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 )

TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

365 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

McKim advertising work for Socred party and government. Mr. Cocke –– 365

City of Vancouver expenditures on trip to Odessa. Mr. Reid –– 365

Tourism report on Queen Charlotte Islands. Mr. Lea –– 365

Natural gas prices. Mr. Lauk –– 366

Disposal of contaminated waste. Mrs. Wallace –– 366

Amalgamation of Victoria hospitals. Mr, Blencoe 366

Utilities Commission hearings on natural gas pipeline to Island. Mr. Lockstead –– 367

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

Mr. Passarell –– 367

On the amendment

Mr. Gabelmann –– 372

Mr. Lea –– 376

Mr. Cocke –– 381

Mr. Lank –– 384

TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1983

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It is my pleasure this afternoon to introduce

two constituents of mine from the fine community of Powell River: Mr.

and Mrs. Mould. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. REID: I would ask the House to give special welcome today

to Karen Reynolds from Vancouver. She's a very active community worker

and a very strong supporter of good government and good leadership.

She's the mother of a lovely young lady who is also my godchild.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the members' gallery today are

constituents of mine, Bill and Beryl Slessor, from Penticton, B.C.; and

in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, friends from Faulder, B.C., a large

community on the outskirts of Summerland, Sandy and Preston Mott. I

would ask the House to welcome them both.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the visitors' gallery today is a

long-time resident of the city of Kamloops who was very active in

community life but is now retired. I would ask the House to welcome Mr.

Jock Thomas.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, visiting in the House this afternoon

are three people seated in your gallery. I would ask the House to join

me in making them welcome. They are Mr. Elmer Verigin and Mr. Finn

Levick of Trail, and Mr. Peter Trog from Basel, Switzerland.

Oral Questions

McKIM ADVERTISING WORK

FOR SOCRED PARTY AND GOVERNMENT

MR. COCKE: I would like to direct a question to the

Provincial Secretary. The advertising agency mentioned in the

auditor-general's special report regarding secret bank accounts, double

billing and a million-dollar cost overrun has been identified as McKim

Agencies Ltd. Can the minister advise whether this is the same as the

McKim Advertising Ltd. which was appointed in May 1982 as sole monopoly

buyer of advertising space and time for the provincial government?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I can't.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could resign

under the circumstances. If he doesn't know who does all their

advertising, who would?

Can the minister advise whether this McKim Agencies is the one which

acted as the sole buyer of advertising space and time for the Social

Credit Party during the recent provincial election campaign? Or would

he not know that either?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I can't.

MR. COCKE: In view of the serious allegations of double

billing, extra billing, overbilling and absence of responsible

financial control, has the minister decided, since he's now informed,

to suspend the McKim advertising agency as agency of record with the

provincial government?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I haven't.

MR. COCKE: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, he admits that they're agents of record. In view of this shocking revelation about the Social....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It's a shocking revelation, but he said no, he's

not going to cancel them. In view of this shocking revelation about the

Socred's main advertising firm, which also provides the same function

for the government, has the minister decided to request an

investigation into other dealings of the McKim advertising agency in

the 18 other government ministries? At the same time, would the

minister advise the Attorney-General that it should be taken out of the

Attorney- General's ministry and given to the police?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll take the question as notice.

CITY OF VANCOUVER EXPENDITURE

ON TRIP TO ODESSA

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

Affairs. Does the minister have authority over the city of Vancouver in

its expenditure in time of restraint of $30,000 of taxpayers' money on

a trip to Odessa?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's a very interesting question indeed.

The city of Vancouver comes under its own charter. It's unfortunate but

such expenditures do not require the approval of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

TOURISM REPORT ON

QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

MR. LEA: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Some time

ago there was an internal task force looking into industrial and

economic development surrounding tourism for the Queen Charlotte

Islands. The minister sent me a letter, dated May 10, saying that that

report was not available to the public. Can the minister confirm

whether public funds were spent in the production of that report?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I cannot.

[2:15]

MR. LEA: To the same minister: I would assume that because it

was done in the Ministry of Tourism, public funds were spent on that

report. In the letter the minister said it was not to be released to

the public. In view of the fact that so much money has been spent on

tourism, according to the auditor-general's report, on matters not

important to the public — in other words, they wasted money — can the

minister tell me why this report that was paid for by public funds is

not available to the public?

[ Page 366 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the report will be available to the public in due course.

MR. LEA: Can the minister give me some time-frame? What does "due course" mean to the minister?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it means exactly that: at some time in the future.

NATURAL GAS PRICES

MR. LAUK: A question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. The federal government has decided to reduce the

excise tax on domestic sales of natural gas, effective this summer. Has

the government decided to pass this reduction on to consumers?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of policy that has not yet been addressed by the government.

MR. LAUK: Well, you have about ten days. When are you going to address the problem?

HON. MR. ROGERS: In due course.

MR. LAUK: I've always had a great admiration for the honest arrogance of the hon. minister.

Can the minister assure the House that the drop in the federal

excise tax will not be used as an excuse to increase government

revenues at the expense of natural gas customers in the province?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It is a question of policy, Mr. Speaker. We have not yet determined it.

MR. LAUK: I take it then that all natural gas users in this

province can expect to have an increase in their natural gas rates, and

supplement the profligate spending of this government.

Has the minister decided . ?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just the Bank of Commerce.

MR. LAUK: Are you still defending the Bank of Commerce, Mr. Premier? They've got high-priced help to help them defend the CIBC.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, has the minister decided to table the

Govier report into natural gas pricing in British Columbia? It has been

available, as I understand it, for some time.

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

MR. LAUK: Why has the government decided not to release the Govier report?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, that question doesn't follow the previous question. We have just not decided to release it at this time.

MR. LAUK: When has the government decided to release the report?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Once again, Mr. Speaker, in due course.

MR. LAUK: I'd like to say that in due course the sun will burn itself out and so will this government.

DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED WASTE

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Brummet). Last month residents of Surrey were shocked to

discover that barrels of PCB-contaminated wastes were disposed of

carelessly in their community. As the minister knows, presently under

investigation is the B.C. Place proposal to dump similarly contaminated

wastes in the Straits of Georgia. Radioactive wastes continue to be a

problem in Surrey and in other areas. Has the minister decided to take

some action to provide for safe disposal of hazardous wastes in B.C.?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is yes.

MRS. WALLACE: Would he be prepared to advise the House what action he is proposing to take?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as soon as that's fully determined.

MRS. WALLACE: Five years ago the Energy Board promised to

find an appropriate site for wastes before December 1, 1980. Has the

minister contacted the Atomic Energy Control Board to pressure them for

action? Has the minister made any contact with the Atomic Energy

Control Board?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not personally, no.

AMALGAMATION OF VICTORIA HOSPITALS

MR. BLENCOE: My question goes to the Minister of Health. Over

the weekend the minister announced the amalgamation of the two Victoria

hospitals. I'd like the minister to assure the House that the

consolidation of the Royal Jubilee Hospital and the Victoria General

Hospital will not result in staff layoffs. Can he assure the House of

that?

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

MR. BLENCOE: I take it that by not assuring this House that

there won't be, he us saying that there will indeed be layoffs. That's

how I take it.

On a supplementary, the Diversicare report, which was written about

these two hospitals, strongly recommended the consolidation of them,

but it also recommended employing a firm of private enterprise health

care managers under management contract to manage both hospitals for

the new board. Can the minister assure the House that he has not

decided to accept this recommendation of the Diversicare report along

with the consolidation of the two boards?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member can take whatever he wants in

whatever proportion and manner. That does not necessarily mean that

it's policy. No, I can't assure him of

[ Page 367 ]

that. That could be the recommendation and the

decision of the hospital board. Should they decide to make that

recommendation at some time in the future, then it would be considered,

but that may be the board's decision to make in that they have the

responsibility for operating the facilities.

MR. BLENCOE: Is it the minister's policy to privatize the management of hospitals in British Columbia?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's not my policy, no.

MR. BLENCOE: As supplementary, has the minister decided to

allow for locally elected representatives on the combined board, or

will he appoint the entire board?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Initially there will be four

representatives from each of the two boards as they exist now,

including the chairman, and there will be four or five members

appointed from the community at large. That will be the initial

composition of the board. What the future may hold may, to a large

degree, be up to that board. We haven't decided as yet.

MR. BLENCOE: Who decides the board members?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The two existing boards will decide their

four board members, one of which will be the chairman, and I will

decide the balance of the board initially.

UTILITIES COMMISSION HEARINGS ON

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO ISLAND

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. Can the minister advise why the

Utilities Commission hearings on the Vancouver Island pipeline, earlier

promised for June 1983, have been delayed?

HON. MR. ROGERS: There's been a delay in presenting the terms

of reference for the hearing into the Vancouver Island natural gas

pipeline. I anticipate their being available within ten days, and the

hearings starting in August.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister was good enough to answer two questions that I had here in one answer.

I have another question for the minister. In view of the fact that

the Utilities Commission is on the hit list under Bill 3, can the

minister advise this House that the Utilities Commission will be able

to perform and conclude their hearings into the proposed natural gas

line to Vancouver Island in a meaningful and constructive way?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled an answer to a question standing in his name on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the member for Atlin.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, if that man can become leader,

anybody can in this province. The only difference between us is that I

don't own a hardware store.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, let's get it over with. If we're going

to start talking about grizzlies You people are bringing in this bill

that's going to put 250,000 families in jeopardy. Do you want to talk

about grizzlies or do you want to talk about what we're facing today,

Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) ?

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to see you dressed up today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What are we going to do with you, hon. member? To the bill, please.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised....

Oh, no! Don't leave, please. Come, sit back. I always enjoy making a

speech with my favourite son sitting over there, but he's leaving.

Mr. Speaker, I took this bill home this weekend, up to Atlin —

beautiful, sunny Atlin — and was talking to a friend of mine who

stopped over for....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A grizzly hunt!

MR. PASSARELL: There we go! We want to talk about grizzlies again — the Minister of Health, as he closes hospitals, or whatever the case is.

So this friend stops by, Mr. Speaker. He's been out in the bush for

about four months. He didn't even know the Socreds had won, so that was

a shock to him when I told him that they really had 35 seats. He said:

"Oh, come on now. They didn't get 35 seats." I said: "Yeah, they got 35

seats." So I said: "Bob, what do you think of this bill?" He says:

"Well, let me see it."

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, nobody's been able to find him since. He's selling his house in Terrace to come to Victoria.

So he looks at the explanatory note, which says:

"The purpose of this act is to permit public sector

employers to terminate employees for the purpose of decreasing the size

and complexity of the public sector operation, and to increase their

efficiency and effectiveness in providing service 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."

So he says: "Well, what did these Socreds win on during the campaign? Did they win on this bill?" And I said: "Well,

[ Page 368 ]

they never mentioned anything of this nature prior

to the election, or during the election campaign, but once they had the

35-seat mandate, they decided to bring this in as one of their first

pieces of legislation." And he says: "You know, the first part sounds

good. But the second part: '...a scheme for compensating senior

management in the public sector....' Anytime I see lawyers or

government ministers start talking about schemes, it scares me a little

bit. What else is in this bill?" He turns it to the

interpretation

section, and once again the first part says an employee means "a person

employed by a public sector employer but does not include a justice or

a person employed as a justice." So it's okay to scam everybody else

with this scheme, except a judge. As you know, you can't deal with a

judge that way, because he'd put you in jail. "It's still pretty

funny," he says, and goes down through this thing to termination of

employees.

[2:30]

I'm not going to refer to specific sections, Mr. Speaker, because

we'll be dealing with them in committee stage, One of my hon. friends

sitting across from me today will stand up on a point of order. We'll

wait on that for a little bit longer so that we can stretch it out.

To be serious for a second, Mr. Speaker, I became a Canadian by choice.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Regardless of the Provincial Secretary's

little jokes from across the floor, at least I did it by choice. I made

a concerned effort to do it because I believe in this country. I left a

country that was bringing in totalitarian legislation that I myself did

not agree with. Legislation brought in by the country that I left

ignored human rights and the right of the individual. I'm not

embarrassed about the country that I chose to be a citizen of, but I am

embarrassed that the province of B.C. is bringing in this bill.

When the United States brought in totalitarian legislation in the

mid and late sixties, it took a while for people to get active and find

exactly what was happening; but once they did, their voices were heard.

It took many years after the Vietnam fiasco for the United States

finally to get around to changing. I'm wondering if this government

wants to find itself in the same position of having to wait years to

undo the turmoil they're bringing forward with Bill 3. If they want to

take the chance, let them go ahead. They've got the mandate for the

next five years. They've got 35 seats to our 22, and in the game of

politics the one with the majority rules.

MR. REID: That's democracy.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, it is, Mr. Member; it is democracy.

That's the beautiful thing about this country. But when you start

bringing in legislation like Bill 3, that's not democracy, not when

you're talking about dismissing people without cause.

Termination of employees, just to go back, says: "A public sector

employer may terminate the employment of an employee without cause."

That's not democracy. We have acts for dismissing deadwood or people

who are causing problems in the public sector, but to put in

an act

such as this — "termination without cause?" What does that mean? I know

there was the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) if we want

to talk about cause. I guess you probably believed in your cause at

that time.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right, but I don't see that member standing up and defending this bill, or any of the other ex-Liberals in this House.

MR. PASSARELL: Even the back-benchers, the new ones.

When we start talking, as in

section 2, of termination without

cause, what does that mean? Does it mean that an individual who works

for the Highways department and never took out a membership in any

political party is scared now that his job will have no protection

unless he becomes a member of the Social Credit Party of British

Columbia?

MR. REID: Get him to do his job. That's all he has to do.

MR. PASSARELL: You're talking about individuals in the

Highways department who don't do their jobs? I live in a riding which

is a pretty isolated area, and I see a lot of good people out on the

highways working. Sure, there's deadwood, but....

MR. REID: There's lots of it.

MR. PASSARELL: But you don't put in

an act like this to

dismiss people without cause. At least tell them why. There are ways

now to get rid of that deadwood. I agree with the consent for the

purpose of this government, but to start talking about dismissing

people without cause...? It was always my understanding that if you

worked for the public sector you didn't have to belong to the NDP,

Liberals or Social Credit as a prerequisite for having a job. Maybe it

is now; maybe that is what this government is bringing in. You're

hanging a dagger over people's heads, saying you can dismiss them

without cause. To the individuals who were talking earlier about

democracy, that certainly doesn't sound like democracy to me.

I certainly hope that this government takes the responsibility of

its 35-seat mandate to bring in legislation — not totalitarian

legislation like this. When I was talking to Bob he said: "I know down

there in the animal house of Canadian parliaments it gets a little

wild. What kind of names are being thrown across the floor?" One name

that I've heard across this floor numerous times in the debates over

the last few days, and I'm pretty upset about it, has been the word

"Nazi." I certainly would hope that all hon. members would hold back on

using those kinds of terms. We can certainly clean this place up a

little bit.

HON. A. FRASER: You'd better get after that member of yours from Alberni.

MR. PASSARELL: Just settle down. You ought to fix that

Trans-Canada Highway. It's falling apart. Don't worry about that now.

Fix that road so that the tourists can get moving again.

As I have said, I think that term has been a little loose-lipped in

this Legislature. One of the individuals I'm directing it to is not in

the House, but I think that his colleagues on both sides of the House

could mention that those types of

[ Page 369 ]

terms should stop a little bit. It must be a bloody

embarrassment for half these people sitting here every time they hear

us calling each other "commies" and "pinkos" and "Nazis" and every

other bloody thing across the floor. One individual sitting here....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speaking of language....

MR. PASSARELL: On Bill 3. I'm trying to bring some....

MR. REID: Clean up the act.

MR. PASSARELL: Cleaning up the act, as my colleague in the corner says.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Show us leadership.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, don't you endorse me. That'd be the kiss of death, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. PASSARELL: The first

part I'd like to look at is the

interpretation of this bill. The

interpretation of it says that anyone

can be terminated in the public service except a judge. Well, we heard

the wisdom of old Bob: why didn't they put the judge in there, so they

wouldn't get thrown in jail for doing this stuff?

The second aspect is termination without cause. That was something

that I talked about a little earlier. I don't understand why you have

to put in the first

section of this bill, 2(l): "....may terminate the

employment of an employee without cause." It's taken a long time in

this country and across North America to start getting legislation to

protect workers, and employers too, from unjust cause. It's not just a

one-way street for workers. Part of this bill that I'll be questioning

during committee is why vice-principals and principals are now senior

management. While I was a principal myself I knew that there were times

when you found yourself in the management aspect. It can work as a

one-way street.

It's taken a long time to have some kind of collective bargaining in

this province and across this country and North America, but it's

interesting to note that in this bill in

section 2(5) it says that

everything after July 7, 1983, has no effect here. I just wonder when

we start talking about termination and collective agreements being

dismantled. Let's just take one sector, the teachers. We've heard from

the Minister of Education (Hon, Mr. Heinrich) that approximately 3,000

teachers will be canned over the next three years, and it'll probably

be closer to 5,000 or 6,000 out of the 29,000 teachers in this province

— but without due cause. We see this bill and then we also hear of

aspects like human rights legislation. The committee is being

dismantled. What type of protection do workers in this province have if

the government can go out without due cause and start canning people?

It was interesting that this government ran a campaign on jobs. It's

kind of ironic that you're talking about jobs while you put in a bill

like this where you can dismiss, hypothetically, 40,000 workers in this

province without due cause. That certainly is not a job creation

program, in my thinking.

Section 3, regulations respecting termination, is an interesting one, and this

goes through Bill 3: the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations

after the law is in effect regarding termination. That seems a little strange

also. Here we are; we've already said in

section 2 that we can terminate

up to, hypothetically, 40,000 workers in this province, and now we have the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in cabinet, being able to make regulations after

they've been canned in the law regarding their termination.

Section 3(2) says: "...determining which of the employees within the

unit will have their employment terminated." So we're talking about

little units now. It gets back to units. The whole

interpretation of

this bill is so wide-ranging that we can can 40,000 people,

hypothetically, and here we have something where the

Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council can make the law.

Skipping along to

section 4, once again the Lieutenant

Governor-in-Council keeps cropping up. They can make compensation. The

word is "can." I hope that's important, I hope that the back-benchers

sitting in here will protect those workers with the word "can." Nothing

is final; it just says "can" make compensation to, hypothetically,

40,000 people getting layoff notices in this province.

One of the strangest and most undemocratic parts of this bill is

section 5, the powers of a deputy minister: "In respect of a ministry

of the executive government, a deputy minister may exercise all of the

power of the government under this act." I wonder if that's democracy:

a political appointee may make all decisions for the executive

government. Why even have elections if a deputy minister, a political

appointee, has the power to make all decisions for government? I have

always thought that people in a democracy elect representatives to make

decisions for them, not that governments or political parties hire

flacks to make decisions for this province. I don't understand why a

non-elected person should have this wide-ranging power that's given to

a deputy minister in this bill.

I think one intent of this bill is to cut costs. I think most us in

this House forget political labels and really look at the

constituencies we represent. I think people are expecting us to cut

some costs and save some money for the taxpayers of this province.

That's our responsibility. But, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many members

in this House have read

section 6. If you read

section 6 closely in

relation to the bill, it is going to cost a lot more just through

paperwork than canning workers, which is the intent of this bill. The

paper entrepreneurs shuffling paper again.

[2:45]

We see more than just cutbacks, particularly in subsections (2)(

a) through (2)(e). The word conflicts comes up in this bill. Certainly

there are going to be conflicts, when you talk about 40,000 public

sector employees in this province, which affects 50,000 families. But

this act prevails.

This week when I came back from my home in Atlin I noticed some

newspaper articles, which I'd like to refer to. In the Vancouver Sun ,

Saturday, July 16, 1983, there is a whole

section of letters to the

editor. It says: "Right-wing policy plus love of monuments equals

fascism." Well, I don't know about that; I think that's going off in a

strange direction. "Right-wing policy" — sure. "Love of monuments" —

I'll be one of the first to take credit for some statements I've made

regarding building monuments in this province.

There's half a page here. Just looking at some of the names, I don't

think these people are NDP hacks, or that any hack is being paid to

write these. I think they are just concerned citizens of this province

who are wondering what kind

[ Page 370 ]

of legislation this government is bringing forth after its large mandate.

Larry Kazdan, Vancouver: "I'm for government restraint. Put Bill

Bennett in a straitjacket." Another one, from Barry Pither in Burnaby:

"What are you shocked about? Bill Bennett merely wants

everyone to realize how easy it is to fool the people all of the time.

After all, no doubt he found it rather fun to keep a straight face when

talking about restraint during the election, knowing all the while that

his top gun with the compensation stabilization program was being paid

$300."

Another one, from Mrs. Hager in Burnaby:

"Why the furore because 5,000 public servants are

losing their jobs? After all, in the last two years nearly ten times

that number have lost their jobs in the private sector. Why should the

government tax us just to keep someone in a job? We lived without their

services before and perhaps it is the best thing that ever happened to

us that they're being fired. Now we'll have to start to think for

ourselves and use our own initiative to solve our problems."

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Just to show I'm unbiased, I read two against you and one for you.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I don't think it was quite two to one; I think

your popular mandate was 50.9 percent. Mr. Speaker, it's pretty

difficult for a government to have the mandate I had: a 380,000 percent

increase in popular vote from the 1979 election to the 1983 election.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: I have to be fair about this stuff.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You should be leader.

MR. PASSARELL: No, no, no. That's the kiss of death, coming from you.

To go back to this, why the furor over 5,000 public servants losing

their jobs? After all, in the last two years ten times that number have

lost their jobs in the private sector. That first paragraph is a pretty

hard one to defend at times, but I'd like to concentrate on the second

paragraph of this letter: "Now we have to start to think for ourselves

and use our initiative to solve our problems." Let's say this bill, if

it becomes effective, will can 5,000 highway employees; now does this

individual in Burnaby expect somebody up in Iskut or Dease Lake to

build their own, if they are having problems on the highway or their

vehicle can't get across because a bridge caved in? Do we expect the

public of this province to grab shovels? I think there was one

individual in this Legislature.... He's no longer here. I don't see him.

MR. SKELLY: He's out selling shovels.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right; he's a gardener now.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Much better. Certainly much more beautiful

than the previous first member for Surrey. I'll back off on that one,

Mr. Speaker, and get on to Bill 3.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I gave you a compliment. Just relax here.

Mr. Speaker, "....use our initiative to solve our problems." All

right, we start canning public sector employees in this province; are

we supposed to grab a shovel to fix a highway if a bridge caves in? If

we are having problems with a service that was provided by the

government, do we now have to go out and do our own? The law courts are

jammed with enough cases already, and are we to start looking at human

rights legislation being denied in this province? Unbelievable!

The other one I'd like to quote from is "One Man's Opinion" by

left-wing columnist Gorde Hunter. Any of us sitting in the hallowed

Legislature would certainly know that Mr. Hunter is a left-wing

journalist. Just a few quotes from him.

HON. MR. CHABOT: So is Allen Garr.

MR. PASSARELL: A few quotes for the peanut gallery here from the Times-Colonist ,

July 19, 1983: "The uproar surrounding the B.C. budget and the

government's attempt to cut (

a) the size of government and (

b) the cost

of government, is somewhat surprising and hypocritical." It goes on to

say: "Government means to govern." You've got the mandate and you've

got to do something. That's what the people of this province are

looking for — but not down at this end here.

AN HON. MEMBER: No?

MR. PASSARELL: No, I don't think so, as much as we still have to put forward across the floor here to the ex-Liberals.

This left-wing-journalist goes onto say: "There can be no question

some of the tabled Socred legislation is flawed and in need of second

thought, second look, whatever." Even the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Chabot), if he wasn't misquoted, stated something very similar in

this morning's paper — that they might just have to take a second look

at this bill. But then, you can't always believe what you read. I saw

him on television last night when I got off the plane at home, and he

said, "No." After that five minute meeting he said, "No, that's what

we're here for — to present a mandate, to present the legislation."

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I don't think you ever have to walk out on

things. I think sometimes if we would spend a little bit more time, if

we sat down and forgot these labels, we'd get a little more

accomplished.

This left-wing journalist continues: "If Bill Bennett has any street

smarts whatsoever, he will take that second look. But there can be no

serious question of the need for cost-cutting moves." You are not going

to find too many people in this House who don't believe in that

statement. There have to be some cost-cutting moves. But instead of

using a sharp knife, to get out an old butter knife and start hacking

away at

[ Page 371 ]

things? There has to be a plan. If there is a plan,

then it refers back to the scheme that came in the introduction of this

bill. What is the scheme? Do you have a master plan in the bunker

somewhere?

MR. REID: Restraint.

MR. PASSARELL: It would be nice, but this bill is not a

restraint bill. I'd be the first here to agree with you if it were a

restraint bill, but it isn't.

MR. REYNOLDS: Come and join us.

MR. PASSARELL: No, never, never, never.

MR. MOWAT: It's only a short walk. Three seats.

MR. PASSARELL: The next election. Sure, it will be a short walk to that side of the House where the NDP will be sitting, because of this bill.

It's pretty hard to get up and try to be optimistic, to say

something good about this bill. It's typed nicely; it's neat. It's got

three holes that probably have seen some daylight, which is a little

different than some of the holes that I've seen around here.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm trying to show something decent about this

bill. It's got some nice numbers on the top. But if you start reading

it, Mr. Speaker...

AN HON. MEMBER: ...It's all bad.

MR. PASSARELL: Bad news.

MR. MOWAT: How is it for spelling?

MR. PASSARELL: It looks good.

But you know what's going to happen? You start laying off 6,000

teachers in this province.... I'll tell you, there could be trouble.

We're going to start a new language here — Socred language. Whatever it

means is what we'll bring forward: "...may terminate...an employee

without cause...." Mr. Speaker, how can these hon. gentlemen and ladies

across from me here stand up and really defend this? The thing is, they

haven't. We've given them many opportunities in the last two days to

stand up. It's the usual practice, when you're debating a bill — for

the individuals sitting above us, and for the individuals who will be

reading the speeches later in Hansard — to have a government

speaker and an opposition speaker, back and forth, to have good debate.

But what's happening? The government is not getting up to defend its

own legislation. There's got to be a reason. I certainly don't think

they are masochists who just want to sit there and listen to the

opposition. But maybe they are. Maybe you've got to be a masochist to

bring in this kind of legislation. But to sit there and not even get up

to defend it, I would.... If one of you put your hand up to say — after

I finish speaking — that you were going to stand up and defend this

bill....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, you. No, you can't. If one of the new

back-benchers Would put his hand up to stand up and defend this bill, I

promise I would sit in here and listen and not heckle, and maybe....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, but this is the peanut gallery. That's

why you're stuck over there. I'm talking about the up-and-coming people

over there. If you promise that you'll stand up in this House and

defend this bill, I will think twice about supporting....

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: You're jealous. You're robots. Because the Premier tells you how to vote, you vote....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Return to the bill.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you.

I will sit here and listen to one of the new back-benchers stand up

and defend this bill. I just might support this government. I've been

known....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I heard that, No bribes in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a bearskin.

MR. PASSARELL: You've got to be a man first.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members interrupting will not interrupt, and the member now speaking will speak to the bill.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, hon. gentlemen and ladies.

Mr. Speaker, I see that light flashing off and on there. How much

time is there? Do we have an electrical short circuit here? How much

time do I have?

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Eight minutes? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fve gone through this bill with my able assistant, who's been in the

bush for four months, and I can't really find anything in this bill

that I could support.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: He's a volunteer.

Looking through this stuff, it's unbelievable, Senior management. "A

principal or vice-principal or any other teacher who is employed by a

school board and who holds a supervisory position...." Are we going to

start canning the little old ladies who come into the lunchroom who

have a supervisory position?

[3:00]

What scares me is that without just cause, without due cause, without any cause.... To can a worker in this

[ Page 372 ]

province because of this bill.... I can't defend

it. I'd be in a very difficult situation if I was sitting where the

hon. members in the government are now, trying to defend this bill.

Three holes and nice typing. Golly, what can you do with something like

that, except scrap it? I think that's the only way. Scrap it!

I'll tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker. We in the north are like what

the lady from Burnaby was talking about here — our own initiative. What

we need up there, what would help the northern residents, is this

government recalling all of this bill from everywhere. I don't know how

many have circulated now — 50,000, 10,000, or whatever. If they will

withdraw this bill, I will personally collect them for them, and use

them as fire-starter up north this winter. There you go. You can get

right out of it. Take this bill, pull it off the record and stop this

madness of firing people without cause — hanging doubt over them as to

whether or not they're going to have a job because they don't belong to

a certain political party. We can use it for fire-starter up north,

because I think that's about the only thing it's good for. This nice,

typed-out, three-page piece of bill would-be some good fire-starter.

As always, we come to the end. I hope it has been productive; that

I've been cooperative with my hon. colleagues across the floor, and

brought a few chuckles here and there.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. PASSARELL: We've got to get the Clerks again. Where are these people? This morning they weren't around and now they're not around again.

MR. REID: Restraint.

MR. PASSARELL . Restraint! In the cafeteria!, Let's do something

here.

Do I get another 40 minutes, Mr. Speaker? I can go on to my second speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is in order. The hon. member has three minutes left.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you very much for three minutes. It's

better than getting the axe from this bill. I think some of the people

have already found that.

Now that the motion has been accepted by the Chair, do I address the motion or do I address the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair must advise the hon. member that

when you are speaking to the motion and the amendment; that is all the

time you have. You now have three minutes.

MR. PASSARELL: Would I have to ask for unanimous consent to go for another 40 minutes?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the standing orders are quite specific. Perhaps if you'd care to continue the debate.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's been a slice. Thank you very much. Have a good day.

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: I had hoped, as other members had, that members of the government would participate in this debate.

The motion that we have in front of us at the moment is a motion

that this debate be terminated for the time being and resumed six

months from now. It should be clear that that in no way means we think

the bill in its present form would be any better six months from now;

rather, in six months two things might occur. The first of those is

that members of the government might recognize what they have done with

the introduction of this legislation. Secondly, and in some ways for me

even more important, it would give members of the public an opportunity

to become fully aware of the contents of this legislation and to

formulate their opinions so that they can make known to all members of

this House what their views are. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that

there are countless thousands of British Columbians — many are on

holidays, many live in remote parts of this province — who do not yet

know the contents of this legislation.

It is for those reasons that I wish to make a series of arguments

this afternoon about what is contained in this legislation, with a view

that that information can then be disseminated around the province and

that at the conclusion of this particular debate we will be given six

months so that the public can make some response, seeing the bill, the

arguments for it and our arguments against it.

We have heard one primary defence for this legislation, and that

defence goes something along the lines — we hear it more in heckling

than we do in speeches — that this bill makes the public sector workers

subject to the same provisions as the private sector. I don't even have

to look to know that that's probably the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Reid) who applauded that.

I want to give at least four specific and concrete reasons why that

statement is not a statement of fact. First of all, one essential

element of this legislation that has been ignored by all members of the

government is that they now have the power to do much of what they want

to do in legislation that has existed in this province now for ten

years.

Section 13(

c) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act allows

for negotiated terminations, and because of that

section of the law

that governs public service workers in this province, one of the six

unions that negotiates directly with the government has certain

provisions. One of those provisions is that there is a clause for

dismissal. "A minister or deputy minister may dismiss any employee for

just cause. Notice of dismissal shall be in writing and shall set forth

the reasons for dismissal in the BCGEU master agreement with the

government of British Columbia." The right to terminate for cause

exists now in both legislation and at least one of the six collective

agreements dealing with the public service unions.

It doesn't just deal with dismissals; it deals with relocation. "It

is understood that as a general policy employees shall not be required

to relocate against their will. However, the employer and the union

recognize that in certain cases relocations may be in the interests of

the public service and the employee. In such cases an employee will be

fully advised of the reasons for his or her relocation as well as the

possible result of refusal to be relocated."

They have the right to dismiss; they have the right to relocate. The

third argument presented, however inadequately so far in this debate by

the government, relates to

[ Page 373 ]

reorganization. What does the agreement with the

major union in the public service say about reorganization? "In the

event of any substantial reorganization in a ministry approved by

Treasury Board which results in redundancy" — in other words, the

elimination of a program — "relocation or reclassification, there shall

be established a joint committee in order for the employer to consult

with the union." Then it states that the committee shall be composed of

equal numbers "to facilitate the reorganization." So the government is

hampered from neither dismissal nor relocation nor reorganization in an

agreement freely negotiated with its employees in the largest component

of the public service unions. That's the number one argument about why

this provision in Bill 3 leads us into a situation where public sector

workers have far fewer rights than private sector workers.

The second argument is just cause, or cause without the word "just"

in front of it, because under

interpretations of courts in recent years

the words mean the same. Cause is contained in every single collective

agreement in the private sector in this province, and it is covered by

the Labour Code which governs those private sector workers. Until this

bill was introduced, in this respect, it also covered public sector

workers. To take just cause for termination away from public sector

workers is not, as the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) would say,

to make public sector workers the same as private sector workers; it is

to make them substantially inferior in their rights.

That deals on one hand with the organized private sector. What about

the unorganized private sector? They too have the protection of just

cause under common law which has been developed in this country and

British parliamentary countries for centuries.

Mr. Speaker, you may be wondering what this has to do with the hoist

motion. I'm making these arguments in an effort to make sure that when

this bill is hoisted those members of the public who need to be aware

of this legislation will have presented to them at least one side of

the argument in full measure.

The third area where this bill goes far beyond the rights of private

sector employees is when it relates to seniority provisions. There is

not a single collective agreement in the private sector of this

province that does not contain some form of seniority provision. That

now will be wiped out, not just in public service unions but in public

sector unions. That means that workers on the B.C. Rail will not have

the same rights as workers on CPR and CNR. That's what that means. The

second member for Surrey can holler and scream all he likes about

making public sector workers the same as private sector workers; that

is not what this bill does, and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

Michael) knows that I'm right about that point — and all the other ones

I've made so far.

[3:15]

The fourth area — and there are many more, but I'm dealing with four

at this stage — where this bill takes public sector workers to a state

that private sector workers were in decades ago, but haven't seen since

the thirties and forties, is the elimination of the grievance procedure

and the right to arbitration. That is denied by this legislation. Again

let me say that no private sector workers in the organized workforce in

this province are without a grievance or arbitration provision. Public

sector workers will now not have the right to grieve any matter. They

have lost those rights. It's clear that the bill goes far beyond a

simple reversion to management rights. We haven't heard that argument

yet — I've been expecting it from members of the government — but it

would be an argument that at least would be a rational and reasonable

one that they want to return some additional management rights and that

in their view the balance has swung too far the wrong way. We haven't

heard that argument. They haven't made the argument because this is not

a reversion to management rights. When you talk about management rights

there is some quid pro quo, there are some union rights. What this bill

does is to strip the essential and important rights.

Many of my colleagues have talked about some of the scary

implications of the opportunity for managers to fire without cause,

allowing for witch-hunts, whether or not they're intended now. I can

imagine managers who say to themselves, once this kind of legislation

is in place: "Aha, now I know how to get rid of so-and-so, and I don't

have to tell her why." Or: "I don't have to tell him that I don't like

the fact that he's gay and I'm getting rid of him." It may not have

been in the minds of the drafters — I'll give them the benefit of that

doubt — but it sure leaves to the managers that awesome responsibility.

It also leaves forever, as long as this bill is in place, the fear that

that's what might be done, even if it weren't done, and that's an

awesome fear for 250,000 British Columbians and their families to have

to bear.

Workers have fought and died — literally lost their lives in this

country — to gain the rights that are being stripped away by this

legislation. Some members might say that that's an exaggeration. It's

not an exaggeration. Workers, from the beginning, understood that the

essential rights that they were gaining by organizing, by forming

themselves into collective groups to organize trade unions, were, on

the one hand for income security, but more importantly, for job

security, and equally importantly, for some kind of seniority

provisions. Workers have literally lost their lives within the last

hundred years in this country fighting for those rights. And the

government casually introduces a bill, refuses to debate seriously, and

attempts to push it through this Legislature before the public has an

opportunity to understand fully the consequences of this legislation.

The stripping of this right deprives public sector workers of a

right that is taken for granted in common law. We don't even argue

about these rights anymore in common law. We don't argue about these

rights — at least until these last few weeks — in labour law. Certainly

the United Nations, through the instrument of the International Labour

Organization, doesn't argue any longer about these rights. They are

enshrined in western democracies. They are enshrined in the United

Nations conventions through the ILO. But they're being taken away here

in this province by government, who may be doing it deliberately, but

who also may be doing it without really understanding what they're

saying.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if you'll ignore the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), I'll try to too.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The bill not only deals with these human rights that I'm discussing.

It also has some serious implications for economic policy. When you

have a quarter of a million families in this province living under the

fear that they may or could lose their job at any point, do you think

those people are going to be spending much money? No, they're not. Let

[ Page 374 ]

give you an example of that from my constituency.

During the height of this recession — for the last year and a half or

two years — people who have worked full-time in good-paying jobs in

Port Hardy have not been spending their money. Bank managers tell me

they have been saving their money in unprecedented amounts. The reason

they're saving their money is that they are worried that possibly the

copper market might fall and if it does they'll be laid off — not fired

but laid off. And if that were to happen they would need to have some

money in the bank. Let me tell you that the impact upon the economy in

Port Hardy has been disastrous. In the last couple of years more than

30 restaurants and at least an equal number of stores and businesses

have folded in that community — not for lack of money or employment but

because of fear. And now we're saying we're going to add, in this

province, a quarter of a million families and put them in the same

position? What kind of economic policy is that? It's economic madness.

Mr. Speaker, I think of the 55-year-old woman who has worked for 15

or 20 years for this government and now faces the prospect of

termination — of being fired. She may be slowing down. She may not be

in the same health that she was, and she may fear that her ability to

do her job is not quite the same as that of some young whippersnapper.

That woman faces a fear in her later life — and many women in those

years are on their own — that not only could she lose her employment,

she could lose her pension — her full entitlement — and she could go

onto welfare. But you know what's even more important? She would know,

deep down in her heart, that she would never work again in a society

which has a designed 10 percent or 12 percent unemployment rate built

into it.

Some of us think about people like that. Some of us think about

people on the other end of the scale as well. Can you imagine being a

young black gay union activist who happens to work for this government?

I know people in that situation, and can you imagine their fear? Can

you imagine what they think might happen to them with a vindictive

manager who does not understand their particular role and activity in

society? With the kind of government we have in place right now how

long do you think people like that would last, given the right to fire

without cause? But, you know, that young activist would survive.

Someday they'd find another job. But that older woman will never ever

find another job again. That's the sword that's placed over the heads

of hundreds and thousands of people in this province.

Others in this debate — on our side of the House — have talked about

the sexual harassment that's possible. I'm not going to pursue that any

more, other than to say that it's pretty clear from the records and

from the evidence in a variety of areas in the private sector — not to

mention the public sector — that sexual harassment is a daily feature

of many jobs. If you can now be fired for not putting out, Mr. Speaker,

what do you think you're going to do when you've got a mortgage to pay?

There are economic reasons why the bill is absurd. I've talked about

some of them. But let me try another angle. What we're talking about is

putting 50,000 or 60,000 additional people onto UIC. Some of them will

find other jobs, but that will mean that somebody else will be out of a

job, because of the design of the managers of our economy in this

country to make sure that we have a perpetual 10 percent unemployment.

Let's calculate the saving to society of eliminating a $25,000 a year

government job. Let's see what we're talking about. Are we, in fact,

talking about saving $25,000 to the taxpayers? Let's assume that the

average is $25,000. I don't know what it's going to be, because I don't

know which workers are going to get the axe, but we can assume that

that's going to be close to the average.

That worker would pay $5,275 in income tax, another $460 in UIC,

another $300 in CPP and another $2,167 in other taxes, for a total of

$8,202 remitted to the government. That doesn't count any of the

multiplier effects. I'm not talking at all about any of those kinds of

economic effects which we all know about. I'm leaving that aside for

the time being. This means that the job costs society and the taxpayers

roughly $17,000. If that worker were laid off, that worker would be

entitled to just over $12,000 from UIC that first year. Some of that

would come back to government — probably $2,500 in income taxes and

other taxes. So the cost to society there is about $9,500 or $9,600.

When you do the arithmetic, Mr. Speaker, we discover that the cost to

society on average for a $25,000-a-year public servant is in fact

$7,200. That's the cost because when you on one hand calculate how much

money is remitted to the Crown through taxes and on the other hand

figure out what it costs to keep people on Unemployment Insurance, the

net cost in that case — and I emphasize this is an average — is $7,200

for one $25,000-a-year job. When we're talking about restraint we

should understand that. We should ask ourselves whether or not that

$7,000 or so is worth expending to keep money in circulation, to keep

families together and to keep the services provided.

Sensible government policies, Mr. Speaker, would not attempt to decrease employment but rather would attempt to increase it.

MR. MICHAEL: With that kind of logic, you could hire 20,000 more.

MR. GABELMANN: I recognize that it's going to cost $7,200 per

job, so you can't hire an unlimited number, but we should set some

figure that's reasonable and rational, a figure that deals with the

fact that we need services and deals with the fact that on the other

hand people are going to be unemployed and find the appropriate

balance. The appropriate balance is not being found with this bill. The

bill is not a restraint bill; it is a bill, in my considered, honest

view, to politicize the public service. It has the economic impact of

costing the taxpayer more in the long run than we save in the short

run. I grant that we save some in the short run. We sure don't in the

long run.

Other arguments need to be made, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, this

legislation violates the promise — and this point has been made before

in the House — made in 1983 by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Chabot), to every public service employee in this province. He said

that their jobs were safe in the New Year's message. This bill flatly

violates that promise.

Secondly, the bill also flatly contradicts the promise made by the

Premier of this province last summer at a meeting in Robson Square,

witnessed by the Provincial Secretary, Norman Spector, John Fryer and

Norman Richards. The promise was contained in the final stages of

reaching the agreement with the BCGEU. The promise was that no firings

would occur in the public service. The word of the Premier of this

province, Mr. Speaker, has been broken. Can we ever believe that man

again? A lot of us have had trouble believing

[ Page 375 ]

him in the past. I doubt that anyone will ever take his word for anything ever again in the future.

[3:30]

Thirdly, the bill completely contradicts the promise made by the

Premier and his government when they introduced the Compensation

Stabilization Act. I remember driving down the Island and going to a

meeting in Ladysmith the evening of February 18 when the Premier

introduced the compensation stabilization program on television. In

watching him that night I clearly heard him say that the private sector

is restrained by the marketplace, the public sector has tenure — not

true as I demonstrated earlier, but nevertheless he said it — and in

order to redress that imbalance and compensate for the fact that public

sector workers had tenure or had some kind of job security there needed

to be wage controls in the public sector. What rationalization now

exists for those wage controls? If the rationalization for wage

controls in the public sector is that they compensate for security of

employment, what rationalization is left now?

Fourthly, and very importantly, the bill, while it allows for the

continuation of a facade of trade union structure in the public sector,

effectively eliminates trade unionism and collective bargaining in

public sector unions. Anybody who has any familiarity or any knowledge,

or has read anything about trade unions will know that the most

important things they bargain for are job security and all that goes

with that, including seniority and grievance procedures. Wages are the

things that get the headlines. The wage packet is pretty well known

before the bargaining even begins. People know how that's going to work

out. The tough battle in the trenches that trade unions have to fight

is for those rights of security. If you don't have security, a

grievance procedure and, by other legislation, you don't have the right

to bargain for wages, what have you got left? You don't have a trade

union that can bargain collectively for you any more, except on issues

that don't matter so much. You effectively wipe out trade unions with

this legislation.

I'm not going to use the kind of language and words that others on

my side have used, drawing on examples from history. It's not my style.

But let me tell you, I have a great deal of sympathy for the words that

they were using when they cited historical examples of elected

governments wiping out trade union rights. How quick we all are to

support Solidarity in Poland! Even Ronald Reagan can do that, while

wiping out the air traffic controllers' right to bargain. What absolute

hypocrites most of us are.

The only other example in this country that I can think of that

comes close to this legislation is that of 1958, when Joey Smallwood

wiped out the IWA because he didn't want a union in the woods in

Newfoundland. That was 25 years ago. Most of us who have worked in and

around the trade union movement never believed that that could ever

happen again in this country. It's happening here and now with this

legislation, because what you basically do with this legislation is

effectively wipe out the union.

MR. REID: What about the ability to pay? Deal with that for a few minutes.

MR. GABELMANN: The second chirping member for Surrey wants me

to deal with the ability to pay. I intend to deal with the

ability-to-pay argument when we get to Bill 11. That's the appropriate

place for that argument, and you can believe I will be talking about it

in debate on Bill 11, but it's not in order at this time. I recognize

that even if the new member doesn't.

MR. REID: I recognize it.

MR. GABELMANN: Well then, why are you constantly asking me to do it.

MR. REID: Because the subject of employees of the government is ability to pay.

MR. HANSON: Why don't you take your place in debate.

MR. REID: I will. My turn will come.

MR. GABELMANN: Perhaps, if I could encourage him a little bit

more, this might be a way of getting the government to actually speak

in this debate. If we would subtract each one of his interruptions from

my time and add it to his, we might actually get 40 minutes out of him,

and perhaps 40 minutes for me. I'll talk about the so-called ability to

pay when we get to Bill 11.

MR. REID: Leadership, good government and ability to pay. Talk about those three things for a while.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the second member for Surrey to come to order.

MR. GABELMANN: My fifth point in this resume relates to the

way in which this legislation was introduced. The government violated a

contract it freely entered into and signed.

Section 102 of the

agreement with the BCGEU and

section 104 of the agreement with the

Professional Employees' Association have both been violated by this

process. The BCGEU agreement specifically sas, as agreed to by Treasury

Board, that no legislative change can alter the contract while it is in

place. This bill does that. A slightly different clause in

section 104

of the PEA agreement says that it is required after first reading and

before second reading — before the stage we're at now — that the

government sit down and discuss with that association the contents of

the legislation. That was not done. There was a meeting on Monday

morning, but that did not meet the requirements of either of those

sections of those contracts. The government quite clearly, willingly

and blatantly is prepared to violate contracts.

Some unions in the public sector have been without contracts for

many months — eight months and more in some cases, and different

unions. As best I can determine, never once has the employer — the

government through GERB — put on the table any of these questions that

have been raised by this legislation. They have never once asked those

unions to consider ways in which to reduce their workforce, ways in

which to give the government more authority to relocate, dismiss or

reassign; never once, even though the contracts had been expired for

many months. Never once has the employer gone to those unions and said,

"Here's what we want to do," despite the fact that representatives of

those unions had said they were prepared to talk about these questions.

Why haven't they done it? Is it because they're afraid of their ability

to negotiate, that they don't feet they have any competence to do that?

Or do they feet they have to go

[ Page 376 ]

through this political charade of a so-called

restraint bill, rather than sit down with the people who work for them

and have a calm and reasonable discussion about the workplace and how

it should be organized?

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever sat in on one of those?

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, I have.

When Dieter Brock signed a long-term contract to play football with

the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, he entered into a contract. Every football

team in this country and every sportswriter now says to Dieter Brock:

"You don't have the right to walk away from that contract with the

Winnipeg football club to go and play football in the United States,

because a contract is a contract." Everything in this bill contradicts

that principle. It contradicts the principles that have been built up

in common law for centuries in Great Britain and for more than a

hundred years in this country.

I remember sitting in this Legislature from 1972 to 1975, when

members who are now on that side of the House talked about the

principles of contracts. Where are they now? It's all right to

criticize social democrats for possibly violating the right of a

contract, but it's also all right for Social Credit members to violate

those same contracts or similar ones. Do you know why? Social democrats

aren't to be trusted and Socreds are; it's as simple as that.

MR. REID: That's true.

MR. GABELMANN: They say it's true.

But that's not how law is designed, respected or enforced in our society; at least it hasn't been.

For me one of the basic principles in our society is that if I shake

your hand, Mr. Speaker, and between us we agree to do something, I have

no right under any circumstances, short of your full agreement, to

renege on that handshake; I have no right to walk away from it. The

government believes it has. It has demonstrated that with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of scurrying at the table. Just in case that might

possibly relate to the germaneness of my comments to the motion to hoist, I

want to repeat the argument I made at the outset: that is, that this bill needs

to be hoisted. It needs to be delayed for at least six months so that people

in the community have an opportunity to read the reasons that we have for the

delay.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close my comments by relaying two

conversations I had on the weekend. One was with a very close friend of

mine who is a former teacher — an excellent teacher and an excellent

worker with children. Her child has now grown to the age where she

feels she could go back to teaching. All of her reports and records,

and her colleagues, indicate clearly that her ability to teach is

unparalleled. She's not going back into teaching, not because she

couldn't probably get a job but because she does not want to go back

into a profession with the uncertainty created by this legislation. I'm

afraid we're going to lose countless thousands of people who are good

teachers to other jobs, because good teachers are good at other things

too. They will go to other jobs because they can't stand the insecurity

of the classroom; they can't stand the class sizes that will be coming.

They will leave. I say this seriously: I'm glad our kids are most of

the way through their education, and I sure feel sorry for those kids

starting out now.

I had a conversation with another constituent of mine, who works in

a public sector job. He phoned me at home in Campbell River on Sunday

evening and said: "My wife and I have an appointment with the bank

tomorrow morning to take out a mortgage. Should I do it? Do I have any

confidence that my job will continue?" I said to him: "I can't give you

any assurance what so ever and be honest. I can't recommend that you go

in there knowing you have a job for sure, because you don't." Do you

know what his decision was? Not to take out the mortgage.

If you think those two examples are not repeated by the thousands

around this province, then the members opposite don't understand what

forces have been unleashed by this undemocratic, unprincipled and

thoroughly rotten piece of legislation.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, because it's customary in the House, as

you know, for the debate to flow from one side to the other, I was

hesitating to get up because I thought that possibly one of the Social

Credit members would feel the necessity of speaking in this debate.

They didn't speak in the debate proper, during second reading, and now

they're not going to speak on our motion to hoist the bill for six

months.

[3:45]

I think it's important that this piece of legislation not be passed

by the government members for six months, because there are two groups

of people who need some time. I think the people of this province need

some time to digest exactly what it is that the government is trying to

do with their legislation. Just as important, I think it's important

that the government members have a chance to think about what they're

going to do, and I'd like to point out some of the things they should

think about.

What we're really dealing with is the big lie. All of the

legislation that we're dealing with, and Bill 3 is no exception, is

part of the big lie that you can use restraint to bring around economic

recovery. I'd like to read from a book. It says: "The truth is, no

country can become prosperous merely by re-sharing its present

inadequate income. You cannot turn scarcity into plenty by

redistributing an insufficiency, nor one pound of butter into two by

spreading it more thinly." It goes on to say:

"It is absolutely essential firstly, as a growing

number of people are beginning to see, that the money required by

consumption to enable it to purchase production shall reach it by some

channel other than that of production. Indeed, why in the name of all

that is sane, with production already glutted with more money and more

goods then it can dispose of, should the only way of getting money to

consumption lie in forcing production to receive still more money and

in making it produce still more goods, so that a part of this money

shall trickle through to consumption? Why? No one replies. There is no

reply."

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The members from the other side ask who wrote that book. Harry

Rankin? They ask me if some left-wing nut wrote it. The book is called The Meaning of Social Credit .

Written in 1933, it's the very philosophy on which that party sitting

across from me is founded. Yet they say: "Who wrote that book? Some

nut?"

[ Page 377 ]

HON. A FRASER: On a point of order, the member is quoting

from a book. Is it not correct that he table that with the House so

that we all have an opportunity to read it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would have assumed that all Social

Credit members would know what Social Credit is all about, but how far

they have come from that populist party of the prairies! They've turned

into the friend of the bankers, instead of people who were sworn to

look at the bankers as enemies of the people — and they are.

I'd like to get to that big lie, because everything hinges on it.

They have — and I'd say quite successfully — convinced people that the

road to economic recovery is by making sure there's no money in the

consumer's pocket; that restraint is the way to recovery, and the way

to get economic recovery is to kill the economy even more. You have to

give credit where credit is due — it's been a masterful trick. I don't

know, first of all, how they convinced themselves, or even whether they

have; but they have managed to convince a great many of the public.

Once we have the big lie that economic recovery can be brought around

with restraint, then they bring in the periphery legislation such as

Bill 3, which is based on restraint. They say: "Now that we've

convinced you that the only way to economic recovery is to take money

out of the consumer's pocket..."

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, I didn't. But if I got it out of a book, I know it's one place you'd never get it, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, what have they done in the name of restraint? They've

taken away the rights of citizens to have redress for grievances.

They've taken away the rights of people not to be fired "without

cause," they've taken away the office of the rentalsman, and they've

taken away protection of the renters by taking away rent control.

They've done all these things, and they've managed to convince the

public that all of these things are part of the budget. They've

convinced people that they're going to have so many savings from taking

away human rights and rent control and the office of the rentalsman

that this somehow or other is going to help what they call a "fragile

economic recovery" blossom. It's impossible.

Surely they must have more than one economic measure they can take.

I'd like to go back to a couple of years ago when the Premier went on

the air during an inflationary time and said: "The way to cure

inflation is restraint." Now he's telling us the way to get rid of

recession is restraint. You can't have it both ways. When do you

stimulate the economy" Is that not during a time of recession? Is that

not when you want to put money into the consumers' pockets? They say:

"Well, where you going to get the money from?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where?

MR. LEA: I think it's a good question and I'm going to answer

it. There are $25 billion in savings accounts in the province of

British Columbia. The job of government is to get that money out of the

bank and into the economy by one of two means: either by making sure

there's an incentive for people to invest in the economy....

MR. PARKS: The private sector.

MR. LEA: Absolutely, the private sector. What we're trying to

find is a way to get that money out of the savings accounts of the

province into the economy of the province and into the private sector.

Is there one thing in the budget that gives anybody any incentive to

take their money out of the bank and invest it in the private sector?

Not anything. Not one incentive measure. Where do you get the money?

Why not give some incentive to the entrepreneurs in this province?

MR. PARKS: There is.

MR. LEA: There is none in this budget. This takes away incentive from the private entrepreneur. That's what it does.

Mr. Speaker, there is another way of getting the money out of the

savings accounts, and that is to use the taxation system. There are

people in this province who make a lot of money. They're putting a

great deal of that money into the savings accounts. Where do you think

it comes from? So you do it by two ways: by using the incentive for

investment in the economy, and by using taxation to make sure there's

consumption in the economy. There isn't one economist in the world that

I know of who wouldn't agree with me. The only people who don't agree

are those backbenchers and that government. Even Social Credit agrees

with me. It's in the book.

By the way, I don't think there's a federal Conservative either who

would disagree with me. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you know full well that

what I'm speaking is the truth.

HON. A. FRASER: File the book.

MR. LEA: I will file the book. Then we'll get somebody to read it to you.

Everybody knows that what I'm saying makes good economic sense. What

have they done? Instead of going after some of the savings, either

through incentives or through taxation, what they have done is gone

after the sales tax. They've raised the sales tax. That one point will

take $125 million out of the economy.

MR. REID: Hogwash!

MR. LEA: Hogwash? Take a look at your books that the Minister of Finance gave you.

What I'm suggesting is that you tax the high-income people with a

surtax. That money would then come in and be spent by the low-income

people who spend everything they get. Then you're putting money in the

tills of the small business community, not taking it out. That way you

get some economic recovery.

How in the world do you get out of a recession and get on the road

to economic recovery by taking money out of the consumers' pockets to

make sure they can't buy goods? You can't do it.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 3 takes away the rights of some citizens in this

province. In fact, it makes two classes of citizens. It says to the

private sector employees: "You are going to have some basic individual

rights in terms of your dealings with your employer, but people who

work for the public — the people who work for you.... In other words,

the person who works in the private sector has someone working for him

or her, and that is the civil servant, the public employee. Are

[ Page 378 ]

the public workers, the employers of the public

employees, going to give themselves rights that the people who work for

them won't have? That's what this bill does.

I don't believe that average British Columbians out there, whether

they voted for Social Credit, NDP, Conservatives or the Liberals — no

matter who they voted for — really want to take one law for themselves

and another law for the people who work for them. I honestly believe

that the Social Credit have misjudged the values of the citizens of

this province and that we need six months for the people of this

province to say to the government: "You have misread our values. We

gave you a mandate not to be a crazy government. We gave you a mandate

to have a restraint program." There's no doubt about that. But they

didn't give the government a mandate to kill the economy, which they

did in their budget. They did not give the government a mandate to take

away basic rights of employees, which Bill 3 does. They did not give

the government a mandate to take away the Human Rights Commission. They

did not give the government a mandate to do away with the rentalsman's

office.

I'd just like to spend a moment with the rentalsman's office,

because I can honestly say that I've had more complaints from landlords

than I've had from tenants about doing away with the rentalsman's

office. In fact, half an hour ago I was talking to a person in my

constituency who is a landlord, and he said: "Do you know how often

I've used the rentalsman's office? Do you know the kinds of problems

I've had with tenants? Do you know how much the rentalsman's office has

helped me as a landlord?" On the other hand, tenants have come to me

and said: "Do you realize how much help it's been dealing with the

landlord?" So basically what you're talking about is almost a judicial

function, an arbitration system carried out on behalf of tenants and

landlords. Neither one wants it to go away. That's not the value in our

society today, and yet this government is going to go against what both

the landlords and the tenants want. You have to say why.

I believe that all of this peripheral legislation is thrown onto the

table in this House to hide the fact that the budget is a big lie.

That's what it's been done for. It's to lull the people. It's to take

their minds away from the big lie that restraint can't get economic

recovery and to turn their minds to human rights. Yes, we're all upset,

but the reason the government isn't upset because we're all upset is

that that's exactly what they wanted. They wanted us as an opposition

to be upset about the loss of human dignity by taking away their right

to redress. They wanted us to be upset about the rentalsman's office

leaving. They wanted us to be upset about giving themselves the right

to fire without cause, because the more we get upset the more the

vision of British Columbia is moved away from the big lie which is the

budget itself.

[4:00]

There hasn't been — have you noticed? — one Social Credit speaker

get to his or her feet and defend the taking away of civil liberties.

Is it that they don't want to, or they can't, or they've been ordered

as a matter of political strategy not to? I'd say it's the latter. I

get a wink from the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), so I guess

that's right. A wink and a nudge, say no more. But that's what's

happening. You have had the order — haven't you, Mr. Speaker? — not to

speak during this legislation because they want the focus of British

Columbia to be on it. They'd rather be called undemocratic than people

who don't know how to manage the economy. To them the bottom line is a

buck. They would rather take away people's dignity, the redress when

civil rights have been transgressed and all those other things than

lose what they consider to be their reputation as financial and

economic managers. So the big lie becomes obscured behind all of the

peripheral legislation. They don't mind being called undemocratic; they

couldn't care less.

We're asking for six months. We're asking that for six months this

government hoist this legislation and give the people of this province

not only an opportunity to think about it but an opportunity to write

to their MLA, specifically to the Premier and the cabinet and the

treasury benches, and let them know what their views are. We know we

won't get the six months, because if we got that then the big lie is a

bit more exposed. We'd be back to the budget debate. The focus of the

province would be on the budget.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that they've done as part of the big

lie is to underestimate their revenues and overestimate their

expenditures. They are saying: "Oh, times are rough. We're going to

have a $1.6 billion deficit at the end of the year." They won't. The

only thing that may make that come true is that the budget itself may

put the province into a worse financial picture than even they imagine,

and they may actually end up with the worst of all possible worlds:

they will end up being called undemocratic and un-Canadian, and end up

with the reputation of being bad managers of money and the economic

system anyway.

There are parameters to politics beyond which we shouldn't go. Jobs

for the boys: I think in general terms people expect that politicians

are going to do that. Also, Mr. Speaker, in many cases I don't think

they're that upset about it; they realize that a government that gets

in isn't going to hire enemies to carry out a policy they don't agree

with. You are going to hire people who agree with your thrust, and with

your policies. People understand that. But there are parameters that

they expect us not to go beyond in the name of politics, and that's why

people are upset.

When we were in government, I was in the cabinet. When I went around

the province, people were polite. They don't like to tell you, really,

that you are not doing the kind of job they want you to do. Maybe you

remember, too, Mr. Speaker; you were a cabinet minister. People don't

come up to you and say: "Boy, that government you're in! You're rotten,

and you're doing all those rotten things." They're usually polite and

they move on. But people like the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), who was in the opposition when we were in

government, knew very well what people were saying about us, even

though we didn't know. They told the opposition. Mr. Speaker, they're

telling us. They don't like what you are doing. They don't like the

fact that the Human Rights Commission has been disbanded. People — not

NDPers, not Social Credit, not Liberals, but citizens of this province

— don't like it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. LEA: Name one! When she said, "Name one, " I actually

thought, "I'll name some." Then I thought, "Like hell I will. I'll cost

somebody his job." That's the way I feel, and that's the way they're

feeling out there: people are frightened. When the member for Comox

(Ms. Sanford) took her place in the debate she said that when there was

a police car sitting outside by the little store, she had a moment of

wondering: "What are they here for?" It happens. The fear starts in

society. After a while that fear turns to anger, and when it

[ Page 379 ]

turns to anger we are into a very, very precarious and dangerous situation in society.

Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the House they say: "Well, you people

over there" — this is when they are being real nice to us — "are all

right. You're not dirty, rotten, stinking human beings; you're just

a little woolly-headed when it comes to reality and getting your feet on the

floor." I admit that on this side of the House we do have a feeling that

the poor should not be trampled on. We have a feeling that people who are down

and out in society deserve to be handed a little bit of money so they can survive.

We believe that, because we honestly believe that we are our brothers' and

sisters' keepers, to a certain extent. But on the other side they put out

social assistance for protection money. They know that if you leave people destitute

you cannot safely sleep in your bed during the night. They give money out of

the government coffers for protection money. Mr. Speaker, my party and I stand

condemned; yes, we do care about people. That's what they accuse us of all

the time. They say: "You people over there care about people. What's

wrong with you?"

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Look, you're a new member. I can tell you some of

the things that have gone on in this House. When the Social Credit have

been really mad at us they have called us every name in the book. But

when it comes right down to it and they show you where they're really

at, when they can't think of another thing to say, they look across at

us in contempt and say: "You bunch of intellectuals!" They have then

called us the worst thing they can think of, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: We don't say we're intellectuals; you say it.

Because when we talk about being human beings, when we talk about those

things that make life a little bit more civilized, you people think

it's airy-fairy claptrap. The bottom line is where it's at — welfare

payments so you can sleep in bed at night without being robbed;

protection money. When we were in government they said: "You know, you

gave people too much — pouring money out of the back of a truck."

That's not true, but I'd rather be charged with being overgenerous with

people than with being a bunch of stingy tightwads who make people

suffer for their own political ends. That's what this budget does.

That's what this piece of legislation does. And six months isn't too

long to have the public digest this information.

Mr. Speaker, the government will live to rue the day that they've

trampled on the rights of people. They think it's smart politics to

hide the budget, to hide the big lie by bringing in legislation that

will get the whole community in an uproar over the lack of civil

rights, over the lack of dignity, while they go their own merry little

political way. Is it really worth it? Is it worth stepping beyond what

is recognized as good politics in order to achieve it? Is the

government's goal so worthwhile that they will put aside in the name of

politics those things that give civilization its name?

I believe that the people of this province will not put up with it.

But they do have to understand what's going on. I can understand that

the average citizen isn't that upset that the government's been

spending money without legislative authority. Where in the school

system that most people went through do you get that kind of knowledge?

Where is the school system letting us know, as citizens...? That's my

big complaint with the school system. We're turning out educated

barbarians. We think that the only thing the school system should be

there for is to train people to work. But equally important as training

people to work is training people to be good citizens. If they were

trained in our school system to be good citizens, they'd know that the

Legislature has to approve money or else it's undemocratic, and you're

moving to the brink of chaos and a breakdown in society. They would

have to know that it is a dangerous step to take away people's human

rights in order to further yourself politically. They would know that

the political game, although unsavoury in part, has not gone beyond the

parameters of democratic good sense in this country. But it has now.

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to believe — and prefer not to

believe — that they're doing it willingly and wilfully. But what are we

to conclude? Am I to conclude that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Chabot), who's been in this House since 1963, doesn't know that you

don't take away people's rights for political purposes? Surely he

knows. If he does know and he's doing it anyway, that's tyranny.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: They can laugh and joke. It's hard for us to sit

over here and be serious for days on end. You need that little bit of

relief. I look across at the Minister of Highways — a man who I've been

sitting across from for 11 years, and I've been accustomed to smiling

and joking with — and to stop smiling and joking with him.... But I

find it difficult to smile and joke with someone whose ideas are

approaching what I consider to be dangerous. I find it absolutely

repulsive that a government in the province of British Columbia would

take these steps.

lt's not as if this government hasn't had other legislation turned

over and disallowed because it was unconstitutional. They have. We

found out $14 million later that a piece of legislation brought in by

that government was indeed unconstitutional and turned over in the

courts of our land. I believe that the legislation we're discussing now

will eventually be overturned in the courts of justice. I believe that

the human rights legislation that we're going to be facing in this

House will be overturned by the courts of justice. But what kind of

damage do we do while we wait? In the case of the heroin treatment plan

that was overturned, at least all we lost was money. The government

cost the taxpayers $14 million on that one. But money is a small price

to pay. Our freedoms and civil rights are too big a price to pay. Is it

asking too much that the government submit their legislation to the

courts prior to passing it? Why not take it to the courts of justice

and say: "Will this be turned down? Is it constitutional?"

[4:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: You want Berger to be the judge?

MR. LEA: No, I don't want Berger to be the judge, although I

wouldn't mind Berger being the judge. Mr. Speaker, that's their lack of

understanding. Because Tom Berger and Stu Leggatt were NDP and are now

judges — and they no longer hold party cards, because as a judge you

may not — they're suggesting that those two fine people would actually

make a decision on the bench based on party politics. I have never

heard anybody from my party accuse any judge,

[ Page 380 ]

whether Conservative, Social Credit or anything

else, of making a decision based on partisan politics. The member for

Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) has so little understanding....

MR. SEGARTY: I said nothing!

MR. LEA: Or whoever the member was down there; I'm sorry if

it wasn't you. But that's what they're suggesting. One of the Social

Credit members suggested that we would like this piece of legislation

to be tested by Stu Leggatt or Tom Berger, because obviously they would

make a partisan decision in the courts. It's that kind of

misunderstanding about how our system works that will allow them to

vote for this legislation. We have failed as a society if even the

citizens elected to this chamber don't understand how the system works.

They talk about the fragile economic recovery. Don't they realize

how fragile is the system we live in; that it isn't very many short

steps from a civilized state to a barbaric one, and that this

legislation is one of the first steps along the road to a barbaric

primitive state? Do they think that other countries that have

turned...? I'm not saying we've turned to fascism, but we've taken the

first step with this legislation. The first step is to put political

considerations above the rights of the citizens, and this does that.

The big lie. I'm heartened by a number of letters to the editors

appearing in all the newspapers in the province. Obviously a great

number of citizens know the budget is a big lie. They're writing

letters and signing their names at the bottom, saying you cannot get

economic recovery by taking money out of consumers' pockets.

MR. REID: What paper was that in? I didn't read that.

MR. LEA: You don't read papers.

MR. REID: I read them all. Which one was that in?

MR. LEA: Take a look in the Vancouver Sun for the last three days. Every letter to the editor is full of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LEA: I was just talking to the guy who's talking to me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand.

MR. LEA: What letters? An hon. member has just handed me a paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: The right-wing Province .

MR. LEA: No, it's the left-wing Sun that endorsed your party before the election.

Maybe that's a good analogy. The Sun

said: "...not really impressed with the Social Credit, but when push

comes to shove I guess you'd better vote for the Social Credit." But on

the editorial page today, the Vancouver Sun is saying very

strenuously that they didn't endorse this legislation; that they didn't

endorse the kinds of things the government is doing; that they didn't

think the government would do what they're doing. If the Sun were a citizen and had a vote it would have voted Social Credit, but the Sun

doesn't agree with what Social Credit is doing. Neither do a great many

citizens, many of them Social Credit Party members, I'm sure.

This page is full of letters to the editor. There are seven letters

on one page, all saying the same thing: that they don't agree with the

way this government is going. Many of those letters say that they don't

think restraint brings around economic recovery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that today's paper?

MR. LEA: Yes.

MR. REID: I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

MR. LEA: You'll get somebody to read it to you before the day is out. Just don't go home.

Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do with them? I think we're making

a civilized offer. We're asking the government to hoist this

legislation for six months. Tap into the pulse of the province; talk to

your friends — government and government backbenchers. Go home and talk

not just to your friends but to your party members and ask them what

they think of it.

I had coffee with two Social Credit Party members on Saturday.

MR. REID: Did they pay or did you?

MR. LEA: I paid. I said they were Social Credit; they don't pack cash.

MR. REID: They've got none left.

MR. LEA: I'm not too happy to hear that, but I guess they're victims of the budget too.

1 had coffee with two Social Credit friends of mine and said: "What

do you think of the legislation?" They said: "They won't put it through

like that. They'll temper it a bit. They're going to pull back, don't

you think, Graham?" I said: "No, I don't think they are. I think the

government is serious about passing this legislation. The reason

they're serious is that they need it to cover the budget — to cover the

big lie." Those two people are not unhappy with the budget. They're two

business people in my riding who are Social Credit members. But they

are unhappy about this peripheral legislation. They don't like it.

They're not barbarians.

MR. REID: Maybe we'll hear from them.

MR. LEA: I'm sure you will, but you're not going to hear from them unless you do what we're asking and hoist this bill for six months.

I don't know what more you can say when they think it's all funny.

It's not as if they were standing up in debate, saying seriously:

"Here's why we, as Social Credit members, think it should happen."

They've been ordered not to by the boss. That is one mark of Social

Credit I've seen over the years. I guess the last time I saw a real

maverick was Cyril Shelford. He was a Social Credit back-bencher who

did, on occasion, stand on his principles and say: "I'm not voting with

you." This new crop is yet to be tested.

I mentioned in the throne speech debate that one of the anguishes of being a member of a political party and a

[ Page 381 ]

member of the Legislature is the anguish of dealing

with your conscience and your party loyalty, and that's true. The

government back-benchers are going to have their first real taste of

that anguish when we vote for this hoist. It's not an easy decision to

make; I know that. But I'm going to tell you another thing. This is not

a finance bill. You can vote against it and you're not going to destroy

the government. They'll survive. They will still be the government, but

we won't have this piece of legislation. You're chances of going into

cabinet might not be good....

MR. COCKE: They may be zero.

MR. LEA: They may be zero, but I ask you to put your province

ahead of your personal ambition. I ask you to put your conscience ahead

of your party loyalty. I ask you, when we vote on this hoist motion, to

take your places with pride. You will save your government in the long

run; more than that, you save the citizens of this province from being

deprived of their civil rights, and that is even more important.

Conscience before party loyalty is what's called for here. We'll see

whether you pass the first test, or wallow in an anguish that will

never leave you ever. This legislation and the accompanying legislation

is no small matter. They should talk to somebody like Cyril Shelford.

I'm absolutely convinced that if Cyril Shelford were in this House he

would not vote for this legislation. I can say that with assurance,

because I've seen Cyril Shelford put his conscience before party and I

know he would on this. It's a duty.

I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 30

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

[4:30]

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that one government

member, one back-bencher, one Premier — who is now rushing out the door

— or at least one person on the other side of the House would have

stood in his or her place and argued one way or another on this

amendment. Let's make it clear, the amendment gives an opportunity to

this government to approach sanity and to take the second look that is

being demanded around this province. Who are making those demands?

Trade unionists? Yes. The disabled? Yes. People of minority races and

religions? Yes. The clergy? Yes. They are asking, quietly at this time,

that the government take another look at what they're doing. Many of

them are saying, as the Biblical phrase would indicate: "Forgive them,

O Lord, for they know not what they're doing."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Those members of this Legislature who vote against this amendment

and this opportunity to rethink what we and most thinking people across

the province claim is a travesty are voting against everything that

parliament stands for. Each and every member of this Legislature was

elected in the democratic process, as fair a process as we have been

able to devise to date. We expect fair play in those elections. Yet

when a government is elected and within a very short period of time

turns on the very people who elected them — many of them — and denies

them access to the basic rights that anybody living in a free

democratic society warrants....

We heard the minister, in introducing this bill, discuss the fact

that nothing will be done without consultation. What we're asking in

this amendment is that that consultation take place before the fact,

not after it. Don't say to us: "Trust us." The government must not say,

"Trust us; we're all knowledgeable and we will be fair," when the very

essence of the bill that they have presented and proposed as a statute

in the laws of this province.... When that bill in its every clause

indicates unfairness, how could we possibly even think of trusting them

on this issue? This issue is basic to freedom. This issue is basic to

everything that everybody who's elected in this House should be

standing for. I can remember, as we all can, when the Socreds were

elected in a past election — it wasn't this last one — and they used

the seagull to denote freedom. They were freedom-fighters then. These

people who insisted that they stood for freedom in this province have

introduced not only this bill — this travesty — but a litany of

legislation that if passed will bring shame upon this Legislature and

the statute books of this province as long as those statutes remain on

those books.

If they took the time, I don't think they could deny what I'm

saying. I'm persuaded that most of the members of that party had no

idea what they were going to be confronted with when they came to this

Legislature. They must be terribly ashamed of having participated in

this action. If they're not, I ask this question. If they are not

ashamed, why are they not on their feet speaking on the bill? They have

had ample time to do that, and will have further time. Secondly, why

are they then not speaking on our amendment? Our amendment gives an

opportunity for the Premier to get out like he used to do in the good

old days between 1972 and 1975. He never spent five seconds in here

that he wasn't really ready to jump on his horse again. But it would

give him an opportunity to get around the province and talk to people

and ask their opinion on what he and his cabinet are doing with this

piece of legislation.

[ Page 382 ]

When we hear words from the Provincial Secretary such as "a

commitment to fairness" and "consultation," we may be naive but we tend

to take those words seriously. Otherwise, why would he have stood in

his place in this House and made those commitments? He said that there

would be a commitment to fairness. As recently as just a few hours ago

— yesterday, as I recall — he met with a delegation of people who have

deep and abiding concerns over this piece of legislation. What an

in-depth discussion that must have been, because we are informed by the

media, who are usually quite reliable on matters such as this, that the

meeting took place and lasted 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes, Mr. Speaker,

discussing one of the — if not the — most abysmal pieces of legislation

that has ever been put forward in this House. We thought Bill 33 was a

travesty in the old days. Remember old Bill 41 and Bill 42?

MR. NICOLSON: Thirty-three?

MR. COCKE: Thirty-three, and I'll repeat it.

I am not asking any individual; I'm just asking them collectively to

go to their caucus room to meet, to take this marvellous opportunity of

a hoist so that the members can go back to their constituents and say

to them: "What do you think about what we're doing? Do you think it's

fair? Do you think that Bill 3 is a bill that should be made into a

statute to be put into the statute books and become law in this

province?" They will probably make the same — and I'm talking now about

the constituents — observations as have been made by ministers of the

federal Crown, who have said that this action — and I'll paraphrase —

is deplorable.

But to get even closer to home, that group that is rather

conservatively inclined might be impressed with what Mr. Baker, MP,

said the other day on Sunday morning radio.

[4:45]

HON. A. FRASER: He's the guy who told Joe Clark he had the vote, wasn't he? And you know what Clark's doing now.

MR. COCKE: Yes, he's running for cover. He's running for

cover on this bill, saying that the Conservatives would never do a

thing like this. However, there's no question about that, because we've

got Mulroney, who sounds to me something like this little rump group

over here, who are probably the most right-wing people that have come

into this House since 1930.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's about time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) indicates to me that I may be on —

or am on — the wrong track, that gives me all the confidence in the

world, because any time I'm on the same track as that member, I'm

getting out of politics so fast it would make your head swim. That's

for sure. That would mean that I have lost my mind, my marbles and my

principles, and there is no way I want to do that as long as I'm in

this Legislature representing the good people of New Westminster, who

expect the best of their member.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), I'm sure, even with his

conservative background, agrees with me in his heart of hearts that

this bill should be hoisted and rethought, because that minister has a

very large contingent of public servants...

AN HON. MEMBER: ...who voted for him.

MR. COCKE: Many of them did vote for him.

But that member has a large number of public servants who now have

absolutely no confidence that this government will be fair. In his

heart of hearts — or, as another real right-winger once said years ago:

"Deep in their hearts they know I'm right...."

I want to go back to 1973 where a very famous member of this Legislature made the following remark in Hansard :

"I hope the member for Delta, who applauded my statement that

democratic rights of the people of British Columbia should be

preserved, will stand up and speak in this debate." She made two

points, did Pat Jordan, in that statement. One point was that anybody

with something to defend will stand up and defend it. They have not

done that. They refuse to stand up in this House.

Beyond that, she talked about democratic rights. Again, that's the

kind of talk we hear from there, but we don't see it in action. It's

shocking when we see people all over our province — not just editorial

writers or people within the trade union movement, but responsible

people in all walks of life — saying that we are witnessing with this

bill the trampling of individual freedoms in our province. No one is

safe in the public service. When we hoist this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I

am confident that we will — when the vote is taken and people are

searching their consciences, and I'm sure they will — when this bill is

hoisted we will give an opportunity for all those responsible people

out there to make their case.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) asked that we hear

witnesses. It was out of order. It will be out of order again when we

get to committee. Nobody will come before the bar of this House and

state his case. They won't allow it, nor will we hear, in our Committee

of the Whole, witnesses from all over this province who would, if they

could, express their opposition to this piece of proposed legislation

which would trample on human rights and on individual freedoms. Why?

When a government is elected with a good majority, not just a narrow

majority but a good majority — not a huge difference in the vote in

terms of percentages but nonetheless a good majority — why would they

rush into a piece of proposed legislation like this which will forever

damn them in the sight of thinking, concerned people in B.C. who

cherish those rights and freedoms? If it's going to be ultimately

challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada and is shot down, that hardly

would be a feather in the cap of this government.

The opportunity that they have now is to gain their own feather.

There are two ways they can do it. They can vote for this resolution to

hoist, to think about it; or they can announce that the bill is

withdrawn or at least put on ice for a period of time. I suggest that

the minister or the first minister do what we are asking here: give the

people of our province an opportunity for input. Innocent people at the

present time are anxious to the extent where some of them, I'm sure,

will be a charge on our health system. Some of them with major

responsibilities in life face being fired without cause. If you happen

to brush your hair the wrong way, or if you are not a Socred, or if you

happen to have skin with a slightly different pigmentation, or belong

to a religion that is not, necessarily

[ Page 383 ]

acceptable to the rest, you can be fired with no appeal and no recourse to justice.

Mr. Speaker, why are we standing here, and what are we talking about? We are

talking about an opportunity that this government should give to everyone in

our province. Why? Politicians across this land for years and years have fought

for the very freedoms that we are talking about here today. Many ordinary citizens

died for those freedoms: due process, access to appeal, justice, an opportunity

to present one's case; but there is no such opportunity contained in this

bill. Why then would we do anything but ask the government to rethink, to take

this bill right out of our legislative group of bills and give people an opportunity

to make their case?

Not everyone agreed with the gentleman about whom I will speak for a

second or two, but everybody knew the one fighter in this country who

fought for human rights, as hard as he knew how — John Diefenbaker.

Were he alive, and were he to see this piece of legislation, he would

say definitively that it flies in the face of everything which he stood

for. He was not of my political persuasion, but I defy anybody on that

side of the House to get up in this debate and make even one suggestion

that John Diefenbaker would have supported it. He wouldn't even have

supported a mild version of this. He would have got to clause 2 and

that would have been the end of it, because he would see there —

notwithstanding the Labour Code, and the Public Service Labour

Relations Act — "a public sector employer may terminate the employment

of an employee without cause." For heaven's sake, where are we living?

Where in the blazes are we living?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't know about you, but I know where I'm living.

MR. COCKE: You know where you're living? Nothing, Mr. Speaker, could be further from the truth.

I cannot be confused on this because it is the clearest wording that

one could ever see: without cause, without access to appeal, without

access to due process.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Read

section 3.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, I'll ask the minister and the member not to....

MR. COCKE: Mr, Speaker, the member opposite has the

opportunity to get up and express himself on our amendment. He can get

up and read anything he likes and put any

interpretation he wants on

it, but his views are not shared by the community of this province, and

that's why we're asking that this bill be hoisted — to give people an

opportunity to tell that minister and his colleagues that they're all

dead wrong on this issue.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I didn't think that a responsible minister would

make that kind of a comment, even under his breath. "Misleading" is not

a parliamentary word. He knows it and I know it. I will continue, and I

won't ask for a withdrawal from the minister.

[5:00]

Not only are we dealing with a piece of legislation that denies

rights, but we're talking in terms of breaking up a legally responsible

body — as a matter of fact a number of them: not only the Government

Employees Union but all the other unions that are affected by this

particular piece of legislation. When you take into consideration all

the Crown corporations, societies, school boards and everybody else,

you're talking about a great number.

In a Labour Relations Board report not too many years ago, there was

a statement made that once a trade union is certified,

section 6

requires both employer and the union to bargain in good faith and make

every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement. Said

certification gives the union the exclusive legal authority to bargain

on behalf of all employees.

Section 7 prohibits the union from acting

in a manner which is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the

representation of any of those employees. What the government is doing

is exactly what they asked the trade unions not to do. They're

cancelling any number of collective agreements by legislation. Oh, yes,

they'll let some of them run out. But then they'll trample all over

them, because they'll have in their hot little hands — by then, they

hope — a piece of law called Public Sector Restraint Act.

While we are dealing with the hoist, let me also ask that the

government think in terms — while they're thinking over the whole thing

— of changing the title. Of all the irrelevant titles this bill has the

most irrelevant that one could even imagine. What in the world has this

got to do with restraint in any event? Zilch! What it has to do with is

to creating pandemonium in the public service, pandemonium in the Crown

corporations, and a very unsettling feeling in the stomachs of the

populace of our province.

It can be done. The members opposite can do it. The hoist gives them

one opportunity. I ask them to vote for the hoist. Give it a chance to

sink in. Let those members go back to the leader of their party, back

to the policymakers of their party and ask them what on earth they are

doing. What are they doing with the future of our province?

AN HON. MEMBER: And their party.

MR. COCKE: True, my colleague, because with this hanging over

the heads of that party, it will make former labour legislation look

pretty damned good. This is the worst. Surely it's time they thought

about it. Surely it's time that group over there called a caucus

meeting and in that caucus meeting had a full discussion of what

they're doing. Surely there has never been in that caucus across the

floor a proper, definitive, full discussion of what this means. It must

have been superficially handled by someone who has a great deal of

responsibility. But also, it must have been pushed by someone who has

the power. If it's the Premier, let's hear about it. Who's pushing this

bill? Let's take the time to find out. It's not coming from the

electors, Mr. Speaker, at all.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If she can make the irresponsible charge that the

electors want to treat the public servants in this province as

second-class citizens, then she does not know the electors of our

province. She'll get to know them a lot more intimately over the next

four years, believe me. Believe me, with this hanging over her head,

she's going nowhere. She'll be back pushing real estate, or whatever,

as quickly as possible.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I beg your pardon.

[ Page 384 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All hon. members will come to order. The member for New Westminster will address the bill, please.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't push real estate.

MR. COCKE: Or whatever, I said.

She can get up and speak to the bill. She can get up and speak to

the hoist and tell us why she won't support the hoist if she is of such

a mind.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's your motion.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it's our motion.

That loquacious Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) indicates something about research. I suggest to him that this

amendment gives him and all of his colleagues an opportunity to

research what is in this bill. Possibly he'll even read the bill for

the first time. Possibly he won't take as gospel some of the things

that have been told him in cabinet and in caucus. Just possibly they

may come back to their senses with respect to pushing this piece of

proposed legislation. With the six months we're providing, he can go to

the Crown corporation for which he is the minister responsible, and

that's ICBC....

I see the green light, Mr. Speaker, and I will be very careful to finish my remarks as quickly as I can.

He can go to ICBC and ask management — people who have had a little

more training in terms of labour relations than he obviously has — what

kind of damage this is going to do to morale down there.

It needs to be hoisted because this bill will do more to harm the

reputation of our province and this Legislature than anything we've

seen here before. Why would they want to be party to that? Why are we

already listening to other jurisdictions across the country saying:

"Look what they're doing in B.C. again"?

MR. REID: That's good leadership and good government.

MR. COCKE: I keep hearing that drivel from those people hour

after hour, day after day. It means absolutely zero. Now the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is back — the member who put forward this

travesty. I hope that he will talk to his colleagues and say "you're

released," because obviously somebody has told them they cannot stand

up and speak on either the bill or the amendment. We have an

understanding, don't we, Mr. Minister.

MR. LEA: We were told that you don't want to speak, right?

MR. COCKE: They were told. They were called to caucus. You

hear those bells: ring, ding. We all want to remember that the first

minister in this province not long after he was made first minister he

stood at his place in this House and he said: "It took me two weeks to

train my dog." Well, maybe he's doing a job. I ask the members to go

home tonight, reread this bill and decide that the best opportunity

that they have to date is the amendment before us now to hoist for six

months.

1 move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the House to give the minister an opportunity to collect his senses.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[5:15]

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

R. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the reason we keep on moving

adjournment of the debate