminated and governments can fire without cause.

In the past, civil servants could complain to the commission and the

courts that they had been dismissed for political reasons. That is why

governments have been most loath to deal with civil servants on a

partisan, political basis. It is one thing to make personal

appointments to the minister's staff, but this bill gives political,

partisan access to 250,000 civil servants in British Columbia. The long

arm of Social Credit and the unseen hand of political discipline will

now reach out to 250,000 civil servants. Every teacher, employee and

hospital worker all the way through the civil service will in effect

have to show their Social Credit party card to remain employed.

That's what's happened in British Columbia. Is it any wonder that

right-wing or conservative newspapers throughout the country are

writing editorials attacking this government for being dangerously

extremist? The Globe and Mail , Toronto Sun , Toronto Star

usually don't even notice what's going on in British Columbia, but

newspapers across this country are scandalized by the actions of this

government, particularly by the actions of this government in

introducing this legislation. It is a regressive and unnecessary step

which is to be abhorred by any decent, right-thinking Canadian citizen.

In all decency and honour and justice, the government should withdraw

this bill.

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

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Macdonald

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), I must ask if the Minister of Health is

designated as the closing speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: He would be the closing speaker.

MS. BROWN: No, he's not. He's not the Provincial Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: I was informing the House that that would be the

case if I were to recognize the member, hopefully to call to the

attention of hon. members that that would be the case. I could then

recognize the member for Burnaby North.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't try

to hide behind the fact that I've only been here a few years, but I

believe the minister who introduced the bill is the closing speaker.

Isn't that correct? Don't we have a parliamentary procedure in a

democracy whereby we have one opposition speaker and one government

speaker? Are we to expect that every time a government member stands up

that is the closing of all debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, that is why the Chair took the

time to advise the House that in the absence of the Provincial

Secretary, whose bill we are debating, the Minister of Health was

taking the place of the Provincial Secretary; and that if no one from

this side stood, debate would in fact be closed. I hoped I had made

that clear to the members so that I could then recognize a member who

would be standing, as was the member for Burnaby North, whom I have now

recognized. So the debate can continue.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, but the point of order I'm asking about

is, are we supposed to expect that every time a government member

stands in normal debate, that is going to cut off debate? If the

Provincial Secretary wants to goof off, does his title keep changing to

anyone who stands up?

MR. SPEAKER: The point is a good point, and that is why the

Chair undertook to inform the House. Had there been no information

relayed to the House, then the member would have a very valid point.

However, the Chair undertook to convey that message to the House. The

member for Burnaby North, noticing that, took advantage of the

opportunity and took her place in debate. Debate will continue.

[ Page 322 ]

MR. MITCHELL: I don't believe you'll find that in the little red book that I have on my desk.

[11:30]

MRS. DAILLY: I realize it's Friday and we've come near the

end of a long week. There may not appear to some members to be

enthusiasm here, but I can assure you that the effects of this bill,

not only in this Legislature but all across the province, are just

beginning to be known. The Social Credit government is going to find a

tremendous amount of reaction, I think far more than they ever

expected, unless they withdraw this bill.

I notice that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Reynolds) has left. I was going to refer to some of his remarks before

I got into my remarks on Bill 3, because he is one of the very few

members of the Social Credit government who are taking their place

here. So obviously he's about the only one I can relate to. I'm very

surprised that so few members of the cabinet, particularly, feel

strongly enough about this legislation to get on their feet and defend

it.

MS. BROWN: They can't defend it. It's indefensible.

MRS. DAILLY: They are indefensible. They are and so is this bill.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Back to the member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound, which probably could refer somewhat to the catcalls coming from

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), I believe. Yes, I was

going to deal with some of the remarks, but not with too much time

because it's not necessary. I think in this House, Mr. Speaker, you

would prefer us to get on to some of our major points and not spend

quite so much time in reacting to some very nonsensical and at many

times inaccurate, untruthful statements being made by the members of

the government. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has obviously

been selected as the hit man for the Socred back bench. He's following

the same low level of integrity which we have seen from other members

of that house, including the Minister of Labour who spent most of his

time when he was in opposition making completely inaccurate statements

based on untruths.

I want to get on with the bill and what the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound was saying. He was comparing the record of Social

Credit, as espoused in this bill dealing with public servants, with

that of the NDP I just want to get on the record that his statements

were absolutely inaccurate with reference to the dismissal of people

under the NDP. I simply want to say that it was the NDP government

which brought in full collective bargaining rights for the public

service of British Columbia. It was because of those rights that when

dismissals or grievances took place, we gave the opportunity for the

first time to the public servants of British Columbia to be able to

have proper procedures followed. Now the Social Credit government

wishes to take them away.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

That's what I want to deal with. I want to deal with what is really

being taken away, specifically. But in order to make it clear and

understood in a more simple way, I thought perhaps it would be of

interest to bring the House back to the history of the public service

and why it was formed, and their struggles and how they fought for over

50 years to attain many of the rights which in one fell swoop this

present Social Credit government is going to take away from them —

rights that they fought long and hard for. I want to go back and take

the House into the history of that, and relate it to what has happened

in this bill today.

It was in 1919 at the old Globe Theatre in Vancouver at the time

that Charlie Chaplin was playing and Maggie and Jiggs were in the movie

strip — which I know you, Mr. Speaker, are far too young to ever have

heard of. July 26, 1919 — that date is rather interesting, because if

we compare it to the time we're in now, we're in the middle of July

1983 — the first annual convention of the Provincial Civil Service

Association took place. That's really what it remained until the NDP

gave the government employees of British Columbia full union status. In

1919 they had their meeting, and at that meeting, of course, there was

management from government attending. Do you know what one of the

speakers from the management side said? He opened his remarks to the

members of this little association with this homily: "Blessed are they

that expect little, for they shall not be disappointed." That was the

first message from the government to the first little association of

public servants in 1919 in the province of British Columbia.

At that very first association meeting, a Mr. Beaton stood, and he

was a worker from Essondale. We all know that Essondale, of course, is

now Riverview. He was a delegate, and he had the temerity to raise the

question of the hours of labour at the asylums — in those days the term

was "asylum, " not "mental institution." He was stating that it was

usual to work 12 and 13 hours a day. Later on I'll deal with what

happened to Mr. Beeton because he had the temerity to question working

12 and 13 hours a day.

The Premier at that time was John Oliver. Do you know, I went all

through John Oliver High School. All the time I went through that high

school I never really knew who John Oliver was. We were never taught

too much, unfortunately, about our own Canadian and provincial history.

John Oliver, I knew at that time, was somebody of great importance, but

now that I read about Premier John Oliver and his attitude to the

public servants, I can't say I'm particularly proud, on this aspect

anyway, that I went to the school named after him. Oliver, apparently,

took great exception to the newsletters that were being published by

this new association. As a matter of fact, he was actually so concerned

that they had the temerity to criticize the government that he said it

was "improper for the association to imply in any form that the

government had not lived up to its word." The civil servants at that

time had been complaining that they could not cope with the high cost

of living and that the government was not fulfilling what they had

promised to do. Oliver said that they really had no right to do that.

He said: "A vote of the Legislature overriding the opinion of the

government in this matter could only be treated by the government as a

want-of-confidence motion, by the result of which the government must

either stand or fall." Isn't it interesting how governments, going

right back to 1919, always use the public servants as scapegoats. They

are so easy to kick around, and it started in 1919.

Oliver also saw the inference that the association could also

criticize ministers of the Crown. He said: "I cannot consent to the

position that government employees have a right to pose as critics of

the actions of the government." Shades of 1983. We now have a bill

coming in that if carried

[ Page 323 ]

to its extreme, as listed in the details of the

bill, could actually remove a public servant who spoke against the

government from office. There is nothing in this bill that prevents

that. This was in 1919. That's exactly what we're going back to.

Oliver was very concerned. Of course, in those days particularly,

what happened was that many of the public servants who were thinking of

joining an association for their own benefit became very nervous. They

were afraid they would lose their jobs. Therefore the association

became smaller and smaller. It became most difficult for the

association to form.

If this particular act goes through, what is going to happen to the

B.C. Government Employees' Union? It's going to have great difficulty

in functioning in its true form. Maybe that's what this government

wants. As a matter of fact, I believe there is no question about it.

This government has never believed in collective rights and bargaining

rights for public servants.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Somebody over there said: "That's right." You

know what they think? They think that that is the one select group that

they can kick around, remove all the rights and privileges from, and

the public will be with them. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I

have faith that the public of B.C., who may, of course, at times get

annoyed with things that happen when they go to deal with public

servants — everyone is human; we all know some of the reactions that

come forth — want fairness and justice. They're not getting that. This

bill is not producing that.

I want to follow through with another interesting thing that

happened to an attempt to form this early association. "A government

employee in Prince George in the early 1920s recalled later how quickly

the branch there caved in under pressure from Victoria. Said Robert B.

Carter:

'It was in the years 1920-21 at Prince George that a plan was

circulated to form a civil service club. Officers were elected and a

meeting held to draw up a constitution. The government of the day,

through the Department of Finance, became alarmed at the thought of a

civil servant becoming organized, and issued a letter' — shades of

1983, of the Social Credit government — 'to the government agent' —

this was in the 1920s — 'to the effect that the local group be

disbanded on pain of instant dismissal. As the secretary, it was my

unpleasant duty to wind up the club.' "

When we hear about these things we all say: "My God, is that what

life was like for a public servant in the old days?" This is what we

are fighting against. This bill, unless it is withdrawn, can produce

many of these same situations again — completely. It is producing them

now. That's why I mentioned the government agent. Here we have a

government agent issuing a letter to a group of civil servants. Just

last week we had a government agent issuing a letter, "You're fired,"

to a public servant — no recourse, that's it. Is there really that much

difference?

Mr. Speaker, you go through the history of the public service — and frankly,

I became completely engrossed in it, because I must admit that until this bill

came up I hadn't really studied the history of the public service, and it's

a fascinating history.... But it's also a sad history when you consider

what they fought for and their setbacks. In the view of governments in those

days — I say "those days, " until we hit 1983 and the Social Credit

government — governments couldn't function as employers. They were first,

last and foremost the sovereign power. To negotiate with any groupings of their

employees was out of the question. The pressure tactics legitimately used by

organized workers in the public sector were verboten for federal and provincial

employees in those days. Such tactics in a government service could be akin

to insurrection. John Oliver made that clear enough.

A reincarnation of the association got the same message from John

Hart, Byron Johnson, Premier W.A.C. Bennett, and the now Premier

Bennett. Premier Bennett is following the same precepts of the Premiers

prior to the advent of the New Democratic Party Premier. They do not

really believe in the rights and privileges of public servants. Somehow

or other they think that if they kick them around and take away their

rights, the public is with them — all in the interest of restraint.

[11:45]

I hate to remind this House of other governments during the last

years who did things in the interest of restraint and efficiency. We

can remember one well-known dictator who always got the trains running

on time; he was efficient, all right. He was also efficient in

eliminating the human rights of the people of his country, and their

lives.

As we continue through the history, I would like to give you an

example of the more human side of being a public servant in the early

days and relate it to today. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I'm quoting from A History of the B.C. Government Employees Union: A Union Amongst Government Employees , and I'd recommend it for those of you who are interested. Dorothy May said:

"I was 18 when I went to work as a clerk-stenographer

in the Highways office on Pine Street in Nanaimo. When I went on

permanent staff the next year, in 1937, I was getting $65 a month. A

couple of years later a man came to work in the office for $55 a month.

He had the same typing and shorthand qualifications that I had. He

wrote a letter about it to George Pearson, the MLA up here in those

days. He got another $20 a month. Then I wrote a letter to the MLA and

I got another $10. So we were both getting $75 a month."

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is mimicking this little report I'm giving to the

House. Do you know what the problem is? They're so thick-headed over

there that they don't see the basic principle behind what's happening.

The principle I'm making is that if this bill goes through, an MLA

who likes one of his constituents can sit in this House and give them a

raise; an MLA can go to the cabinet and say: "I like so-and-so; they

voted for me; they'll work for me; I want them to have a position in

the government." This is what happened before we had a union. This is

what you want to take us back to. You should be ashamed to open your

mouth. You are only representing the corporations; you're not

representing the consumers. You're bringing in legislation. Your budget

shows that your interest is only in the consumer. You're not fighting

for the consumer. You're not fighting for the people in the consumer

office who are public servants. But you will make sure that you have

enough people

[ Page 324 ]

working in the public service to support the corporations; there's no question about that.

Back to this tragic but very interesting history of the public

service in B.C.: Jack Logie, who was crippled by infantile paralysis

and got around on one leg and a crutch, ended up becoming the branch's

first president. In February Logie was the target of a threat from

coalition Premier John Hart. The threat was that any civil servant who

brought politics into the civil service wouldn't be in the civil

service the next morning. That's the kind of thing that did happen, and

it will happen again in the province of British Columbia unless you

withdraw this bill.

When the association was first born, the Nanaimo branch had 51

members, of whom 16 were in the B.C. Provincial Police. Then guess

what? Along came an order from the Attorney-General of the day, and

every single one of them quit. That's exactly what took place and will

take place again.

I mentioned earlier that there was a man called Beaton who had had

the temerity to speak up and say that he was concerned about the long

hours he had to work at the Riverview mental institution. Do you know

what happened? Pretty soon he was told that if he made any further

criticism of the situation that existed for the employees at Essondale,

he would soon have his pink slip.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and we could go through this book

and see incident after incident of the tragedies that happen to public

servants who lived in this province prior to the granting of collective

and union rights by the NDP government of British Columbia. I accuse

that government over there of wanting to turn the clock right back to

the days when it was only an association that represented the public

service of B.C., so that it will give them an opportunity to do

whatever they want with the public service.

If there's any chuckling over there about me perhaps being extremist

on this, I think all we have to do is look at the bill and see exactly

what the implications are. I know we'll be going through it in

committee stage, but I want to just point out some of the implications.

Let's go through a little bit of an analysis of it. I think we all know

that it applies to 250,000 public sector workers under the jurisdiction

of the provincial government. We've been told that the Premier's great

aim is to get rid of 25 percent, all in the interest of restraint. It

doesn't matter that all those people will soon be out there on the

welfare rolls, and that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) will be coming back into this House asking for another

warrant, another overrun, after the House is closed. Why? To help

provide moneys to keep the public servants existing, because they've

lost their jobs. Do you call that the road to recovery?

MR. BLENCOE: Lunacy!

MRS. DAILLY: Lunacy is about the only word you could use.

So therefore I want to start off with 250,000 people who are now

there. Do you know what the bill allows for? It allows for the

termination of an employee without cause — we know that. I just

explained to you what happened in the early days in British Columbia

when that was going on day after day. People were afraid. Somebody in

this House said there's a reign of terror, and there is going to be a

reign of terror; it's started already on the public servants of British

Columbia. The cabinet may make regulations regarding the implementation

of terminations and criteria. Isn't that nice?

They're going to sit there in their nice, comfortable cabinet room

and they will decide what kind of regulations will apply. No longer can

it be bargained for. We still don't know if there are going to be any.

It just says "may." That means the bill gives the government a blank

cheque to fire at will. We know it does. They've already done it. The

legislation effectively places normally independent public bodies under

the tutelage of the cabinet. That's true. Talk about totalitarianism,

dictatorship. This is the most centralized government in North America

— in fact, we can even expand it to include Europe.

Section 2 states

that a public sector employer may terminate the employment of an

employee without cause — we know that. However, the criteria for

dismissal will be determined by cabinet, and so on; and I'm repeating

what I said there. This bill gives the government the power to

reassign, reclassify or relocate any public service employee. This

effectively guts the collective agreement. You don't need it any more.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to some of the other horrendous

items in this bill which take us back to the 1920s in the province of

British Columbia. I want to bring this up to date and read from an

editorial that was in the Times-Colonist today, taken from the Toronto Star .

It says this: "Bennett policies tarnish nation." Isn't it great that we

are living in a province that has a government that has brought in such

reprehensible legislation that all of us are being tarnished? Remember

that that government was only elected by 50.1 percent of the people,

and they are tarnishing the reputation of everyone in British Columbia

and across Canada. Why? This is what they say: "All of Canada is

diminished when the level of compassion and caring falls below

acceptable levels in any of its parts." That is what that group over

there do not understand. They don't seem to understand that this

legislation is doing away with any compassion or caring.

"That is why the brutal measures in the B.C. budget,

even though they fall entirely within areas of provincial jurisdiction,

are cause for chagrin for all Canadians. Different provinces will

naturally have different programs and policies, but there are certain

thresholds of civility, decency and compassion for the most vulnerable,

below which none of our governments should fall.

"The newly re-elected Social Credit government of

Premier Bennett is busily smashing through those thresholds with a

package of harshly retrograde measures that will cause real human

hardship.

"In moving to abolish rent controls, the provincial

rentalsman's office, the Human Rights Commission and the human rights

branch of the Labour ministry, and to cut the budget of the provincial

ombudsman, Bennett is striking directly at the protection of low- and

middle-income British Columbians." Those are the people — I'm

digressing now, Mr. Speaker — that this government does not really care

about, because they are voiceless. The problem is that this government

does not realize that those voiceless are going to have thousands of

people to champion them this time round. They are not going to be alone

in their fight against this government.

"It is the relatively weak in society, those lacking

in wealth and personal influence, who must most rely on the assistance

of such institutions. Bennett proposes to leave them more vulnerable.

It is also the

[ Page 325 ]

weakest who will suffer most from Bennett's increases in

already deplorable hospital user fees, and from his curbs on welfare, legal

aid and student loans.

"A similar edge of brutality characterizes his

approach to reducing the size of the provincial civil service. It is

highly desirable for any government to trim out any fat it finds in its

bureaucracy, but Bennett intends instead to hack at it with a chainsaw.

Instead of identifying unnecessary positions and gradually eliminating

them through attrition and transfers, he has set the arbitrary goal of

reducing the size of the 44,000 member public service by 25 percent in

barely more than a year. To achieve this, he has abruptly stripped all

public servants of their job security and given his government the

right to fire its employees without cause.

"It's hard to see how Bennett can attain those

reductions without cutting back sharply on government services, and

given the overall tilt that his government is demonstrating, there is

every reason to fear that the hardest-hit services will be those that

benefit the neediest. Moreover, at a time when some 185,000 British

Columbians are already unemployed, to contemplate adding thousands of

government workers to the ranks of the jobless is itself

an act of

social cruelty.

" It's a nasty business made all the worse by the fact

that in his recent campaign Bennett gave the voters little inkling of

the extreme to which he has now gone. In any event, with only 50.1

percent of the popular vote, he can hardly claim overwhelming public

support for a right-wing rampage that affronts Canadian traditions of

social compassion and embarrasses us all."

Mr. Speaker, that editorial which comes from the Toronto Star , which is not considered to be a....

[12:00]

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, it is my understanding that

it is improper for any member in the House to use the name of another

member. It seems to me that, as the Deputy Speaker noted in a comment

yesterday, if you cannot do something directly, you should not be

allowed to do it indirectly. I would ask the Chair to direct the hon.

member to not use a name directly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is correct. The point of order is well taken.

MRS. DAILLY: No, it isn't — if I may speak to it, Mr.

Speaker. I could be corrected, but I understand that when I am quoting

from an article, if I don't use the word "Bennett" as quoted in the

article, I am extemporizing the article.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understood and the Chair understood.... As

you are aware, I am new at this job. I was accepting that as being the

case, but I have found that I am wrong. We learn all the time. I have

been advised that doing it one way or the other, it is really not

parliamentary; it is not acceptable.

MR. LEA: I think there was an incorrect ruling yesterday and

I would like to give you time to check with your Clerks to find out

about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling stands that it is improper to use the name even when quoting from the newspaper. That is the Chair's ruling.

MR. LEA: I think we might need a bit more clarification on

this. The ruling in this Legislature has always been that when you're

reading an editorial that mentions a member's name, you read the

editorial verbatim. It would be an insult to this House to make up your

own words when you're reading an editorial to the House. It would be a

misquote. The rule has always been that when speaking about another

member, yes, you may only use the term "hon. member" or "hon. minister"

and so on, but when reading from a paper that mentions that member's

name and you're quoting the

article verbatim, you would be incorrect to

do anything other.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Here is a ruling taken from May: "a member is

not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of putting them

in somebody else's mouth."

MR. MITCHELL: I think we must establish right now that we do

not have a double standard in this House. I believe it falls on your

shoulders that the

interpretations given in this House be consistent,

If you check the Blues and Hansard , many members reading the

ghost-written speeches from the Social Credit caucus stated time after

time that they were "proud to be a part of the Bill Bennett team." The

official Speaker and the Deputy Speaker have allowed that to take

place. Now you're coming in with another set of rules, a different

standard. If we're going to have a standard, let's have the same

standard for all members of this House, and not one

interpretation for

the opposition and another one for the government. I ask you to

reconsider your decision, to study the Blues and Hansard and come back with a fair decision that we can live with.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, for your comments. The Chair appreciates them very much. Now I think we should proceed.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it's

very important that we should establish the rules, and the rule is that

when you quote, you have to quote accurately everything that's within

the quotation marks. The only people allowed to divert from that is if

a poet takes poetic licence with a quote and says: "I am taking poetic

licence with this quote, and I am changing it in some way." I know we

make rules and laws in this House, but there are some laws and rules

that existed even before this House did. One of those rules is that

when you quote, you have to quote accurately what comes within those

two quotation marks, whether you're doing it on the floor of this House

or elsewhere.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, for your comments as

well. The Chair would like to take this matter under advisement and

bring back a ruling for the hon. members.

MR. MACDONALD: When you do consider this matter, with the

assistance of the legal personnel who are at the table every once in a

while, surely the reference in May to unparliamentary language has

nothing whatsoever to do with the point that's now under discussion, in

my humble submission.

[ Page 326 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I started off my speech referring to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds).

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, I note the green light is

suddenly on. Could you assure the House that the time taken in deciding

that point of order has been deducted from the member's speaking time?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I anticipated this happening, hon. members.

There was a ruling by Speaker Davidson last year that points of order

are to be included, and the clock continues running during the member's

speech. That is a ruling by Speaker Davidson.

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, I'd better huffy up then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have advised Hansard to take the

time out that I took in contacting them on that ruling, so the member

does have a few more minutes than just three, but that is all.

The member on a point of order — and the clock is running.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the ruling is

contrary to what we have known in this House. It is entirely unfair to

a member who is speaking to have other members stand up and raise

points of order — often from the other side of the House — of a very

spurious nature in order to deduct that from the time of the member who

has the floor. That has never been the rule in this House. If that

ruling is persisted in, I challenge the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a ruling by the Speaker. The Chair is challenged?

MR. MACDONALD: The Chair is challenged.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[12:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, with unanimous consent of the

House there could be a withdrawal of the challenge. Is there unanimous

consent of the House?

It is agreed, hon. member. The member continues in her address.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I started off my speech with reference to the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound. I don't want him to think I'm picking on him,

because he's about the only Socred who has at least gotten on his feet

to defend this legislation. In some of his remarks, this member, who

obviously is speaking on behalf of the Social Credit government, said:

"I'm not ashamed to see the testing stations go down." He believes it's

better in the hands of private enterprise, or it doesn't matter if you

have it voluntary or not. In other words, that member and the Social

Credit government accept the increased loss of lives and accidents that

will happen in this province. They're accepting it. That member has

said he doesn't care. He apparently doesn't care if there are more

accidents on our highways. No longer will people have to have their

cars tested in the areas where they had to before. How can a government

that says it's concerned about restraint bring in an action which is

going to bring about more costs in our hospitals? What a two-faced,

hypocritical stance by that member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, and

also by the government!

That member — speaking for the government, I presume — also said he

was concerned about the taxpayers and restraint. Did that member speak

up during the campaign when he heard that the party he decided to run

for — albeit somewhat belatedly — had decided on and passed an order

that would allow for $100,000 severance pay for deputy ministers? I

never heard that member speaking up. I haven't heard one of the Socred

back-benchers who come in here every day say: "We're concerned about

the taxpayer." Where was your concern about the taxpayer when your

government allowed an order to pass through which would give $100,000

of taxpayers' money for a deputy minister — just to cover them up in

case the NDP were elected? I say shame on your hypocrisy!

I have a whole list — unfortunately not here, but if somebody wants

me to bring it from my files, I will — on the number of public servants

in high-level positions who were fired or laid off by the Socred

government during the last seven years. Do you know an interesting

thing.... This is particularly for the member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound, who came up with completely inaccurate, untruthful statements

about the NDP's record of handling public servants.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, the hon. member has just

quoted me as saying I had inaccurate and untrue statements in my speech

about the NDP yesterday, and I would ask her to withdraw those remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound has taken exception to a remark that he feels is unparliamentary

and refers to himself. Would the member, in the interests of

parliamentary....

MRS. DAILLY: Always in the interest of parliamentary

tradition, I will withdraw, But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the

facts before the House. The NDP, I want to repeat, were the first

government to bring in collective bargaining rights and proper

grievance procedures, and they applied to the public servants who

worked for us, including the particular public servant mentioned

yesterday by that member. I think he should check the facts,

By the way, Mr. Speaker, that member also didn't seem to express any

concern about the waste by his own government during the last seven

years. During the last seven years a tremendous number of high-level —

not down in the clerk level — high-salaried officials were relieved

from their positions. We didn't hear much from them. I wonder why not.

If you knew some of the settlements that were placed upon some of those

public servants! That is one way to keep people quiet, and believe me,

the Social Credit government did not care how much of the taxpayers'

money was spent in very rich settlements in great number. Talk about

the NDP's firings — my God, you should just look at the history of the

public servants who were removed from office by the Socreds at a

tremendous cost to the taxpayer.

Finally, Mr. Speaker — and I'm picking out these particular quotes

because it symbolizes the attitude of the Socreds as came out of the

mouth of that member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who said: "The

government is

[ Page 327 ]

going to look after its people. The NDP is making

too much of a fuss about what is going to happen with the loss of

people services to those who need them." You know what he actually

said? I had to read this about ten times to think I wasn't reading

something from Hansard of 150 years ago in the British House of

Commons. He actually said: "There is the Salvation Army." Can you

imagine it? In other words, all these services that have been built up

through the years, even by Bennett senior, who at least had more

compassion and believed in the need for government to have some

involvement in providing services to people — he wants it all wiped

out. Let the Salvation Army take over. Back to the charity homes. Back

to the charity hospitals. Back to the orphanages. What century does

that member come from? What century does that government over there

belong in? I can tell you, it's sure not the twenty-first century. Mr.

Speaker, if he is so concerned and thinks that it's going to cost so

much money to help look after the needs of the underprivileged — and he

says, "Send them to the Salvation Army" — may I suggest that he should

be consistent, and when the businessmen, developers, etc. come to this

government with cap in hand for subsidies, send them to the Salvation

Army also.

Mr. Speaker, the whole principle behind the thinking of the Social

Credit government is absolutely abhorrent. If we follow through with

what they want to do to this province, we are going to go back and lose

50 years combined, cumulative, progressive legislation, fought hard for

by the official opposition in this province and, to give some of the

credit to the former Premier, actually brought in by W.A. C. Bennett.

But he wants our backs turned on everything we have achieved and worked

for. I want to tell the people of British Columbia and the members of

this Legislature that the NDP fought long and hard for the people of

British Columbia to preserve their rights in free collective bargaining

and to make sure that there is more equality and justice in this

society. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to stop the fight, and we will

win.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[12:30]

YEAS — 14

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Stupich

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on a question of privilege

pertaining to a statement made by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen). During the altercation dealing with the challenge to the

Speaker's ruling on the last statement, the Minister of Health called

across the floor to me that I was reverting to my roots. I want to make

it absolutely clear, first of all, that I'm not asking him to withdraw

that, because I'm very proud of my roots and hope that I never ever

move too far away from them. I would like the record to show very

clearly that I find that that comment of the minister was

unparliamentary and uncalled for. However, it was certainly in keeping

with a government which wipes out first the Human Rights Commission and

then the human rights branch.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in the cross-House comments I

said the member was reverting to her youth. I'm sorry if she

interpreted it as meaning something else.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the matters which are in dispute

are not a matter of privilege. The Chair has to accept both words, and

the matter is concluded.

MR. STUPICH: One does keep hoping that there will be one

member on the government side who has something positive to say about

the legislation before us. Of course, we keep being disappointed.

With the bill before us now, Bill 3, Public Sector Restraint Act —

and, of course, the budget that accompanied it — the government is

showing its absolute, utter and complete contempt for a minority of the

voters. I'm not talking about a minority who voted for the NDP, the

Green Party, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. I'm talking

about the minority of the voters, 49 percent, who voted Social Credit.

They're showing their complete contempt for the voters who voted Social

Credit in the election on May 5.

In 1975 the opposition went around the province in the election

campaign making campaign promises that they proceeded to break one

after the other as soon as the election was over. They made the excuse

then that conditions were bad in the province, and that they had to

break their own campaign promises in order to lead to recovery. One in

particular that you may recall, Mr. Speaker, was a promise not to

increase ICBC rates. Then they more than doubled them immediately. In

1979 — by this time they were the government — they went around the

province in the election campaign making further promises. From the

moment they were re-elected they started breaking those campaign

promises. The promises in 1979 were actually included in the form of a

budget. Some members, new to the House, may not recall that. A budget

was introduced in 1979 giving back to the voters the money that had

been taken from them in the years between 1976 and 1979. Taxes were

reduced. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the sales tax was reduced

from 7 to 5 percent, along with a promise from the Premier of this

province that never again in the history of British Columbia would the

sales tax be increased. In the next budget they increased the sales

tax, and in the budget before us now they're increasing the sales tax

again.

In the 1983 election campaign the same thing happened. Promises were

made to get votes, promises which were broken as soon as the election

was over. This time they didn't bring in a budget prior to the

election. This year, no doubt, they had their plans ready. They

promised, among other

[ Page 328 ]

things, that there would be no increase in taxes; then they brought in a budget that did include several increases in taxes.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

They promised, with respect to restraint, that there would be no

firings, no layoffs; that cutting back in the size of public sector

employment would be achieved by attrition. Not only did they promise

that in the election campaign, but also they actually entered into a

collective agreement with the BCGEU which provided that there would be

no wholesale firings. There would be a reduction in the size of the

public sector by attrition. But, of course, Mr. Speaker — I see some of

the members smiling — perhaps they knew, perhaps they were in on it.

Perhaps they knew that the Premier, in saying that, had absolutely no

intention of keeping that promise. Perhaps they knew then his contempt

for the people who would vote for him and his party, and knew that once

the election was over they could once again, for the third time in a

row, pay absolutely no attention to campaign promises and proceed to do

the things that he wanted to do.

Another of the promises that were made in 1983 was that there would

be no user fee increases for medical services, no increase for

emergency rooms in the hospitals, no increase in co-insurance. When a

member of the opposition came in touch with documents that were

circulating in the Ministry of Health, showing that increases were,

indeed, being planned, the Premier and the Minister of Health reassured

their voters — it turned out to be 49 percent of the population — that

there was nothing about which they should be concerned. These were not

government plans; they were simply memos that were circulating within

the department and things that were being considered by the public

sector employees. But the ministers themselves had no interest in this.

Indeed, they promised the voters that they would not increase hospital

and medical service user fees. They said there was nothing to worry

about. And then as soon as the election was over, as I say, Mr.

Speaker, they showed their absolute, utter and complete contempt for

the 49 percent of the voters who voted for them by saying: "Now we're

in. We don't care a fig about the promises we made. We're in and we're

going to stay in. You can't do anything about it. We're here to govern."

The legislation before us....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to listen, because that

member may have something to say from his seat that he can't stand up

and say on his feet. He just may have something to contribute. But

apparently not. Either that or he just finds it quite impossible to

rise in this debate. Or he has received instructions from someone who

made it abundantly clear to the cabinet that he was the boss....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Me?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I can't identify him because the

word "Bennett" has been ruled today as an unparliamentary word, so I

won't use his name in saying who the someone was.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, that's still being considered? Well,

that's something. We did make some progress today then. We are now

reconsidering whether or not "Bennett" is an unparliamentary word. I

think we're still considering whether or not spurious points of order

may be used to use up a member's time if you don't want to listen to

what he's saying. I think that's being reconsidered as well. I hope

that's the case.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, the member's talking about job security. Of

course, the legislation before us now is dealing with some 250,000 public sector

employees — not all working directly for government — because the legislation

lists them, and the government is at the top of the list. The list goes on:

"a corporation or an incorporated board, commission, council, bureau, authority

or similar body that has on its board of management or board of directors a

majority of members appointed by the cabinet.... So only a majority. If

the corporation or board or authority or whatever is controlled by government,

then it falls under the control of this legislation. The list continues: "Municipality,

regional district" — and they still exist even though there is some legislation

threatening their role, but there are still regional districts — "improvement

districts, boards of school trustees, universities, and institutions under the

College and Institute Act, a community care facility, a hospital, a library

board, an employer-designated schedule. Very wide-ranging legislation, and all

of the people working in all of these organizations may be controlled by this

legislation. Some 250,000 public sector employees are being told that in the

name of restraint the government is taking unto itself the power, by this legislation,

to fire any one or more without cause. That's supposed to be restraint.

I suggest it's not restraint; it's revenge.

I have to lay it on the Premier's doorstep because he's made it

absolutely clear that he's running the whole show. He's even made it

very clear that he doesn't need a deputy to the Premier anymore. He

doesn't want to share any of the control with anyone else; he's going

to run the whole show. So this is his legislation and no one else's.

There's no question about that. I don't think he liked it very much

during the election campaign when some groups in society — I'm talking

now about trade unions — felt that this government was going down the

wrong road and that with their record of two previous elections they

would have absolutely no intention of paying any attention to their

election promises. Because of that concern, leaders of the trade union

movement took quite an active

part in the 1983 election campaign.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The member opposite is saying that they did it

without a membership vote. Yes, that's right. The mining industry that

opposed the NDP did it without a membership vote. I would suspect that

many of the corporations that made contributions to the Social Credit

Party in the election campaign — if you're prepared to make those

public, we'll certainly share ours with you — did it without consulting

the shareholders of those corporations. That's the way the system

works. If you want to change it, bring in legislation dealing with

that. That's another problem. Bring in that legislation and then let's

see what our reaction is. But right now we're talking about public

sector employees....

[ Page 329 ]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll ask the hon. minister not to interrupt. If he wants to take his place in debate he can.

MR. STUPICH: You took the words right out of my mouth. I was

going to say exactly the same thing to that member. If he has anything

at all constructive to say, or even destructive, please invite him to

stand on his feet after I've finished and let's hear from him. It would

be great to hear something about this legislation from another member

on the government side of the House.

It's not restraint. It's revenge against the trade union movement

for having taken

part in the recent election campaign. There can be no

other explanation for the kind of legislation we have before us now.

What could be the effect of this? We've been cautioned by, I think, two

members — there may have been others who have spoken in the debate; I

can't recall now — who spoke on this legislation from the government

side of the House. They cautioned us, perhaps not quite in these words:

"Don't pay any attention to the legislation." They said: "Read the

explanatory note." Well, that's a great consolation. I'm not sure

whether any of them have had any court experience. But I would not

recommend to them, if they are ever in court, that they rely on

explanatory notes rather than legislation to get them through.

[12:45]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I've had some experience.

We're cautioned to read the explanatory note, that it will allay all

our fears and the concerns of some 250,000 in the public sector; it's

all in the explanatory note. Well, let's read the explanatory note. I

don't think they were reading it very carefully when they tried to

reassure us by telling us to read the explanatory note. "The purpose of

this act is to permit public sector employers to terminate employees

for the purpose of decreasing the size and complexity of public sector

operations and to increase their efficiency and effectiveness in

providing services to the public." It gives public sector employers

permission to terminate any employee.

I suppose they could read this far, where it goes on to say: "In

addition, the act provides that the government may establish an

equitable and consistent scheme for compensating senior management in

the public sector." So some carrot is held out to the the opposition.

"Take your consolation from the explanatory note, " which says that the

government, if it wants to, can do something to protect senior

management people. It certainly gives no consolation or feeling of

security to people other than senior management people. The explanatory

note is hardly worth the few lines of type it takes up. That is one

person's

interpretation of the legislation. It is not the legislation

itself.

Mr. Speaker, if you were one of the people being reassured by the

explanatory note, being reassured by a government composed of Social

Crediters who have told us in the past to trust them.... Thinking of

unparliamentary language, using the phrase "dirty tricks" is not

unparliamentary, but it's a phrase that did not come into the history

of politics in this province, not that I'm aware, until the Social

Crediters started perpetrating dirty tricks during an election

campaign. Would you take any reassurance from a government composed of

people who perpetrated dirty tricks the way they did in the 1979

election campaign? Would you, Mr. Speaker? Would you take any

reassurance knowing that this whole thing, as I've said, came from one

person — the boss, the top man, knowing that in one particular election

campaign, election campaign expenses were being paid for with $1,000

bills coming out of his office? Would you take any consolation, any

reassurance, any feeling of satisfaction that you were in good hands,

that that person was going to draft regulations that would make you

feel comfortable?

Would you feel comfortable knowing that the person responsible for

drafting those regulations that are supposed to protect you was the

leader of a party that organized a deliberate letter-writing campaign

in which letters were signed by people who didn't exist, and in some

cases signed by people who did exist but had nothing to do with the

letters? Can you take any consolation from an explanatory note that

tells you the person drafting the regulation is going to be a party to

all of those actions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Five letters.

MR. STUPICH: Signed letters, yes. Signed by people who didn't

exist. Signed by people who did exist but who had nothing to do with

those letters.

Would you take any feeling, Mr. Speaker, in reading this explanatory

note and knowing that the person who has to approve all of those

regulations, even if that person is not going to write them all

himself, is the same person who has led that party in three election

campaigns, out of which have come in every case a history and a list of

broken campaign promises? Would you take any assurance, Mr. Speaker, in

reading an explanatory note?

I think it was yesterday when the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford),

talking in this debate, mentioned her father. There are some on the

other side who didn't feel that was proper. Perhaps some of them didn't

want to be reminded about their own fathers. My father worked in this

province. My father was a coal-miner. He wasn't a union member when he

started mining coal in South Wellington, because there was no union

there. He was one of a group of eight people who met secretly once a

week in a neighbour's house when they talked about the possibility of

forming some kind of an association, union — whatever you call it —

among the workers in that coal-mine. They had to meet secretly because

if the people owning, running and controlling that mine knew that any

of the workers were talking or thinking about organizing a trade union,

they'd lose their jobs. It was just that simple. They'd be fired

without cause, and with no recourse of any kind, so they had to meet

secretly. The only people that my father knew who were thinking along

those lines were the eight people who met regularly in that one

person's house. No one in that group except for the host knew anyone

else to discuss things with. They didn't dare do it on the job or in

the privacy of their own homes. They had to be extremely careful who

they invited to those meetings, or else they would all be down the road

without a job.

What have we got here? Legislation that allows any public sector

employer to fire anyone without cause. We're back to where we were in

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Can't speak up at union meetings now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members will come to order, please.

[ Page 330 ]

MR. STUPICH: I don't mind the interjections. I wish that

they'd be a little louder so that I could hear them, or if they had the

intestinal fortitude to get up on their feet and say something, even if

they opposed the legislation. I would welcome it, if they had the nerve

to speak from principle. Do they have any principle left?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, would you make a note that the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) wants to speak in this debate,

so that he may get up when I sit down? He's nodding in agreement. That

would be wonderful. Someday one of them is going to speak from

principle — from their heart — rather than from the leadership of the

boss, and will actually say something on behalf of the people in the

province.

The members opposite are getting excited about this, and I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada