[ Page 251 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon Sitting

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Education financing. Mr. Rose –– 251

Public service layoffs. Mr. Hanson –– 252

Rentalsman's office. Mr. Blencoe –– 253

Contaminated waste in Fraser River. Mrs. Wallace –– 253

Tabling Documents

Provincial Agricultural Land Commission annual report, March 31, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 253

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 254

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

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 254

Mr. Barrett –– 256

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 261

Mr. Cocke –– 264

Mr. Lea –– 268

Mr. Reid –– 272

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1983

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, behind you in the gallery this afternoon is a very special friend of many members of the House, and it is my pleasure to introduce Karen Ward to the new members. Karen was secretary to the Social Credit caucus, and is now secretary to the Progressive Conservative member for Prince George–Bulkley Valley, Mr. Lorne McCuish. I had a great deal of involvement and experience working with Karen when she was our administrator for the International Year of Disabled Persons, and she is one of the key persons who made that such a successful year for all the disabled citizens in British Columbia. I would ask the House to welcome Karen Ward, a really special friend.

MRS. DAILLY: In the gallery today are two young friends of mine, Mr. Brad Kirk from Port Moody, and Miss Victoria Larrea from Mexico City.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Dan Cumming, chairman of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District. He is a supporter of the Social Credit Party and one of the candidates who ran against me for the nomination. Also in the gallery this afternoon is Mr. Trevor Neate of the denturists' association, another of the candidates. I would like the House to welcome them both.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like members to recognize and welcome two very special members of Victoria, particularly of the neighbourhood of James Bay: two hard-working and dedicated members of our community, Mrs. Muriel Mixon and Mrs. Clare McAllister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today is Mary Keff, chairman of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I would like the House to make her welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Royal City, New Westminster, I have visiting in the gallery today Margaret and Tom Beardsley, who are very active community people, and I'd like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would like to welcome three young visitors active in public life in Oak Bay-Gordon Head: Alex McLean, Scott Andrews and Bruce Tuffert.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Coquitlam-Moody has informed the Chair that he has a matter of privilege to raise.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege affecting the rights of all members of this House. Yesterday morning the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) spent some time in Vancouver lecturing to school trustees and district officials about how devastating the new government's education policy was going to be. After the minister left the meeting the minister's information staff, now under the direction of communications counsel Douglas Heal, handed out packets of information that included details of school district budgets for the next three years. This was an important articulation of government policy that anticipates a vote in this House some day.

[2:15]

The question of privilege is this, Mr. Speaker: my staff phoned the minister's office for a copy of this information kit and was refused. My staff also phoned the Education ministry information service and was also refused. All copies, it is said, were on the lower mainland. I'm advised that over 400 copies of this information were handed out at yesterday's meeting. So far, Mr. Heal's information service has not been able to supply members of this House with the details of exactly what the government intends for the children in our constituencies. I point out that the Premier and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) recently increased Mr. Heal's stipend by 18 percent, and yet his organization appears incapable of delivering to all members of this House information on government policy — information that is crucially important and that should be delivered in a competent and timely manner.

If, upon examination of this question, Mr. Speaker, you find that these facts, when proven, constitute a prima facie breach of the dignities of this House, I would propose a motion that a Special Committee of Privileges be appointed to consider this matter and report its findings to the House.

I have the appropriate motion prepared, Mr. Speaker, and with your permission I'll read it: "I move...."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Without prejudice to the member's case, I will take the matter under advisement and report back to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

MR. ROSE: Would it be important for the Speaker to have a copy of the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, if it were forwarded to me, hon. member.

Oral Questions

EDUCATION FINANCING

MR. ROSE: I have a question for the Minister of Education. In today's press the former BCSTA president, Gary Begin, is quoted as saying that he wouldn't have run for the Socreds had he known of the government's plan for the new education system. Now if even Social Credit candidates were unaware of the draconian takeovers of the schools, announced by the minister yesterday, what mandate does the minister think the government has for these moves?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: After I assumed this portfolio shortly after May 5...it seems to me that the public has expressed the view that the education budget of about $1.9 billion, an increase of roughly $1 billion from 1976, ought to be examined. I thought perhaps that the information which was passed out to those people responsible for looking after the school districts — superintendents, secretary-treasurers, school trustees and officials of the BCTF.... They would have an opportunity, and they did have a thorough opportunity to examine the material yesterday.

MR. ROSE: I don't mean to be impertinent, Mr. Speaker, but the minister said those people responsible for looking after the schools; those people, to correct the minister

[ Page 252 ]

slightly, who used to be responsible for looking after the schools.

Yesterday the minister decimated local autonomy and the historic rights of people to operate their schools in their own community. I'd like the minister to tell this House: what powers and functions are left now to locally elected trustees?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I really look for your guidance. Am I free to discuss or attempt to answer the question by the member when it involves legislation which is before the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, open-ended questions tend to result in open-ended answers. If the member puts an open-ended question forward then he can expect some latitude in a response.

Hon. members, we are guided by the rules of the House. If they were to be adhered to strictly, virtually every question would be out of order. Possibly the member would like to rephrase his question in more specific terms.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry about the open-ended question, and I know you can anticipate open-ended answers but not vacuous answers; and that's what we got from the minister.

Can the minister confirm that henceforth the role of local school boards will be limited to raising taxes for allocation to Victoria, handing out pink slips to teachers — initialled by the minister — and taking flak from local parents because they are dissatisfied with the quality of the performance of their schools?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is an unequivocal no.

MR. ROSE: I have a final supplementary. The minister didn't specify what powers the school boards would be left with; I assume they have very little. Can the minister tell us whether the $50 million he intends to save over the next three years by stealing it from the kids is going to be dumped into that endless pit called BCR at Tumbler Ridge?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I quote from Beauchesne's fifth edition: "A question must be a question, not an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation nor debate." Hon. members, all of us certainly have sufficient command of the English language to phrase questions in a manner which does not offend the rules of the House.

MR. ROSE: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker. I know I should know better. My question was: can the minister confirm whether or not the money taken from the schools, taken from the children of this province, will be used elsewhere? And I asked whether it would go to BCR at Tumbler Ridge.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The use of the funds in the education system is considerable. The fact of the matter is that the moneys we have available continue to be ploughed into the education system in British Columbia. It cannot be open-ended. Unless some controls were taken with respect to the budgets for school districts, the system could not bear the weight nor could the taxpayers of British Columbia.

PUBLIC SERVICE LAYOFFS

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Premier regarding the firing of public employees in British Columbia. In view of the fact that the government has already commenced the ruthless firing of government workers without cause, and in view of the fact that the enabling legislation is before this House, has the Premier decided to suspend further firings until this matter is dealt with in this House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the question would more appropriately be put to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who is in charge of the public service. Ministers and their staffs are responsible for managing their ministries.

MR. HANSON: I have a supplementary for the Premier. Canada is a signatory to the International Labour Organization in Geneva, by which conventions are established for the rights of workers in terminations, appeal procedures, compensation and so on. Because Canada is a signatory to that body, have you decided to have your government comply with those conventions?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I think we're now getting into an area which we'll have ample opportunity to debate later under the bill. The government will approach this in a consultative way, and I think that should satisfy the member. Perhaps it would leave more time in question period for its purpose — urgent and important business that can't be undertaken in any other forum.

Interjections.

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

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to be directing these questions to the Premier, because his government has introduced laws into this House which flow from the kinds of dictatorships we see in Chile and Poland. Will the Premier relieve the shame of British Columbians, stop this firing until this matter is dealt with in this House and comply with the International Labour Organization?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I take great offence at that member and his political extremism of mentioning Chile and Poland. You're getting just like your lame-duck leader. You're getting just as bad as he is. You'll end up being a three-time loser, just like him.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before this House and the legislation introduced by this government does not do what that member suggests, and he'll get every opportunity to debate that when the bills come before this House. I think he's been irresponsible in those things that he said describing this bill.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member wants to know.... I can remember only once when we had a problem with that sort of legislation, and we got rid of them in 1975.

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Contrary to the minister's earlier

[ Page 253 ]

remarks, employees are being pink-slipped or axed all over this province by government agents this week. Can the minister inform the House how many employees are to be affected in this way?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Who are you addressing the question to this time?

MR. HANSON: The Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is continuously asking the question to the wrong minister, so I'll just take for granted that he was asking me the question.

I assume that the question that was put to me by the first member for Victoria was to establish the number of positions that would be abolished in the public service. That information is not available at this time. Until such time as we have determined the number of non-essential programs in government that are going to be eliminated, it's very difficult to say. I want to say right now that we have a program to abolish 25 percent of the positions in the public service. If we're going to achieve that, needless to say, it involves the abolition of certain programs in government. That will be determined on whether that 25 percent objective will be achieved on the number of programs that will be done away with.

MR. HANSON: On a supplementary, in view of the fact that no job is safe in British Columbia, how long is this reign of terror going to last?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order. Does the member wish to rephrase his question?

MR. HANSON: How long will the 250,000 families affected under this bill be subjected to the fear of losing their homes and their livelihood? How long will that take?

RENTALSMAN'S OFFICE

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. In view of the fact that the government has decided not only to eliminate the rights of tenants but to eliminate the office of the rentalsman as well — the only practical method of enforcing those rights — is the Premier prepared to tell this House what contributions were received by the Social Credit Party from the beneficiaries of this action, namely the development and property corporations of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't collect the funds for the party, and therefore I wouldn't know. I only ever saw one party leader make a collection during the campaign. Somebody picked up $100,000, and it wasn't me.

MR. BLENCOE: On a supplementary to the Premier, has the Premier decided to table the complete list of contributions from those development and property corporations?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member is making an assumption. A clever way of making a charge, which may be totally untrue, is by phrasing it as part of a question. The answer is no.

[2:30]

MR. BLENCOE: In view of the widespread concern that eviction without just cause will result in human rights violations, discrimination of all kinds and sexual harassment of tenants, has the Premier decided to withdraw this odious legislation?

CONTAMINATED WASTE IN FRASER RIVER

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of Environment. I'm sure the minister is aware of the economic value to this province of the Fraser fishery. Has he decided to use the power of his ministry to prevent the dumping of contaminated waste from B.C. Place excavation in the proximity of the Fraser River estuary?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No final decision has been made. The matter is being reviewed.

MRS. WALLACE: To the same minister, it is my understanding that this sludge contains heavy metals and petroleum products. What tests has his ministry conducted to determine the exact nature and quantity of these contaminants?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I think I indicated, the matter has come to my attention. It is being investigated, and I'm waiting for the results.

MRS. WALLACE: In view of his apparent indecision at this point relative to the tests, has the minister decided to sacrifice the Fraser River fishery, which brings in $75 million to $100 million annually to the economy of British Columbia, in order to hide part of the horrendous cost of B.C. Place?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: This is an interesting up-and-down situation. The minister has decided to get the objective data and information before he makes decisions about his indecision.

MR. SPEAKER: On Tuesday the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) sought to raise a matter of privilege with respect to comments made by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) during debate on Monday, July 11. A matter of privilege may be raised at any time, but it must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. I checked the Hansard Blues for Monday afternoon, which reveal that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound took his place in debate and raised the matter after the member for Vancouver East had completed his speech. Clearly the earliest opportunity to raise the matter of privilege was Monday afternoon. In addition, I note that the subject of the member's complaint is an alleged misrepresentation by another member. It appears from the Hansard report and the member's comments on Tuesday that what is involved in this instance is a dispute between two members as to an allegation of fact. Such a dispute does not involve a breach of privilege. See page 198 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder tabled the annual report of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ending March 31, 1983.

[ Page 254 ]

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

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 30

NAYS — 21

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Speaker do now leave the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair can in no way recognize the member in the manner in which he sought the floor. However, if the member wishes to demonstrate to the Chair a method by which he could have gained the floor.... Further, hon. member, there is no question before the House at this particular time. Therefore the Chair cannot accept the motion.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You recognized me. I move the motion. Under the rules, it's always in order to move a motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has ruled that that is not the case, and that is the ruling of the Chair.

MR. LAUK: I challenge the Chair.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

[2:45]

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 21

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak and to move second reading of the Public Sector Restraint Act. At the outset I want to reiterate that this government has been given a clear mandate to restrain public spending and to encourage recovery through private-sector initiative. This is not a mandate that this government takes lightly.

In February 1982 the government of British Columbia led the nation when it introduced the compensation stabilization program — the fairest program of its kind in Canada. The people of British Columbia endorsed this program on May 5. Mr. Speaker, we have been through some very serious economic times. We have all had to learn some very tough economic facts. The people of British Columbia have stated clearly that they are not willing to forget these facts. They want action from their government. I would suggest that the public have understood only too well the fact that a fundamental realignment is needed in the economic balance between business and government if our economy is to remain competitive and our businesses are to survive.

As was emphasized in the throne speech, an intrusive public sector is one part of the problem which we face. We intend to develop a leaner, more productive government which can meet the needs of the people in this province in a manner that is both efficient and effective. As all British Columbians are aware, yesterday we received notice that the credit rating of B.C. Hydro was revised downward. This reflects the fact that our deficit has increased by 60 percent over last year. The rating agency is telling the government that to keep the triple-A rating we will have to cut more services and increase taxes even more.

[ Page 255 ]

Let us review the serious situation we face in this province. We must remember that the government has no money of its own and all its programs depend on the ability of the taxpayers in B.C. to finance them. Restraint is essential. Government is very labour-intensive. If we are going to reduce the size of government, we must recognize that over 60 percent of the provincial budget goes directly or indirectly to public-sector wages and benefits — it's closer to 65 percent, Mr. Speaker. Therefore reducing the size of the public sector will help to attack the deficit and will allow more room for the private sector. Looked at another way, every percentage increase in the public-sector wage bill costs the taxpayers of British Columbia approximately $40 million. I contend that the taxpayers of this province can no longer support the continued growth in the public-sector wage bill that has characterized the past.

Today in British Columbia we are facing the consequences of this growth, and they are clear, immediate and inescapable. The adjustment of the B.C. Hydro credit rating is only one example. Without some direct action the private sector confidence in this province will never be restored. We can no longer allow public-sector growth to challenge and push out what should be growth in the private sector. Today there are nearly 300,000 full- and part-time employees involved in public-sector programs at all levels of government in this province. This number clearly has to be reduced.

Mr. Speaker, we do not blame the individual public-sector employees, who are trying to do the best job they can in restrained circumstances. In the budget speech reference is made to the "psychology of prosperity," which has helped bring us to this impasse and the expectation that we can ask our government for more and more services and that someone else will pay the bill. I think that the people of British Columbia now realize the falseness of this logic. The cure starts right here. It is absolutely necessary that governments at all levels come to terms with this issue. It is in this serious frame of mind that the government is taking the direct action outlined in this act. We would be remiss in our responsibility, both to the public who elected us and to future generations in this province, if we were to avoid the responsibility given us. The recession has taught all governments that economic prosperity has to be earned and cannot be purchased with public dollars. As a government, we are prepared to do our part. This new act is one of the tools we will be using to effect the economic realignment we see as necessary.

This act will assist in controlling the size and cost of government by providing authority at the expiration of current collective agreements for reducing the number of employees in all areas of the public sector. Let me make this clear: we have no intention of interfering with any of the collective agreements presently in place. It is only on their expiry that we will act to create, for public sector employees, the same economic reality that faces the private sector.

This act will cover Crown corporations, school districts, municipalities and hospitals, as well as other public sector employers. It is specifically designed to cover the entire spectrum of public sector activity. The government will act responsibly and fairly in dealing with the provisions of the act. To achieve our goals of decreasing the size and complexity of public sector operations, and to increase their efficiency and effectiveness in providing services to the public, we have made provisions for the termination of the employment of public sector employees.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Provision is made for regulations to be set out providing compensation for those employees whose employment has been terminated. The compensation payable may include such benefits as relocation and retraining allowances, as well as additional retirement benefits in some instances. Compensation will follow private sector standards. In addition, Mr. Speaker, employees will be permitted to make a choice about whether they wish to accept compensation, as provided for under the regulation, or whether they would rather pursue compensation in the courts. I should emphasize that our commitment to fairness is demonstrated by this freedom of choice.

Provision is also made for regulations to be set out governing the implementation of any termination of employment. These regulations may provide the criteria to be applied, including skills, abilities and qualifications of employees; their seniority; and the seniority provisions of a collective agreement. Operational requirements and efficiency may be another factor set out in the regulations.

I wish to draw to the attention of the members of the House a recently published bulletin describing a consultative process which I have set in place. This closely parallels the process whereby the compensation stabilization program was implemented, which, as you know, is the first program of its kind in the country. As part of this government's commitment to consultation, I have invited the public to comment on what the regulations could include. Because it is important to public sector employees to finalize details of the regulations as soon as possible, I have asked that submissions from any interested parties be made before August 8 of this year. In addition, a series of meetings is being arranged with representatives of various public and private sector groups. A senior government official has been charged with the responsibility to oversee this consultative process.

We cannot promise to continue protecting the public sector from the harsh lessons learned by many in the private sector, but we can promise to deal sensitively and fairly with those affected, while continuing to ensure a productive public sector.

Mr. Speaker, the final section of this act deals specifically with the senior managers in the public sector. There exists today a wide discrepancy between the hundreds of administrative positions in government and government-funded agencies. The government will be reviewing these positions with the aim of rationalizing them. A committee of deputy ministers has been established to develop a system of benchmarks, which will be ready by the fall, for use in determining what compensation is appropriate.

The compensation stabilization commissioner will, by regulation, identify those positions that will be covered. It is my understanding that the list he will designate will be coincident to that which the commissioner's report to the executive council deals with. Furthermore, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has informed me that the commissioner's report will be made public in the near future. I firmly believe that these two groups — public sector employees and public sector managers — will continue to provide the excellent service they have in the past. However, our government would be remiss in our responsibility in the economic partnership if we did not follow through on the hard lessons we have learned. Government simply cannot afford to carry the overall number of public sector personnel that it carries at

[ Page 256 ]

present. Everything possible has been done to reduce numbers through attrition. It is simply not enough. We cannot continue piling deficit upon deficit. The hard facts of the international economy in which we operate will not let us fool ourselves. The overall size of the public sector must be adjusted.

Mr. Speaker, this act is one of the tools the government needs to fulfil the mandate given it on May 5 of this year. I believe this act lays out a reasonable and sensitive way of following through on the hard lessons we have learned. We would be remiss to say we could do any less and be successful in reducing the size and complexity of the public sector.

Before closing, I wish to reaffirm our commitment of fair treatment to the individuals affected by these hard decisions. The regulations that will be forthcoming will reflect those benefits currently paid in the private sector, just as our actions only reflect the economic reality of the private sector. Private sector employees do not have tenure, and this hard fact has been all too often demonstrated during the recent recession.

Finally, I wish to inform the House that next Monday I will be meeting with representatives of the unions and associations that represent our provincial government employees. I intend to encourage their participation and input in the process of ensuring that this government's policies — a government just re-elected with a clear mandate of public sector restraint — are dealt with expeditiously, but in a fair and reasonable manner.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. BARRETT: It is a traditional practice in this House that when members make speeches they not read documents, but can allude to notes. It goes for some notice that that voluble minister who is never at a loss for words today confined himself completely to a written statement. Unlike his usual practice, he has been confined by the government to reading exactly what was written for him, for political rather than economic purposes.

[3:00]

Let us deal with one of the comments made in the opening remarks by the minister: "We have to cut down our deficit." The way they're going to cut down their deficit is by increasing it. How are they going to increase it? They've got a $117 million overrun in welfare. They're going to lay off hundreds, maybe thousands of people who will have to go on welfare. Who pays for the welfare? The rest of the people, those who are working, have to pay for the welfare. So what it means is an endless circle of ever-increasing welfare recipients in this province, simply on the basis of some cockamamy theory that putting people out of work will increase productivity.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that word?

MR. BARRETT: Cockamamy. It's parliamentary and applicable to this government.

Now if the bill was dealing purely with an economic theory, dealing with nothing more than an attempt to restructure the economic part of this province, that would be fair enough. But masked in this bill is something far more insidious and dangerous, and unparalleled in any free democracy in the western world. It's simple; it's not complicated; it's very clear; and it has absolutely nothing to do with economics. This bill, once passed, will allow the government to fire anyone in any municipality anywhere without cause. We don't dispute that, do we, Mr. Minister? It's clearly there in one of the sections.

This bill now gives jurisdiction against common law over the ability of people to perform service without being worried about the length of their hair, their associations, their political involvement, appointments directly by the state. This group that has said it wants less government is seizing unto itself control of freedoms that we have accepted in this province and country for years — the freedom of association, of political activity, of union organization, the freedom to be critical of the government. It will develop an oppressive paranoia in everybody working in the public service, on the basis that if they step out of line they will be fired.

Who's on the list? All the Crown corporations, school boards, municipalities, colleges, hospitals, everybody in the civil service, hydro linemen, public health inspectors, policemen, clerical workers, bus drivers, nurses, prison guards, garbage crews, firefighters — everybody.

MR. REID: Three hundred thousand of them?

MR. BARRETT: That's right, 300,000 of them.

Let us examine a couple of categories on this list. Let's examine the role of a policeman in a free democratic society. Supposing a policeman is investigating an allegation against a politician — as has been a common experience in this province, the only jurisdiction in the whole Commonwealth where a cabinet minister went to jail. I don't want to mention that it was a Social Credit cabinet minister. But the fact is that the police have, in the past, investigated allegations against cabinet ministers. In one instance just recently, Mr. Speaker, the police recommended the prosecution of a member of this chamber. That member got up in this chamber and said that the prosecution was stopped, thankfully, by the Attorney-General of the day. Without fear of losing his job — without fear or favour — the regional prosecutor investigating that particular MLA, without making a judgment on the case, recommended under the laws of this land that that MLA be prosecuted. What happened, Mr. Speaker? That MLA was protected, by his own admission, by a political decision of the Attorney-General. Now, if this act passes, it means that the psychological imperative on any police investigation.... Knowing that a member of a police force could be fired without cause is going to psychologically impair, without fear or favour, police investigations of people in power.

If you were a policeman or a prosecutor, or a judge...

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Not a judge, no.

....a policeman or a prosecutor, and just recently had been appointed to that post because you were dismissed from the motor vehicle branch, having had that experience of being dismissed at the age of 50 years, with 20 years of service, with children in school, and receiving a midnight knock on the door telling you that you are fired, and you found a new job as a policeman.... Having gone through that experience once, would you not be very careful in looking at your mortgage, at your children's futures at university — if they're still open — and at the possibilities of maintaining the protection of public service health care, and would you not say: "Well, I'd better not check this out, because I could be fired"? It's true. Mr. Speaker, this will be the only province in

[ Page 257 ]

all of Canada where civil servants, including police, fire and hospital workers, can be fired from their jobs without being told why they are being dismissed.

If they're investigating crooked politicians — as, unfortunately, has happened in this province — I can tell you they will be nervous about pursuing anything that would threaten themselves and their jobs. If you don't believe this, put a section in here that says: "This does not apply to public prosecutors or policemen." Put it in there.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Ah, but we've settled that.

Let's go on to a public health inspector. It is well known that this government believes in unfettered development. There have been serious allegations in this House about influence around development of land, removing it from the Agricultural Land Reserve, rezoning. If you were a rezoning officer, Mr. Speaker, and you just saw your desk-partner go down the tube, you just saw other people go out the door, having been fired by midnight visits or telephone calls like in some other fascist state where midnight calls were made to dismiss people.... There have been midnight calls to dismiss citizens of this province, saying: "We just want you to know: don't show up for work tomorrow. We're changing the lock on your door." That's treating people like third-rate citizens, as if some vengeful black angel came down and said: "We're doing this in the name of restraint." You're paying them until October anyway. What was the necessity for this kind of behaviour? I'll tell you what the necessity was. It wasn't just for firing people; it was to send a signal of fear through the civil service: to let them know who's running the show.

Suppose you are a public health inspector or a building inspector. Suppose you see some corners being cut on the basis of safety in terms of public health inspection or construction facilities. Suppose that you know that the particular proponent of that project is not a socialist, but may be a Socred supporter. If you have an ounce of brains in your head, you will not file a public health report or a building inspection report that is critical of somebody who has that kind of political influence. You're going to lose your job!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You don't think so, Mr. Member? I've been here 23 years, and I've seen the police interfered with by Social Credit governments before. I've witnessed it. When I came to this chamber, Mr. Speaker, we had an Attorney-General who had hidden a police report on the prosecution of a cabinet minister — the Butler report — and that report did not see the light of day until the NDP was elected, because that government suppressed police information to protect a cabinet minister. That was history. More recently the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) himself was under police investigation, and that was blocked by the Attorney-General. Now we're going to have fear through the police force in this province, and, I tell you, I haven't seen it before. You're a brand-new member, and you think you're joining some bridge club. The history of this bunch and their record of crooks in government is unparalleled anywhere in this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of record of crooks and would-be crooks who need the rights, protection and scrutiny of every police force. I say threatening policemen this way, threatening public health workers, threatening construction inspectors and protecting car dealers by doing away with car inspections indicates to me that there is an unusual personal interest in this government getting this legislation through.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What have car dealers got to do with it? The only way that we can have some assurance of safety on the roads, and see that junky cars are not sold to naive people who are on welfare and have to buy them for transportation, is to have motor vehicle inspection. Who else but a government of used car dealers would want to wipe out motor vehicle inspection, Mr. Speaker?

The minister piously stands up and talks about consultation. Every citizen of this province believes in fairness, and believes that no government would deliberately go out of its way to be mean, petty, cruel or hateful. Everybody believes that — until they've been victimized by this government's meanness, pettiness, cruelty and hatefulness.

MR. REID: Oh, we're cream puffs.

MR. BARRETT: You're cream puffs.

We won't be bullied around. We know what kind of tactics this government has used in the past and will use in the future. We've seen jackboot arguments in this House before, but never as bad as this. We've seen semi-manic pieces of legislation before, but never quite as bad as this.

I find it passing curious, Mr. Speaker, that in this fundamental debate on this most important piece of legislation facing the people of the province of British Columbia, dealing with fundamental human rights that are guaranteed in every other democratic institution and government, the Premier is not even sitting in his chair listening to the debate. But what I find even more curious is that the two ex-Liberals beetled off.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, confessed ex-Liberals. We know who the non-confessed ex-Tories are. I hope that the Conservative Party disavows any connection whatsoever with this government over this bill. I hope that Mr. Mulroney and the Tories and Dr. McArthur, who married this government during the election campaign, ask for immediate political divorce out of shame, because no true Conservative could agree to this kind of legislation. I also find it curious that the good members from West Point Grey aren't here either. My colleague here next to me, and a few others in this House, remember the debate on the land bill. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, the demands for the right to appeal? Property rights have the right to appeal, they said. They went so far as to go on public platforms with avowed political enemies against the agricultural land reserve, because they said there's no right of appeal. I'll tell you why those Liberals aren't in this House. They're ashamed to be here passing this kind of legislation, dealing without the right to appeal.

MR. MACDONALD: It's just people now.

MR. BARRETT: It's just people. It's not property. "It's all right to kick people around, but don't you touch my

[ Page 258 ]

property." Even some people who bought BCRIC shares know better than that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've declared mine.

MR. BARRETT: Down the tube you went. There's the experiment in capitalism. It cost you a bundle, didn't it?

[3:15]

Well, I was going to pay you out. You should have voted NDP; you'd have saved your money. Anyway, you went down the tube on your own choice. You're not a supporter of capitalism. You were looking for a quick ride and you got hosed. But we won't talk about that. What's sixty grand for a poor man? I'm sorry about that, Mr. Minister. I didn't mean to bring that up publicly — but I did.

Here's a letter dated July 11, 1983:

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

"As I have never before been fired from a position, I am perhaps not as familiar as I could be with methods used. However, I am certain that no research on this subject would list the method used by your staff as being listed under any code of ethics."

The first mistake of this author is to believe that this government has any ethics.

"Surely, Mr. Bennett, your dirty work can be done on your time. To telephone staff members at their home during their dinner hour is certainly not the normal procedure. To embarrass me in my home in front of guests is to me cruel and unnecessary. If it was that important to provide the recreation and sports branch field officers with their leave on July 7, 1983, then some forethought must have gone into that decision, and it would have been much more acceptable to have received the information during office hours. If no forethought did go into this decision, then I feel that it would have been more ethical to wait one more day and have us receive the information on the 8th. Was it that important to you? Obviously the directive to fire came from you. I do not know where the method used was developed, but I look to you personally for apology.

Ms. Perileen Smith,

Past Employee"

Why was it necessary to phone this woman at home at night? Was she guarding any state secrets? Did she know where the tennis balls were hidden? Did she know what kind of racquet the government preferred — tennis, that is? What was it the government was aware of that it was so necessary to keep this woman from her job? I'll tell you what the government was doing. It was sending the signal of fear out to the employees, saying: "We're going to get you, even if we have to go to your home."

We hear this pious claptrap from that minister today, reading out that nonsense about his consultation. This is a document that he distributed saying that we're going to have consultation. Let me read from this document so that you who are members over there know and understand your personal responsibility in this kind of behaviour by a government, because you are personally responsible. You'll be voting for it. You are all well trained. Let me tell you, it was your leader who came to this chamber, in his first two weeks as Premier, and when he saw some opposition, said: "It only took me two weeks to train my dog." That's what he said. It takes less to train the back-benchers. You'll all vote for it.

You're ambitious men and women. Oh, the cabinet have already made it to that glorious Valhalla of the green door.

MR. REID: That's leadership.

MR. BARRETT: There's a difference between leadership and viciousness, stupidity, cruelty and hate.

MR. REID: That's why they threw you out.

MR. BARRETT: I'm proud of my party's record, of the 45 percent of the people of this province who voted for this party; and I'm embarrassed and ashamed for the other 50 percent, who didn't vote for this.

I quote from this document that the minister referred to so piously today: "The government is an employer itself. It intends to use existing personnel management practices and any applicable provisions of current collective agreements in order to achieve as much reduction as possible."

What personnel manual anywhere outside of Soviet Russia or fascist Chile calls for visiting or calling people in the middle of the night and telling them they're fired? The only countries in the world that operate this way are communist- or fascist-dominated countries. Psychologically they are the same; they deny freedom. Take your choice, you're in the bag anyway. Star Chamber tactics.

What about the destabilizing effect of this approach? Take a look at the Victoria newspaper that has just arrived. "Wildcatters shut out government office workers." Do you think this is organized by labour?

MR. REID: Media.

MR. BARRETT: It's organized by the media, is it? Well, part of the reason the media did it is because they weren't dressed well enough to be recognized by the rest of the rabble. If they had put on their ties and shirts and been good little boys and girls in the corridor, they'd have been recognized. The media's at fault here, is it? Frustrated people who have been laid off their jobs and fired after 15 or 20 years of work?

This government is deliberately fomenting violence over this kind of legislation. I've just made a very serious charge, and I mean it. When you put human beings in a corner and force them to have no recourse to law, which they've been used to in our democratic society, and when you put people up against the wall the way this government has done and will do through this legislation, it is inviting and asking for that kind of violence, and they know it.

To piously come in here and say that you're going to consult after you've canned people.... I tell you I know some railroad workers who, if they lost their jobs in midstream and their pension went down the tube, would be the first out fighting against the CPR — no names, no pack-drills.

There are some people in this chamber who have had a fleeting experience with trade union activity. They know what basic human rights are in our society. Well, when you're on the way up and you want in and it's lookin' good, you can do what's happened on the floor of this chamber many a time: just change your principles like you change your coat and walk right across. I've seen it before. At least the new member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) did it before he got here. He was a three-day Socred before he

[ Page 259 ]

got elected; that's three days longer than a heck of a lot of them over there.

I want to quote an editorial from a right-wing newspaper, a free enterprise newspaper, a newspaper that generally toes the government line right down to the end. The last editor who didn't was fired for it in 1975: George Oake. He was quickly moved out of his job in the Times-Colonist because he had the temerity to write an editorial saying that it might not be bad to vote NDP. He was canned; down the tube; flushed out. He ended up in the next level of purgatory that we know in this country: the province of Alberta. That is unlimited punishment over which we have no jurisdiction. But if this bill passes, maybe Alberta will be a human rights haven compared to British Columbia. Let me read this editorial. It is titled, Mr. Speaker, very carefully and very thoughtfully: "A Passport to Extremism." It says:

"The question to be asked now, after last week's stunning budget and a barrage of legislation, is whether the unthinkable and the unbearable are also unjustifiable. The answer must be a sympathetic yes. The day-to-day enforcement of rights is fundamental in any democracy, yet the Socreds apparently view this function as expendable. On the same junk pile goes the consumer section of the Consumer and Corporate Affairs ministry, which last year held 130 inquiries. Instead of handling swiftly the landlord and tenant...."

I won't read the rest of it. This is in a responsible newspaper in this province. I want to read the last paragraph to you. It's an editorial stating a position from out there — never mind our politics. "All this and more in the name of restraint. British Columbians may yet live to regret that they ever heard that all-encompassing buzzword, so beloved at the Fraser Institute: the Socreds and their fellow travellers on the rightwing Juggernaut that is rolling across this province." They're hardly words that we would find acceptable in our own in-house newspaper, the Democrat. We would say it's too critical of this government. Right-wing Juggernaut. Is the Times-Colonist next? Will there be a press act brought in, like the old Social Credit, saying "naughty, naughty"?

I know that the government is a shameless bunch. I know that my comments are falling on deaf ears.

MR. REE: We're listening.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you're all listening.

Ambition will block out their reason. I can see it in the eyeballs — so glazed. Next to the seats of power. If they all conform, if they all compromise a bit, if they all forget the principles they once espoused, they too may make it to the hallowed position of sitting next to the Premier. They can be trained in two weeks, like everybody else. Here, Fido! Here, backbench! Down with civil rights. Stay in line. And most of all and most significant, considering the propaganda of this government: heel!

I want to make it very clear that there is no difficulty for our party to draw a line between ourselves and this non-government. It is a group of extremists that is abusing the power that has been preciously given in a democratic society. This extremist government is opening an attack on all citizens employed in the private and public sectors — because it's coming. This government is destabilizing our entire society for some political purpose that has absolutely nothing to do with economics.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Recovery. Don't be such a twit, Mr. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please avoid the personal references. That is unparliamentary.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I did not mean to insult the twits. I am allowed some licence, because I have seen, in my time in public office, some pretty despicable behaviour. This has gone too far.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary is recognized on a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Could the member be seated while I state my point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could take his chair just for a minute while I listen to the point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Could I understand what section of the standing orders the member is standing on?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a very good point. Could the hon. member state under what standing order he is rising?

[3:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you asked that question, but my point of order....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I will not tolerate those diversionary tactics by that lame duck over there. I will not tolerate the kind of offensive language being used by the Leader of the Opposition. That's a reflection on all of the members of this House, and you, Mr. Speaker, have a responsibility to have him withdraw those statements.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we can come to order. The Leader of the Opposition used the word "twits." I advised the Leader of the Opposition to use parliamentary language and not make references to other hon. members. However, the Chair must also point out that the member did not refer to any other hon. member in the statement that was made. But the language is unparliamentary.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw the offending word. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to understand that even though this bill wipes out due process and the rights of citizens, there are standing orders in this chamber, and if a member gets up and stands in his place without referring to a standing order, he's interfering with the right of a member to speak. So I expect those minutes to be added to my time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You want to change the rules.

[ Page 260 ]

MR. BARRETT: No, I don't want to change the rules. I'm not designated speaker, and I don't want any of my time lost by interruptions that are not substantiated by standing orders.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You want to take those rights away too.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're a pious lame duck.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order.

MR. BARRETT: The minister has called me a lame duck. Well, it's better than being a lame-brain, Mr. Minister, I'll tell you that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we've had enough debate of this nature. We are on the bill. The hon. member now speaking will contain his remarks to the bill. The hon. minister will remain silent along with every other member while we listen to the member who has taken his place in debate. Is that clear?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, thank you for protecting me from that minister.

May I continue by talking about Marshal Jaruzelski's Poland, General Pinochet's Chile and our own Bill Bennett. What a triumvirate.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, I can't refer to the Premier by name. That's right. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Our own Premier. There he is with Jaruzelski; there he is with Pinochet. What other jurisdictions have written laws that say people can be fired without cause?

MR. SKELLY: Guatemala.

MR. BARRETT: Name them in Canada. Name another province in this country or a state in the union that has laws saying that people can be fired without cause. Not Margaret Thatcher, not Ronald Reagan, not any one of these. The only place in the western world of democracies that has a law that says people can be fired without cause will now be British Columbia.

I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker: when they went through an election campaign did they once say that, if elected, they would seek the power to fire civil servants without cause? I don't recall that. Not even in the mass confusion around the certification debate did we hear that. Did any candidate for Social Credit stand up in the election campaign and say: "Vote for us and, if elected, we will pass legislation firing people without giving cause"? Did you say that?

MR. REID: We said "restraint."

MR. BARRETT: Restraint in a pig's eye! This is nothing more than an attempt to create fear throughout all public employees to toe the government line. That's all it is.

What about the recommendations on the Spetifore land? How will that happen in zoning under the agricultural land reserve and civil servants? Do you think that anybody in the zoning process won't get the message that unless they get the right direction in their recommendations they, too, could be fired? What about the Gloucester property? It is a bill of intimidation. Mr. Speaker, we did get one signal of this before the election was over. It was when the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) attacked the Labour Relations Board. Do you remember that? He attacked them and he wanted to interfere: "Get rid of the Labour Relations Board or terrorize them."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: "Hear, Hear!" There it is, right there! That is the guy...what is his name — the new one?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Slick, or whatever. You're in favour of that kind of stuff.

AN HON MEMBER: Goebbels.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, no personal references.

MR. BARRETT: I want to raise two other matters. During the election campaign civil servants were sent letters by Social Credit computers. They were asked for money.

MR. REID: They were members.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no. Some senior civil servants are worried sick over Social Credit requests for campaign contributions.

These civil servants were sent letters during the election campaign and asked for funds for Social Credit. Everybody who gave funds, his name is on the list; everybody who didn't give funds is not on that list. Are they subject to being fired because they didn't give money to Social Credit?

Mr. Speaker, why the unholy rush to push this bill through? Why this denial of the self-stated consultation process? Four days after the bill is introduced you are in here debating it. Why this nonsense about coming back next Monday after you ram this thing through the House, and say: "Now let's talk about it." You bleed the patient to death, put him in the coffin, put a lily in his hand and say: "Gee, we'd like you to breathe again, but it's too late."

You had no intention of consultation. You and I have known each other too long, Mr. Minister. We know the old game. You and I are two tough old, wizened politicians — one's an eagle and the other's a turkey, but old birds nonetheless. You and I both know what game is being played here, through you, Mr. Speaker. The game is a fake stall. Here they are trying to pass the bill and, at the same time, talking about consultation. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, there are naive citizens in this province who actually believe that they are going to get consulted before they go to the guillotine? Do you know what they will get? They'll get a road map to tell them what part of the neck is being hit first.

Mr. Speaker, I just have one more comment and I'll finish. I want to conclude by appealing to all of the people of this province to understand very seriously what is happening here today. I want everybody to understand that no one is safe, and no job is safe, in this province from this law. I want

[ Page 261 ]

to conclude by quoting a very courageous Christian pastor who at the height of examining an oppressive government made the following statement. It took him a long time to get to this point. I want to conclude with this particular quotation. It was Pastor Niemoller, describing extremism in his own country:

"When they came for the Jews I did not speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a bill like this in this House before. It sickens one. I am ashamed of this government, as they should be of themselves, for bringing in this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to move adjournment of this debate.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The ruling of the Chair is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition had taken his seat and his time had expired. The only standing order that he could have risen under in this case would be standing order 42, which the member did not appeal to or state. Therefore the Chair does not recognize the motion and does recognize the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

[3:45]

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 22

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise to support Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act. I think it's important that the members opposite, instead of hanging their hats around the phrase "without cause," take a moment to read the explanatory note; if they look at it closely, I believe they will find the cause for the bill itself. I'd like to quote it: "The purpose of this act is to permit public sector employers to terminate employees for the purpose of decreasing the size and complexity of public sector operations and to increase their efficiency and effectiveness in providing services to the public." It is that very same public that pays for the public sector, and we have a responsibility as government to give them efficient and effective operations, not to maintain services which the public and the taxpayer cannot afford.

The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) has stated time and again, along with his colleagues, that isn't it terrible the phrase "without cause" is in the bill; and that people will descend on those employees in the dead of night and give them their notice, let them go and release them from their duties, because of the colour of their hair or their skin, or whatever it might be. That is not the case at all, and the member for Vancouver East knows it well. He knows the cause is recession — not just recession in this province but throughout Canada and other parts of the world; the economic downturn that we all have had to face. For the benefit of the member for Vancouver East, the employer who happens to be the taxpayer has to have the ability to pay for those services. If he does not have that ability he's in serious difficulty, because he's the one who has to carry the deficit to pay the interest on the deficit. In the end he's the one who has to pay the bill.

There are approximately 240,000 public service employees in British Columbia — not just provincial public servants, but municipal, hospital, etc., totalling some 240,000 people. In the private sector there are in excess of 900,000 people. Those people working in the private sector have to face the marketplace. They are small businessmen and large corporations. They are the retailers on any main street in any one of the communities in this province who have faced difficult times because the people weren't coming in to buy their product and they were faced with high interest rates. Some of them have suffered to the extent of closing their shops. They are the farmers faced with ever-increasing costs of operation, ever-increasing energy costs, labour costs, etc. They are faced with difficult times and they don't have tenure. The only tenure they have is tenure to the land. They wish to produce food but are faced with those ever-increasing costs, and don't have the protection that the public sector has had in the past.

Manufacturers — whether an automobile manufacturer, a large corporation or a man just producing windows in a door-and-sash operation in a small community — have had to suffer. The market for cars dropped drastically. Layoffs of thousands of people took place and notices were given out. The small manufacturer, the contractor, the builder, the plumber and the small businessman suffered from the downturn in the marketplace and from the recession.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) says: "At night." I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of small businessmen who stayed awake many a night trying to figure out just where the next

[ Page 262 ]

cheque was coming from. They didn't have tenure, but they were prepared to work in the private sector of this province. As government we have to recognize that we have a responsibility to those people in the private sector because through their earnings and activity and through the economic activity of the province comes the revenue that comes to government to pay the paycheque of the person working in the public sector.

As recently as a few minutes ago, the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond) provided me with a telegram that he received from Afton Mines. The statement was basically that the Afton copper smelter near Kamloops was shut down in late July and that 34 people out of a total of 321 people who work for Afton Mines will be out of work because of the shutdown of that smelter — not a total shutdown, but 34 people in the private sector. They didn't have any tenure. Their tenure was the marketplace, and if the marketplace is not there, if they don't have a market for their product, the employer — the management, the president and the board of directors — have to make that decision to say to senior management: "I'm sorry. Billy Brown was a good employee; he's been with us for several years and has done a good job. We'd like to keep him, but we can't because we're in the red. We've got a problem. We've got to cut costs, and we have to make that tough decision."

It's about time, Mr. Speaker, that governments at every level — municipal, regional, district, provincial and federal — made that same hard decision when times demanded. This government is leading Canada in doing that.

That tough action is necessary in the private sector because the alternative to that is bankruptcy. That's the alternative for the businessman if he continues to pay his expenses but not get any revenues. He ends up going broke. Government's a little different, because government in the past has seemed to have an unending supply of revenue. It was simple: if increased costs came along and costs of programs or labour went up, you just turned around and taxed the people. The economy would pay for it. That's what governments thought for too long.

MR. MACDONALD: Not any more.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not any more, Mr. Member. We're faced in 1982-1983 with a $900 million deficit in our operations. What would you do in the private sector if you had that kind of loss? I think the sheriff might be there knocking at the door. It's a major problem. We recognized it, and the Premier of this province again led the country in February 1982 and said to the people of the province: "We've got to show leadership, and we've got to get a handle on government spending," and he brought in the compensation stabilization program.

Even doing that, Mr. Speaker, we come to the year 1983-84. After looking at our costs and the revenues that have dropped drastically in the forest and mining industries and in all sectors of the economy.... Revenues dropped. We didn't overexpend, but we have to cut the cloth to attempt to fit those revenues. When we started to cut the cloth to fit the revenues, we found that we have another responsibility, and that is to provide $2 billion in health care, another $2 billion in education, around $1 billion in human resources and social assistance and the policing in the Attorney-General's department. All those things we have to supply. It is a responsibility of government to provide essential services.

So when we ended up cutting the cloth, we were $1.6 billion short. We were more than that short. So we had to take the tough action of cutting back programs and services, but always maintaining the essential services to the people of this province. I compliment the Minister of Finance in his dealing with that difficult task over the past several months.

But, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the bill and what it does, and regarding the comment "without cause," tenure is a great thing; it's nice to have. But I pose the question: is it a right or a privilege. I say it's a privilege. Is it earned or contracted? I say it has to be earned. In the private sector it's earned. Yes, it was nice to have in a contract; it was nice to say: "I've been here for x number of years and I'll be here until I retire." It would be great if we could all adopt that attitude, because nobody would have to worry about the marketplace. If the opposition had their way, they'd say: "Let the government hire everybody, then nobody will be out of work" — except we'd all go broke within a very short period of time. But that's the concept the NDP would lead you to believe is success.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's what you advocate. You tell us that if we lay off people.... Your leader just said five minutes ago: "If you lay off people, what are they going to do? They're going to go on unemployment and welfare." Nonsense, Mr. Member. Those employees are better stuff than that. You know it and I know it. If they're laid off tomorrow because their job or their program is redundant, or we can't afford it, they're not going to sit back on their duffs like some people across the floor and say: "I want my unemployment," or, "I want my welfare." No sir! They're made of better stuff than that. They'll go out and attempt to find a job, and I'll guarantee that most of them will, because they're that type of people. So don't ever tell us that the public servant can't find a job in the marketplace. He can, and he will, if he is one of those people who is affected by this tough decision that has had to be made.

[4:00]

The unfortunate part is that government has become bigger and bigger over the years. When the economy was going gung ho, well, nobody really questioned it. Programs that were in place 20, 15, 10, 5 years ago — nobody questioned how essential they were, how useful they were. Nobody questioned that. But when times really got tough, somebody had to look at them and say: "Is that an essential service? Can the taxpayer — the man who pays the bills — afford it?" And in those cases we had to say no to some. True, those services are useful to some, desired by many, but they weren't essential, and they had to go. But the NDP would lead you to believe the programs should be maintained in perpetuity. If they had their way, they'd still be making buggy whips for wagons when we've got spacecraft going to the moon. That's the type of mentality they've got over there.

Governments have allowed the service to grow for too long and have never questioned the effectiveness and the cost. Politicians, particularly those across the floor, have often taken the easy way out. It's easy to say yes to a greater demand. It's easy to be a nice guy. But when the chips are down, the people who get the job done are those people who have to deal with the problem and take action, because the taxpayer today wants a lean, efficient government, and one that he can afford. That's what Bill 3 attempts to do.

[ Page 263 ]

Mr. Speaker, some would say they are tough measures, that they are an infringement upon the rights of people, etc., and there are other people who would get very vocal and make comments.... Let me quote one. This is from the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Art Kube: "We intend to mobilize action against the madness this government is trying to perpetrate against the average citizen, against the public employee." That's the kind of attitude that really concerns me, because he is the head of the Federation of Labour. There are many of his members who are working in the private sector, affected by the marketplace, the economy, the recession, and he holds out the flag and says: "We're not going to allow this government to deal with the public service; we're not going to allow Bill 3 to go through." Yet other members of his federation are the people who have been laid off, who are on a short work week, who can't afford any more taxes, and he doesn't recognize that there is a part to play in economic recovery by the public sector as well as by the private sector. I think he has a responsibility to address the question honestly, sincerely, and in light of the economic problems that this government faces today. I hope Mr. Kube reconsiders some of those statements and leads the Federation of Labour as it should be led: in the spirit of cooperation, dealing with a major problem faced by this province.

Interestingly enough, last Friday night, the day after the budget came in, I was watching CTV. I've got to tell you that's not my favourite TV station, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes I get a little upset when I watch the news, particularly the local news. But there was the editorial — Bruce Phillips, good guy. He does a good editorial. I saw him do the whole background on the Conservative convention. I thought he did a super job. However, he had an editorial about the budget that was brought down in this House, about the actions that the British Columbia government was taking in controlling costs. He said that this government was the only government that had the guts to show leadership in how to control government spending. He said the eyes of Canada were on this government, the eyes of the western world were on this government to see how we survived.

He was concerned. He supported the concept. He felt we were doing the right job — the only government that had ever taken the problem head-on. But he was concerned because he wondered whether we could weather the storm; whether we could take the flak; whether we could listen to the Leader of the Opposition; and whether we would back down because of his vicious attack. Well, I've got to tell you: that has-been leader doesn't bother me or this side of the House at all. He's expired. He's gone. When I hear some of the claptrap that he talks about about the agricultural land reserve, Spetifore properties.... That man's name has been tagged to a piece of property which he doesn't own any more; it wasn't his application before the Agricultural Land Commission or the Environment and Land Use Committee. It was an application by the municipality of Delta, and the members across that way know it. This man, Spetifore, has lost lots of dollars. He's been farming for over 30 years in Delta, a long-time citizen, not a developer, and they accuse him and continue to accuse him. I have to tell you that it upsets me a great deal to see how they attack an individual who has lost a lot of dollars and who is not associated with that property today.

We've shown leadership in this province, not just to the public sector of Canada, not just to 10 other governments — including the federal government — but to the private sector for the first time that any government has. I expect that when the forest industry and other industries in this province deal with their negotiations in the future, they will say and hold out as an example in their bargaining when they talk to the negotiators across the table: "Gentlemen, the government of British Columbia recognizes how serious it is, and we also have to recognize how serious the situation is." I'm hoping that both labour and management, when they sit down to negotiate in the private sector, will have learned a great deal from this bill and from this year's activity as far as this government is concerned. We'll say: "Let's sit down at the bargaining table, not in confrontation but in cooperation. Let's sit down and within a few days come up with what we think is a fair settlement, a settlement which will make the manufacturer's products more competitive, will allow the service to be reasonable to the consumer, and give a fair return to the employees." I think that by this leadership we've shown with this bill, that is exactly what is going to happen. I hope so.

Restraint in the public sector is very essential — there's no question about it — because we're labour-intensive. I think that 60 or 70 percent of our total budget goes into labour. We have to look at the leadership of what we do here with this bill, because it also applies to school districts, municipalities, hospitals, Crown corporations and pretty well all those areas of our economy that are covered, paid for or supported by the taxpayers.

If we, by passing this bill — I hope without too much debate on the other side.... Maybe that's wishful thinking. I hope they sit and think about it. By determining where we're going in the public sector at this level, we will make it easier on municipalities and hospitals, both employer and employee, so that when they go to the bargaining table, they will not spend days, weeks and months to determine what the end result is, only to have the decision reviewed by the Compensation Stabilization Commission. They'll come to their own decision, and they won't need that last look. They'll come to their own decision because we've shown the leadership. I think that's the key to this whole debate today.

The problem in the past, as I said before, is one where governments have introduced programs.... In good times we introduced programs as a government. We have raised the budget of this province from — my memory fails me — I think $3 billion or $4 billion up to $7 billion or $8 billion under our administration since 1975. That's how much we've grown by providing services. Only now, and maybe it's late in the day, have we addressed the question and brought in this bill to try to get some further control on the expenditures of government. It's not the public servants' fault. They've carried out their duties. In my ministry, the rentalsman's office has carried out the duties of that office under the legislation that has been place and done the job well. Other services in my ministry are the same way. I don't doubt that those employees have been dedicated and worked hard under the terms of reference of their jobs to carry out their duties. But if a program or a service can't be afforded, if it's not needed or essential, then we have to address it, and that's essentially what this bill has done.

This bill provides a method whereby we recognize certain factors, not just tenure, not just the fact that you're here and since you've been here for X number of years you're here to stay. We've got back to reality. We've got back to a system that has been in the private-sector marketplace for years. After this bill is passed the public employer will recognize the skill of his employee — which is most important. That's

[ Page 264 ]

what he pays him for. When you hire an employee, whether he works in a plant, hospital or for the provincial government, you hire him for his skills. Shouldn't that be number one in the criteria that determine whether or not he should work for you? I say yes. It's that way in the marketplace. This bill recognizes the abilities of that employee. I think that if I was an employee I would want to be recognized for my skills and ability – not just because I fill the chair, not just because I was under a contract, but because I could provide my skills and ability to do a job for which I was being paid. There's nothing wrong with that. It recognizes the qualifications of the individual. It also recognizes seniority, but I think we've finally got them in the right order of priority: skill, ability, qualifications, seniority.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the great humanitarian, says "race." Now that's a reflection on every public-sector manager in this province, whether he works for the provincial government, a hospital or a school board. That member implies that every management person in this province may be a racist. I wish he would apologize for that type of comment across the floor. It's not fair to the people who work for the taxpayer of this province.

In his comments today the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) made a commitment to fairness in this bill. He said that everything that had to be done with regard to fairness to the employee would be done — recognizing again that those employees are people who are hired to do a job and feeling that their jobs are worthwhile, because that's what they were hired to do. Now that the job is redundant, or can't be afforded, they have to have their employment terminated. Proper notice, compensation and assistance to find other employment will, I'm sure, be given by members of the various ministries and management levels to those employees who are being laid off. I think that the minister, in carrying out his difficult task in introducing this bill, has attempted to say to all public employees today: it is unfortunate, it is something that is not easy to do, but it is something that we must do if this province is going to continue on the road to recovery. And I compliment him on bringing in a fair bill to deal with a very difficult problem. The bill recognizes we are dealing with loyal and dedicated employees, but there's no question that when you're faced with a budget deficit for the year 1983-84 in excess of $1.6 billion — down to $1.6 billion even after all the tough measures had been taken....

We've attempted to make the approach to resolving the problem as fair as possible.

[4:15]

If this fragile economic recovery that we're in right now is to succeed, we'll have to take those tough measures. Private sector people, other public sectors in the province and other provinces in Canada will have to take the same tough measures. I hope the federal government recognizes that they have a responsibility, too, and cannot just say the words; they have to take the action, as we have done.

I will just conclude by saying: tough measures for tough times. We're a tough people out here, and those public servants who will be out of a job are pretty tough people, too. I'll guarantee that most of them will be back in the job market in the very near future, and we'll do everything in our power to assist them in that effort. With those comments I supportBill 3, and I compliment the Provincial Secretary for bringing this bill forward.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think there has ever been a day in this House, in the going-on-15 years that I've been here, that I have been so ashamed to have to debate a bill because it's been put forward by a government totally insensitive to the needs of the people in our province. I say here and now that there is no job in this province that is safe. Neither in the public nor the private sector is any job in this province safe. Take a look at some of the companion pieces to this travesty called law. That lightweight speech that we just heard in support of this travesty did it no good whatsoever.

First and foremost we heard about consultation from the minister. He talks about meetings coming up in the near future. What consultation occurred in the preparation of this document? Only that consultation that occurs behind a cabinet door. This bill represents everything and every reason that I'm in politics, in opposition to that group. There's a commitment to fairness. That commitment has been broken at the presentation of this bill. Implicit in every line in this bill is unfairness. Every line in this bill tells us that the government is totally turning their backs on normal, decent, twentieth century labour practices.

That fatuous, vacuous statement made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) about Afton Mines laying off 35 people.... What did Afton Mines do to lay off those 35 people? Did they go in and take the senior person and lay that senior person off? No. They have a proper standard of labour relations, as does this government now. If you have a program to cancel, you can cancel it. If you have people that you wish to lay off by virtue of this "restraint," you can lay them off. You don't have to bring in a piece of legislation that cuts fair play to ribbons. This is the worst piece of proposed legislation that I have seen.

I go back a way with this minister. I will, if I get time, talk about some of his shenanigans when he was Minister of Labour, way back when. He wasn't there long, thankfully for everybody in this province, but in any event he was there for a while. However, with that mentality — the mentality of this government — I reiterate: no job in British Columbia is safe as long as this group is in power.

I have one more word about that Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He said: "Ignore that part of the bill that talks about 'without cause.' Look on the left side for the explanatory note." What kind of an argument is that from a "lawmaker"? Explanatory notes don't go down in statutes. It's argument; look at the words of the bill. The words are "without cause"; in other words, anybody, anywhere in the whole public service in this province, in the municipalities, in the school districts, or in the Crown corporations, can be canned without cause.

Interjection

MR. COCKE: I'm told by the person who put forward that empty argument that somehow or another I'm not suggesting something that's true. In all of his remarks he gave no argument contesting what I am saying now.

Another argument that he raised was that people in the private sector have to have people buying their products. They have less as of today, and I mean considerably less. As I say, there is no job safe in this province and certainly no job safe in the public sector. Who is going to be going out and

[ Page 265 ]

buying a home right now? Are any of the 250,000 people who are working for this government or for subsidiary governments in this province — or the Crown agencies and societies — going to be out buying homes or cars? Are they in any way going to put themselves into jeopardy by making a purchase of anything more than a can of beans? No, Mr. Speaker.

This bill in and of itself has harmed this economy. There is no question in my mind that the people in this province feel double-crossed by this government. There was no mandate to do this sort of thing. Never was it suggested. For whatever reason, the people felt that they could get from Social Credit a government that they could trust. Mr. Speaker, they have found that they have been double-crossed. They knew about this government's propensity to live lavishly, to spend an average of tens of thousands of dollars each on their own travel, entertainment, fun. Mr. Speaker, they knew those propensities, but they were prepared to put up with that. But not in their wildest dreams would they have thought that this government would have gone crazy. Not in their wildest dreams would they have thought that this government would go power mad, would make pawns out of public servants and would try to intimidate the entire workforce in the province of British Columbia. That's what you see before you. If you don't understand it, may heaven have mercy, because that's what this is all about. We know it, and you know it!

Someone spoke of the reputation of B.C. and its leadership in this country. Let me tell you this: B.C.'s reputation in this country and on this continent has been irreparably impaired. Our reputation will suffer as a result of this legislation. Freedom-loving people are shuddering. Fair-minded people are outraged. Those who don't understand soon will.

Here we have a six-page bill that does more to harm the labour relations we have had in this province since the advent of the labour code than anything I know of. We've turned the clock back. Mr. Speaker, we've turned it this far back: we have in our province a reincarnation of a Bennett.

AN HON. MEMBER: R.B.?

MR. COCKE: R.B. Bennett! Fifty years ago he had the same kind of mentality that we see before us in this bill right now. Mr. Speaker, the loathing that that millionaire lawyer had for working people has survived any other reputation that he built. Now we see, fifty years later, an advent of that same kind of vindictive, nasty approach to labour relations.

MR. REID: Nonsense!

MR. COCKE: There's no nonsense about it. We all know it. And anybody with a law degree should know it better than anybody else. If it's government policy to victimize people, it's the same government policy that tries to make slaves of them. Who's affected so far?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes. I'm dead serious. You know it, and everybody over there who has any brains knows it.

[4:30]

Mr. Speaker, who's affected so far? Firstly, I suggest to you, everybody in the province. If you don't believe it, read some of the companion legislation that has come forward. If anybody out there thinks that only the public sector are to be handled in this manner, watch it. Everyone in the public sector is directly affected — direct government employees, nurses, teachers, municipal workers, hospital workers, college employees, employees of Crown corporations, boards, agencies and societies. We don't stop there. Even their employers are jeopardized. That's right. Good hard-working people decide they're going to sit on a society board, a school board, a city council, a municipal council or a regional district. If they don't uphold this travesty and keep the government's orders, they're going to be fined 2,000 bucks. What a piece of nonsense! Yet we have it before us. Those 250,000 public-sector workers in B.C. who are under the heel of this jack-boot legislation, otherwise known as Bill 3, have nothing else to do but warn their brothers and sisters in the entire workforce of our province: you're next. Any government that could do this could do anything. No job in this province is safe, and you know it. You don't fearmonger a piece of fire. This is a piece of fear in and of itself. It's up to me as a responsible politician to spell out what this piece of legislation says. This legislation says that there is no protection by allowing a collective agreement to continue. Am I right or wrong?

MR. REID: Wrong!

MR. COCKE: There is no access to appeal. I see a lawyer writing pretty fast. I want to hear what he has to say. There's no access to appeal in our society today. No due process is what I'm talking about. I'm saying to the lawyers in this House: what lawyer, trained in a free country, could possibly condescend to this travesty? I ask that question. Where are the Socred lawyers? How could those lawyers who've been trained to uphold human rights spit in the face of the rights of all those people in this province? What part has the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) played in this travesty? What part has the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) played in this travesty? What about the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is now sitting before us? What part did he play? Are they ashamed or are they not ashamed? Two backbench lawyers — I won't ask too much of them; but will they search their consciences, as did Allan Williams, who knew this was coming and quit?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes, he did. There's no way he could have lived with that. He lived with an awful lot, but with this one you pulled that rug too far out. He knew it was coming. Where's Vogel going and why?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound rises on a point of order. State your point of order, please.

MR. REYNOLDS: The point of order is that the member speaking is imputing motives to a former member of this House, and I don't think he should.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

MR. COCKE: That member is justly feeling embarrassed and raised a non–point of order in order to interrupt the

[ Page 266 ]

speaker. The fact of the matter is that he has all the opportunity to stand up and argue for this bill if he wants to or for anybody else he wants to.

MR. REYNOLDS: Tell the truth.

MR. COCKE: What have we come to in this House?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! One moment, please. There is an awful lot of heckling going on; the Chair finds it quite unparliamentary. Some remarks have been quite insulting and most unparliamentary.

The member for New Westminster will continue uninterrupted.

MR. COCKE: It has been brought to my attention that I may be imputing principles to the former Attorney-General. In any event, that's the way I see it, and that's the way any fair-minded person in this province sees it. I go back and ask those people trained in this particular area what they would have done in private practice with some group other than government — who are untouchable, it would appear — that tried to take away the human rights that this bill does. They would fight that in every court in the land, and they should, if they had any courage, be fighting it here and now in this Legislature.

This bill makes a mockery of any kind of decentralization. There are people sitting in this House who have municipal government experience. How do you feel now, or how would you like to be back in a municipality now being dictated to by this government in terms of your employee-employer relations?

AN HON. MEMBER: They love it.

MR. COCKE: If they love it, then they sure are not people who have really thought out what true democracy is. Authoritarian stuff like this is not representative of true democracy in any way, shape or form.

During the war many of us had stars in our eyes thinking in terms of what we were trying to protect here. We came back, found a country that was not up to the standards it should be in terms of freedom, and fought for better freedom. And we were getting it. Across this country people were getting more and more freedom, and now in one flash of the pen, in areas of labour relations as far as public servants are concerned, you've wiped it all out and taken us back 50 years. I don't want to attribute motives, but this opens up patronage opportunities such as have never been seen before in this province. Fire Joe, hire good old cousin Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tony.

MR. COCKE: Tony. I've never heard that name before, but it's a possibility. Tony Tozer was the tip of the iceberg; now the avalanche is upon us — to mix a metaphor.

I suggest to you that we cannot have a politically independent public service with a bill or a proposed statute such as this on our statute books. How can we? Every single public servant in this province is under threat of termination. Every one. Without cause; no appeal, absolutely no access to due process. That is what we have here, and that is not acceptable. Anybody who says it is likely subscribes to what I'm saying: that is, this opens the door to patronage like we've never seen in this province.

W.A.C. Bennett wanted to get rid of patronage. From 1952 on he fought against patronage. He did a pretty good job. Those Libs and Conservatives that ran this province for years made a pork barrel out of B.C. In his timid way, W.A.C. at least made some progress. That progress is wiped out with this Bill 3.

MS. BROWN: Some son.

MR. COCKE: Some son. Son-of-a-gun.

This almost proves the old adage that power corrupts. A public service living with fear cannot be efficient. The mandate of this government was not a mandate which included dictatorship; yet that is what we see in Bill 3. The Premier and his cabinet have snatched the power to do their will, to intimidate and coerce by misleading the people of our province, talking in terms of keeping expenses down and really having nothing to do with that whatsoever. This bill has only one purpose and that is to take full, hard control of the entire public service of this province, to keep people where you want them — fearful, terrified, worried. That's what this bill is all about, Mr. Speaker.

The election campaign of the Premier talked of restraint. That gave them the argument that wage restraints on public servants were justified. Remember that argument? Why were the public servants' wage restraints justified? Tenure. The Premier went around the province waving the flag. They had job security and that was his reason for the wage restraints. He said they had it a little better than the private sector, and therefore we should restrain their wages. Not a lot of people were excited about that, but that was the argument and that was the objective that the Premier was arguing his election on. He was not arguing his election out of both sides of his mouth — we thought then — but now we find he was, because he has destroyed the other end of his argument. They now have wage restraints and no job security. Isn't that great? Isn't that marvellous? Mr. Spirit.... Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Spirit of B.C. — you've got it on your mind.

MR. COCKE: I've got the spirit all right. I have a spirit; it's a ghost, a dream that I have, a dream in which I wake up sweating. It's a nightmare when I see that group before me which is governing the province of British Columbia with absolutely no conscience whatsoever.

[4:45]

Win an election on job security and then turn it on them. What hypocrisy! It's the pinnacle of hypocrisy. What programs have to go? Well, the only programs that are emerging so far are unimportant programs — I shouldn't use irony, because it's not understood. They are very dramatically important programs, like human rights. Abolish it! When I said to the minister across the floor that this creates the opportunity for racism in the hiring and firing of public servants, he said: "Not on your life." Nonsense! Not only do we not have the protection for those people by legislation, but we don't even have a human rights branch now to protect them. It doesn't bother Tony.

The rentalsman is another program down the tube. The Land Commission is reduced, and possibly soon to be gone.

[ Page 267 ]

Even the Crown corporations reporting committee's secretariat....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Hear, hear!"

They talk about big bureaucracy. The only inroads that this parliament has ever made into the Crown corporations of this province.... That member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has been wearing a black armband ever since, but it's under his sleeve. Five staff who did a first-class job of ferreting out problems that we're having with our Crown corporations....

There's the man, Mr. Speaker, with his tongue in his cheek, who brought in that legislation and told us what a marvellous opportunity it would be. He told us we've got to get Hydro in line. That Premier should have his tongue in his cheek, because this kind of legislation should not be taken seriously. He should stand up in this House, admonish the Provincial Secretary and tell him to withdraw the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Do you think he thought it up? You're wrong.

MR. COCKE: Oh, you mean it wasn't good old Columbia River after all.

Another program down the tube is motor vehicle testing, creating increased....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Good for you! Clap about it. I want to give you an indication. I have a vehicle that is 12,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. I have nothing wrong with that vehicle; I keep it in excellent shape. A couple of days before I came over here I took it in to the testing station because I had just relicensed it. The rejection stickers on it.... Let me say what it was rejected for. It was something I had no idea about. One of the seals on the back wheel had broken, letting the grease down on the brake drum, and I had no brakes on the back left duals of that vehicle. I'm lending it to my daughter and my two grandchildren to take up into the Okanagan Valley.... Had that not been discovered by the motor vehicle testing, they would be going up with a vehicle that could jeopardize their lives and take them over any old canyon. That member over there says: "Clap when we say that the motor vehicle testing is going down the drain."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. COCKE: "Shame" is right.

That's the kind of insensitive, inane firing that's going on. That's the kind of thing happening in this province that I'm so ashamed of. What we should have been doing over the years is increasing motor vehicle testing, not taking it away.

And what happens to those individuals who work there? Most of them....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who cares?

MR. COCKE: Who cares? That's right, they don't.

Let me tell you what most of those people are who work in motor vehicle testing. They're people somewhere in their mid-years, because they've spent most of their lives working as mechanics elsewhere in order to get themselves to a position where they were well-informed enough to do that work. So therefore they start rather late in life, they don't have much time to build a pension, now they're 50-odd years old, they go into the workplace, and that Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says they're going to find an easy time getting a job. He can go to blazes. They will not find an easy time in an economy where Afton Mines lays off. Are they going to hire them? Who's going to hire those people? Sheer nonsense, Mr. Speaker. This act is a travesty on the people of this province.

A government bankrupt in positive ideas, trying to prove something to the people in the name of restraint but accommodating themselves, is a government that's very difficult to tolerate. One can say: "Well, the opposition lost an election, after all. That's sour grapes." Nobody on this side of the House or anywhere in the province dreamed that this government could be moved so far into the past as to put forward a piece of legislation like Bill 3.

They ask for input. When? After the legislation is in. Input into the regulations? Nonsense! What input can there be to a piece of legislation that's so absolutely, totally clear, that denies all access to due process and appeal, and that intimidates 250,000 people in our province. Isn't that interesting in juxtaposition to a letter that was sent out in early April. As a matter of fact, in my constituency health workers got it the day the election was called; what an amazing coincidence. The letter was written by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to every health worker in this province congratulating them, telling them how marvellous they were. Actually, he didn't do it quite directly: what he did was write to good old Buzz Bazowski....

AN HON. MEMBER: Super-Bazz.

MR. COCKE: Super-Badge? Super-Bazz? The day I refer to that super as "super" there will be a blue moon in the sky. Anyway, he writes a letter on the most beautiful stationery. It's interesting that that letter was copied in its original form to go to each person who got another letter from Mr. Bazowski telling them how pleased the minister was: "Read the enclosed letter, and we're sure you're going to be thrilled to death."

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, money was no object.

MR. COCKE: No object? That was restraint. I'll tell you something: that bond paper and krypton parchment — yes, they have two classes, you know; the minister has a little better class of paper than the deputy — those two pieces of stationery cost an absolute mint. Add together the fact that there were about 7,500 of them mailed out, at 32 cents a shot, plus all of the work that went into it.... This is the kind of restraint we saw. The taxpayer paid for all of those things, but this is what we're now calling restraint: unfettered, unlimited power to wreak havoc in the public service.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're the critic. Why didn't you take your place in debate?

MR. COCKE: Every time that little member speaks up I'm totally intimidated. I hardly can remember what I was going to say, other than to say this to that minister: you should be ashamed of yourself for ever having been part of bringing

[ Page 268 ]

something like this into the Legislature. You should go home tonight and think about what you've done to an entire public service in this province. I want to beg all the other jurisdictions in this continent not to follow this stupid course that will lead to nothing short of chaos. This is a travesty in the name of restraint. It has absolutely no place in a free, democratic society.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had taken his chair, and the ruling that the Chair made earlier still applies: a member may not speak twice to a motion, except under the provisions allowed for in standing order 42.

The Chair recognizes the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Just before I speak, I'd like to challenge your last ruling. If there's no ruling, then let's have the member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a ruling, and that ruling has been challenged.

[5:00]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

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

MR. LEA: I would ask the Premier to stay a minute. I have an introduction that I think he'd enjoy. Take your seat; it won't take a minute of your time.

When the Provincial Secretary introduced this bill he talked about the number of positions that were going to be lost. He avoided the term "people," who are victims of the aggregate amount. One of those victims is with us here today and I think it's only fitting that the members of Social Credit look their victim in the eye and see exactly what they have done. Visiting us today in the gallery is a recently fired person from the human rights branch of this government. I would like to introduce Mr. Hugh McLeod, recently with this government but no longer with this government. Take a look!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. First of all, let me observe that it is customary and a courtesy to ask leave to make an introduction.

The member does continue on Bill 3. And the members who are not speaking, which includes 55 other people, will remain in order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, you may be wondering why the attendants allowed a dog in your gallery this afternoon. I asked the members of Social Credit to take a look at their victim, and they may be wondering why he has a dog with him too. You see, when I asked you to look at him, he can't look back at you, because Hugh McLeod is blind.

MR. MOWAT: He's very capable.

MR. LEA: Yes, he's very capable. This morning when I phoned Mr. Hugh McLeod and asked him to come down here this afternoon, he said that he would like me to stress one thing: he does not want sympathy for being blind, but he does want sympathy, along with his other fellow employees, for being fired without cause.

MR. MOWAT: Cheap shot.

MR. LEA: A cheap shot. They don't like to look their victims in the eye.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order. The member now speaking will address the Chair. Other members will not heckle.

MR. LEA: In 1933, in Germany....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Here we go again,

MR. LEA: Here we go again, yes. In 1933 in Germany, the Nazi Party in power brought in their piece of totalitarian legislation. There were 84 social democrats in that house who had the nerve and the intestinal fortitude to vote against the Nazis. There were two centrist parties. Over here we would call them Liberal and Conservative. They voted with the Nazis and voluntarily disbanded, and we've seen it here. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) once belonged to a party....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'm sorry, hon. member. Members from both sides of the House are interrupting. That cannot be allowed.

MR. LEA: That once proud party that looks back on Laurier and the Liberal Party spawned some of the members of this House. In fact, over the years some have come to this side; others have gone to that side. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations and the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour

[ Page 269 ]

(Mr. Davis) were members of the Liberal Party for years. They chose to join the Social Credit. Are they proud today?

One great Canadian gave Canadians and British Columbians one of their first views of what rights could be. That was John Diefenbaker.

MR. REID: He was a good man, too!

MR. LEA: He would be damned ashamed of you today.

The Attorney-General of this province, a former Conservative and sometimes teacher of law at the University of Victoria.... I'm going to tell you he's a nice guy to have a coffee with. You can't tell what's really in those minds by the way they dress, talk or drink coffee, but you can sure tell what's in their minds by how they vote. It must be a day of shame for him. As a third-generation British Columbian, today I'm ashamed to be one because of the government we elected. I don't blame the people, because they didn't know they were voting for you.

The night that we lost the election, we went through trauma as opposition members who were hoping to form the government. I didn't feel that bad and sorry for myself, because regardless of whether it's a government just right of centre or a government just left of centre, both of those kinds of government are acceptable to the people in this province. Both are acceptable and meet the general will of all citizens. This government and what it's done now, I suspect, doesn't meet that general will. What they've done is sold the public on restraint, and we've all admitted that there should be some restraint, but to take away people's human and civil rights in the name of restraint is not the restraint program that people voted for.

When you all go back to your ridings you are going to find out that you are making a very big mistake. You have no respect for the people of this province. They are not going to support you in this measure. There may be a fringe group of 5 or 10 percent, but that government will not get support for this kind of legislation. The people want fairness and restraint, they do not want unfairness based on restraint.

I think that this is legislation that every member of this House should take part in. It's by far the most important piece of legislation, in terms of democratic principles, that I have seen come through this House in 11 years.

[5:15]

I'm going to make a plea to individual members. Today in the hall I met the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston). The first time I met her she was a freedom fighter. It was at a big meeting in Ladner. The government I belonged to was taking the Agricultural Land Commission through this House. There was a meeting organized in Ladner, and Pat Burns, moderate moderator, was the chairman. They had a country-and-western band warming the crowd up. They had caricatures of the then Premier, and were throwing rotten fruit and other objects at the wall. The only thing missing at that meeting were burning crosses and sheets. It was the only time in my political life that I suspected I might not get out of a building physically unharmed. On the stage was the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and beside him sat a representative of the Canadian League of Rights. The former Attorney-General, Allan Williams, was on that stage representing the Liberal Party. Derril Warren was there representing the Conservative Party. Freedom fighters. Where are those freedom fighters today? Sitting in this House with us, voting for this legislation. What sort of double standard can the member for Surrey reach to to tell us why, rationally, she would come out to a public meeting in Ladner against the Agricultural Land Commission and stand up and vote for this piece of legislation now. Is it because she trusts the motives of the government?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Personal references are unparliamentary, hon. member. Perhaps we could relate our debate to the bill.

MR. LEA: I have yet to do that, Mr. Speaker. I was mentioning the hon. first member for Surrey, and was telling of the time I first met her, when she and Mr. Mussallem, who wasn't in power at that time, were front-line organizers in a group called Fire. Mr. Speaker, if she knew better then than to stick around in this province and accept what she considered to be unparliamentary and undemocratic process, why is she here today? Why is she going to vote for this legislation?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: I would like to mention a few other members. I have not had the privilege — I won't even say that if he votes for the bill — but I have not personally met the new member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael). I've heard about his life, about his work in the labour movement and his work in public relations and in labour relations. If he votes for this bill, everything I've heard about him is a lie.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LEA: I heard he was good.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I advised the member to not make personal references to other members, and I would now ask the member to also relate his debate to the bill. I'm sure the member can do that.

MR. LEA: I am relating it to the bill. It's rather strange that we have ministers of the Crown stand up and defend this piece of legislation against profligate governments like the federal government. And yet, who was in power as a cabinet minister for most of those years, helping the Liberal government do exactly what they say they're against? The hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis). He was there. He voted for it all. He was an aide to Trudeau. He was one of the ones responsible. Now he's going to sit here and vote against his own past life. Those members over there have an obligation to stand up in this House and tell us why they're going to take away the rights of citizens.

I'm going to make a prophecy. I remember when we were in government listening to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) when he was over here as a Liberal, piously talking and chatting and bringing in leg-hold traps. He didn't want to hurt animals; he was saving it to hurt people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again the Chair must remind the hon. member that he's making personal references about other members of this House; that is unparliamentary. I call the member to order and ask that he relate his remarks to the bill before us.

[ Page 270 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask all other members to come to order.

MR. LEA: That ex-Attorney-General, that Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is part of the government that brought in this legislation. He used to sit in this House as a Liberal and would never have voted for this legislation when he was hiding behind his Liberal clothing. But not now. Look at me, Garde, and tell me you're going to vote for this legislation.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have warned this House on quite a few occasions that we cannot make personal reference to another hon. member. We are discussing and debating Bill 3, and that is all we can debate at this time. The member cannot make personal references about another member; I'm sure the member is well aware of that.

Let me refresh members' memories about the rules that guide us. Sir Erskine May talks about allegations against members:

"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate.

"The same right to claim courteous treatment in debate is due alike between both Houses...and abusive language and imputations of falsehood uttered by members of the House of Commons...have usually been met" and caused "the Chair to compel the withdrawal of the offensive words, or, in default, by the punishment of suspension."

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has made numerous personal references to hon. members here, references that would not comply with the relevancy of the bill before us, and that is why I have drawn his attention to it.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You quote from May correctly about the rules of the House and references to other members. It's specifically mentioned in May about allegations and imputations. Everyone knows that. What the member is talking about are not allegations and not imputations but stating clearly the record of sitting members of this House — not allegations, not imputations. It's totally within parliamentary debate. In debate this has been permitted. It is part and parcel of our history. If there were improper allegations, if there were imputations or any other unparliamentary words, indeed the member should be told. But in this instance the member is fully within his right to speak about another member in the manner that he has, because it is a statement of fact of one's political background; that's it.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would refer the speaker to a reference in Beauchesne's fourth edition. The last member on his feet on a point of order carefully avoided the word "allusions." It's not a matter of imputation and it's not a matter of allegation; it's a matter of allusion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we're certainly getting lots.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member does make an allusion; he's making a direct charge, which is part and parcel of debate. If a member is stifled from making a direct charge against a cabinet minister or a direct statement in debate on opinion or a matter of what's happening, that transcends the rights of members. That's like throwing out "with cause" from this chamber. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, each member is responsible for their own statements and has the responsibility to find within that framework what they wish to say, without allegation and without imputation about the record of another member. That's exactly what he is doing, but you don't like it, you Liberal. You don't like it; that's your problem.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we've heard quite enough about this on points of order.

The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince Rupert, who will continue on in debate. I also remind the member that we have relevancy rules in our assembly.

MR. LEA: I'm going to make a prophecy. I guess what I have to say is: "a certain member of the House who used to be a Liberal and is now a cabinet minister, and I can see him...." He used to be on this side of the House, and used to talk about people having the right as citizens to sue the Crown. When we were government we brought in legislation giving people that right. Mr. Speaker, I'm willing to bet you a cup of coffee that that minister will sit in this House while this government, before this parliament is over, brings in rescinding legislation making it once again illegal for citizens to sue the Crown, because they intend to protect themselves against those fired employees.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. LEA: The Provincial Secretary, in his opening statement, talked about the fact that within this legislation there is a fine of $2,000 towards an employer who doesn't follow the cabinet's direction in firing people. As someone said, can you be a little bit pregnant, or just a little bit fascist? There have been fascist regimes before that got people to do it to their fellow workers and fellow citizens. In the death camps in Germany, they said to one person: "Do in your fellow prisoner or we'll do you in." That's what this government is doing.

Not long ago the Catholic bishops spoke out about morality in government. But morality doesn't belong exclusively to the Catholics. I would say that the Christian principles that we all talk about are at stake here, and not just Christian principles, but those of all great religions. Could a minister of God vote for this legislation, do you suppose? Can a minister of God vote to take away the rights of God's citizens? We're going to find out at the end of this debate, because they either know what they're doing, which should be an unpardonable act, or they don't know what they're doing, and that would be unforgivable. You cannot take away a little bit of people's rights, as you cannot be a little bit pregnant.

You can't take it away in the name of restraint. I had a phone call this morning: a native woman and her children

[ Page 271 ]

who have been evicted by their landlord for being four days late with their rent. The question was: "Is the rentalsman's office still there?" She said: "We feel that we are being discriminated against."

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The Human Rights Commission is not there. You're absolutely right. The rentalsman's office isn't there. Here is this defenceless citizen against the state, and the state is going to forsake her to the landlord.

AN HON. MEMBER: No legal aid.

MR. LEA: No legal aid to go to court.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Bad old landlord.

MR. LEA: Not all landlords are bad and not all Socreds are fascist, but, boy, they sure elected a big group of you into this House.

[5:30]

I'll never forget, being a politician and knowing the trauma of politics, the look on Mark Sager's face when he lost the nomination in West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I'll bet he's happy today that he doesn't have to go through the mental anguish of deciding whether he's going to sell out his principles. At least the member they voted in doesn't have to worry about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will have to ask the hon. member for Prince Rupert to withdraw the allegation against the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. LEA: I was talking about Mark Sager, but if you think that, I will.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. LEA: I suspect that after the debate on this bill, you'll all be talking with fellow citizens. It's going to be hard for some of them over there, because some of them do mix with ordinary people — some of them all the time. It won't be bad for city members who live in Point Grey, because probably when they go to their clubs they're going to run into a lot of people who will agree with this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), you may be exactly right, because regardless of a person's station in life in this province, regardless of their wealth, regardless of whether they are landlords, I don't think it really matters very much. Mr. Speaker, I believe that very few, if any, British Columbians in any walk of life will be in favour of this legislation. It is sick.

I'm going to say something that probably won't be politically that astute. Over the years, as this government has brought in legislation, I think that many times I and some of my other colleagues have cried wolf. I wish we hadn't, because the wolf is here. When we walked out into the corridor and said, "This is the worst piece of legislation we've ever seen...." We cried wolf maybe once too often but, by God, I hope not.

MRS. WALLACE: It was then.

MR. LEA: Yes, at the time it may have been the worst we've ever seen but, Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives me a hollow feeling right in my gut. How anybody can stand up and vote for this kind of legislation and call themselves democrats...

AN HON. MEMBER: Or republicans.

MR. LEA: ...or republicans, or Conservatives, or Liberals, or Socreds is beyond me, because the only people who should vote for this are people not involved in the process.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is the first time in my political career that I have felt emotion so strongly that I can hardly speak in this House. This piece of legislation that we're discussing is wrong. There is no half-right to it, or half-wrong. It is wrong, because under a subterfuge of restraint, we are taking away the decent human rights that people in this province should enjoy and will enjoy.

This bill, if it passes.... And I say "if it passes" because just maybe those people on the other side — at least some of them — will still want to look into the mirror and see somebody looking back at them whom they can be proud of. Maybe they still want to look at their children and get respect. Maybe this will be legislation. If it does become legislation, I don't believe that the courts will let it stand. Under the constitution, I believe that this piece of legislation will finally be ruled unconstitutional.

In the meantime, though, people are going to suffer unduly. They are going to suffer at the hands of a government that thinks you can be just a little bit fascist or dictatorial, thinks that you can sell out just a little bit. "Isn't the goal worth it?" they think. "I’m just a new person in the House," they may say. "Is this how it operates? Am I supposed to forsake everything I've believed in all my life? It doesn't really matter? It's just one piece of legislation in a long list of years of legislation. I can do it and feel proud."

I hear mumblings to my left from Mr. Democracy himself, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree). He learned his democracy in the army, where the laws are maybe just a little bit different than they are in civilized society. I don't mean that the army isn't civilized. What I mean is that it's civil law here and military law there.

This legislation is legislation that I would suspect 90 percent, if not more, of British Columbians would find repugnant. There is no mandate for this legislation. If this government has the courage of its convictions, it will drop this legislation. It will take it to the supreme court and have it tested before it comes back. They've had other pieces of legislation ruled unconstitutional that they've pushed through this House, like the Heroin Treatment Act. That's right. They took away people's rights. That was a mild bill compared to this.

The question is: are we — not as members of the Social Credit Party or the New Democratic Party but as members of the Legislature of British Columbia — going to vote for a piece of legislation that we know down in our hearts and in our minds is probably unconstitutional? We know for sure it

[ Page 272 ]

is undemocratic and is treating the citizens of this province in an unfair way. Are we going to vote for it, as citizens?

MR. PARKS: Yay!

MR. LEA: "Yay!" It would be bad enough if they felt shame. They feel no shame. The new member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) is another lawyer, someone who has been trained to fight this kind of legislation, and he is going to support it. He took an oath to fight it and went to university to learn how to fight it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. LEA: No, he says. What did you take? I guess the gestapo had lawyers. Just being a lawyer doesn't make you uncorruptible.

Mr. Speaker, I want every one of those members on that side to stand up, say their piece in this House on this legislation, then go home and face the mirror, face your wives, face your husbands, face your friends, face your children, come back to this House and tell us that you are going to vote for it. Your kids, your spouses and your friends will tell you to get back here and to get it off the books, because it's repugnant, it's undemocratic and it's not what British Columbians want. It isn't what British Columbians voted for. This legislation is the worst legislation that's ever come through this House. This legislation brings shame on all of us, not just the people.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's your leadership speech. Lea for leader.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, tell that freedom fighter to leave me alone. There's a guy.... Go to the credit union movement and ask the members if they want this kind of legislation. They wouldn't hire you back. Boy, you'd better stay in politics; there's nothing for you out there.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're doing fine.

MR. LEA: You're dam right I am. And I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if this legislation passes I have no doubt that it won't be around long. But in the meantime there's going to be a lot of suffering by British Columbians, and there's no worse suffering than knowing you're being treated unfairly by the state you live in.

MR. BARRETT: No jobs are safe.

MR. LEA: Not only is no job safe, no one is safe. I don't know what it's coming to, but I do know that a reporter phoned a government office and asked for some information. Naturally, the person in the government office was a little nervous and said: "I can't give you any information." Half an hour later the reporter got a phone call from somebody more senior who said: "I understand you want information." The reporter said: "What's next? A knock on your door at midnight asking: 'Did you want information from government? Have you been opposed to this government?'" It's only one small step after another.

I don't believe the members opposite want dictatorship. I don't believe they're fascists. I don't think that's something you wake up in the morning and decide to be. I think it's something you wake up in the morning and find you've become by taking one little step at a time, until you've sold out your very citizenship and have no right to call yourself a citizen.

We will proudly join the coalition of dissent on this one too, because we again withhold our assent and we differ in opinion. We will not be voting for this legislation, and I believe every Social Credit voter out there will be with us on this one.

Is their only defence...? I was going to sit down, and my colleague said: "Could you move an adjournment?" The only enjoyment of the minister who brought in the act is to try to find little things like that to laugh about. I'd rather forget to move an adjournment than remember to bring in fascist legislation.

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

[5:45]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 30

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act, but after the discussion I've heard this afternoon, I think I'm supporting democracy and leadership and good government.

The changing times and conditions dictate that through tough times...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Dictate! That's right!

MR. REID:...and tough conditions.... But we must never become defensive and fight change.

Mr. Reid moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 273 ]

YEAS — 37

NAYS — 15

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

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to advise Your Honour and the House that some of us thought that the member for Surrey was worth listening to, and others thought he wasn't.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. First, the hon. member's deliberate abuse of the rules of the House is a very serious offence under the rules of the House, and although things may often be done in jest they do lead to a rather disorderly House, certainly not in keeping with the traditions of the chamber.

At the opening of today's sitting, the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) raised as a matter of privilege the fact that a matter of government policy was articulated outside the House by a minister of the Crown; and the inability of the hon. member's staff to obtain a copy of a so-called information kit relating thereto, which had been generally distributed to school trustees and district officials. The hon. member alleged that the rights of all members of this House were thereby affected, and that there was a prima facie breach of the dignities of this House.

The hon. member cites no authority for the proposition which he advanced, and the Chair can find no support in the authorities for the view that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has occurred. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker Dowding, as recorded in the Journals of the House, 1973, page 14, observed, while citing his approval of a ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in the House of Commons, that there was no precedent whereby policy statements had to be made in the House; and further, that the disclosure of a government report to the press which was not ordered by the House, nor was it the property of the House or any of its committees, did not constitute a prima facie breach of privilege. By analogy, I cannot find that failure to provide the hon. member's staff with a copy of the information kit in question would stand on any higher footing than a formal report of the government. Hopefully, renewed efforts by the hon. member's staff to obtain a copy of the kit will bear fruit in view of the complaint which he has made, but I cannot find that any prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established in these circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.