[ Page 275 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Reid –– 275

Ms. Sanford –– 280

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 283

Orders of the Day

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

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I therefore call second reading of Bill 202, Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1983.

MR. HOWARD: I move second reading of the bill.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On behalf of the hon. member who, unfortunately, has been somewhat skewered by his own kind over there, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3, Public Sector Restraint Act.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

MR. REID: I am privileged to rise for the second time to speak to Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act. I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, that I was certainly encouraged yesterday when, after speaking for just two minutes in this House, I got 30 percent support from the NDP. They wanted me to continue yesterday, so I'm going to continue for 38 minutes this morning. By the time I'm finished, I'll probably have them all converted.

I got resounding applause from them yesterday when I mentioned leadership and good government. I guess the thing that concerns me more than anything else this morning is that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) said yesterday, as he pointed in this direction to the second member for Surrey, "Who is he? Who is that Mr. Slick?" Well, that Mr. Slick is a small businessman from Surrey who spent 18 years out there trying to meet a payroll, finally getting the support of 37, 610 voters in Surrey, which for his interest, was 3, 365 more votes than his old Provincial Secretary.

I might say that during the campaign I certainly was encouraged by the gentlemanly approach of the NDP ex-member for Surrey. In my view he certainly doesn't represent some of the attitudes expressed in this House by the other 63 percent whom I have not yet converted.

I'd like to point out to the first member for Vancouver East that I got 16,000 more votes than even he did in Vancouver East. It may be of interest to the opposition that I received more votes than all three candidates for the leadership of the NDP: the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) ; and if you add the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), I top all four of them. The first member for Vancouver East said In the introduction of Bill 3 he called our hon. member a turkey. He called himself an eagle. Well, we call him the lame duck. You see, Mr. Speaker, this leadership, this good government, is building towards, as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said, "the spirit of B.C." He's finally being encouraged to use those words. We like that: the opposition is finally picking up some of the slogans which are going to lead this province into recovery.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The first member for Vancouver East, who used to be the Leader of the Opposition, doesn't seem to know — and he's not here to listen to the major debates in this House — where the money's coming from in this province to balance the books and pay the wages.

There are declining revenues in this province. Last year the forest industry lost hundreds of millions of dollars. During this most important economic issue that B.C. has ever faced, there was an attempt by the U.S. lumber producers to have duties imposed on Canadian lumber. This trade is critical to the B.C. economy; it was worth over a billion dollars, even in the bad year of 1982. What does our lame-duck opposition leader have to propose? I'll use his exact words: "They constitute one of the most colossal, ill-timed, ill-conceived blunders in B.C. history. Gas wells have a funny way of drying up. If the lumber markets run dry, rivers have a funny way of drying up. Electricity has a funny way of turning brown in the light bulbs if the lumber market dries up." He said: "No threats. Just mutual understanding of love and caring for our lumber." Irresponsible statements.

If they wanted to be positive, they could use the information which is positive within the province. Eighty-seven percent of the workforce today is employed; 12.1 percent is unemployed. The employed numbers are 1, 350,000 people. The opposition pointed out in the gallery yesterday — a very sensitive issue — a young man who was recently laid off within the public sector of this province. This government is sensitive to that and has some feelings towards those people, no question about it.

As a green back-bencher, I have a positive idea I'd like to throw to the NDP. Here's an idea for the 30 percent support I got. In this province there's a paratransit and a handyDART transit system offered by this government. In 1982, it provided 355,000 rides in the Vancouver area; 28, 130 rides for the handicapped in the Victoria area; and 152, 951 rides in the small communities which most of these supporters of mine represent. The budget for that service is $1,500,000.

1 noticed, as I reviewed the budget as a green backbencher — I don't know if you're supposed to do these kinds of things — that it indicates that there's a program that I would have eliminated if I'd not have been a green backbencher, and that's the ombudsman's budget. The ombudsman's budget provides employment for 43 professional staff, with $1,100,000 for salaries alone; $508,000 for supplies. If this 30 percent support I have in the NDP is prepared to support my philosophy, which is to have some assistance to the laid-off and the handicapped, maybe they'd propose that the $1.5 million be taken out of that budget and put into

[ Page 276 ]

employing some people helping the handicapped. Mr. Speaker, we could accomplish that without eliminating the ombudsman; we can keep him on because we can pay him the same amount we are paying Mr. Tozer. We would still have $1.5 million to implement that program. So with the 30 percent support I have in the NDP, I offer you that challenge.

During the course of the debate in this House we have heard many times the issue of the agricultural land reserve and the elimination of the land from the reserve in the Delta area, which took place in 1981. It may be of interest to this House to know that I served on the council of Delta for five years, during 1973-78. I served there when the issue of the Spetifore farm first came to light, when it was proved that it's not a viable piece of property. The land isn't viable, contrary to the opinion of the member for Comox, who's probably never been in Delta, never mind seeing the Spetifore property. Mr. Spetifore, with some encouragement from the government of the day, opened a factory to process potatoes and try to prove....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether we are discussing the elimination of the land reserve or Bill 3. It's not quite clear to me.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Weren't you here yesterday?

MR. COCKE: I was here yesterday. He hasn't spoken on Bill 3 yet. He's talked on the budget and on the Spetifore land.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes that a great deal of latitude has been allowed during this debate on Bill 3; nevertheless the point of order raised by the member for New Westminster is valid. If the second member for Surrey could make his remarks relevant to Bill 3 it would certainly be appreciated by all members of this House. Fleeting reference to other issues is of course allowed, but relevance is parliamentary.

MR. REID: I think it's relevant because it deals with the question of restraint, and the question of restraint deals with the difficulties of balancing budgets and providing funds for different departments of government. The Agricultural Land Commission, which at this point doesn't have any control over that piece of land, and the council of the day saw fit — as the council of today sees fit — to talk about that land in the context of what it ultimately can serve, and it's to serve the residents of the area and also provide 89 acres of parkland for the residents of the area. Mr. Speaker, I'll reserve further comments on the Spetifore question for when it is raised for further debate in the House, because I probably am the most knowledgeable person in this House on the subject. I shall pursue that another day.

I am sorry that the member for Vancouver East is not in the House again, because yesterday he raised the issue on restraint about the appointment of a senior person to this government. I wanted to remind him that during the course of their government, they appointed Mr. Norm Pearson as Mr. Bob Williams's aide. There was also a Mr. Vic Parker appointed to one of the higher posts; Mr. Jim Rhodes appointed to B.C. Energy — patronage. A Mary Rawson to the Land Commission; a Betty McClurg, who was the campaign manager for Mr. Ernie Hall; Barrie Clark was appointed as rentalsman. Surprise, surprise! That doesn't happen with that government. Then Frank Howard was appointed as the Indian Affairs consultant during that time.

[10:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could, once again, remind the House to be relevant to the bill; and mention of a currently sitting member's name is not parliamentary.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, speaking about restraint, during the debate yesterday they raised the question of the elimination of the vehicle inspection division stations, and the elimination of two-thirds of the employment, retaining 60 employees in that department. But there is a section of the society out there that is prepared to provide that service on a non-profit basis, and that's the BCAA. They have in the past been providing the service very effectively, and they are promising that they are capable of providing the ongoing service required for the general public out there in testing their vehicles for safety purposes.

I think private sector service stations and garages are certainly equipped to offer that service on a continual basis to any concerned operator of a vehicle in the community. I'm sure that if the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) had taken his vehicle to any service location in New Westminster prior to taking it to the testing station, that service station, which is a private enterprise industry within the community, could have offered him some advice before putting that car on the street.

MR. COCKE: They wouldn't know any more than I would.

MR. REID: That's private enterprise, you see. They're supposed to keep people employed and offer that service, yet the member for New Westminster doesn't see fit to make use of it.

MR. COCKE: What service?

MR. REID: Service to the public. There are millions of service station operators.

MR. COCKE: Do they check the brakes?

MR. REID: They'll check anything. Take your car in and they'll check it. How do you think the testing places check it?

Interjections.

MR. REID: That's how little you know about it.

MR. HANSON: Where's the law?

MR. REID: The first member for Victoria says I don't know what I'm talking about. I've been in the business, sir, for 18 years, and if I don't know what I'm talking about I've met a payroll of 22 personnel over the last 14 to 18 years. The problem with that side of the House is that most of them — I guess 80 percent of them — never met a payroll in their lives, so they don't even know what it's all about. They don't even know what a service station is. If any of these members have the opportunity to be in Surrey in the next while when I'm there, I'll introduce them to a fully

[ Page 277 ]

effective service operation. And if you don't trust the small businessman, that creates a real problem for the industries out there in trying to pay their taxes to keep this government operating. That's a problem.

It's interesting. If you go through the process of restraint and talk about good government and leadership, we have to go back a little bit to talk about some of the things that aren't good government and don't make good leadership. That's the dilemma of probably cancelling the ALRT, which was a proposal by one of the members trying to get elected from the NDP; but the people of the constituency had the brains not to listen to the rhetoric. The public knows about the purchase that that government made relative to light rapid transit .

MR. SEGARTY: The rusty buses.

MR. REID: No, not the rusty buses. They bought almost a $200,000 –– I think it's called a "Mickey Mouse" — train which is still sitting in storage over there in Vancouver. It can't be sold to anybody within the province or to anybody around the world. When they brought it over they couldn't fit it on any track. It wouldn't fit within the electrical components of.... That's restraint. That comes under restraint, Mr. Speaker. That comes under creation of jobs. They wanted to build models of those cars, I understand, up in Squamish in a railcar plant. The government that finally got elected and threw them out saw the writing on the wall. We were throwing away $50,000 or $60,000 per car being constructed, and they were going to build these Mickey Mouse railcars out there. The public and electorate saw through that.

They also saw through the requirements for transportation connections to the south shore and Annacis Island. When the proponents were discussing the Annacis crossing, which is in the budget of 1983-84 as partial development, the NDP in their wisdom were going to cancel the Annacis crossing project and eliminate the expenditures which have been made up to date.

In the process of restraint we are talking about selling one of the assets, Pacific Coach Lines, which costs this government $8 million a year to subsidize, and $3.39 per ride provided. It's important that the private sector, which is capable of providing that service and probably making a buck on it, is allowed to enter that part of the industry. I think it will be the sooner the better that we sell off an $8 million losing proposition and put it out into the private sector to provide an equal or better service during these difficult times. I think it's the responsibility of this government as dictated in the restraint act.

I want to quote from an article of October 1975. It deals with the member for Vancouver East, who had some advice for the students of one of the universities. It was the member for Vancouver East who told a lunchtime audience at the University of Victoria on Monday that they should get off their rear-ends and try to solve some of their problems themselves.

MR. SEGARTY: Did he say that?

MR. REID: He said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's his compassion?

MR. REID: He said: "Big governments are not going to do everything for you."

MR. SEGARTY: He said that?

MR. REID: Yes, he said that. He said that the money is not limitless. He said: "Go help yourselves."

MR. SEGARTY: Who did he say it to? A bunch of students?

MR. REID: Yes. He also said he'll hold the line on all services. But he has not suggested that cutbacks might be necessary. He said he believed the budget will balance without the necessity for cuts. But he said services will be chopped if the need arises. "We've been spoiled in this country; we've had it too easy." He said that.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Who said that?

MR. REID: I don't know what his name is. He didn't remember mine, and I don't remember his.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lame duck.

MR. REID: The lame duck. He said: "We've been led to believe that things come too easily." He suggested that governments have to take the lead and there will be no deficit spending. He said: If governments don't, who will? If I have to make cuts, I'll cut." Yes, he said that. That lame duck.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am finding that term offensive. It's been used quite a bit and it is a personal reference.

MR. REID: Okay, I'll withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It does offend parliamentary practice.

MR. REID: Okay, but he wanted to be called an eagle, so I'll call him the lame eagle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Please, if we could just refer to members as members from their ridings or their ministries and leave personal references and unparliamentary comments out of the debate, I'm sure that the debate could proceed with far more courtesy. Thank you.

MR. REID: Okay. Mr. Speaker, he said he refused to speculate on what area the cuts might come and said if the situation has not yet arisen, since he believes the government will he able to balance its books, but if the worse comes to the worst, cutbacks will come. That was the Premier of the day in 1975. That's why he's not Premier today.

During the course of good government there are changing times and changing conditions. These are tough times and very tough conditions. Restraint has not had a disastrous effect, we can be proud to say in this government, on the Education budget, because it's up 7 percent; it's up to $1.4 billion of the total expenditures of this government. The Health budget is up 7.3 percent to S2.4 billion. That's another priority of this government. The Human Resources budget is up 13.9 percent, to $1.37 billion of our total budget. Those are numbers which are interesting when we're talking about a time of restraint. We need to balance between business and

[ Page 278 ]

government. We must remain competitive if our industries are to survive.

It seems interesting that during the debate the members over here — I didn't get the member for Victoria's vote, and I'm sorry about that; I may have it by the time I'm finished because he seems to be paying attention — haven't made much of an offer towards improving the situation of the economy in recovery within this province, not from this side of the House. All they can offer is negativism, criticism, doom and gloom. This government knows we need to develop a leaner and more productive, efficient and effective government — one that can meet the needs of the people in this province. That's one of our real goals. Remember that government has no money of its own and that restraint is essential because this government is labour intensive.

The minister pointed out yesterday that a 1 percent increase in a public sector wages bill equates to $40 million. The taxpayers of this province can no longer support those kinds of increases. We can no longer ask our government for more and more services that somebody else has to pay for. Governments at all levels must come to terms with this issue. Economic prosperity has to be earned, and it cannot be purchased with public dollars.

This Bill 3 will assist in controlling the size and the cost of government by reducing the number of employees in all areas of the public sector. This act will create for the public sector employees a safe economic reality that faces the private sector. This act will cover all the Crown corporations, school districts, municipalities, hospitals — the entire spectrum of the public sector. There will be compensation for those employees whose employment is being terminated. The compensation package is to consider such benefits as relocation allowances, additional retirement benefits, provisions for retaining allowances with private sector standards being used as a guide. Employees will have a choice to accept our package for compensation or pursue compensation in the other role in the courts. Our commitment is to fairness and the freedom of choice. That's evidence of good government. That's evidence of good leadership. During the termination of employment of these public sector civil servants, consideration will be given to qualifications of the employees, their abilities, their skills, operational requirements, efficiency and seniority. That's good government; that's leadership. We also have underway a very consultative process....

[10:45]

MS. BROWN: You obviously haven't read the bill.

MR. REID: Are you back in the House? That's the first time I've seen you since I've been here. I can't understand what she's saying, so I can't interpret it.

This government is offering a consultation process and has made submissions to all interested parties. And as the minister pointed out yesterday, those submissions are to be back to this government by August 8. Meetings have been arranged with public and private sector groups. We will deal sensitively and fairly with those affected to ensure a very productive and efficient public sector.

We tried to reduce the numbers in the public sector by attrition, and we found it was not enough. Now we're asking the public sector to offer us some cooperation in reduction of the numbers.

MS. SANFORD: They're already fired.

MR. REID: We haven't fired any; we've laid some off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You fired them!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, if we could get some support for some encouraging development in this province and keep the NDP from picking on the industry and the economy of this province and encourage the economy to improve so that we could raise some more funds and hire these people back rather than talk about negativism.... If we could get this economy improved, which is what this government is looking for in the recovery, is encouragement towards the private sector, encouragement into paying taxes and raising funds As I mentioned earlier, the lumber industry is one of the largest industries that we rely so heavily on in this province. It lost close to a billion dollars last year. Do you see what the people on the other side are talking about? They don't mention how they're going to help; they're talking about shutting off the power, turning the lights down to brown lights in northern Washington and cutting off the water supply.

Let me talk about restraint in respect to a $500 million job-creation offer that the Leader of the Opposition was making.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Which leader?

MR. REID: The lame-duck leader. Sorry, you told me not to use that; I won't use it again.

The program he tried to introduce to the public sector electorate out there, which they didn't buy.... They reason they didn't buy it was because it didn't add up. Do you know why it didn't add up? They were going to borrow $500 million from future revenues of the petroleum resource industry. Do you know the interesting thing, Mr. Speaker? If he read the estimates of the budget for this year, he'd see that the total income for this province from that resource will be $45 million. So the number is very interesting. He was going to borrow $500 million from future revenue, which would have taken 12 years to accumulate. If he didn't pay any interest, which would have been 10 percent, he would have lost $5 million each year in paying the interest. By the time the 12 years were up, we'd be totally bankrupt; we'd be like Quebec and France and Chile and some of those other socialist

Interjections.

MR. REID: That's the socialist thinking: $500 million out of future revenues. They would never generate that kind of money under the philosophy of that government, because they're talking about closing most of those down. That's their philosophy.

Our actions reflect the economic reality of the private sector. The private sector doesn't even recognize the word "tenure." It also calls on the representatives of the unions and the associations that represent our provincial government employees for cooperation in times of economic downturn. We encourage their participation in and input into the Public Sector Restraint Act. Our programs are fair and reasonable to all parties concerned.

Yesterday some reference was made by one of the other speakers about the responsibilities and autonomy of school boards under the requirements of the restraint program. I'd

[ Page 279 ]

like to read the powers of the school boards under the autonomy of good government and good leadership. School boards will, as in the past, retain authority for the following areas: selection of sites, capital expenditures, designs of buildings, renovations, modifications and improvements, overall facility planning, busing and boarding, and community use of school. In the area of programs, they'll have school boundaries, grade groupings in schools, locally developed courses, elective courses from provincial curricula, supplementary materials and instructional supplies, summer schools, adult education, special education programs and special education program decisions.

On staffing they'll have final approval of all staff selections, both numbers and qualifications. They'll have the staff assignments. Transfer of all staff will be under their control, as will evaluation and promotion of staff, dismissal for incompetence and misconduct, reduction in staff for declining enrolment and establishment support for staff levels — clerical, janitorial and maintenance. Other powers: paramount authority in school discipline; setting of health service standards within the school; responsibility for student attendance; negotiations for salaries and bonuses; establishment of personnel policies for professional and support staff; and closures of schools.

I think the school boards are going to have trouble handling all that. You call that a reduction in autonomy for school districts and school boards? Let me give you some other numbers which are rather interesting, because we must talk, in restraint, about what's happening to the taxpayer's dollar.

The gross operational budget of the school systems in this province in 1971 was $346.717 million; 11 years later it went to $1.553 billion — a mere 348 percent increase in 11 years. The number of students — this is interesting — was 506,561 in 1971; in 1982 the number was reduced to 485,568. That's 20,993 fewer students in 11 years, Interesting numbers. Let me tell you the other number: in 1971 there were 22, 193 teachers; in 1982, 11 years later, there were 29,075. The interesting thing is we added 6,882 teachers in 11 years. The most interesting number is that for every three students who left the system, we added a teacher.

Provincial grants to school districts, which always seems to be a controversial subject: in 1971 they were $189-166 million; 11 years later, provincial grants to school districts were $617.445 million — a mere increase of 226 percent. Interesting numbers, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. REID: That's talking about restraint. If you want to talk about cars, hon. member, come and see me afterwards. That's a business I'm trying to run while I'm also over here trying to be a member elected from Surrey with 37,000 votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you give us a good deal?

MR. REID: I'll give you a good deal, because we people out there in the private sector have to look after the people who need some help. I know how you're restrained, hon. member, in your budget, and I know what we have to deal with over here in funds for operating our own households. So if you need some help in that regard, I'm prepared to help you out.

I could go on and on, but I'd continue to be interrupted. As the red light is on, I'll sum up by saying that the agricultural land reserve of land out in Delta, which the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I always allow someone the chance to finish a statement, but we're digressing from the bill now, and you are out of time,

MR. REID: Can I wind up?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, please, but make it relevant to the bill.

MR. REID: I'd like to wind up by saying that in the restraint program some of the regional districts have to have a place to dispose of their garbage....

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I think the hon. member for Surrey should be entitled to deal with the subject of the agricultural land reserve in his own constituency, or elsewhere, because the Agricultural Land Commission is one of the groups affected by this particular bill. It's perfectly within the ambit of the conversation to do that, and I think you should let the member continue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a very good point, but the time under standing orders has elapsed. If the member could finish his speech now.

MR. REID: Can I have a couple of minutes? I appreciate your advice and I'll use it.

The agricultural reserve in the area of Delta has in it the Burns Bog, and the Burns Bog, for the benefit of the people in this House, is to be used under the restraint program of the Greater Vancouver Regional District for the development of a garbage dump — the garbage dump that was refused by the member for Comox to go to Texada Island.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair must intervene. The section with respect to agricultural land and the commission deals with the staff of the commission and not land itself. That's clearly in the act. And your time has expired.

MR. REID: But doesn't the staff have to deal with the section with respect to agricultural land and the commission deals with the staff of the commission, and not land itself. That's clearly in the act. And your time has expired.

MR. REID: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I'll take your direction, and on the strength of the support of the 30 percent of the members of the NDP which I received yesterday, I'm sure I'll get the balance of their support, and I appreciate the consideration of the House.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we are perfectly prepared to permit the hon. member for Surrey to extend his time in order to complete the well thought-out remarks that he wanted to present to us.

MR. SPEAKER: Standing orders of the House would allow that if it were the will, but that is not the will, as I understand it, and the time has elapsed.

[ Page 280 ]

[11:00]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, once that election was held, and I got over the disappointment of the fact that we were not going to form the government in Victoria, I decided that I would again travel to Victoria as the representative for the people of the constituency of Comox and try to continue the fight for improved justice in this province; the fight for better services for constituents in Comox and other places in the provinces; the fight for improvements within my own constituency and for those in our society who need special protection of government during the deep economic recession that we have witnessed over the last few years. I thought that I would come down here and fight for those people who are elderly, disabled or unemployed, and who need the assistance of government, particularly at this time. Little did I know that I would be coming down to Victoria to face legislation as draconian as this piece of legislation we are faced with today. I'm being kind by using the word draconian, because I feel very strongly about this particular issue.

This is part of a total package that we are facing, beginning with the budget, which we know will not serve in terms of improving the economy of this province, but will in fact have the exact opposite effect. We have seen that through the various media, commentators and editorial writers who have indicated very clearly that the measures adopted in that budget are going to have an adverse impact on the economy. We had hoped we had seen a little bit of light, a little glimmer, that there may be some improvement, but that has now been done away with through the introduction of that particular budget which is part of this whole package that we're looking at.

I have been very uneasy since I returned to this Legislature because of the comments that have been made around me by the new people who sit in this House. I have sat here many times and cringed as I heard the attitudes as expressed by the comments all around me. I should have known, based on that, plus the arrogance of the Premier which has been displayed since this House was called together, that this was the kind of thing that we could expect. I have heard backbenchers applauding the elimination of human rights in this province in this House.

MR. REID: Not so.

MS. SANFORD: I have heard it. I have heard people in this House, in the back bench applauding the removal of services to people, such as the rentalsman. I have heard people on the back benches calling for the sale of our hospitals because they see no reason why government should be involved in providing health services. I have mentioned it before. When I was speaking in the throne speech debate I mentioned these things, and I should probably have been more prepared for the budget and that avalanche of legislation that we have since seen, including this bill under debate today.

We know that the budget is going to harm the economy. That's been very clear in all of the press coverage that has come since then. Everybody knows it. It is clear that the people who need the assistance most are going to suffer most under the approach that has been taken through the cutting of services and the elimination of jobs. It is clear that the approach they have adopted is going to strike terror into the people affected by this particular piece of legislation, because they can be fired without cause. There is absolutely no appeal for them.

MR. REID: The courts are always there.

MS. SANFORD: The courts are always there! Well, that's just another kind of comment that makes me cringe: go to the courts and fight this government.

We have seen people being victimized and scapegoated by a government that is heartless, a government that has no feeling for people and a government that is prepared to take any measures in order to accomplish what it wants to accomplish. Terror and fear is what is happening out there, when we have people who are called up at dinnertime, when they have guests in their home, to be told: "Sorry, you're out of a job. You will not report for work tomorrow. You are no longer needed." It doesn't matter what kind of service they've given. It doesn't how matter how long they have worked there. It doesn't matter what kind of position it is. It doesn't matter how dedicated they are to their work. They are phoned at dinnertime, with guests there, by representatives of this government, people who are sent out to hunt people down in order to tell them that their jobs have been eliminated. That's what happening in this province today.

MR. BARNES: Their jobs are redundant. They call it redundancy.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: You know, the comments from these people in the back bench are not even worth....

What we have is centralization, a reign of terror by this government against the people who are included in the schedule accompanying this bill: teachers, nurses, firemen — all of the public service. They are all included in this particular piece of legislation.

I think it's worth bringing some of these headlines to the attention of the House today in order to give the people sitting across from us a picture of what is happening today in the province under this new government, because they seem incapable of understanding what this bill is capable of doing. "Minister Gets More Control" is an example of the centralization that's taking place.

MR. REID: That's what leadership is all about.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, Pinochet gives a lot of leadership. He certainly does. No one opposes him' I can assure you.

Then we have a cartoon showing the Premier wearing a collar, and instead of a prayer book, it's a ledger. That, too, indicates the attitude of this government towards people. Madness is another term that is being used for what is happening today. "A Passport to Extremism, " says this particular headline: centralization, control, extremism, madness. These are the things that are coming out in the major dailies in this province. Where do these terms fit? They do not fit in a democracy in this country of Canada in the year 1983. Another headline says: "Why All This Bloodshed?" Another headline says: "Socred Ideology Victimizes the Poor." Victims we have, in this province, Mr. Speaker. "School Board Power Slashed." Guess who gets them? "Socred Hitmen

[ Page 281 ]

Swoop on Rights Workers". "Victoria Bids to Control Doctors." "B.C.'s Licence to Discriminate." "Citizens' Champion Hobbled by Curbs." There they are talking about the ombudsman. Behind the figures are the tears. Mr. Speaker, listen to this one: "Fired Like a Criminal." That's how the people feel about this government. The government is treating them as though they are criminals.

Here we have the cartoonists carrying on the same theme with two dedicated workers sitting at their desks. One says: "I've been dying to go to the washroom, but I'm afraid Bennett will eliminate my job while I'm gone." That's the attitude. This one — which is one of the reasons I cringe when I hear the comments that are made around me — shows a member of the Ku Klux Klan headed directly to British Columbia because of the elimination of all human rights by this government.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Rubbish!

MS. SANFORD: Oh, rubbish, is it? You're right and everybody else is wrong.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: Here's another one: "Bennett's Blitzkrieg." The first time I heard that word I was about eight years old. My father joined the army, went to training and came home in order to announce to his family that he was being sent overseas. I was quite young at the time, but I can remember the emotional impact and the trauma that I felt, knowing that my father was going to be sent overseas to go to a war. I did not know why. My mother and my father sat me down with my siblings in order to explain to us why it was necessary for my father to be sent overseas. As it turned out, he was gone for five years. He was sent overseas, I was told, because there was a man who had been elected in Germany who had removed civil rights from people. They were no longer able to do as they had done before.

MR. REID: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, could we have the relevance of this speech to the restraint bill?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order. This has been a common concern during debate on Bill 3. Some latitude has been allowed, but all members are reminded to make their comments as relevant as possible to the bill.

[11:15]

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, when the government moved to set aside the budget debate and proceed to bills, it was the government Whip who said that the bill is part of the budget, and that the budget and the bills before us go together — they're companions. It was the government itself that said it should be an all-encompassing debate, and that you cannot consider things in isolation one from the other.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: I made that point with you with respect to the member for Surrey's desire to talk about the Agricultural Land Commission, which I thought was perfectly in order, and I make the same point now with respect to the member for Comox.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Irrespective of what has been said in this House with respect to a bill, our standing orders require that in second reading the general principle of the bill be discussed. The member hag raised a point of concern, and the Chair has just reminded all members of the House that we should be relevant, maintaining the guidelines that tell us that the principle of the bill is discussed in the second reading.

MR. HOWARD: Are you saying that the government Whip doesn't know what he's talking about?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That comment is not worth....I cannot comment on that.

The hon. member for Comox continues.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, you are quite correct: it is under the second reading of a bill that the principle of the bill is being discussed, and I can assure you that these headlines all point out the principle of what's involved in this particular piece of legislation.

Blitzkrieg — the first time I heard that word was when my parents sat me down in order to explain why it was that my father would have to be sent overseas to fight. They talked about that word "blitzkrieg, " and it meant the swift invasion of Poland at that time. And now we have the headline-writers and editorials of the province talking about another blitzkrieg. We have it. It's right here in British Columbia. And the other thing is that right across the country now we have the editorial writers, the commentators and the cartoonists telling what is happening here in British Columbia. It's frightening.

Yesterday afternoon I was sitting in my office listening to this debate on the speaker. A police car drove up and parked just underneath the windows on that side of the buildings. Two officers got out and one put his cap on very smartly. They came into the buildings. I don't know what they were here for, but when I saw them get out of that car in conjunction with the debate on this bill, I shivered. I sat in my office and I shivered. That's what this kind of legislation and this approach of this government does to the people of this province, including those of us who sit here and have to listen to it and fight it. My father's been dead for nearly 30 years now, but I'm glad that I am able to stand here and fight against this kind of thing that he told me he was going over there to fight.

Today, in the Province, we have an editorial that's reprinted from the Toronto Star. They know what's happening here in this province, and they're beginning to tell us and the rest of the country about it. 'All of Canada is diminished" — and I'm quoting from the Toronto Star editorial — "when the level of compassion and caring falls below acceptable levels in any of its parts. That is why the brutal measures in the B.C. budget, even though they fall entirely within areas of provincial jurisdiction, are cause for chagrin for all Canadians. Different provinces will naturally have different programs and policies, but there are certain thresholds of civility, decency and compassion for the most vulnerable below which none of our governments should fall." We have fallen.

[ Page 282 ]

On the same page we see a cartoon which is done by a nationally syndicated cartoonist which shows a picture of Bill Bennett signing a law that says "Marshal Law." It shows a picture of, I assume, one of his friends sitting on the desk. Maybe it's Pinochet or somebody like that. It shows also the Pope arriving at the door. Shades of Poland.

I'm receiving letters from people within my constituency who are expressing the same sort of sentiment that I just expressed — people who served overseas who have been faithful servants of this government for all these years, and are now out. That member talks about consultation. He talks about seniority. That is all nonsense. It's whoever the government wants to fire for whatever reason. That's what it's all about, and it strikes terror into our people.

The whole concept of labour relations and industrial harmony is based on fairness. It's based on people who sit down and talk together, who meet and bargain in good faith, and who are not faced with this kind of legislation which says: "You can be fired at a moment's notice. We will hunt you down if you are out camping. We will interrupt a birthday party. We will phone you when you have dinner guests." This letter today is another example of one of my constituents getting phoned at dinner time be told " you are without a job." When you see somebody driving in the driveway these days, you go up and hide in the attic the same way as Anne Frank had to do. That's what we've come to. If you don't recognize that, then read the papers. Read what other people are thinking about us. Read what people are looking at and what they are saying. Read about those people who are getting together to oppose this kind of tyranny.

This government does not recognize....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! One at a time, please.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They're like this all the time, you know.

Good industrial relations are based on good faith; that has been eliminated by this bill. I wonder how some members of this House feel, those who have been involved in labour relations over the years, who have fought for the rights of workers, who have been involved in cooperative movements; those people who are now sitting while this kind of thing is happening around them. Are they comfortable? Are they at ease? Are they going to vote for this kind of thing?

Labour relations are very fragile. This kind of move by government will undermine the climate of industrial relations for the entire province. We're going to have more difficulty in resolving any disagreements in the future. We're going to have more difficulty....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Fewer union bosses bossing the workers.

MS. SANFORD: Is that right? Well, isn't that interesting, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Freedom of choice to be thrown out on your ear, without even ten minutes' notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or any right to appeal.

MS. SANFORD: Or any right to appeal; of course.

Not only that; if you have to go back into your office to pick up some personal things you might have left there, you have to be accompanied by someone from government to keep an eye on you. If you have served for 20 years you are not to be trusted anymore. You're out on your ear.

You do not get a good educational system when you have teachers who are completely demoralized by the fact that they stand to lose their jobs tomorrow: phoned at dinnertime tonight, or hunted down if they're out camping, to say they no longer have a job. That kind of demoralization in the teaching force means that our students, our young people of the province, are going to be denied the kind of education they might otherwise have. Not only that; I know those teachers; I know how they feel. I know the kind of demoralization that comes into any workforce faced with this kind of legislation.

What about the students? All those nurses, firemen, teachers, public servants, but what about the students, the children who come to school every day, knowing the feeling at home because of the uncertainty based on legislation of this type? It's chop-chop. It doesn't matter about seniority or dedication or productivity. It's based on a phone call at dinnertime, with no notice and no appeal. That's what this legislation is all about.

Now we hear that another 350 people are going to be fired in the Ministry of Human Resources. They have to wait until Monday, though, to find out which ones. They're going to be worried about going home in case it's their phone that rings at dinnertime to say "you're out." Who are these people who are going to be fired? They are people providing a service for children who have been abused in this province. Those are the ones who are going to be fired. The people providing a service to mothers with young children, to single mothers. They are out. You people have no humanity in terms of dealing with people — no humanity whatsoever.

People have fallen by the wayside because of the actions of this government. They're either thrown out of a job or have been told they will not have any increase in any kind of income as far as handicaps, as far as people on social services, human services. They're not going to have any increases, Mr. Speaker. The welfare recipients are going to have to make do with the money they have this year. At the same time the taxes have gone up for them, user fees have gone up for them and rent controls have been eliminated. They could face huge rent increases, Mr. Speaker. There again: "too bad." They don't have any rights under the human rights code anymore. There's nowhere they can appeal.

[11:30]

This government has let them lie by the wayside, and on the way past they've given them a little kick. At the same time this government has so mismanaged the economy and been so neglectful in terms of any planning on how this province should be developing that we have been driven into debt to the tune of over $12 billion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we're paying for it.

MS. SANFORD: Now we're paying for it, you're right. And the people who are paying the most for this mismanagement are those people at the lower income levels. There's no doubt about it.

[ Page 283 ]

If you people were concerned about those people who are not going to have any increases in their income — the disabled and human resources recipients — you would not be giving an overnight increase of $10,000 to the Minister of Propaganda, Doug Heal. You would not!

They talk about restraint! We told them about restraint, Mr. Speaker, for year after year in this House. We said cut back to last year's level in terms of the purchase of office equipment and furniture. We said cut back to last year's level in terms of the massive advertising and cut back to last year's level in terms of ministerial travel. And for heaven's sake, cut out the Broadway shows and the wine and all of these things. We have been telling the government this for two and three years in this House.

Not one time did the government accept our recommendation to cut back. We made motion after motion after motion; not one was accepted by that government. And now, in the name of restraint, they are removing human rights, and they are doing in services such as the rentalsman, legal aid and any service that's going to benefit people who need it. They're going to fire at will anybody in the public service or in any public agency in this province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The next time the Socred party sends out a letter requesting a political donation to the Social Credit Party from the public servants of this province, not only are they going to give because they want to hang on to their jobs and to feed their families and keep paying that mortgage so they don't lose their home, but they're going to worry about not giving enough. Those people who do not live up to the requirements of this government, whether it's in the materials that they teach at school, in their approach to their job through the policing, the laying of charges....You know, I can visualize that the people in the probation service, for instance, working with young offenders, will have a list of all the people who belong to the Social Credit Party, and they will check that list before they take too much action against young offenders; because their jobs are on the line. They have to feed that family; they have to make that mortgage payment.

These people are absolutely heartless. What they have said is that because people in the private sector are getting laid off, in order to even it out we will fire people in the public sector. Instead of doing something to improve the economy, instead of bringing in a budget that will assist, they bring in a budget that has the opposite effect. They say the private sector will take care of everything else, and in the meantime we will fire people, because we want things to be even. There are lots of ways to make things even. There are people sitting on that side who have great gobs of money. Maybe we could even that out a little bit, could we? Oh, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) says no. Some of them lost a lot of money too, in other ventures that they've been involved in.

The people of the province did not give this government a mandate for this kind of right-wing tyranny. Never once did the people of the province expect to see this batch of headlines. Never once did they think that they were going to be reading about blitzkriegs, as it applies to the government of British Columbia, in a democratic society. We are going to be the laughing-stock of Canada. In fact, people may not laugh; they may shiver, as some of us over here shiver when we see the kinds of actions that this government has embarked upon.

The sad part, Mr. Speaker, is that they don't seem to understand what they are doing. They don't seem to understand how authoritarian governments, in order to rule with an iron hand, take authority unto themselves. That's what this government has done time after time. We're seeing it again through education, through the kind of legislation that we have before us today. Fire without cause; no appeal; get hunted down; get phoned at home. The people of the province do not want this kind of right-wing tyranny.

At this point I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 30

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

[11:45]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak and welcome your appointment to high office and also to welcome the Deputy Speaker. I also welcome the new members here on both sides of the House. It's good to have you on board.

I think I would like to say something about our former Whip, the member for Dewdney. As a matter of fact, he was around when I was first brought into the world and has known me for a long time. I miss him. The former member for Shuswap-Revelstoke often gave me some guidance in this House at times, although it was very rough as well. I remember it, but I think it was really given in good spirit.

With respect to the bill, which I'm standing in support of, I think we should look at the background of what really has occurred in British Columbia over a considerable period of time. I remember in February 1982 when the compensation stabilization program was introduced. Some of the debate that I recall seems to been echoing in this chamber in the last few days. When in fact restraint became a political issue and that issue in fact was accelerated about half-way through the election, as I recall, it really did come to the forefront. I only have to look at the message which was given to me in my

[ Page 284 ]

riding, and that was pretty clear. With respect to the riding we had a good clean fight, I might say, with the opposition candidate. I think he should be paid tribute to. He conducted a good campaign. I certainly know that he had some help. I realized it was going to be pretty tough when they had a campaign manager who came from the prairies to do the job for him. But full marks to her. She did a very good job.

Restraint was an issue in my riding, and I think it has carried through. It then became evident that it wasn't rhetoric that we were talking about, and it certainly wasn't rhetoric that the public was sending to us as well. They were serious. I find the same comments in the throne speech. I might say that I felt that the throne speech was a document, for the first time since I've been here, which really had some substance and some direction to it. I make reference to page 6 of the printed version which we have, and it says: "My government has developed a plan for reducing the size of public service in the next few years." Mr. Speaker, we started restraint in February 1982 through the CSR We get into an election, and it's clear what the public are saying to us; it's abundantly clear. An election is held; a decision is made. Those who advocated restraint were returned to government. We find it now in the throne speech, and it's clear.

The next item that comes in we find in the notes from the budget speech. Again, the same message is abundantly clear.

There's an interesting point. I refer to page 4 of the budget speech:

"Since 1981 there has been a major turning point, with the most telling signals emanating from international financial markets."

Prior to that, we have seen governments assume:

"... the role of model employers, offering generous salary and benefit packages. As a result, skilled members of the labour force turned to the public sector in greater numbers. These were dramatic and far-reaching developments — developments that history might have suggested could not last. They were, in a sense, golden years of economic growth and social reform. By the mid-1970s cracks began to appear."

I remember talking in here once before, and one of the statements bears repetition. I remember speaking in April 1982 at one point. "In the private sector, " I said, "there has been the bottom line in the financial statement. In the public sector there is only the resolve of governments to say no when common sense dictates it. It must be said. I do not believe the public sector should be immune from some sort of economic sacrifice. Its ultimate well-being is dependent on the health of the private sector."

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

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I know it's against the rules of the House to read your speech. I'd like to check with the Speaker to see whether it's against the rules to read your old speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members are aware that notes can always be used when a member is speaking.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have heard the same speeches on both sides of this House for four-plus years. I thought making reference to something in Hansard has as much legitimacy as making reference to the daily press, which we heard from the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Prince Rupert will let me indulge for about 30 seconds, I quote: "We cannot have two classes of citizens in this province, one which is always vulnerable to the business cycle and one which is not. The burdens of restraint cannot be applied just to the private sector alone." Well, what did we see? The CSP came through. I presume all members have had an opportunity to look at the data filed in the annual report for 1982 and see whether or not that program was successful. Certainly it's been successful, when we look at the figures. In May 1983 the average settlement in the public sector was 2.8 percent; in the private sector 2.4 percent. In the previous year it was 17.4 percent and 15 percent. So it seems to me that things are working reasonably well.

I really enjoyed the comment from the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) when he made reference to the Leader of the Opposition's comment some time ago; Hansard really came back to haunt them. He made a statement to the effect that we have been spoiled in this country; governments must take the lead. We've been spoiled. Cuts if necessary. We know in his case there were cuts if necessary, but not necessarily cuts. That's exactly what has happened. I think that as time has gone on we have all been guilty of this to some degree.

A couple of comments were made by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) with respect to the Ku Klux Klan. Just remember which government introduced the civil rights protection act when we had that very unpleasant and nasty problem here a couple of years ago. The legislation that was in place or any amendments to it would not really have done the job, but the civil rights protection act did. It was a special bill, there were sanctions within it, and it worked well.

Reference is always made to political donations. Interesting. It's very well for them to throw their barbs across the floor, but I can remember what happened during the campaign. It was pretty clear the amount of money which the BCGEU pumped in and the type of advertising we found, and the funds which came from the Teamsters, the building trades, the IWA and the operating engineers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's correct. People were coming to me and saying I don't believe in this, I'm supporting you. It's all very well for you to throw those chunks right off the top and throw the barbs across, but expect some bullets back. This is what happened.

I'd like to make reference to the speech of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) yesterday, which contained a lot of most reasonable material, particularly when we're talking about the regulations, which haven't yet been prepared and which the affected parties are going to have an opportunity to give some input to. He's invited this — nothing wrong with that at all.

With respect to one of the provisions in the bill, tenure, do excluded employees in government or the public sector have tenure? How about employees in the private sector? Do they have tenure? They don't have it. They talk about this being draconian legislation. Do you remember the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act? I remember that well, in 1975. You know, in one way I don't blame the government of the day for introducing that bill, because they had 60,000 people

[ Page 285 ]

who weren't working outside. It was time that they went back to work. To be very candid with you, I thought the government provided good leadership by bringing that bill in and putting them back to work. The fact of the matter is those men wanted to go to work. I was involved with them, and they wanted to go to work. I think that you did the right thing, and yet it was thought to be very draconian. An interesting comment was made in the press the other day. It came from a professor. He made reference to tenure and said that tenure came from the old concept of academic freedom. But he said it has in fact degenerated into what we call de facto job security. Well, for my money, somebody who's working in the mill in Mackenzie or Prince George, who's had to suffer the whips of the marketplace and a collapsed international economy, and who in fact pays the bill for those people who've got tenure, is going to have some say. That's exactly what this is intended to do.

MR. HANSON: They have seniority.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Seniority, the member mentions. Well, all we have to do is take a look at the bill and the provisions that it refers to. What does the bill contain? It calls for regulations which should be ready by August 8, we hope. What's going to be taken into consideration? Skills, abilities and qualifications of employees. Operational requirements and efficiency. The seniority of employees and the seniority of provisions of a collective agreement. I'll tell you that we're not going to be the masters in here; school boards and municipalities will run their show. But isn't it nice that somebody should be able to make a determination as to which employees are there because of skills, qualifications and seniority? It's all there.

We look at the provisions in the School Act. One of the things that has bothered school boards, and they have been looking at it for a long time, is that we threw the gauntlet out — "operate, manage" — but we as a government have really in effect stopped them from doing it. We've stopped them from doing it because the provisions under the School Act say that there cannot be any terminations unless (1) there's a school closure, (2) you can establish declining enrolment, and (3) there is elimination of a program. The fact of the matter is that there could be a teacher, fully qualified, with 20 years' experience in that particular program, but she can't be protected. Now that's not right, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HANSON: You're doing them a favour — now you'll fire them.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You said the word "fire."

Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come when everybody's hungry. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.