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 )

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

287 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

British Columbia Cellulose Company Repeal Act (Bill 29). Hon. Mr. Phillips.

Introduction and first reading –– 287

Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Phillips.

Introduction and first reading –– 287

Tabling Documents

Provincial Capital Commission financial statements, March 31, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 287

Oral Questions

Termination of government employees. Mr. Barnes –– 287

Decreasing staff in Health ministry. Mrs. Dailly –– 288

Washouts on Trans-Canada Highway. Mr. Michael –– 289

Terminations in the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. D'Arcy –– 289

Terminations in the Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Cocke –– 289

Tabling Documents (Hon. Mr. Smith) –– 290

Law Reform Commission annual report.

Justice Development Commission annual report.

Legal Services Society annual report.

Criminal Injury Compensation Board annual report.

Tabling Documents (Hon. Mr. McGeer) –– 290

Science Council of British Columbia annual report.

British Columbia Research Council annual report.

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

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 290

Mr. Howard — 292

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 297

Ms. Brown –– 298

Mr. D'Arcy –– 303

Mr. Reynolds –– 305

Mr. Blencoe –– 309

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1983

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, leading us in prayers today was

the Rev. Cecil Barrier, who has been in this chamber on a number of

occasions and is a very good friend of a great many greater Victoria

residents and members of this Legislature. Perhaps the House could

acknowledge his attendance today.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, visiting from the United States of

America is Mr. Chuck Hoffman, member of the House of Representatives of

the state legislature in St. Paul, Minnesota, and his wife Karen. His

host and hostess in B.C. are Mr. and Mrs. Peter Holuboff. They and

their families are visiting us in the gallery today. I hope the House

will welcome them all.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, visiting us in the House today

are Nita Jack of Port Alberni, who was the campaign manager for Alice

Chiko, the Social Credit candidate in Port Alberni. With her is her

friend Phillippa Smith from New Zealand. Would the House join me in

welcoming those two ladies.

MR. NICOLSON: Also visiting in your gallery today are two

former students of mine from L.V. Rogers Senior Secondary School, now

in their middle thirties: Mr. Barry Brassington, an air traffic

controller, and Mr. Darcy Gunlayson, a published author. I wish we

would bid them welcome.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to ask the House to join me in

welcoming my aunt and cousin who are visiting from Arborg, Manitoba:

Mrs. Minnie Chyzzy and her daughter Marlene. Also Peter and Diane Burok

from Wisconsin, U.S.A.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the education society of the

Gitksan-Carrier tribal council in the Hazelton area, in conjunction

with the University of Victoria, is sponsoring a program of teacher

training of native peoples so that they may be able both to maintain

and enhance their culture, and also to obtain what benefits there might

accrue from the greater society within which we live. I'd very much

like the House to join me in welcoming about 25 of the participants and

students of the Hazelton native teachers' training program who are

spending the summer at UVic.

MR. MOWAT: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming two

British Columbians of notable stature. One is a former businessman in

the florist business in Vancouver. A member of the Steelhead Society

and active in rehabilitation for many years, he is now living in

Richmond: Mr. Cal Wood. The other person is known as the "Squire of

Surrey," a very close personal friend of mine, Mr. Tom Anderson.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to ask the House to welcome grade 11 Victoria

High School students who are with us today with one of their teachers, trying

to learn a little bit about the parliamentary procedures and how it all works

down here. Perhaps the House will welcome them this afternoon.

Also, there are two members from the Victoria constituency office:

Miss Chris Jacoy and Clyde Bion. They are here this afternoon. Please

welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

[2:15]

BRITISH COLUMBIA CELLULOSE

COMPANY REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Phillips presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled British Columbia Cellulose Company Repeal Act.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. Those in favour say aye. Opposed? So ordered.

Bill 29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I wonder if, when the minister asks for leave, we could be given opportunity to give or deny leave.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Chair did ask. If it didn't, then

the Chair apologizes for that oversight. We'll check, and if not I'll

apologize. If we did, maybe you will.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Phillips presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal

Act.

Bill 30 introduced. read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the financial statements of the Provincial Capital Commission as of March 31, 1983.

Oral Questions

TERMINATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

MR. BARNES: I had hoped to have the honour of asking a

question of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I

notice she's not in her seat. Perhaps she has designated someone to

whom I could address my question. Is there anyone in the cabinet who

would answer the question? I see the hand of the hon. Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). I see the Premier isn't here. I'd like to

address him, but he's away as well. Perhaps the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) would answer my question. If the Provincial Secretary

would advise whether the Social Credit reign of terror has continued

with....

Interjections.

[ Page 288 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Okay, Mr. Speaker, that's my

interpretation of

the current situation with the removal of workers from the Ministry of

Human Resources, but if that offends any members, then we will just

say....

MR. SPEAKER: It offends the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: It offends the Chair, and I can appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

To the question....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I hope we will be allowed some time for the

interruptions. I will repeat: will the minister advise the House

whether the government's firing of members of the Vancouver and Fraser

Valley child abuse team is taking place?

HON. MR. CHABOT: A very interesting question, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I don't like the extremist comments made at the outset,

which might cause me to respond in kind to that member. I don't think

those kinds of statements should be a

preamble to a question in this

House. You might have the latitude to make those extremist-type

statements during another speech, during the throne speech debate, or

in the debate on Bill 3, or anywhere else, but in the question period I

think you should refrain from those extreme comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The question?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Now the question. The question is one which

can be best addressed by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), and in view of the fact that the Minister of Human Resources

is absent from the House at this time during the question period, I

have no alternative under those circumstances, Mr. Member, but to take

that question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Minister

of Human Resources at the earliest opportunity so she can respond to

you fully, either at the next question period or, possibly with leave

of this House, to give you an answer to satisfy your curiosity.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the latitude that you

extend to that member, but I would suggest that he is abusing the rules

at this time himself.

I would like to ask him if he would take this question as notice as

well: Would the ministry confirm that the rehabilitation officers who

work in the minister's much-boasted-about Individual Opportunity Plan

have also been fired?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I presume the member is talking about notice

of termination. Under the circumstances I'll again take the question as

notice and refer it to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) so she can respond at the earliest opportunity.

DECREASING STAFF IN HEALTH MINISTRY

MRS. DAILLY: Can the Minister of Health confirm that his

ministry has prepared a hit list of 300 people whom he is in the

process of firing from his department without cause?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if I may follow that question with a

supplementary based on the minister's answer. How then can he explain

that in the Estimates book given to all of us there is a very definite

decrease of over 300 in staff? Is he not aware of any decreasing staff

procedures taking place in his own ministry?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's quite a different question, and I really don't think it's supplementary to the previous one which referred to a hit list.

The manner in which numbers are determined this year for all

ministries is somewhat different from last year. This year it's based

on full-time equivalents. The Ministry of Health has been conducting

its business in the province for the past year or so at approximately a

10 percent vacancy rate. The numbers referred to in the Estimates this

year may reflect a more accurate number of people actually on staff and

positions available. But I would be pleased to investigate the precise

number with respect to the second question offered by that member.

MRS. DAILLY: May I ask the minister if his ministry has been

excepted from what is happening to all the other ministries. It was

announced by the Premier that there is going to be a slashing of all

public servants in all ministries. Are you telling the House that your

ministry is going to be excepted from that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Ministry of Health will not be exempted

from that; the Ministry of Health will reduce its overall staff

component over the next year or so. There will be some reductions in

the ministry.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister is being rather obtuse and not at

all clear. May I say, Mr. Speaker, for all the hundreds of people in

his ministry out there who are now waiting and wondering when the axe

is coming, will the minister please be more explicit, and will he

confirm that there are at least 300 people who are going to very

shortly receive their notices of dismissal from his ministry?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I have other members

on the floor. If there is a supplementary, there is no reason why we

cannot come back to the member, but at this point I will recognize the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MRS. DAILLY: Okay.

[ Page

289 ]

WASHOUTS ON TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

MR. MICHAEL: I would like to address a question to the hon.

Minister of Highways. In view of the serious washout of a bridge on the

Trans-Canada Highway located within the boundaries of a federal park

east of Revelstoke, and in view of the grave effect this highway

closure is having on the travelling public, particularly on those

businesses depending on the tourist industry at this peak period, can

you advise me if your ministry has had any communication with the

Canada parks board, and if so, when it is estimated we might see that

highway reopened?

HON. A. FRASER: That was a really good question. I thank the

member for it. It is a question of a serious nature and urgent at the

present time.

Dealing with the closures of the Trans-Canada Highway in British

Columbia, first of all, we have a closure between Chilliwack and Hope.

Our ministry hopes to have this

section opened to one-way traffic late

tonight. The one-way traffic combined with the existing alternative

routes using Highways 7 and 9 will provide good service for the public.

Highway 1 should be open to two-lane traffic by the weekend.

The other area of the Trans-Canada closed in British Columbia is

east of Revelstoke. The washouts and closures are within the federal

park on the

section of the Trans-Canada built and maintained by Parks

Canada. Our ministry have been in touch with Parks Canada in Ottawa and

Revelstoke today to obtain up-to-date information and offer assistance

from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The current status is

that the Rogers Pass

section Is closed at two locations east of

Revelstoke. There are five other locations where culverts are plugged,

and if heavy rains continue, more problems could occur. The two

locations where the highway is closed are the Lauretta picnic area,

where the culvert is plugged and water is running over the road — Parks

Canada expects this to be fixed to allow traffic to pass by late

afternoon — and Woolsey Creek bridge. Its west abutment has washed out

and one six-foot span has collapsed. Parks Canada and the Canadian Army

are planning on constructing a detour, which they estimate will take

about one week. The senior engineers from our ministry are in

Revelstoke today to review the situation with federal officials to

determine if provincial highway crews and material could be utilized to

assist and speed up the opening of the highway. The sites will be

inspected later this afternoon and any necessary arrangements will be

made immediately. Federal officials have expressed their thanks for

this offer of assistance.

[2:30]

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

that question and that answer. I only advise Your Honour of my rising

on the question of order, so as not to take up time now but immediately

upon the conclusion of question period.

MR. SPEAKER: That is the appropriate procedure, hon. member.

TERMINATIONS IN THE MINISTRY OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. D'ARCY: I want to compliment the Minister of Highways on doing such a great job of eating his marshmallows.

To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: recently many arbitrary

and authoritarian firings have taken place in the minister's jurisdiction.

Has the minister decided to rescind these firings until such time as authorization

has been received from this Legislature?

HON. MR. HEWITT: What the member terms firings are notices of

termination. They were given to the employees last week after the

budget came down.

MR. D'ARCY: I know of no dictionary difference between notice

of termination and firing. However, if it will satisfy the minister's

notion of convoluted verbiage, I will substitute the words "notice of

termination" for "firings" in my previous question.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the offices where employees got the

notice of termination it indicated that at a point in time their

employment would no longer be required, due to the fact that rent

controls and rentalsman office activity had ceased and that activities

in the consumer offices had ceased as well.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of saving time I did

not repeat the question, but in neither case did the minister even

attempt to apply himself to the question. The question again was: has

the minister decided to rescind these firings until such time as he is

authorized to do so with some sort of legal authority?

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to rescinding the notice of termination, the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

TERMINATIONS IN THE MINISTRY OF TOURISM

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

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond). In view of the Premier's refusal yesterday

to answer the question of legal authority, can the minister explain why

he.... He's missing! Then I'll ask the Premier. Mr. Speaker, the

Premier refused yesterday to answer the question of legal authority

with respect to firings or terminations or what have you. Would the

first minister tell us why we have had firings or terminations in the

Ministry of Tourism, where no programs have been cut?

HON. MR. CURTIS: On behalf of the Minister of Tourism, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena rises on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, my point of

order relates to the question asked by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) and the answer thereto by the Minister

of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). I consider that Mr.

Speaker should look upon both the question and the answer as an abuse

of question period, for the reasons that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. And the point of order is...?

[ Page 290 ]

MR. HOWARD: The washouts referred to occurred some days ago,

and if there had been any interest shown in the subject the member

would have picked up the telephone and dealt with it.

Secondly, government back-benchers are forever portraying their

close relationship with government, indicating that they should not

have the need, for political purposes, to raise questions in the House

about spurious matters such as this.

Thirdly....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: It's spurious because the washout occurred some days ago, and you finally got around to dealing with it.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the length and the detail of the statement by

the Minister of Transportation and Highways would certainly indicate to

me that if he had sufficient interest in this subject matter he would

have come into the House before this and made a statement on motions.

That not only would have been the proper thing to do, but it would have

permitted an opportunity to comment thereon. I think if Your Honour

looks at that, perhaps you can advise government back-benchers of the

propriety of misusing question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order,

when you're making your deliberation on the point, I hope that you

won't be swayed by the fact that for once a question in this House was

in order — because of that unusual aspect — and that you'll consider

that the member for Skeena in effect said that there was no interest in

the breakdown of the most important highway link in British Columbia,

and that's why the opposite members didn't ask any questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The floor is sought by the member for Rossland-Trail on.... ?

MR. D'ARCY: On the same point of order, I think it needs to

be pointed out that all members, especially those in the interior, have

washouts and problems in their constituencies, but they inquire

directly of the Ministry of Highways without taking up time in the

chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Hon. members, clearly we're entering close to a point of debate.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have just a comment on the same point of

order. When you're making your deliberations.... The member that

brought up the point of order knows that other legislatures in this

country, including the House that he sat in in Ottawa, allow

back-benchers of the government to ask questions, and as a private

member in this House I would want to make sure that he respected my

right to ask this government a question any time I want to ask one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is the opinion of the Chair

that we have canvassed the matter thoroughly. The Chair will bring a

written report back to members of the House, but I would caution that

if members wished to have question period rules strictly adhered to, we

would find that we would have a very short question period, because if

the rules of question period were strictly adhered to, most questions

could, in the very strictness of their

interpretation, be ruled out of

order, with the exception of very few. Hon. members, I will undertake

to bring back a more complete finding on the matter, and until that

time the matter is concluded.

MR. NICOLSON: With respect, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order — and I wish to keep strictly....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: I will keep strictly to a point of order. I

would just like to draw attention to Beauchesne, if I have permission —

and I realize that you've already said that this is our final

opportunity; thank you. I would like you to examine the admonishment

that the scope of the answer be kept within the scope of the question.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the annual reports of the Law Reform

Commission, the Justice Development Commission, the Legal Services

Society and the Criminal Injury Compensation Board.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the annual reports of the Science Council of British Columbia and the British Columbia Research Council.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'd like to make reference to some of the

comments which were made before lunch, Mr. Speaker, and how it all came

to pass. I think perhaps we should refresh our minds on what happened

in February 1982. I remember the compensation stabilization program,

and I also remember some of the very hot debate which took place in

this House at that time. But interestingly enough, it seems to have

satisfied the appetite of the public of British Columbia. We note that

it became an issue during the election campaign, much to the chagrin of

the members opposite. And when it was raised by the Leader of the

Opposition, about two weeks into the session, I suspect he wished that

he'd never raised it. However, it came, and we found that we'd made a

commitment to the people of British Columbia, and that commitment is

found in the throne speech and was followed through in the budget

speech, and is still followed through under the particular bill which

we are debating today.

Reference was made this morning — and it concerns me a great deal,

particularly those comments made by the member for Comox — to the

matter of human rights. Reference was

[ Page

291 ]

also made to the cartoon published in one of the

daily periodicals, showing a couple of hitch-hikers coming to British

Columbia. I would just like to remind this House, and particularly the

member for Comox, which government introduced the civil rights

protection act and the sanctions it contained. The fact of the matter

is: it did the job. You will remember the Human Rights Code was not

nearly adequate enough to handle that particular problem, and this

specific piece of legislation was brought in. I remember the member for

Vancouver Centre was very pleased that day, and I don't blame him.

We talked about tenure in the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I make

reference to excluded employees working for the government. Do they

have tenure? No. Do employees in the private sector have tenure? No.

People talk about the fear. What do you think people operate and work

under from day to day in the private sector? The people in my riding,

every contractor and every mill — it didn't make any difference.... The

fact is that they didn't have tenure. How do we ask those people to

continually send funds which they don't have, to pay the bills for

those who have constant tenure?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We made reference to the bill, and this morning I referred to the

items in it, and I think they should be referred to again. We were

talking about skill, ability and the qualifications of employees — the

operational requirements, something called efficiency. With a $1.6

billion deficit, and a carryover from the previous year, for a direct

debt of $2.4 billion in the spring of 1984, something has to be done.

That message was made abundantly clear on May 5.

The bill makes reference to the seniority of employees and to the

seniority provisions in collective agreements, and when the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) introduced and spoke on the bill he made it

clear that we want input from people outside. He gave you a date: he

said August 8.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I see: we've got two classes of citizens

in British Columbia, those who work in the private sector and those who

cannot be touched in the public sector.

It's not the fault of the people in the public sector. They were

hired; they were doing their jobs. The fact is that we don't have any

money. That's the reason why.

[2:45]

MR. HOWARD: You blew it all. You squandered it all.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We blew it all, eh?

We talk about rights. Something that has bothered me for a long time

in British Columbia is this: I believe everybody should have the

fundamental right to belong to a trade union, but I tell you they can't

do it. I don't know why somebody with some qualifications and seniority

or somebody off the street who is ready, willing and able to work can't

go down and be a member of a trade union if he finds himself a job. Is

that right? I don't think it's right. The member knows very well what

I'm talking about.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the bill, I think I've

done reasonably well, Mr. Speaker, keeping to it after listening to a

number of the speakers to whom you've allowed some degree of latitude.

In the matter of education: I raised this morning the problem that

school boards have. We give them the opportunity, the authority and the

duty to manage, and what happens? They can't do it because their hands

are tied. Why are their hands tied? Because of

section 153 of the

School Act. Anybody who has been teaching in one of our schools for 20

years on a particular program.... If that program is deleted or

dropped, then whoever the teacher is is in a difficult position. They

could be with the school for 20 years but if a program is out or a

school is closed and there's a declining enrolment....

Now what about the people.... We made it clear when we talked to

everybody on Tuesday morning in Vancouver that we are looking not only

at overall budgets but also at particular parts of budgets. One of

those areas is administration. I made it clear when I was talking to

them that I've got a great deal of compassion for the teaching

profession. I said it on a number of occasions. You don't know what

ends up and what comes, and they don't know what they're going to get.

But it seems to me there's been a history in the past, with respect to

a number of school boards in British Columbia, that it's fine to make

the district office good and fat, layer upon layer, and add on at the

expense of those who should be in the classroom and teaching. I can

tell you that that is exactly what we are looking at. How about some

fairness and equity between districts? It can't be justified the way

it's moving right now, and they're having this opportunity. Why in the

Public Sector Restraint Act? It allows them to manage; that's really

what it's for.

One of the areas which seems to be giving some concern is the matter

of "without cause." I recognize the concern about the words "without

cause." But if you look to the reasoning "for cause" in the legal

sense, what it really means is that someone is being terminated for

just cause resulting from the failure to perform a function. That's

what "cause" means. Today that's not the case. Today the fact of the

matter is we've got a significant deficit which we are facing head-on,

together with the wishes of the people of British Columbia and those

taxpayers who have told us: "Enough is enough."

There's been a lot of comment made in the press. I'm not saying for

one moment, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not sensitive to some of those

comments. Sometimes we have people who have been in the press for a

long period of time who may in fact say: "Just wait a minute." One

article, which I'm sure all members have probably read by now, was in

the Times-Colonist by Richard Gwyn. In essence what our Premier has done is to bring his government back into the public marketplace. I quote:

"So long as civil servants enjoyed tenure, both

individually and collectively — any laid off have always been moved to

other jobs in the same government — governments could not be

controlled. Those nominally in charge, the politicians and the civil

service managers, lack the controlling instruments of being able to

hire and fire or to discipline or to promote on merit.... Today, close

to one in four working Canadians enjoys tenure. The consequential

inefficiencies are just too much for our economy to bear."

[ Page 292 ]

That's self-evident when we examine the financial statements of

British Columbia, particularly in industry. Specifically, let's have a

good look at the forest industry. Heaven knows, in my riding, I've got

six pulp mills, with the twinning of Northwood, ten major sawmills and

an oil refinery — and we know exactly what that means. It's just now

that the marketplace is starting to pick up, and hopefully they're

going to get some of their equity back, because without that equity

they're not going to be paying very much corporate tax. What do you

think we all live on?

This is from Richard Gwyn's article:

"Further, the burden is no longer bearable politically

or socially. Through the 1980s about one in seven Canadians in the

private sector will be permanently unemployed, and perhaps one in three

will experience some unemployment at some time as their companies close

or as technology destroys jobs at the same time as it creates new ones."

I think that's something that we ought to keep very much in mind. At

times this is a painful process, and nobody likes doing it. But it

seems to me that it's like the marketplace, which from time to time has

a major correction. The reason for that correction is that it will be

healthy further down the line, that's all.

I have two other comments to make before I sit down. I came across a

statement made the other day which I thought might bring the problem

home, and I'll paraphrase it. The reference was made to Sweden, the

original architect of a modern welfare state based on a forest economy.

It appears to be planning an historic turnaround. According to reports,

the coalition government wants to propose reductions in subsidies to

children, students, pensioners and housing rents. That's draconian, you

know, by Swedish standards; but that measure is a response to huge

government deficits as the nation flounders in a long-term recession.

MR. BARRETT: What's the date of that document?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Within the last six months, I would say.

MR. BARRETT: That government was defeated. You're now alluding to a socialist government, because the coalition was defeated.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think you've got that turned 180 degrees.

MR. BARRETT: Table the document.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: My point is this: that is the way people are thinking we've got to attack the deficit.

I'd like to make reference to a couple of the comments which the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) made in second reading. I think

it's important that we consider this. The Provincial Secretary said

this: "As part of this government's commitment to consultation, I have

invited the public to comment on what the regulations could include. It

is important to finalize this by August 8." I think that indicates what

we as a government, realizing that firm measures are required, are

still looking for consideration from those who are going to be

affected. Mention is made of those people who are not within a

bargaining unit. The compensation stabilization program will

acknowledge their concerns, and I'm sure they will be treated most

fairly.

I support the bill, and I recognize the significance of it. I

further recognize that for the long-term health of British Columbia we

should not necessarily have two classes of citizens at this time, one

subject to the whip in the marketplace and the other having been

recession-free.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is a rule

of this House under standing orders that documents quoted from are

usually tabled with this House. I would ask the minister to table the

document.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, would you defend me from interruptions from that minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the

rules of this House be applied and that the minister table the

documents. The allusion was that it was a social-democratic government.

It was the coalition government that was defeated, and I wouldn't want

you to leave that impression with the House. Just table the documents.

MS. BROWN: You're deliberately misleading the House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair rules that in the absence of any

indication as to what the document really was, it's not possible to ask

that it be tabled.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I certainly accept your ruling. I

hope the minister now understands, when making allusions to documents,

that he should name the document and the date, and be prepared to table

such document.

MR. HOWARD: I'm sure the Minister of Education knew exactly

what he was doing when he quoted from that particular document, because

knowing exactly what he was doing permitted him to attempt to mislead

the House. It was consciously done; we can understand that. Look what

they are trying to do in the legislation.

In approaching this particular bill....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has

just made a comment across the floor to "get back in the gutter." I

make no claim for him to withdraw that, but I will tell the minister

that I'm going to make some comments about his activities, and I'll

have to get in the gutter along with him in order to do that. Just wait

and be patient. Pay attention to the rules, Mr. Minister of Forests.

Quit yapping away like a puppy dog. If you've got something to say,

stand up and say it; get involved in the debate. You're afraid to get

involved in the debate. That minister is a gutless wonder, along with a

lot of other gutless wonders on that side of the House.

[ Page 293 ]

Interjections.

[3:00]

MR. HOWARD: Listen to these new-found fascists down here. Throw them out!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that was an unparliamentary thing to say. The Chair would be pleased if you would proceed speaking to Bill 3.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I was embarked upon that course

until I was interrupted. If Mr. Speaker can keep the hon. members

opposite from interrupting, we'll be able to proceed in the usual

orderly fashion. We can't look at this bill in isolation from the other

bills on the order paper. We can't look at this bill....

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would just

like to bring to your attention that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown) yelled very loudly across the floor that the Minister of

Education was deliberately misleading this House, showing a disrespect

for this chamber and the members in it. I would hope that you would ask

her to withdraw that remark; it's very unparliamentary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear the remark being passed; therefore I cannot ask that it be withdrawn.

MR. HOWARD: As I said before that improper interruption, we

can't examine this bill just simply as an isolated piece of

legislation. We must examine it in light of what the budget itself

said, and what other pieces of legislation on the order paper say. The

budget and other pieces of legislation and this particular bill itself

all head in the direction of having the state control people's lives

and interfere in people's lives in the normal course of their

employment and their relationships to society. I admit to you, Mr.

Speaker, that I am somewhat afraid of what is being proposed in this

House. Most members are not usually afraid of something that's proposed

in the Legislature. I'm sure most members in this House, in the course

of their lives, have had experiences that have made them fear for one

thing or another, and have lived through them — made an accommodation

with whatever that fear was. I don't think I am probably any different

in that regard from other members, or from a great many people in

society at large, but I am afraid of where we are headed. I'm afraid,

as I suppose one would be afraid of cancer. Cancer may start off and be

identified as just affecting a minor part of a person. It may be small.

It may be noticed and attempted to be treated, but the tendency of

cancer is to grow and grow and grow and kill. I'm reminded of that when

I think of this legislation and the other pieces of legislation that

are on the order paper. I'm afraid for the damage and the injury that

will be caused to people in this society. I'm afraid for others, for

what we may be faced with in the future.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) made an extremely correct and

valid point the other day when he said that you don't usually start off

being a fascist. It's not something that you conclude you are; it's a

step-by-step process. It starts with a little bit of an attempt to do

something in a controlling way, rationalizing that control on the basis

that it's for the public good. That's what fascism does; it grows step

by step. Usually it's unrecognizable by the person, or the group, who

is affected by that step-by-step process.

Fascism finds, in the political sense, its most fertile ground in

those who have no political philosophy or commitment — who are

opportunists who will do anything to advance the immediate cause as

they see it, without looking beyond into the future effects of their

particular actions. Fascism finds its most nourishing atmosphere where

we have politically psychotic people, and that's what we've got in the

government of British Columbia today: psychotics.

These are people who are insane insofar as their political ideals

are concerned; people who are out of touch with the reality of the

direction in which they're going; people who have been — as the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was —

vacuumed into a coalition on the basis that it would be good for

society, without recognizing what was taking place. The Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations, perhaps more than anybody else, knows what

I'm talking about because he has been moved step by inexorable step

towards the concept of state control, something which a number of years

ago he would have decried and abhorred. But he's into it. We simply

ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, this minister of intergovernmental

affairs — or relations, or whatever it is he's having — to recognize

where he is, not to walk out of the door.

Let me make some fine comments about what I'm talking about — the

rule of law and things like that. I'd like to say a few words about

basic principles, basic ethics, basic standards for government-citizen

morality. Fifteen hundred years ago, Mr. Speaker, somebody by the name

of Justinian gave his definition of law, which was "to live honourably,

to injure no other man." Those are fine words — fine declarations. "The

only alternative to the rule of law and the democratic way of life is

the tyranny of the strongest " Get that. "The only alternative to the

rule of law and the democratic way is the tyranny of the strongest."

Isn't the "tyranny of the strongest" fascism? Isn't the "tyranny of the

strongest" state domination, because the state is all-powerful? Isn't

the "tyranny of the strongest" the government that wants to do those

things, without regard to human rights, fundamental freedoms and

democracy? Isn't the "tyranny of the strongest" what we have today?

I'll read a little further: "If the power can be subject to abuse,

the job is to rein it in, not unleash it." Those are fine words. But

this government, Mr. Speaker, has moved diametrically opposite to those

conventional wisdoms. With this bill they would be creating the surest

path to tyranny and the greatest opportunity for ruthless government —

oppression — ever experienced in British Columbia. I'm talking about

this bill. It's statutory viciousness, Mr. Speaker, whether by accident

or design. Once it has started, it's a very difficult thing to check,

and even much more difficult to remove.

The hallmark of democracy is the rule of law and the recognition and

acceptance by society of order. This bill denies natural justice. It

erodes the rights of the individual; it seizes without appeal. There

are more words to that effect. Let me go back to that earlier

statement: The only alternative to the rule of law and the democratic

way of life is the tyranny of the strongest. This bill substitutes

something that indeed could amount to tyranny of the strongest.

I'd like to pose a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and ask him if he could tell me, before he

scuttles away, who said those words. Who espoused those declarations?

Those are his words in this chamber when he was a Liberal.

[ Page 294 ]

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Now he says: "Bah!" Now he's scuttling out!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Humbug!

MR. HOWARD: Run away! That's the minister's view about his own words which were just quoted to him: "Humbug!"

AN HON. MEMBER: That was when he was a Liberal.

MR. HOWARD: That was before he became an opportunist and took

that first long, although easy, step towards the fascist state. He's

now embroiled in it, and he doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to

stand up in this chamber and say that he was wrong. And he'll support

the bill.

Just one set of quotations from members opposite, who for obvious

political reasons at that time thought it was wise to say something

nice, to use some clichés, knowing full well that they didn't believe

them, that they were entering an insane world of Social Credit and are

enjoying staying in that particular world. That's the old-timers. Those

who have come newly to the chamber or newly to Social Credit, while

they may pack cards of other political parties — and I'm sure most of

them do — are in the same bag and are moving in the same direction.

When fascism.... Yes, it's an exaggerated word. It has almost an

unbelievable context to it, because there is a memory of fascism in

this world that dates back just a few years — forty years or so. It

involved Hitler and Mussolini; they're whom we think of. It involved

Stalin. We think of him. He was a red fascist or a blue fascist; I

don't know what colour, but that was fascism. It involves Pinochet. It

involves current dictators in other parts of the world. We tend to say:

"Oh, that couldn't happen here." We delude ourselves into thinking it

couldn't happen here, but it can happen here. We're on the road to its

happening here. When it comes, the supporters of it will call it

anti-fascism. They'll cloak it in democracy, as members in this chamber

have attempted to do with this bill, and as what the Attorney-General —

I don't know what he's going to say, but it's what he will probably

attempt to do as well.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Fascism comes upon us like a thief in the dark of the night, with

soft-soled shoes so he can't be noticed and heard. Fascism moves from

those soft-soled sneakers, turning them into hobnailed boots that

trample over rights and opportunities and democracies. That's where

we're going. The hon. gentlemen and ladies opposite are proud of that

movement towards state control of people's lives. I know the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is proud of it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not proud of you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order, please.

Perhaps if we have fewer interruptions we can maintain orderly debate;

as a matter of fact, I'm sure that will happen.

MR. HOWARD: I don't mind the interruptions, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the Chair does, but usually the interruptions that come from the

other side, especially from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, are so inane as not to worry about anyhow — and especially

those from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). But that's their

business, and my opinion and my

interpretation.

[3:15]

I think the Provincial Secretary, who is the sponsor of this bill,

attempted — he may have succeeded with some of his own members — to

mislead the House the other day when he introduced the bill. He sought

to mislead the House when he introduced the bill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You walk a fine line.

MR. HOWARD: There's no fine line. I say that he sought to

mislead the House when he introduced this bill, and I'll proceed to

attempt to prove that contention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you may have your opinion, but

we cannot offend the honour of another hon. member. I'm sure that the

member now speaking is aware of that.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not attempting to offend the honour of the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). One must be presumed to have

something of that nature before it can be offended.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are now treading very finely

on the rules that apply to all members of this House and that protect

all members of this House. Those rules are applied equally. I will ask

the hon. member for Skeena to continue his debate with relevance and

avoid personal reflections.

MR. HOWARD: When the minister introduced the bill, his attempt to mislead us followed the course........

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm going to have to ask the hon. member for

Skeena to withdraw that statement. I find it offends an hon. member.

Would the member, in parliamentary courtesy, please withdraw the

statement.

MR. HOWARD: I will. Let me draw Your Honour's attention to

something following that. Beauchesne, who is one of the people we look

to when we need guidance, says in the fifth edition — which the Chair

pulls out and uses from time to time to substantiate the position of

the Chair — page 110 thereof,

chapter 7, "Rules of Debate." "Since 1958

it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following expressions...."

Then it enumerates them in alphabetical order: things like "black

sheep", "blackmail", and "dishonest" even — although I'm not using that

word. One of the words which is permissible, according to Beauchesne,

is "mislead" — all by itself; not deliberately nor consciously mislead;

no adjective attached to it to indicate anything other than simply

mislead. All I was doing was following Beauchesne's advice. If Your

Honour feels that Beauchesne is wrong and that I am not to follow

Beauchesne any longer, I will certainly do that.

[ Page 295 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reference to that word "mislead" is, of

course, correct as applied to Beauchesne. The Chair's opinion, hon.

member, is that using that expression to refer to the action of another

hon. member would be unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: When the Provincial Secretary introduced the

bill, he said — I need to paraphrase it because I don't have the Blues,

and if I'm paraphrasing it incorrectly I'm sure he will tell me

otherwise — the public endorsed this bill and this concept on May 5. It

did no such thing. At no time during that election campaign did any one

of those gentlemen or ladies opposite who are in the cabinet or

anywhere else have the decency or honesty or forthrightness to come to

the public in that campaign and say: "If we are elected we are going to

introduce legislation that gives us the right to fire anybody in the

public sector without cause." No way did they do that. The Social

Credit Party lied about that when the question was posed about people

in the public service. The Social Credit Party deliberately,

consciously — and effectively — lied about that particular program. For

the minister to come in this House and say, after he participated in

what the Social Credit Party was doing, that the people endorsed this

program on May 5 shows me that he either deliberately did what he was

accused of doing earlier or is ignorant of the whole process of

political democracy, or careless about it, or both.

This bill has nothing whatever to do with the question of restraint.

Public Sector Restraint Act is an improper title, a misleading title. I

believe it was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) who read the explanatory note the other day. He saved me the

trouble of reading it again. Nowhere in there does it say anything

about restraint. It talks about reducing the size and the complexity of

the public service, and increasing their efficiency and effectiveness

in providing services to the general public; but it is not a public

service restraint act, unless you consider discriminatory action by the

government against public servants on the basis of sex, colour, race,

political orientation, disagreement with the minister or the deputy

minister — any obscure, manufactured reason whatever — to be contained

within the concept of restraint. If restraint means discrimination it

is correct, and if it doesn't it is misleading. This provides for the

opportunity to fire people from their jobs without cause, without

reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does it say that?

MR. HOWARD: Well, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs is now asking questions of me as to what the bill means. I

thought he knew what it meant, which is why he is such a lover of it.

That's what it says in there: without reason, without cause.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does it say without reason? You don't even understand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the minister please come to order. Only one member at a time. The member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: This bill allows for favourites to be played; it

does. If it doesn't allow for that, why put it in there? Why do you

want the right to fire without cause, if it does not embrace the

potential for discrimination and favouritism? Because you're fascists;

that's why. Because you're headed in that direction; that's why, Mr.

Speaker: it allows them to play political favourites.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, I think we on this side

of the House have allowed the gentleman a fair amount of latitude. I

find the declaration that I'm a fascist offensive, and I ask that

member to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon. member for Skeena has imputed any

improper motive to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs,

the Chair will ask the member for Skeena to withdraw such imputation.

MR. HOWARD: I don't know why a condition suddenly becomes a motive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the member impute any improper motive to another hon. member?

MR. HOWARD: No, of course not; I just called him a fascist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is unacceptable, The Chair now finds the language offensive, and I will ask the member to withdraw that word.

MR. HOWARD: I will withdraw the reference to the hon.

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as a fascist. When I use

that word I'll look straight in front of me, with wide peripheral

vision to encompass the government itself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would still apply to hon. members of the

House, hon. member. Just this morning the Chair asked hon. members to

withdraw a word that I found offensive: one can find that word in this

morning's Hansard ; it's a word that had been used; it was

withdrawn. I think the Chair does, from time to time, have to find

certain expressions offensive if they are applied or implied to other

hon. members. I'm sure we are all aware of the terminology and

expressions I'm referring to.

MR. HOWARD: Let me give you an example of favouritism. Take a

hypothetical case. A bill was introduced on budget day, seeking to take

away the authority of regional districts with respect to planning

activities insofar as their involvement in municipalities was

concerned. [Applause.] Okay, there's applause for that. We can deal

with that bill in a substantive way, if and when it ever gets called.

Let's assume that that bill had an effect upon the price of shares on

the stock market, and that some people in this House had previous

knowledge about that particular bill, and said: "Aha! When that bill's

introduced, it's going to drive up the shares of company X or Y" or

whatever hypothetical company we may be considering. And maybe they

didn't go out and buy the shares themselves, but they whispered it to a

friend — who knows? — and the subject was raised of the use of insider

information, and the superintendent of brokers got into the act and

said: "I'd like to examine that." There's nothing whatever, Mr.

Speaker, in this particular bill to prevent the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs — whoever might hold that function; I'm not

talking about this individual — from leaning on the superintendent of

brokers and saying:

[ Page 296 ]

"Look, man, if you're going to investigate what some

members in the Social Credit Party are doing, remember Bill 3; we've got

the right to fire without cause." That's the type of viciousness that's inherent in the concept contained

within this bill. Purely hypothetical, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to come to order.

MR. HOWARD: Let's assume.... And it does take place

within offices and in the workplace, elsewhere. I've heard that it has

taken place in the public service, which is not to put any black marks

against people in the public service; they're human beings same as

anybody else. But I have heard that sexual harassment takes place in

the public service. There's a provision in the collective agreement,

I'm told, with the B.C. Government Employees Union and CUPE, and in the

other sections of the public service, that prohibits it. They say it

shouldn't take place. Now if it didn't take place, it wouldn't be

necessary to prohibit it — if they didn't have the foundation for it in

the first place. This bill permits that type of sexual harassment to

take place under threat of being fired without cause. Either into an

investigation of the person who may initiate the sexual harassment or

the recipient of the harassment, depending on how far up it

reaches....

That's possible. There's a wide, blanket declaration in this bill

which says that people can be fired without reason, cause,

justification or rationale; that people can be fired on a favouritism,

family-friendship or political-party basis, or because they may be

native Indians or black or anything else. Full, ranging, wide-open

abuse is permitted under this law. That's what the bill does, Mr.

Speaker, and it applies to municipalities.

[3:30]

I am reminded of the comments of one of the champions of

municipalities in this House. Let me read what he said. He was talking

about another piece of legislation which might or might not have had an

effect on municipalities — this one does, clearly and undeniably. He

said: "This leads naturally to the very major point" — remember that —

"concerning prior consultation with properly elected local and regional

governments." Where was the input, the contact with cities and district

municipalities? Where was an honest and straightforward attempt to hear

what locally based, locally elected people had to say about this type

of legislation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. HOWARD: I don't know what riding he represented at the

time he said it. I don't recall whether he was a Liberal or a

Conservative at the time. I only recall that at the time the current

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) called him a traitor and a

turncoat and a chickadee — whatever that meant. He's now the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding!

MR. HOWARD: That was the Minister of Finance when he wasn't the

Minister of Finance, speaking for political purposes. He said it and he wanted

it. He doesn't want it now, because, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance

has been caught up in that step-by-step process moving toward — be careful of

the word — state control and domination of every walk of life in this province.

That's what has happened to the Minister of Finance. Like the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), he's abandoned whatever passed

for principle when they sat in opposition in this House.

Mr. Speaker, this bill really reflects that somebody had to pay for

the last election. After all, the government embarked upon it using

public funds — I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars —

and a pre-election campaign on television programs. Well, public

servants, those of you who have either been fired or are going to get

fired — those of you who paid attention to that — remember that this is

your payment for those particular broadcasts, plus a lot more that

you're going to pay for.

The "Build Highways" signs blossomed all over the province. I went

to a sign painter in my home town and said: If you had to do those

signs, how much would it cost you? And he said: "It depends on the

volume." I said: "I don't know about the volume, I assume there's a

couple of hundred in the province." He worked out a figure for me, and

we went out and looked at the sign, the paint, the quality of the

plywood, and put it all together, and he said: "Well, probably around

$400 a sign." I counted the signs in my own riding, and other members

said they counted so many signs in their ridings. The government

produced, Mr. Speaker, something in the neighbourhood of 500 of those

particular pre-election signs, at public expense. Multiply that by the

$400 it cost to produce them, not counting the man-hours and the posts

and the nuts and bolts in the Ministry of Highways district or regional

offices, and there's an expenditure of something in the neighbourhood

of a couple of hundred thousand dollars of public funds to advance the

cause of Social Credit.

Restraint. Public servants are paying for it. That's part of the

reason for this bill: to find the money to put back into the till that

the government took out, rifling people's purses and their pocketbooks

in order to pay for pre-election stuff.

Over the winter so many cabinet ministers came to Skeena at public

expense that I thought.... For instance I thought the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) had taken up residence there, he was in

and out so many different times. The other day he passed some opinion

as to why I got elected. I'll tell him why I got elected: partly

because the Minister of Forests came there so often. I got elected

because the Minister of Forests and that woman he was running around

with, or travelling around with — who was not his wife incidentally —

were in Terrace so many times....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. member, that is clearly an

imputation of dishonourable motive. I ask the hon. member to withdraw

any such imputation.

MR. HOWARD: I meant no imputation. He was travelling with a

woman who wasn't his wife. Period. Fact. That helped to get me elected,

and I want to thank the minister for that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a very unparliamentary imputation of

another member's honour. The member withdraws any imputation of

dishonourable motive against....

Interjection.

[ Page 297 ]

MR. HOWARD: I said that from the beginning. There's no

imputation there. It's just a straight statement of fact. The minister

wants to know who the woman was; he just asked me. Now maybe he's

engaging in unparliamentary things.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we could proceed to Bill 3.

Mr. Howard moved adjournment of the debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lank

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 31

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I stand on a point of order. It's with

reference to the comments made by the member for Skeena, which had a

rather definite inference. The member said that I had been travelling

around his riding with a woman who was not my wife. Now that statement

in itself, I guess, is quite innocent. But the definite inference with

which it was made is rather abhorrent to me. I'm not going to ask the

member to withdraw, because the credibility and the morality of that

member...

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: ...are pretty well known to the people

in this House. I just want to make it known that I think this is one of

the most despicable statements that can be made in this Legislature,

especially coming from a member with the background that that member

has.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) to come to order.

MR. HOWARD: On that point of order, I just want to express

through the Chair my appreciation to the Minister of Forests for

finally disclosing his feelings.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The matter is concluded.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to congratulate the new member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), who took his seat here the other

day when I was not here. His landslide victory was hard-fought and it

took him two and a half months longer than anyone else to win his way

into this House, but he will be a great addition along with a number of

our other new members.

[3:45]

First of all I want to talk about the need for the bill. It is

something that I don't think has been addressed a great deal in this

House. The notion that this bill is something that has been plucked out

of the blue, something that we did not have a mandate for or something

that's unexpected is something that I find very passing strange. For

the five or six weeks that we campaigned, if we heard one message from

one end of this province to the other it was that the people expected

us to do something about the size and complexity of government — to

reduce it, to try to make it more efficient and to try to make it more

modern and more effective in the world of 1983 and, in doing that, to

reduce the size. I think that the message was received clearly all over

this province. People knew that when we were re-elected that is what we

were going to do.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In this House we've had a lot of comments about things that this

bill is supposed to do: that it takes away freedoms, takes away rights,

it's fascist, it's communist and that it's all sorts of other things

which are usually inconsistent. We have not had any analysis of the

purpose of the bill and what the bill really does. What the bill really

does is that it gets around the restrictions that have been placed on

government and managers of government for some years to reduce the size

of government, to eliminate duplication and to eliminate programs that

are no longer considered to be priority at a time of falling revenues

which governments cannot do because over a period of about 10 or 15

years the ability of managers to manage in government has been

something that has been gradually eroded by a series of collective

agreements. What this bill does is allow a fresh start to be made. This

bill doesn't say that thousands and thousands of public servants are

going to be laid off. It doesn't necessarily mean that either. What it

does say is that employment in government can be terminated without the

necessity of finding that the employee is guilty of some sort of

wrongdoing in his job. The old rule that during a collective agreement

you could only fire someone with cause made it almost impossible to

eliminate or reduce the size of your employment complement. Arbitration

boards have continuously put very restrictive

interpretations on

"just-cause" sections for dismissing employees, so it's been virtually

impossible to reduce the size of government.

That is not only true at provincial level but also at the local and

Crown corporations levels, because multitudes of collective agreements

with terms in those collective agreements

[ Page 298 ]

which have eroded management's rights have made it very difficult

for the public service at any level to come to grips with the need of

controlling and reducing its size. What this bill does after October 31

is to start from scratch — from square one — to allow some new

agreements to be negotiated which will allow managers to manage.

Another thing that this bill does — and I guess the most revolutionary

thing it does — is that it really assails the notion of everlasting

tenure in the public sector. In that direction this bill is, I suppose,

revolutionary.

In a column in the Ottawa Citizen on Tuesday, which was reproduced in the Times-Colonist ,

Richard Gwyn gives the government and the Premier very strong praise

for launching in that direction and for being the first government in

North America that is trying to democratically return to the control

and size of government. Everlasting tenure, then, is assailed. But it's

not assailed without guidelines. The bill does contain the power to

make regulations, and it also contains some guidelines on the sorts of

things that those regulations governing termination must take into

account.

Things that are to be taken into account in those regulations are

skills, abilities and qualifications of employees, something that often

in the past could not be considered under seniority clauses, which were

held to govern everything else. Another thing that's to be considered,

Mr. Speaker, is the operational requirements and efficiency of the

employer. It has been absolutely unheard of that the operational

requirements and efficiency of employers should be considered. Finally,

another item that is a guideline for consideration, and an important

one, is the seniority of employees either within or outside of the

collective agreement. So seniority will be a factor.

My colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) spoke

about the difficulties under the Public Schools Act in

section 153. The

difficulty was in achieving layoffs in public schools. Those provisions

put a strait-jacket on school principals and superintendents to do

anything to reduce the school complements except under the numbing

provisions of seniority and under the emergency provisions such that if

you cancel a program or shut down a school then all the people,

regardless of experience and seniority in that program or school, were

subject to being laid off, so that much better flexibility can be

brought to bear in some new termination regulations under this bill. It

will allow not only for a great deal more latitude and fairness but

also for people with ability to retain positions in the public service.

The public reaction to this bill is generally favourable. There has

been a lot of fear-mongering going on about the bill and what it might

do, but the public reaction that I apprehend is that people are saying

that finally a government is prepared to take on the job of reducing

costs, living within its means, trying to reduce its deficit, and is

going to deal at last with the size of government and do something

about that. All of us know families in our ridings where one or more

breadwinners — who are not in the public service, but are in private

life or work for companies who work in the resource industries — have

been laid off or have lost their jobs. Why should it be that only the

private sector becomes subject to the effect of the economy on

employment? The public sector demands must also be susceptible and bear

relationship to the marketplace. That's what will happen under this

bill.

There is a great deal of public support. There was not just Richard

Gwyn's column but also a very favourable column by Charles Lynch which

I noticed yesterday, and many people across the country are looking at

British Columbia and what we're doing just as they did with the

compensation stabilization program, which was the first of its kind in

North America. This program is also going to be a beacon to other

provinces and other jurisdictions. Nobody would pretend that the bill

and the course that we're following is a pleasant or easy one — it is

not. It's a difficult one, and it's incumbent upon us to proceed with

that course and to endeavour to do so in a fair way. But I must say

that I take very grave umbrage to the fear-mongering and the panic

syndrome that the opposition have been trying to create around this

bill, calling this a reign of terror, describing it as fascism and so

on. Not only is that offensive and inaccurate, but it is not helpful to

the majority of people in the public sector who will remain in the

public service and will be working loyally and dedicatedly in the

public service in the years ahead.

People who find that unfortunately the program that they're working

in is being eliminated must be encouraged and helped to find the route

to some other employment, or back to private life, not brought into the

gallery and used as theatrical ploys by the opposition. They should be

helped and encouraged and assisted so that they can go out and do other

useful things with their talents.

I can remember when we brought in our first restraint program a year

ago, and the compensation stabilization program was first introduced. I

can remember hearing then charges that certain aspects of the public

service were going to be devastated under that program if raises were

only going to be permitted to go up by a maximum of 8 percent and if

public sector local government budgets were not going to be allowed to

increase. We were told, for instance, that education was going to be

devastated because the raises that were given to teachers that year

were going to be reduced from about 17 percent to something like 13

percent. I've noticed that there have been a few such cries again from

some of the public service interest groups, but I think the public

understands that you can have a high quality education system and a

very effective and sensitive social services deliveries system in

Health and Human Resources without pouring endlessly and constantly

millions and millions of dollars into the system and maintaining the

same level of employment that you have had in very good times

economically, everlastingly and always.

What this bill does is provide for a way in which government can

trim and slim down, and do so in a way that is credible and fair. We

have a very clear mandate to do that, and that is what we're doing. I'm

very pleased to join in this House to support this bill.

MS. BROWN: I think maybe the first thing that we should do is

remind ourselves that the minister who just took his seat is the

Attorney-General of this province — the chief law enforcement officer

and the person who is supposed to preside over the delivery of justice

in this province. I guess the best thing that can be said is that that

pathetic defence of the bill which he just gave probably is an

indication that he recognizes that justice is not being done under this

piece of legislation; that he recognizes that this bill, contrary to

what he tells us it's doing, is really depriving all British

Columbians, whether they work for the public sector or not, of some

very basic kinds of human rights, which, as the chief law enforcement

officer and the person presiding over justice in this province, he

should be fighting against. I am surprised,

[ Page 299 ]

first of all, that he is even participating in this debate. I

thought that he would be so ashamed and so shamed by his government's

action that he would have continued to stay out of the House today, as

he has in the past, and not take his place in this debate. But as I

said, that very brief and pathetic kind of defence that he gave is the

best thing that can be said on his behalf.

[4:00]

He tells us that what the bill does is to allow government to get

around restrictions which it has always had in terms of eliminating

jobs. What he doesn't say is that the other side of the coin is that it

does this by taking away the defences which working people in this

province have come to enjoy and accept as a right. He talks about how a

person can be terminated now without feeling that they are being guilty

of wrongdoing. What is the point? What he is saying is that every job

in the public sector is now an auxiliary job; that even if a person is

doing their job well, even if they're performing a task that's

necessary, even if they have seniority, with everything going exactly

the way it should be, they should feel good about the fact that they're

terminated, because now when they're terminated it's because there has

not been any wrongdoing.

It seems to me that the Attorney-General should have been saying the

exact opposite. What the Attorney-General should be saying is that when

a person is doing a good job, is carrying out their responsibilities,

has seniority and is involved in a program which is essential and

necessary, that person's job should at least be protected. Instead, the

minister is saying the very opposite. Now he is saying that it's not

possible to fire a person because "there has been the notion of tenure

in perpetuity." That's a myth. Tenure is a myth, Mr. Speaker. There has

never been tenure; it's always been possible to terminate people with

cause. That's always been possible. It's always been possible to

terminate people as part of a collective agreement. There have always

been layoffs; that's always been possible. Every single job comes up

for re-evaluation and renegotiation with every collective agreement.

The concept of tenure is a myth which this government is now trying to

sell to the community at large — that once a person gets hired as a

teacher, a nurse, a maintenance worker or a clerical worker in the

public sector, that person's job is secure for life.

The Attorney-General is leaving. He doesn't want to hear the rest of

what I'm about to say, because he recognizes, Mr. Speaker, that....

I'm not going to say that he deliberately misled the House, because I

realize that I'd have to withdraw that, but surely the Attorney-General

knew when he was talking about tenure in perpetuity that there is no

such thing and has never been any such thing; that, in fact, simply by

sitting down at the beginning of each collective agreement every job

was up for renegotiation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Your husband.

MS. BROWN: My husband has tenure? He's got tenure with me. I

don't ever intend to terminate his contract. That's one tenure he has,

Mr. Speaker.

But when the Attorney-General stands on the floor of this House and

tries to justify the firing of people without cause, then I say that

the Attorney-General should be called before the Bar Association and

disciplined, because he is going in direct contravention of what he has

been trained to do as a lawyer, and certainly what he knows should be

done as the chief law enforcement officer of the province knows should

be done. Maybe he should be dragged in front of the international court

at the Hague. I don't know where he should go, but I know he should at

least retire his position because he cannot be entrusted with

supervising or presiding over the delivery of justice in this province.

This Bill 3 is a direct and complete contravention of the basic

rights which working people, whether in the public or private sector,

have and should have. When you look at the kinds of statements made by

the speaker who just took his seat, you begin to understand why we can

get away with this kind of legislation.

When the speaker stood up earlier to table a report in this House,

he said: "This is the report of the Justice Development Commission,

whatever that is." I thought that was a really interesting comment for

him to make. The Justice Development Commission has a mandate....

Or at least it had a mandate. The report tells us that it is now

terminated; it's disappeared. Its mandate was to develop coordinated

plans for the future administration of justice in this province. I

think it's interesting that the commission responsible for developing

plans for the administration of justice in all its aspects is now to

cease being. That's what that one-page annual report told us. It was

supposed to promote, establish and supervise, as well as to finance,

research respecting all aspects of the administration of justice in

this province. That no longer is possible.

When the minister talks about termination notices and eliminating

jobs in the civil service, he doesn't talk about the programs that go

down the drain at the same time those jobs go down the drain. But when

the Justice Development Commission goes down the drain, that certainly

is in keeping with the general position to date of that

Attorney-General.

That Attorney-General is the same person who told us.... We

were told by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in the throne

speech that there was going to be a severe cutback in terms of criminal

injuries compensation. That's the compensation paid to people who are

the victims of crime in this province. That's in the interest of

restraint. We're being told that that is going to be curtailed too. Not

a word from the Attorney-General in defence of that; just more

justification of the disappearance of that particular branch, the

termination or elimination of that particular program.

My colleagues, in speaking to this bill in the last couple of days,

have expressed surprise at the heartless and cruel way this government

has set about implementing this legislation even before it's law. The

bill has not been passed. It is not law. They have no jurisdiction

under which to make these firings. Yet we are being told that 350

people in Human Resources, 500 people in the Attorney-General's

ministry, 300 people in Health...and on and on it goes. The

termination slips are going out while the bill is still being debated,

and while the government has no mandate whatsoever — not given by this

Legislature — to go ahead with those kinds of things.

I'm not surprised that the government is acting in this arbitrary

manner. I'm not surprised that the government is behaving in this cruel

and uncaring way towards its workers. For the past nine or ten years,

as a critic of Human Resources, I have come to see that this is the way

the government has always acted. That's the way it has always acted

toward the elderly and the poor, towards services to children or to the

disabled. What we are beginning to see is the way in which the

government has always behaved towards the disadvantaged people in our

community. The government is now

[ Page 300 ]

behaving that way towards all working people as well. So I'm not surprised by these actions on the part of the government.

This does not say that I'm not going to continue to speak out

against it, because I think that there is something particularly

sadistic about the way in which these terminations are taking place.

What happens is that a person does not know who is going to be

terminated. First of all, there are statements. There are going to be

300 people terminated. Am I going to be one of the 300? Is the person

sitting beside me going to be one of the 300? Is the person above or

below me? Who? That hangs over a worker's head. Whether you are

speaking to people employed in the Ministry of Human Resources,

Attorney-General, Health or wherever, everyone is insecure, because

they know, if they can read the estimate books, that there are going to

be jobs lost. They know, if they can hear statements made by the

Ministry of Human Resources and by the Provincial Secretary, that the

workforce in the public sector is going to be cut by 25 percent. The

Provincial Secretary made that statement yesterday. But they don't know

who or which ones are going to be cut. So we have this climate of

insecurity. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) said that he was

upset and angry by the comments of the opposition that there was fear

in the community at large. But there is! When people are insecure, a

whole different climate develops and some really strange things begin

to happen.

We hear, for example, that the rentalsman's office was terminated

because the vacancy rate was so high that there was obviously no longer

any need for a rentalsman's office. Are we then to conclude that the

reason why the child abuse team is being wiped out by the Ministry of

Human Resources is that there is no more child abuse, or that the

government now accepts child abuse as a way of life and thinks that

it's okay — is now legitimizing, condoning and accepting it? By the

ministry's own annual report we know that child abuse is on the

increase, that there are more children being abused by their parents

now than there was a year ago, or the year before that, or the year

before that. We have all of the evidence that says that during tough

economic times there is an increase in violence within the family. Now

what are we supposed to understand then about this government, which

would choose now, when violence within the family is at its height, to

wipe out its child abuse team? What are we to conclude about a

government which would choose now, when incest is on the increase, to

wipe out the team that deals with sexual abuse against children? What

are we to conclude about a government that chooses now, when violence

directed towards women in the community is on the increase, to notify a

transition house that its funding is not going to be renewed, and that

the women who are battered by their husbands in that community will

just have to find somewhere else to go?

You know, when the Attorney-General, who is supposed to be

officiating over the delivery of justice in this province, talks about

one of the good things in this bill being that it allows you to fire

people whom you couldn't fire before.... What about the children

who are being abused? What about incest? What about wife-battering?

What about those kinds of services which the government has now chosen

to eliminate in the interest of restraint, at a time when we are told

by their own annual reports that the sexual abuse of children is on the

increase? But that service is terminated. The physical abuse of

children is on the increase, but that service is terminated. The

battering of women is on the increase, but that service is being

terminated. And the members over there say: "What about the taxpayers?"

Because a child is not a taxpayer it's okay to sexually abuse and

batter that child? Is that what the Attorney-General meant when he said

that this is a good piece of legislation because it now allows you to

wipe out programs which the Provincial Secretary described yesterday as

inessential?

[4:15]

"Leave it to the private sector, " he said. What private sector is

funding transition houses, rape relief centres, child abuse centres or sexual

assault against children centres? If there were such a thing as tenure, the

people who work in programs to protect children from physical and sexual abuse

should have tenure. Those are the people who should have tenure — the people

who work against violence towards women, whether in rape-relief centres or in

transition houses — if there were such a thing as tenure. But there is no such

thing.

The terrible thing about this piece of legislation is that it

doesn't only affect the people who are directly on the government

payroll; it has all kinds of spinoff effects. It affects programs

funded indirectly through the government — the Attorney-General's

ministry, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Human Resources and

the Ministry of Education, which has seen fit at this time to start

cutting the funds to the native education program. That's what we're

talking about when we say we are opposed to this kind of legislation.

I want to quote from a quotation which was used by one of my

colleagues earlier this morning, but I'm going to use a different part

of it, because the Attorney-General tells us how proud Richard Gwyn is

that they have done this great revolutionary thing to the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's Richard Gwyn?

MS. BROWN: Obviously he's someone for whom the Attorney-General has a great deal of respect.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he an elected official?

MS. BROWN: No. The Toronto Star editorial said:

"Bennett is striking directly at the protection of

low- and middle-income British Columbians. 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 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. Given the overall tilt 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."

The members on the government side keep saying: "What about the

taxpayer?" Public-sector workers pay taxes; as a matter of fact, they

pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than most other

workers, because they come

[ Page 301 ]

in that middle- and low-income group that carries the brunt of the taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MS. BROWN: Public-sector workers pay taxes. That's a fact.

And because they fall in the category.... In case the new member

doesn't know, 66 percent of the public-sector workers making less than

$20,000 are women. That's where the brunt of the taxes is borne. They

have no tax shelter. They don't have a ferry pass or a bus pass. They

don't have an expense account. They have to pay taxes on that. They

carry the brunt of the tax burden, these low- and middle-income

workers. So when the government members say, "What about the

taxpayers?" it's the taxpayers that they're firing. When you talk about

services to seniors and to people on income assistance, those people

pay taxes. Everybody pays the social service tax. Every time you

purchase an item you pay a tax. The most unfair form of taxation hits

everybody, whether they are on welfare, on old-age pension, on

disability pension, on workers' compensation, or whatever. There isn't

anyone in this province who doesn't pay tax of one sort or another.

Maybe that's a lesson that the government members need to learn as they

sit there and say: "What about the taxpayers?"

Of course, it's true that children don't pay taxes. So if that's the

group that the government wants to penalize and punish, they are doing

a great job of that when they start cutting family-care workers,

child-care workers, sexual assault teams and child abuse teams. If they

want to ride in on the backs of the kids, they're doing a super job of

that. There isn't any question that the Attorney-General, with his

failure to deal with the needs of juveniles in the system, is doing one

of the best jobs of riding in on the backs of the kids of this province.

The nurses of British Columbia are not known as a very radical

group. They said that the government's message is clear. They issued a

statement which says: "Nurses and other public employees must be

punished for the crime of being employed taxpayers." I don't think

anyone would refer to the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C. as a

social democratic organization. The nurses' statement goes on to say:

"All of this repressive legislation jeopardizes nursing care. Nurses

and other public employees understand all too clearly now what the

Solidarity union in Poland.... Like Solidarity, however, we will

not give up." That's not a New Democratic Party statement. That's the

nurses' statement.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) stated in a

press release, when she was introducing the child abuse team: "The

protection of children from abuse and neglect is a top priority of the

Ministry of Human Resources." What is the first group in the ministry

to be cut? The top priority that she talked about. That's the kind of

hypocrisy that this piece of legislation introduces.

I want to say something about the seniors, the poor and the

disadvantaged people. They don't save their money. They spend it. One

of the things that the government people tend to forget is that it's

because of the money that they spend — their role as consumers — that a

lot of jobs and a lot of small business enterprises are able to

succeed. So every time they start talking about feeding at the public

trough, I want to remind them that the income assistance recipients are

not the ones feeding at the public trough. If anyone is feeding at the

public trough it's the elected people in this House.

Do you know what happens with this piece of legislation? What it

does is create an atmosphere in which all kinds of anti-social

behaviour, which was never accepted before, suddenly becomes

acceptable. When you wipe out a Human Rights Commission, what you begin

to say — or the message which you as a government are putting out there

— is that discrimination against people because of their sex, race or

religion is okay, that it's permissible in this province. When you wipe

out a Human Rights Commission and wipe out the human rights branch and

fire the executive director, what you are saying is that racism is fine

in this province. We now have a province that is open and fair game for

anyone who wants to discriminate against you because you are disabled

or because you're old or because you're female, or whatever.

I want to give you one example of the kind of thing that happens

today that couldn't have happened before, and this is no big deal.

You've heard of the B.C. Summer Games — we're all very proud of the

B.C. Summer Games. My kids participated in those games. I attended the

Summer Games in Kelowna. The whole idea of the Summer Games is to get

everyone to participate. I have a letter here, and I'll start out by

saying although this is no big deal it tells you a little bit about the

kinds of things that happen in this province now that everyone knows

human rights have gone by the board. This year, the cricket teams that

participate in the Summer Games do so by invitation only. I have in my

hand a letter to the chairman of the B.C. Summer Games, with a copy to

the Provincial Secretary, indicating that the only cricket team in

British Columbia not invited to participate in the B.C. Summer Games is

the West Indian team. It's the only one. When the team approached the

chairman of the Summer Games and asked why they were not included, they

were told that this year the decision was made that teams were to be

invited; you couldn't just be a part of the games, you had to be

invited by the B.C. Cricket Association. And when they approached the

president of the B.C. Cricket Association and asked why they were not

invited, the president said the decision was made not to invite them.

It was pointed out to the president of the B.C. Cricket Association and

to the chairman of the B.C. Summer Games that the West Indian team

perceived this to be

an act of racism because they are the only cricket

team in this province not included in that invitation.

As I say, it's no big deal. I don't understand why anybody wants to

play cricket anyway. I don't understand it. It's a game I observe

because I observe it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a man's game.

MS. BROWN: Yes, it's a man's game. Right.

[4:30]

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, they have filed — were about to

file — a complaint with the Human Rights Commission because the

president of the B.C. Cricket Association was unable to give any reason

whatsoever for not issuing an invitation to them. There is no Human

Rights Commission, no human rights branch, so it's okay now. Any time

an association, whether it has to do with the B.C. Summer Games or

anything else, decides that it doesn't want to include a group because

it doesn't like West Indians, doesn't want them playing cricket,

doesn't want them participating in the games, that's okay now. There's

not a thing the West Indian cricket team can do.

You think they're going to go to court over this? If they went to court they'd wait two or three years anyway before

[ Page 302 ]

they had a hearing. Under normal circumstances they'd have filed a

complaint with the Human Rights Commission. Under normal circumstances

they would not have been excluded, because the climate of the province

would have been such that whether or not the president of the B.C.

Cricket Association likes West Indians, he would not have dared to

exclude them. He would have known they would file a complaint with the

Human Rights Commission, and there would have been an investigation.

But the signal is out. The executive director of the B.C. human rights

branch was fired without cause. The Human Rights Commission was

terminated without cause. That's what this bill permits you to do.

Now everyone knows the signal is out. It's open season on minority

groups. It's open season on anybody who would normally be protected by

the Human Rights Commission, by a human rights branch, by human rights

legislation. Terminated without cause: the executive director fired

without cause, the commission terminated without cause. Now we know in

this province it's okay, the only province in Canada where there is no

Human Rights Commission, and the Provincial Secretary thinks it's

funny. As I said when I raised this issue, this is nothing compared to

the kinds of issues and treatment that minority groups are going to

begin to get in this province as a direct result of the wiping out of

the Human Rights Commission — as a direct result of that government

serving notice to the world at large that in British Columbia it's open

season on minority groups.

The domestics and farmworkers have been knocking themselves out for

years asking for some protection under the Labour Code. They got it.

Now there's nowhere for them to go. Fired without due cause. Why should

anyone want to hire or care about hiring or even give an explanation

for not hiring a minority group person? What are you going to do about

it? When my daughter applies for a job somewhere and someone says, "I

don't want to hire you; I'm not hiring blacks today, " what's she going

to do? Where is she going to go? Did the Attorney-General stand up and

make one single statement about that? That Attorney-General defended

legislation that allowed this government to fire without cause the

executive director of the human rights branch and to wipe out and fire

without cause the Human Rights Commission, and leave every single

minority group person in this province, every single person who needs

the protection of a Human Rights Commission, vulnerable. That's what

this is all about. The climate has now been set. Nobody in this

province is safe.

AN HON. MEMBER: No job is safe.

MS. BROWN: Your job's not safe — you're not safe! No child is

safe from sexual or physical abuse, because that's been wiped out.

Women in Nelson have just received notice that their transition

house.... You can batter them until they're black and blue and you

have nothing to worry about, because they have been told that their

transition house is not going to get any funding because in the

interest of restraint there isn't any money to protect them. What this

government has done through this piece of legislation and through its

actions since it took office is to ensure that nobody — and no child —

is safe in this province. That's what this legislation is all about.

There is no need for me to re-use the words used in the past to

describe this government's actions and what it's doing, but when you

start cutting out programs and services that protect the vulnerable

members of your society, Mr. Speaker, then you return to barbarism;

that's what you do. This is no longer a civilized society that we're

living in in this province. This government has served notice that it

is okay to sexually abuse and batter children, to batter women, to

discriminate against people because of their race, sex, age, disability

or whatever.

That's what this government has served notice of under this piece of

legislation. Why am I even bothering to ask that this government

withdraw this piece of legislation? I would be wasting my time. But in

all conscience I cannot terminate what I'm about to say without making

that one last plea. Whether it is by amendment or by withdrawing the

entire bill and taking a second look at the whole situation, I think

that to deprive the working people, either in the public or private

sector, of due cause — to wipe out a Human Rights Commission, to fire

people who work in the area of sexual abuse against children and

battered women — is barbaric.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move adjournment of this debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Ree

Reynolds

Reid

Parks

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

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when the hon.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) tabled the Justice Development

Commission report, he stated that he wanted to "table the annual report

of the Justice Development Commission, whatever that is." I have just

received a copy of the Blues, and am a little bit surprised to find

that it reads that he is tabling the annual report of the Justice

Development Commission, but there is no mention of his comment

"whatever that is." I'm wondering whether the Speaker would like to

find out whether there was a breakdown in the machinery or precisely

what happened, because I know that the Attorney General will agree with

me that he actually did say that.

[ Page 303 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will undertake to review the matter.

MR. D'ARCY: In this debate on second reading of Bill 3, I want to make

the point that the government really has no need or desire to do what they say

they want to do, and that they have other motives in bringing this bill in.

The effect of this bill on people who work in the public service in British

Columbia.... I want to emphasize, because the apologists for the government

like to make the point that we are only dealing with the public service of the

B.C. government — which is certainly not the case at all — that we are dealing

with every person employed under provincial jurisdiction in any public job anywhere

in the province.

[4:45]

1 have considerable concern about the effect this bill is going to

have on professionals and others employed in the public service who are

expected to give an impartial analysis and recommendation based on

their professional judgments. What happens if an employee of the fire

marshal's office is investigating a fire and happens to suspect that

possibly something strange has gone on, but that possibly that building

or piece of property is owned by a prominent supporter of the party in

power — in this case the Social Credit Party? What happens with

assessors employed by the B.C. Assessment Authority when they appraise

an assessed property for property taxation purposes in this province?

What about liquor administration branch inspectors when they

investigate liquor licence violations or applications? What about the

people who grant liquor licences, if they reject those applications

when those persons happen to be known friends of the government? What

about health inspectors when they are making inspections of community

care facilities — private or public — as well as inspections of

restaurants and sewage installations, subdivisions and that sort of

thing? All of those professionals in this province are going to be

under a cloud. What about building inspectors and Workers' Compensation

Board inspectors responsible for the safety of the public and the

working people in this province?

The government doesn't need this act to accomplish what they say

they want to accomplish. There are at most — and this is a very

generous estimate — 25,000 people who are covered by a very generous

interpretation of the definition of tenure. This means there are at

least 225,000 people covered under this bill who do not have tenure

today, and have never had it and have never asked for it. Tell me, Mr.

Speaker, if anybody on the government side can get up and assure this

House that there are workers in B.C. Hydro who have tenure? Can the

member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) tell us that? Workers in

B.C. Hydro don't have tenure. Can any of you members who live up and

down the B.C. Railway get up in this House and tell us whether any of

those workers have or have ever had tenure? They haven't, they don't

have it, they've never asked for it and they've never needed it.

Because they're loyal to the people they have worked for — up to this

point — and they have been faithful to their employers.

Let's find out if there was anybody in Crown corporations such as

the Ferry Corporation or the Buildings Corporation, who have or ever

had tenure. They don't, Mr. Speaker. The bus drivers of this province

working for Metro Transit, the hospital workers, the municipal workers,

the university workers — other than those fat-cat professors — none of

them have ever had tenure. If the government really believes in what

they're saying, that they're opposed to tenure, then they should simply

bring in a bill affecting those 25,000 people within the provincial

civil service, and a handful of university professors, who in fact do

have tenure. And they should deliberately exclude all of these quarter

of a million people from any mention of the fact that anybody can have

his job terminated without cause.

The private sector does not do this; it never has. Those members on

the opposite side who are employers themselves in their private lives,

and those members who are from management and know something about

personnel operations, know that the private sector respects its

employees, and they know that with or without union contracts the

private sector does not fire people indiscriminately. When layoffs come

because a department is closed, because of technological change or

because of economic adversity, those layoffs take place in some

reasoned, logical way, with consultation with the employees involved;

and when a plant or department closes, everything possible is done

within the private sector to find jobs elsewhere — sometimes elsewhere

on the continent, sometimes even in another country, but the private

sector finds jobs for those employees.

The member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond) isn't in the House now,

but he knows that when that Gulf refinery shut down a month or so ago,

some of those employees were even sent to South America. Gulf Canada

found jobs for them; they didn't just send them pink slips and say:

"You're gone. Ho, ho, ho!" When MacMillan Bloedel closes a plant they

find jobs, if possible, for those employees. The Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) himself, who is not in the House, is a CPR employee.

How would he feel if, instead of working for that corporation, he

worked for the CNR and the federal government brought in a law that

simply said he could be fired indiscriminately, simply because he was a

member of the Social Credit Party? We also know that, with or without

any contract that he may have been under, when the CPR terminated his

job in Invermere they would have found him another job somewhere else —

in Regina, Winnipeg, Montreal, possibly even here in Victoria, but they

would have found him a job. If he ever has to go back to the private

sector, they would probably still find him a job.

What about the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Rogers)? He's not in the House either. Before he came here

he was an airline pilot. He may even have worked for a Crown

corporation. Does he believe that it's fair that that Crown corporation

or that federal government, which has the ultimate jurisdiction, could

simply tell him that he is fired, that he is an incompetent person,

simply because they don't like his politics, or anything else about him.

This bill goes beyond totalitarian governments. We have seen

totalitarian governments in developed, industrialized countries within

the last generation. None of them had laws on the books such as this

one. We have seen very right-wing governments elected in various

jurisdictions among our neighbours to the south. None of them have ever

enacted legislation like this. I believe that even that great

arch-conservative, Jesse Helms, would be shocked by this type of

legislation. We did not see legislation like this in the colonels'

Greece, in Salazar's Portugal, in Franco's Spain, in Peron's Argentina

— the list goes on. I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker: there is not now,

nor has there ever been, a shred of evidence given by any speaker on

behalf of the government as to why they need this legislation.

[ Page 304 ]

Thirty percent — far more than the government says it wants to

reduce the provincial civil service by — of the provincial civil

service does not have tenure today, even without this bill. The

employees of the Crown corporations, the hospitals, the school boards,

the community care facilities and the municipalities do not have tenure

and have never had it. The government simply cannot show a shred of

reason why they need this legislation. And they know it. But they keep

coming up with these fatuous, specious arguments as to why we should

have this sort of thing in the province of British Columbia.

I'd like to talk particularly to those members opposite who have

their own business or are part of a business. You know very well that

you do not, never have and never would treat your own employees this

way. Because for the operations of your businesses you require the

loyalty, faith and competence of the people who work with you. You know

that if you abrogate that loyalty it will hurt your business interests.

So you wouldn't treat people that way. But you're prepared, in the

public sector, to see people treated that way, because you don't care

about the public sector; you don't care about how money is spent in

this province.

You don't care about how taxpayers' funds are spent. You don't care

about what the international banking and business community thinks of

you. That's why Moody's has lowered the credit rating of this province.

Moody's looked at this bill, Mr. Speaker, and decided it was restraint

for the B.C. economy but not restraint for the government. That's what

they decided, and that's why they lowered the credit rating. Moody's

have sent you a message over there, and if you don't hear it you're not

going to be there next time.

The international business community has looked at the fact that 70

percent of the debt of this province was acquired by this government

over the last seven years, and that another $4 billion is supposed to

be borrowed in this year. They've said: "You're not getting that as

cheaply as you did in the past." And they're going to charge us more

for it because of the profligacy of this government.

The reason they need this bill is that the people across the way

don't really care about the economy; they only care about the

opportunities that their friends have.

A number of people in my riding have expressed concern about this,

and they aren't all working people. Many of them are employers. A

number have written or phoned who are definitely not supporters of the

New Democratic Party. They're not even Liberals. Many people who have

expressed concern are honourable people who say that they are

Conservative Party supporters and they used to be Social Credit

supporters; they're not going to be Social Credit supporters any more,

because it's the Tories who are the most shocked — the true Tories, the

honourable Tories — by this kind of legislation. They would not support

this kind of legislation in the federal jurisdiction, in Ontario, in

Alberta or anywhere else.

The government knows that they made a serious tactical error six

days ago when they fired 500 people. Mr. Speaker, they want this bill

passed as soon as possible. They don't want people out there to realize

that the bell tolls for them. They don't want the employees of B.C.

Hydro, B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferry, B.C. Assessment Authority, the people who

work for universities, school boards, municipalities, in hospitals and

community care facilities to realize that we're not just talking about

some mythical, so-called civil servant somewhere who isn't doing his

job. The government doesn't want the public to realize that, so they

want this bill through fast. The government really wish they hadn't

made that terrible tactical error last week of sending out those

dismissal notices. That's what got the public shocked, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, there was a shock wave from the budget itself. And yes, there

was a shock wave from the tabling of this legislation. But it was the

actual firing notices and the method of enforcement that really got the

public's attention.

So the government has interrupted the traditions of parliament,

which give the debate on the budget precedence over all other business.

It has used its authoritarianism to get this bill jammed through the

House before the public realizes what's really in it.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If they really believed what they say they do as the need for this

bill, they would not have the provisions for arbitrary, authoritarian

firing in it. They would simply have a simple bill that removed tenure

from civil servants with more than three years in the public service

and from university professors — 25,000 people at the most — and they'd

have no need, even for them, to have a provision for firing without,

cause.

I am not surprised at the kind of logical-rational argument we're

hearing on this side of the House. What does disturb me, though, is the

kind of idiotic rationale and crazy arguments I'm hearing from across

the way in justification of this bill. I would really like to hear a

single member across the way get up and provide some direct, logical,

sensible rationale as to why this bill is needed. Even if one of them

got up and said, "I agree with you — we're doing it because we want to

scare the heck out of everybody in the public service in this province,

and everybody who works in the private sector as well, " I would

respect them more. But with these specious, fatuous arguments, this

talk about tenure when no tenure exists or ever has existed, they

insult the intelligence of everyone in this province and in this

country.

If those members of the treasury benches who had such a good time

down on Broadway last year and the year before and the year before that

went back there this year, they would find that they're not being taken

very seriously down there. They would find that they're being laughed

at down there; that's what they would find.

I thought we had a number of people in this House who cared about

the economy here. I thought even you, Mr. Speaker, cared about public

sector employees in the Prince George area, especially those who may

work for B.C. Rail or the provincial government. Obviously, since the

government is jamming this through, not a single member on the

government side cares one whit about public sector or Crown

corporation employees anywhere in this province. Not a single member

over there.

I believe that all the charges that have been made, all the innuendo

over the years and all the statements that have been made outside this

House by editorial writers and columnists about the true motives of

this government are now being proved to be correct. The motivations of

this government are anti-societal, are to hurt the economy, and are to

throw a roadblock before any reasonable development of a proper, sane,

rational, comfortable society in this province. I think this government

should be thrown out of office at the first possible opportunity.

[ Page 305 ]

Before I sit down, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Barrett

Howard

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. REYNOLDS: I hadn't planned to speak in this debate but

after listening to all the nonsense from the party across, I felt I had

to get up and speak. It's unfortunate that the second member for

Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Lauk) is leaving, because I told him I only had a

ten-minute speech. If he would sit here I could probably turn it into a

40-minute one. Maybe he'll come back and listen to some of the reasons.

I see the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is leaving, too. She

likes to get up and talk about a lot of nonsense, but she's really

afraid to listen to the truth of the matter.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I thought that it might be interesting at this stage in the debate,

after listening to some of these members of the NDP, to read the

explanatory notes of the bill. I was reading them myself this

afternoon. I hadn't paid much attention to that part of it until I kept

on listening to their speeches. I've read the rest of the bill,

but....

MR. BLENCOE: He hadn't read it.

MR. REYNOLDS: I don't think you've read it. I think the

second member for Victoria should read it. I'm going to read it for

him; maybe he can't read that well:

"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. In

addition the act provides that the government may establish an

equitable and consistent scheme for compensating senior management in

the public sector."

I can't see anything in that explanatory note that reaches the statements that these hon. members from the NDP are making.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm going to get back to some of the things you've been talking about.

This morning I heard on the radio that the coordinating committee of

the unions is going to put up $250,000 for an advertising campaign

against this bill. I couldn't help but think that here the unions of

this province are putting up $250,000 when these members are talking

about the poor people who are going to be out of work. The member for

Burnaby-Edmonds talks about Rape Relief and other child abuse programs,

and here's a union that is going to blow $250,000 for the CBC and the

CTV and the Vancouver Sun , and the Vancouver Province .

MR. SKELLY: It's not the taxpayers' money.

MR. REYNOLDS: Listen! We could hire Fred Latremouille any

time. It's just like Jimmy Pattison can hire the Leader of the

Opposition any time he wants to make a little more money than he is

making here. If the rest of his group don't start making a little more

sense in some of the statements they're making, I suggest he go. You'll

have a lot of fun at it.

I've had a number of calls today from some people in the financial

community, not the big rich guys that you want to talk about. I'm

talking about stockbrokers who aren't making fortunes. They're

hard-working guys out in the field, and they are saying: "What's wrong

with these guys on the other side? Don't they understand that the

government has to have the power and has to get rid of some of these

civil servants and some of the jobs that are unnecessary?" I would

suggest to some of these members that the rentalsman's office is an

expense that the government doesn't need and cannot afford at this

time. I'm not ashamed to see it go. I'm not ashamed to see the testing

stations go down. To hear the nonsense that we hear, Mr. Speaker....

The first member for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes) said it was a

reign of terror in the province. My god, I was getting afraid to walk

from here down to the Royal Scot last night because of the reign of

terror that was taking over this province. It's still the freest

country in the world and the greatest province in Canada, and these

guys think it's a reign of terror.

They talk about the Human Rights Commission and the abolishment of

it. Why don't they read the bill closely and they'll see that there is

going to be up to a five-man group that will sit there and look at the

problems in this province. Human rights have not been abolished in this

province.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Five-man or five-woman. Would you like to put it that way?

They don't want to look at that aspect of the bill because they

don't want to tell the people of this province the truth. They just

want to yell and scream and make lots of noise because the unions are

telling them to. They've got the message from the groups who run this

party — the labour movement in this province. This party here were not

really

[ Page 306 ]

attending that well until the unions got onto their backs last week and now they're here in great numbers every day.

[5:15]

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds made a great issue in her speech

about this bill having an effect o