[ Page 313 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Blencoe –– 313

Mr. Lauk –– 316

Mrs. Dailly –– 322

Mr. Stupich –– 327

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. GABELMANN: I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance; namely, that the House do now adjourn to debate the firing of the director and staff of the human rights branch and the Human Rights Commission of the Ministry of Labour, and the prejudicial effect of this action on human rights in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I will reserve my decision on the matter and bring an answer to the House at the earliest opportunity without prejudice to the member.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Visiting the Legislature today, and probably later with the press gallery, is a long-time friend of mine and my family's from Ashcroft, and the editor of the Ashcroft-Cache Creek Journal, Mrs. Ida Makaro. I would ask the House to welcome her.

Orders of the Day

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT
(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: Yesterday, I referred to the United Nations' principles and statements of human rights. This morning I would like to refer to something a little closer to the current government — the principles of the Social Credit Party.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: This is positive. We'll soon see how they support their own basic principles. Let me just go through one or two of these and ask them whether they have indeed disbanded and thrown away these very principles they supposedly tell the people of British Columbia.

The first principle that they supposedly endorse is this: "The individual is the most important factor in organized society, and as a divinely created being with both spiritual and physical potentials and needs, has certain inalienable rights which must be respected and preserved." That's the first principle of the Social Credit Party. With this particular bill and a number of other things they have brought in in the last few weeks they violate the basic principles and fundamentals of their party. I would suggest that the very members of their party will be sad with the things they are doing in this chamber.

Item 2: "The major function of democratic government in organized society is to secure for the people the results they want from the management of their public affairs as far as such results are physically and morally right." They refer to morality in their principles. They have no morality in this particular bill when you can fire without cause, no just tribunal, no appeal process, and no equity. They are violating their second principle. I think they should tell the people of British Columbia that the principles they supposedly espouse have been thrown out the window with this piece of legislation and others that they have brought down in the last few weeks.

One of the other principles is a very important one, because there is deep concern in this province about the things they are doing and the violation of basic human rights and democratic principles. "Social Credit is unalterably opposed to fascism." Right across this country and this province, newspaper, columnists and editorialists are writing that there is indeed something happening in this province that we all should be concerned about, and it is the violation of basic human rights.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that these members should go back and read the very principles that they supposedly endorse. I asked a member of my staff to try to find this. We had to hunt high and low for it. We went over to the Socred caucus office. The staff there said: "Oh, we don't have a copy, because we're in government. If we were in opposition we would need one." They don't need principles when they're in government: that was the reaction of their Socred caucus. They don't need copies of their principles. We know why: because they brought in legislation that violates their own basic principles.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I have a copy of what I guess is their current constitution. I hope they will be revamping it in their next meeting, because they have certainly thrown out this constitution. "To foster and encourage the universally recognized principles of Christianity in human relationships." There is no Christianity or anything to do with human relations in the legislation this government is bringing down — nothing at all.

They also refer to one of their basic principles, which is to abolish poverty and privation. They have created and will continue to create further poverty and privation in this province. They are firing hundreds of people and they will continue to fire thousands more, I suspect not only in the public sector but they'll be moving on the private sector in terms of draconian legislation about rights.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BLENCOE: They want me to close, sure. They don't like to hear this stuff, because they know that they've got to go back and face their party members. They are violating their own principles that they supposedly endorse and tell thousands of British Columbians that they uphold.

I would like to talk a little bit about labour law and about some of the things that happen in this country that have been endorsed and should be supported. I have a copy of Canadian Labour Arbitration by Brown and Beatty. It is said that this book is a landmark event in the world of Canadian labour law. Mr. Speaker, this government is already suspending section 93 of the Labour Code, which states you cannot be dismissed without cause. The Labour Code is being dismantled by this government. They are also moving on some fundamental areas in terms of arbitration and jurisprudence, how workers can get tribunals. I'd just like to quote from this recognized Canadian document, a landmark in labour law, and I would remind some of these speakers about these principles.

[ Page 314 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who wrote it?

[10:15]

MR. BLENCOE: I already referred to that. If you would listen you would hear it. Listen, for a change, Mr. Minister. "Grievous arbitration is an exercise of self-government through which the parties to a collective bargaining relationship devise and participate significantly in their own judicial features of the arbitration process." Mr. Speaker, there will be no more arbitration between employer and employee. They will be gone. Industrial jurisprudence, in terms of arbitration, is very important. I suggest the members get hold of this book because it's a landmark.

MR. MOWAT: How about something positive.

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

"The arbitration jurisprudence has been produced with the collaborative efforts of judges, lawyers, law teachers and, most importantly, non-lawyers who are experienced in labour-management relations. These hundreds, even thousands, of participants in the process have pooled their collective wisdom to think through the many subtle issues which can arise in the administration of the collective agreement. That process has not been impaired by a hierarchy of legally binding precedent. Instead, the analysis in any arbitration award must survive in the free marketplace of ideas" — they support the free marketplace of ideas, I hope — "persuading through its quality of thought" — this is important — "rather than constraining by the force of authority."

We have a force of authority in this government, Mr. Speaker, that is throwing out basic human rights. It is allowing this bill to come down so that people can be fired without cause. It's totally unacceptable to thousands and thousands of British Columbians, and should be repealed as quickly as possible. In my estimation, no job, no person and no group is going to be safe from this government when they can throw out human rights at will. It's clear where they're going in the next year or two. It's quite clear.

They support and will spread the notion that if workers spread stories and innuendo about their fellow workers and fellow British Columbians, they will be able to protect their jobs. They're going to have to protect their jobs because this government has decided that they can fire people without cause. The only way they're going to be able to protect themselves is if they curry favour with their employer and spread stories and innuendo about their fellow employees. The fear and mistrust that's going to be created by this bill in the public sector will create incredible problems, not only for the public sector but for all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, the government, in my estimation, is prepared to set one section of the community against another, and that's what it's doing. You are using fear tactics on the people of British Columbia. You are setting them against each other, and it's reminiscent of other jurisdictions and times in history. Out of this carnage they hope to achieve economic victory and increase their own power, so that in years ahead they can reward themselves, their friends and allies. We've already seen how that happens. We've already seen that if you need a job in this province the best way to do it is to marry a Bennett.

This bill should be seriously thought about by those members over there. Many of them, I see, have not come into this chamber since we started this debate, because they can't face it. They know what it's about. The more intelligent, caring members on that side know what it's all about. This government talks about restraint. They say the reason they're having to fire the human rights branch and to suspend — not suspend, eliminate — human rights in this province, because that is what this bill does, is that it's saving the taxpayers' money. This government's record on financial matters is the worst in the history of this province. It is now accepted by economists on all sides. They have built up the biggest debt this province has ever seen — $12 billion.

They were told that the economy was starting to falter a long time ago. Did they do anything about it? No. They got us into B.C. coal deals that are now costing the province millions of dollars, at the expense of child care workers, children, child abuse programs....

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

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes, Mr. Minister. That's another Columbia River Treaty, another cost of millions to the taxpayers of British Columbia, at the expense of millions of taxpayers' dollars that you're going to eliminate from social services. You're firing the child-care workers; you're eliminating them.

Interjections.

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

MR. REID: I withdraw the comment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stand up and withdraw the comment.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Poppycock!

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

[ Page 315 ]

Let's talk about the financial reasons why we're having to cut social services and child-care workers and abuse programs. The national financial markets have recognized what they've done to the financial capability of this province. The rating has dropped. The cost this year to taxpayers will be $5 million minimum. Over the next few years that rating will cost us $120 million — taken right out of programs that go to people and services. Through their mismanagement they are forcing cuts in these very essential programs. Just on this particular aspect $120 million is going to be lost in the next few years.

The leader of our party talked about B.C. Rail and $45 million and shoving it off the back of a truck — $45 million that could have gone into these programs that provide help to people in need. But no, shovel it out the back to cover up. Cover it up.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like to refer to some of the clauses in this particular act and what it's doing to an agreement which this government signed in good faith with the members of the public sector. Let's see what they're getting rid of under the guise of restraint, while cancelling the right to appeal being fired, which all civilized societies allow to remain and preserve and protect.

The employee can be terminated without cause. It's going to eliminate a very important section, section 10(2). This government endorsed it. They are a part of this. "Dismissal. A minister or a deputy minister may dismiss any employee for just cause. Notice of dismissal shall be in writing and shall set forth the reasons for dismissal." Notice for dismissal, just cause. Justice: that's what you're eliminating.

An employee can be unilaterally relocated, reassigned or reclassified whenever the employer decides. It wipes out a very important clause, 12(4). This is the clause currently in the agreement that this government signed, but didn't tell the people of British Columbia and certainly didn't tell its loyal public servants it was going to destroy. "It is understood by the parties that as a general policy employees shall not be required to locate from one geographic location to another against their will. However, the employer and the union recognize that in certain cases relocations may be in the interest of the public service or the employee. In such cases an employee will be fully advised of the reason for his or her relocation, as well as the possible result of a refusal to be relocated." That was an agreement, fair, just and reasonable.

That's going. I know no other country in the world that is prepared to remove people and send them to another part of the country or province without discussion. Do you know where that happens? In the Soviet Union. Yes, that's true. It's the only country in the world where that happens, and this government is going to be doing that. No appeal. Relocate. You've got to move or you lose your job. That's what happens in the Soviet Union, and that's what this government is going to be doing here: suspending the very point of discussion about where they should work,

The just cause is a very important and very critical factor in this bill, but that particular aspect is also very important. At will, you can upset a family — one, say, living in the city of Victoria for 20 years — and you can say to them, with no recourse, appeal or tribunal: "You move or else." There's no other country in the world where that happens, except the Soviet Union, and that's fact.

Mr. Speaker, section 4 of this bill leaves it totally up to the cabinet as to whether they should give a fired employee severance pay or not. Severance pay can be suspended at will of cabinet. The centralization and the control that is being shown by this cabinet and this government in terms of pulling in decisions that are made at the local level by other duly elected and democratic.... They are pulling them to themselves so that they are going to make the decisions. The implications of that have to worry all British Columbians. Where else are they going to move with those kinds of powers? I would urge the government — particularly those members who have some feelings left for working people in this province — to reconsider this bill. It is getting international attention, Mr. Speaker. We are becoming known as a province that is bent on suspending basic human rights, and that can't be accepted.

[10:30]

I would suggest that when certain members — I hope there are some reasonable people in their own party who have worked long years for their party — read their own principles, they will see that what they're doing this week violates the very principles of their own party. I suppose they can say: "Well, we don't have any principles any more." Is that what they're saying, Mr. Speaker? We all know what happens to governments and people who don't have any principles. We live in a civilized society that supports basic truths, basic ideals, basic principles. This government is set on a course that is going to eradicate some of those fundamental things. I would urge those members who have been members of other parties to think about what they're doing. Mr. Speaker, I hope they will repeal this bill; pull it back. I now move adjournment of this debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 18

[ Page 316 ]

NAYS — 26

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

MR. SPEAKER: Could I remind hon. members that standing order 16(2) states not sooner than two nor longer than five minutes for the taking of a vote. Once the bell has rung it is impossible for a member to enter the chamber to have his vote recorded.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we've been admonished not to talk across the House during a division. During a division the House is technically not really in session, waiting for the vote. On what standing order does the Speaker base these admonitions for us not to chat with one another across the hall? Could he explain that to me?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, general maintenance of order in the House is a long-standing tradition in every House in the Commonwealth, and is one which should be adhered to in this House as well, applying equally to both sides of the House. I must say that on occasions each side of the House shares the same amount of blame as the other. It falls under no particular side of the House to be disorderly, hon. members, but it does fall upon the Chair to see that order be maintained.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I've thought of it.

I've witnessed many other assemblies. During division I've even noticed that members go and talk to one another. Would that be permitted in this House, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a great deal is permitted between the time of the calling of the vote and the recording of the vote, but nothing permits any kind of anarchy to exist. Order at all times will be maintained. I'm sure I can count on all hon. members for their support in that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, I'm going to have to ask the hon. member if he would kindly withdraw his reference to himself as being a stranger in the House. As the hon. member is perhaps unaware, under standing order 23, if he is a stranger in the House, he would have to withdraw from the House. I'm sure he would not like to do that at this early stage of his political career in British Columbia.

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

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

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

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

Interjection.

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

MR. LAUK: I'm indeed surprised, Mr. Speaker, after all of the heckling of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) and the upset responses from some of the cabinet ministers — the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and others — and from the back bench, that no one rises in debate on this bill, one of the most draconian pieces of legislation in the province of British Columbia. Do they admit their guilt, Mr. Speaker? They certainly do. They haven't got the guts to defend this bill. The second member for Victoria was interrupted — not only midstream, mid-paragraph, mid-sentence, but mid-syllable — by Leather Lungs from Peace River, by the Minister of Education and others, who were greatly upset, and by the hon. member for Little Mountain.

Interjection.

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

These people constantly interrupted the second member for Victoria. Now they have an opportunity to get up and give these tremendous arguments in defence of....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It's the high-pitched voice? Is that what you have to say, Mr. Provincial Secretary? Is that the level of criticism that you have?

Interjections.

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

MR. LAUK: Why don't you listen — I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Provincial Secretary — to the debate that's taking place? Don't give us this juvenile cross-comment about the high-pitched voice, or some other nonsense. You have an opportunity to stand up in this debate. Why don't you? Are you such cowards that you sit there and have to shout at us when we're defending rights? We have a legitimate point of view, Mr. Speaker. It's a legitimate point of view to be expressed freely in this chamber. If you're so confident

[ Page 317 ]

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

[10:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the direct reference to other members of the chamber in that tone.... I would ask that the member, on reflection and in keeping with parliamentary tradition, withdraw the remark.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I withdraw the charge that the hon. members are cowards, Mr. Speaker. Weak-kneed, I think, is the expression. Lily-livered. A suspicion of the absence of backbone. But not cowards.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The minister from the North Peace said: "Is this the.... I'm sorry. I went into words longer than one syllable. I'll return, for his benefit, to monosyllabic words so the hon. minister can understand.

Since May 5, and certainly in the face of this bill.... I wonder what Abraham Lincoln would say if he were in this chamber today. Do you remember Abraham Lincoln? The only time the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain remembers Abraham Lincoln is when he gets one of those little pieces of paper from the United States with a picture of Abe Lincoln on it.

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

MR. LAUK: Yes, especially when you have lots of his pictures in your wallet. Abraham Lincoln said: "You can fool some of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." If he had been here on May 6 he would have said: "But you can sure fool the majority of the people a hell of a lot longer than I thought."

We told them that this kind of legislation, or something close to it, was in the Social Credit election pouch; it was hidden. The election promises and policies of the Social Credit government are very much like the Australian marsupials: you can see the head and the ears, but the majority of it is still in the pouch, and that comes out the day after the election.

I want to make a brief comment that if this bill is going to be enacted, I wish the government would fire, with cause, some of the planners of B.C. Place. That's what I'd like to do. Let's have them look at the Crown corporation of B.C. Place. I heard today an economics professor at the university argue that there's no room for non-profit, non-market, and low-cost housing at B.C. Place — the largest urban centre site in Canada. What a cop-out that is. I'm fed to the teeth with dealing with these phoney academics in Vancouver and British Columbia.

In 1979 I warned people about a recession, and this fellow, an economist, out at Victoria said: "Oh, political tomfoolery." Now we're getting this utter nonsense by these inflationary economists talking about maximum density in Crown-held land in the centre of a city. Using this same argument, we should build highrises in Stanley Park. He says, "I've had a look at the land economics," and he submits a six-page report to the city of Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him.

MR. LAUK: Michael Golberg. I don't care who he is, where he comes from or who he's working for. What he says is utter and complete nonsense. He's using as assumptions that the dollar value of everything is the sole economic basis for development. There's someone else in this House who believes the same thing, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and I want to deal with him in a moment.

This kind of utter nonsense has got to stop. I charge that the government should instruct B.C. Place to develop a livable, mixed-housing project in that area, because to do otherwise would be a travesty and create a concrete jungle in the centre of one of the most beautiful cities in the world. I'd like to hear the members for Vancouver–Little Mountain, the minister and the second member (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy and Mr. Mowat), contribute to that debate in due course, and let's deal with that. By the same argument, why not take Stanley Park and build highrises and parking lots and movie theatres? Because Goldberg says that if the land is so valuable, you've got to build higher and higher to get your return on the value of the money.

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

Here's the hon. member for darkest Surrey. There's only a small comer of Surrey that's dark, and that's the group that voted for you, Mr. Member.

MR. REID: Thirty-seven thousand of them.

MR. LAUK: You got how many?

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

MR. LAUK: How many votes did you get?

MR. REID: Thirty-seven thousand.

MR. LAUK: You're right.

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

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

MR. LAUK: Would you get your head a little bit over this way? It's shining in the light up there, Mr. Minister. It's getting in my eyes and I can't read the charter of rights here. There's a good gentleman: thank you.

Recently the constitution was hammered out in a kitchen while the Premier of this province was asleep. The Premier was in a coma while the rest of the country decided on the constitution, and next morning he said: "Well, here it is." Too many digestive cookies; he couldn't stay up too late to negotiate the constitution. Anyway, for better or worse we've got the Charter of Rights. But, after Bill 3, I wonder if we still do. Here's what Section 2 of the Charter says: "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association." Section 3 says: "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of

[ Page 318 ]

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

Equality of rights: Section 15 says: "Every individual is equal before and under the law, and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin ... mental or physical disability." Now we ask ourselves: why are we so worried about Bill 3 if the country has such a Charter of Rights that will protect us, even from the right-wing Social Credit government? Why would we be so afraid of Bill 3?

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

If these rights are enshrined in the Charter of Rights of Canada, why is the opposition taking such objection to Bill 3? I refer you to section 33 of the charter, which says: "...the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an act of ... the legislature ... that the act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15...." — the ones that I read. Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? I predict that the next step of this government will be to make, under section 33, a resolution to opt out of the Charter of Rights. I predict that this government is drafting resolutions now, and amendments to statutes, that will allow this right-wing, steamroller government — this jackboot government — to get out of its rights and responsibilities as declared under the Charter of Rights.

Interjection.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's nonsense.

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

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Did you hear the Provincial Secretary attacking Doug Collins, his closest friend? I happen to have it on solemn authority that the Provincial Secretary writes some of Doug Collins's best speeches.

I am disappointed that the hon. Mr. Science isn't here. Because Mr. Science and I have an ongoing debate in this chamber about several things. I almost wanted another division to see where he was. Do you remember Mr. Science, the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) ? He was the one who recommended a tunnel across Georgia strait. Do you remember that? He wanted to build a tunnel. The longest exhaust pipe in the world — cars jammed up; costing $12 billion, or whatever. That's what Mr. Science thought of — the resident genius, the resident Einstein of the Social Credit Party. Do you remember last year, or the year before? He came out with an announcement. He didn't even tell his cabinet colleagues. I remember the Provincial Secretary rolling his eyes up to the top of his head as the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications announced that he wanted to build an airport right where they were building the ALRT system, along Terminal Avenue. He wanted to build a STOL aircraft airport along Terminal Avenue. But I understand he's changed the proposal.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Stick to Bill 3.

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

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

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But here's what this hon. minister had to say on May 5, 1982 — you remember that — you were here with me. He came in and he said: "What we have to do is stop inflation in British Columbia." He had just come back from Argentina and had figured out how to do it. He went to Argentina and said: "They know how to do it." They know how to reduce unemployment — it's called the Disappearing Persons Act — and control inflation. He was bragging here, Mr. Science was. Here's part of what he had to say. He argued for the draconian, right-wing measures of Argentina. May 5, page 7406 of Hansard.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What year?

MR. LAUK: Nineteen eighty-two. That's foreboding, isn't it? Here's what he said: "You protect the people who, through the cumulative effect of government policy, are the ones creating the problem." He's pointing the finger at us and talking about public service and teachers and doctors and so on.

"When a restraint program is put in place in British Columbia, it's intended to redress that balance. It's intended to take less out of the private sector, which cannot afford to provide it, and to give less to the public sector, because there isn't that much coming from the private sector to support them."

[11:00]

Here's the cherry on the cheesecake:

"Not all dollars in an economy are equal. There is a hierarchy of dollars. The most valuable are those that lead to future manufacturing ... and the research work that leads to inventions."

He likes that — inventions.

"These are the most valuable dollars because they ultimately lead to manufacturing.... The least important dollars in terms of economic leverage are those dollars that come from the public sector, because they don't lead to the production of goods, exports or any of those things that provide for multipliers."

There is no economist anywhere in the world — even Mr. Goldberg — who would make a silly statement like that. Totally not true. I'll carry on with the quotation:

"Those jobs in the public sector are only used for consumer leverage and nothing more. They're the least important. But the most unfortunate weakness of

[ Page 319 ]

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

I'll repeat that for you:

"...the most unfortunate weakness of democracy is that the currency of elections is not dollars but votes. The hierarchy of votes goes in the opposite direction, but if democracy is to survive and if the free world's economic system is to survive there must be a rationalization between the value of dollars and the value of votes."

Where have we heard that before?

"There must be a proper balance between the private sector and the public sector. I think you can see that if the most votes go to people who will take the most out of the private sector, they will do the most damage to an economy, and eventually a country will collapse and the horrors of depression will arrive.... Our government may be too small to reverse the current of the world, but ... we understand the nature of the imbalance and the corrective actions that must be taken...."

That was one year before the election day of this year. He was foreboding this kind of legislation. We call him a Liberal? He was never a Liberal. He's not even a democrat. He's saying: "Isn't it a pity that we measure votes instead of dollars? Isn't it a pity that people have the vote?" That's what he's trying to say. The man that gave you the tunnel and the airport on Terminal Avenue is the man that's calling upon this House to support Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that we've come to this. The government has gone too far. I think there was a general sympathy out there that a reduction of the civil service and bureaucracy was one of the actions the government should be taking. But largely that sympathy was based on misinformation that was spread by the Social Credit Party and other parties in this country — misinformation that somehow there was a qualitative difference between the private sector and the public sector, that somehow the human beings that were bureaucrats and experts working for government and Crown corporations were somehow different, qualitatively, almost subhuman, in relation to the kind of people who were working the the private sector. They characterize the bureaucrat as being the worst parasite in our economic system. They characterize every dollar spent on public services as being a dollar stolen or wasted — "money out of the back of a truck," they used to say. By dehumanizing the bureaucracy, by constantly repeating to themselves and their followers that somehow public servants are not human but subhuman — it doesn't matter how well trained they are, they are just not as good as the same kind of expert or professional in the private sector — that enables them, without human understanding and compassion, to fire them as subhumans. It's the same process that takes place during war. When we declared war on the Japanese, all of a sudden the Japanese are subhuman. In Vietnam the North Vietnamese were subhuman. If it's the Russians the Russians were subhuman; if it's the Germans the Germans were subhuman. We've always been able to spread that kind of false doctrine and collective psychology in order to do what is considered a necessary but distasteful act.

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications and others started doing this a year ago. They began to look at the public service in precisely those terms: they would not refer to individuals. There was a day in this House when one of the greatest moments of the week would be when a senior public civil servant would be on the floor of the House on a retirement or a special award. There was a day in this House when any kind of attack on the public service was considered almost a breach of parliamentary rules. Now it's commonplace from the Social Credit benches. It's the kind of unfortunate demagoguery that will cause much pain among the people being fired from the civil service, and it will cause much fear in the community. It's all so unnecessary.

Efficiency in the civil service is one thing, but this across-the-board measure without legal protection for the human rights of those people affected is a scandal; others here have described it as such, and it certainly is.

There are those who say: "How can you use such extreme language to criticize this bill? How can you attack this bill by describing it as fascist, right-wing jackboot legislation and so on?" Let's review it. Nowhere else in the country is there any citizen who can be fired without cause. Nowhere else in the country can any citizen in the private sector, working for the forest companies or the manufacturer, be fired without cause. Now at the pleasure of the Crown 250,000 civil servants can be fired without cause. Who is the Crown in British Columbia? It's the Social Credit government.

It is no exaggeration to say that this bill takes fundamental human rights away from 250,000 civil servants. Section 15 of the charter — and I commend this to the lawyers who will be representing the thousands of civil servants who will be summarily fired by this dictatorial government — says: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.... The reason I predict this government cannot afford to let Bill 3 stand without opting out of the Charter of Rights is that section. The lawyers of this province who will represent those civil servants will certainly go to court under section 15 of the Charter of Rights, and I'll tell you, I know the judges of our courts of Canada, and they'll win. The judges of the superior courts of British Columbia and Canada will not allow this kind of discriminatory legislation. It is offensive to section 15 of the Charter of Rights; they know it, we know it and so does the government.

So what's the next bill? I predict that the next bill will be under section 33 of the charter, which says that any legislature can pass an act and make the Charter of Rights not applicable to that act. Of course that only lasts for five years, but they can renew it. No wonder they were in favour of the Charter of Rights; they knew they didn't have to pay any attention to it. I say that the next step will be to opt out of the Charter of Rights to support Bill 3 and whatever other draconian legislation they're bringing in.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I hope I'm wrong too, Mr, Leader. As far as I'm concerned, I'd sooner win the point of pulling back the legislation today than win political Brownie points. I suppose that's why the NDP is always out of office. We take the issue on behalf of people; we don't play political games in the back room. When we win elections they're honestly won; they're won in the open, in the light of day, not in the back rooms and the sleazy telephone boiler rooms and what have you. We win them honestly. We win them with fairness and with decency. You know why you are silent, don't you? Sure, we know we can't win elections sometimes by being straightforward and honest all the time, and that's why we lose them.

[ Page 320 ]

Interjections.

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

MR. BARRETT: They're true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: They will cease.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Health is here. During the campaign he said that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), by claiming that there will be increased hospital and medical user charges, was lying. Those are his words, not ours.

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

MR. LAUK: I must say, in deference to the Minister of Health, that he called the member for New Westminster a liar during the campaign. It wasn't in parliament.

Interjection.

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

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

MR. LAUK: All right. The member for Surrey figures that those tactics during the campaign are okay. Now, after May 5 we've got to become parliamentarians, for her sake. This is the double standard of the Social Credit Party. It's always been their double standard.

MR. BARRETT: And double-cross.

MR. LAUK: A double-cross in this sense: the Minister of Health said, "No increase in user fees," and we've seen increases. On May 16 the Minister of Health wrote to the Council of Senior Citizens and told them that the government was not considering abolishing rental controls or reducing rent controls in any way. You did that. I have the letter with your signature on it. Would you like it tabled in the House?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would, yes.

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

Say anything, do anything. We'll say anything one day. If you don't like these principles on Monday, on Tuesday they'll reach in their briefcases and say: "How would you like these?" Change every 48 hours.

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

MR. LAUK: Isn't that funny? The Socreds could have cabinet ministers go to jail and they could be charged with criminal offences. They can do all of this kind of stuff. But a letter stating one thing on May 16.... Did the Premier not talk to the Minister of Health and tell him that rent controls were being abolished? You didn't know by May 16?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the whole thrust of this debate is clearly beyond the scope and principle of this bill. Many remarks are being made which are quite unparliamentary and inappropriate in this House. I'll ask all hon. members — the minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) — to come to order.

[11:15]

MR. LAUK: My point is simply this: the minister expects me to resign if I can't produce the letter — which I can — but he won't resign if he made the statement.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's unkind.

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

MR. LAUK: The sections of the bill which are offensive — all of them — are such that they breach a fundamental human right. They are totally discriminatory. There is no other person.... For example, in MacMillan Bloedel or any other private corporation, if you fire a person you can fire him without cause but not without cause in the legal sense; in other words, if they are fired they have recourse in the courts. The only way that a civil servant has a recourse to the government is by the Charter of Rights amendment, section 15, about equality and non-discrimination because you can't bring an action against the Crown for wrongful dismissal. The government knows that.

Interjection.

[ Page 321 ]

MR. LAUK: Crown corporation employees can bring actions for wrongful dismissal, and some government agencies, according to the law. Still, it's a principle of the law that you can't take an action against the Crown. People still try it. Here we have an amendment that takes away any opportunity for the courts to enforce rights, because it gives statutory authority to the government to fire without cause.

Those are legal points. It takes away the legal property rights of the civil servant, but what about the fundamental breach here, which is frightening in a free and democratic society? What if it's determined by the Minister of Health...? I know he personally would never do this, but what if a minister in that position determined that certain people in his ministry were New Democratic Party sympathizers or supporters? Or what if he determined that they were Liberals or supporters of some other party? What if they spoke critically of some policy of government? In the past, governments, through this chamber, have passed laws giving protection to the civil servant against discrimination, but now that's being eliminated and governments can fire without cause.

In the past, civil servants could complain to the commission and the courts that they had been dismissed for political reasons. That is why governments have been most loath to deal with civil servants on a partisan, political basis. It is one thing to make personal appointments to the minister's staff, but this bill gives political, partisan access to 250,000 civil servants in British Columbia. The long arm of Social Credit and the unseen hand of political discipline will now reach out to 250,000 civil servants. Every teacher, employee and hospital worker all the way through the civil service will in effect have to show their Social Credit party card to remain employed.

That's what's happened in British Columbia. Is it any wonder that right-wing or conservative newspapers throughout the country are writing editorials attacking this government for being dangerously extremist? The Globe and Mail, Toronto Sun, Toronto Star usually don't even notice what's going on in British Columbia, but newspapers across this country are scandalized by the actions of this government, particularly by the actions of this government in introducing this legislation. It is a regressive and unnecessary step which is to be abhorred by any decent, right-thinking Canadian citizen. In all decency and honour and justice, the government should withdraw this bill.

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

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 26

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), I must ask if the Minister of Health is designated as the closing speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: He would be the closing speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I was informing the House that that would be the case if I were to recognize the member, hopefully to call to the attention of hon. members that that would be the case. I could then recognize the member for Burnaby North.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't try to hide behind the fact that I've only been here a few years, but I believe the minister who introduced the bill is the closing speaker. Isn't that correct? Don't we have a parliamentary procedure in a democracy whereby we have one opposition speaker and one government speaker? Are we to expect that every time a government member stands up that is the closing of all debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, that is why the Chair took the time to advise the House that in the absence of the Provincial Secretary, whose bill we are debating, the Minister of Health was taking the place of the Provincial Secretary; and that if no one from this side stood, debate would in fact be closed. I hoped I had made that clear to the members so that I could then recognize a member who would be standing, as was the member for Burnaby North, whom I have now recognized. So the debate can continue.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, but the point of order I'm asking about is, are we supposed to expect that every time a government member stands in normal debate, that is going to cut off debate? If the Provincial Secretary wants to goof off, does his title keep changing to anyone who stands up?

MR. SPEAKER: The point is a good point, and that is why the Chair undertook to inform the House. Had there been no information relayed to the House, then the member would have a very valid point. However, the Chair undertook to convey that message to the House. The member for Burnaby North, noticing that, took advantage of the opportunity and took her place in debate. Debate will continue.

[ Page 322 ]

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

[11:30]

MRS. DAILLY: I realize it's Friday and we've come near the end of a long week. There may not appear to some members to be enthusiasm here, but I can assure you that the effects of this bill, not only in this Legislature but all across the province, are just beginning to be known. The Social Credit government is going to find a tremendous amount of reaction, I think far more than they ever expected, unless they withdraw this bill.

I notice that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) has left. I was going to refer to some of his remarks before I got into my remarks on Bill 3, because he is one of the very few members of the Social Credit government who are taking their place here. So obviously he's about the only one I can relate to. I'm very surprised that so few members of the cabinet, particularly, feel strongly enough about this legislation to get on their feet and defend it.

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

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

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Back to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, which probably could refer somewhat to the catcalls coming from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), I believe. Yes, I was going to deal with some of the remarks, but not with too much time because it's not necessary. I think in this House, Mr. Speaker, you would prefer us to get on to some of our major points and not spend quite so much time in reacting to some very nonsensical and at many times inaccurate, untruthful statements being made by the members of the government. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has obviously been selected as the hit man for the Socred back bench. He's following the same low level of integrity which we have seen from other members of that house, including the Minister of Labour who spent most of his time when he was in opposition making completely inaccurate statements based on untruths.

I want to get on with the bill and what the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was saying. He was comparing the record of Social Credit, as espoused in this bill dealing with public servants, with that of the NDP I just want to get on the record that his statements were absolutely inaccurate with reference to the dismissal of people under the NDP. I simply want to say that it was the NDP government which brought in full collective bargaining rights for the public service of British Columbia. It was because of those rights that when dismissals or grievances took place, we gave the opportunity for the first time to the public servants of British Columbia to be able to have proper procedures followed. Now the Social Credit government wishes to take them away.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

That's what I want to deal with. I want to deal with what is really being taken away, specifically. But in order to make it clear and understood in a more simple way, I thought perhaps it would be of interest to bring the House back to the history of the public service and why it was formed, and their struggles and how they fought for over 50 years to attain many of the rights which in one fell swoop this present Social Credit government is going to take away from them — rights that they fought long and hard for. I want to go back and take the House into the history of that, and relate it to what has happened in this bill today.

It was in 1919 at the old Globe Theatre in Vancouver at the time that Charlie Chaplin was playing and Maggie and Jiggs were in the movie strip — which I know you, Mr. Speaker, are far too young to ever have heard of. July 26, 1919 — that date is rather interesting, because if we compare it to the time we're in now, we're in the middle of July 1983 — the first annual convention of the Provincial Civil Service Association took place. That's really what it remained until the NDP gave the government employees of British Columbia full union status. In 1919 they had their meeting, and at that meeting, of course, there was management from government attending. Do you know what one of the speakers from the management side said? He opened his remarks to the members of this little association with this homily: "Blessed are they that expect little, for they shall not be disappointed." That was the first message from the government to the first little association of public servants in 1919 in the province of British Columbia.

At that very first association meeting, a Mr. Beaton stood, and he was a worker from Essondale. We all know that Essondale, of course, is now Riverview. He was a delegate, and he had the temerity to raise the question of the hours of labour at the asylums — in those days the term was "asylum, " not "mental institution." He was stating that it was usual to work 12 and 13 hours a day. Later on I'll deal with what happened to Mr. Beeton because he had the temerity to question working 12 and 13 hours a day.

The Premier at that time was John Oliver. Do you know, I went all through John Oliver High School. All the time I went through that high school I never really knew who John Oliver was. We were never taught too much, unfortunately, about our own Canadian and provincial history. John Oliver, I knew at that time, was somebody of great importance, but now that I read about Premier John Oliver and his attitude to the public servants, I can't say I'm particularly proud, on this aspect anyway, that I went to the school named after him. Oliver, apparently, took great exception to the newsletters that were being published by this new association. As a matter of fact, he was actually so concerned that they had the temerity to criticize the government that he said it was "improper for the association to imply in any form that the government had not lived up to its word." The civil servants at that time had been complaining that they could not cope with the high cost of living and that the government was not fulfilling what they had promised to do. Oliver said that they really had no right to do that. He said: "A vote of the Legislature overriding the opinion of the government in this matter could only be treated by the government as a want-of-confidence motion, by the result of which the government must either stand or fall." Isn't it interesting how governments, going right back to 1919, always use the public servants as scapegoats. They are so easy to kick around, and it started in 1919.

Oliver also saw the inference that the association could also criticize ministers of the Crown. He said: "I cannot consent to the position that government employees have a right to pose as critics of the actions of the government." Shades of 1983. We now have a bill coming in that if carried

[ Page 323 ]

to its extreme, as listed in the details of the bill, could actually remove a public servant who spoke against the government from office. There is nothing in this bill that prevents that. This was in 1919. That's exactly what we're going back to.

Oliver was very concerned. Of course, in those days particularly, what happened was that many of the public servants who were thinking of joining an association for their own benefit became very nervous. They were afraid they would lose their jobs. Therefore the association became smaller and smaller. It became most difficult for the association to form.

If this particular act goes through, what is going to happen to the B.C. Government Employees' Union? It's going to have great difficulty in functioning in its true form. Maybe that's what this government wants. As a matter of fact, I believe there is no question about it. This government has never believed in collective rights and bargaining rights for public servants.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Somebody over there said: "That's right." You know what they think? They think that that is the one select group that they can kick around, remove all the rights and privileges from, and the public will be with them. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have faith that the public of B.C., who may, of course, at times get annoyed with things that happen when they go to deal with public servants — everyone is human; we all know some of the reactions that come forth — want fairness and justice. They're not getting that. This bill is not producing that.

I want to follow through with another interesting thing that happened to an attempt to form this early association. "A government employee in Prince George in the early 1920s recalled later how quickly the branch there caved in under pressure from Victoria. Said Robert B. Carter:

'It was in the years 1920-21 at Prince George that a plan was circulated to form a civil service club. Officers were elected and a meeting held to draw up a constitution. The government of the day, through the Department of Finance, became alarmed at the thought of a civil servant becoming organized, and issued a letter' — shades of 1983, of the Social Credit government — 'to the government agent' — this was in the 1920s — 'to the effect that the local group be disbanded on pain of instant dismissal. As the secretary, it was my unpleasant duty to wind up the club.' "

When we hear about these things we all say: "My God, is that what life was like for a public servant in the old days?" This is what we are fighting against. This bill, unless it is withdrawn, can produce many of these same situations again — completely. It is producing them now. That's why I mentioned the government agent. Here we have a government agent issuing a letter to a group of civil servants. Just last week we had a government agent issuing a letter, "You're fired," to a public servant — no recourse, that's it. Is there really that much difference?

Mr. Speaker, you go through the history of the public service — and frankly, I became completely engrossed in it, because I must admit that until this bill came up I hadn't really studied the history of the public service, and it's a fascinating history.... But it's also a sad history when you consider what they fought for and their setbacks. In the view of governments in those days — I say "those days, " until we hit 1983 and the Social Credit government — governments couldn't function as employers. They were first, last and foremost the sovereign power. To negotiate with any groupings of their employees was out of the question. The pressure tactics legitimately used by organized workers in the public sector were verboten for federal and provincial employees in those days. Such tactics in a government service could be akin to insurrection. John Oliver made that clear enough.

A reincarnation of the association got the same message from John Hart, Byron Johnson, Premier W.A.C. Bennett, and the now Premier Bennett. Premier Bennett is following the same precepts of the Premiers prior to the advent of the New Democratic Party Premier. They do not really believe in the rights and privileges of public servants. Somehow or other they think that if they kick them around and take away their rights, the public is with them — all in the interest of restraint.

[11:45]

I hate to remind this House of other governments during the last years who did things in the interest of restraint and efficiency. We can remember one well-known dictator who always got the trains running on time; he was efficient, all right. He was also efficient in eliminating the human rights of the people of his country, and their lives.

As we continue through the history, I would like to give you an example of the more human side of being a public servant in the early days and relate it to today. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I'm quoting from A History of the B.C. Government Employees Union: A Union Amongst Government Employees, and I'd recommend it for those of you who are interested. Dorothy May said:

"I was 18 when I went to work as a clerk-stenographer in the Highways office on Pine Street in Nanaimo. When I went on permanent staff the next year, in 1937, I was getting $65 a month. A couple of years later a man came to work in the office for $55 a month. He had the same typing and shorthand qualifications that I had. He wrote a letter about it to George Pearson, the MLA up here in those days. He got another $20 a month. Then I wrote a letter to the MLA and I got another $10. So we were both getting $75 a month."

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is mimicking this little report I'm giving to the House. Do you know what the problem is? They're so thick-headed over there that they don't see the basic principle behind what's happening.

The principle I'm making is that if this bill goes through, an MLA who likes one of his constituents can sit in this House and give them a raise; an MLA can go to the cabinet and say: "I like so-and-so; they voted for me; they'll work for me; I want them to have a position in the government." This is what happened before we had a union. This is what you want to take us back to. You should be ashamed to open your mouth. You are only representing the corporations; you're not representing the consumers. You're bringing in legislation. Your budget shows that your interest is only in the consumer. You're not fighting for the consumer. You're not fighting for the people in the consumer office who are public servants. But you will make sure that you have enough people

[ Page 324 ]

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

Back to this tragic but very interesting history of the public service in B.C.: Jack Logie, who was crippled by infantile paralysis and got around on one leg and a crutch, ended up becoming the branch's first president. In February Logie was the target of a threat from coalition Premier John Hart. The threat was that any civil servant who brought politics into the civil service wouldn't be in the civil service the next morning. That's the kind of thing that did happen, and it will happen again in the province of British Columbia unless you withdraw this bill.

When the association was first born, the Nanaimo branch had 51 members, of whom 16 were in the B.C. Provincial Police. Then guess what? Along came an order from the Attorney-General of the day, and every single one of them quit. That's exactly what took place and will take place again.

I mentioned earlier that there was a man called Beaton who had had the temerity to speak up and say that he was concerned about the long hours he had to work at the Riverview mental institution. Do you know what happened? Pretty soon he was told that if he made any further criticism of the situation that existed for the employees at Essondale, he would soon have his pink slip.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and we could go through this book and see incident after incident of the tragedies that happen to public servants who lived in this province prior to the granting of collective and union rights by the NDP government of British Columbia. I accuse that government over there of wanting to turn the clock right back to the days when it was only an association that represented the public service of B.C., so that it will give them an opportunity to do whatever they want with the public service.

If there's any chuckling over there about me perhaps being extremist on this, I think all we have to do is look at the bill and see exactly what the implications are. I know we'll be going through it in committee stage, but I want to just point out some of the implications. Let's go through a little bit of an analysis of it. I think we all know that it applies to 250,000 public sector workers under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. We've been told that the Premier's great aim is to get rid of 25 percent, all in the interest of restraint. It doesn't matter that all those people will soon be out there on the welfare rolls, and that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will be coming back into this House asking for another warrant, another overrun, after the House is closed. Why? To help provide moneys to keep the public servants existing, because they've lost their jobs. Do you call that the road to recovery?

MR. BLENCOE: Lunacy!

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

So therefore I want to start off with 250,000 people who are now there. Do you know what the bill allows for? It allows for the termination of an employee without cause — we know that. I just explained to you what happened in the early days in British Columbia when that was going on day after day. People were afraid. Somebody in this House said there's a reign of terror, and there is going to be a reign of terror; it's started already on the public servants of British Columbia. The cabinet may make regulations regarding the implementation of terminations and criteria. Isn't that nice?

They're going to sit there in their nice, comfortable cabinet room and they will decide what kind of regulations will apply. No longer can it be bargained for. We still don't know if there are going to be any. It just says "may." That means the bill gives the government a blank cheque to fire at will. We know it does. They've already done it. The legislation effectively places normally independent public bodies under the tutelage of the cabinet. That's true. Talk about totalitarianism, dictatorship. This is the most centralized government in North America — in fact, we can even expand it to include Europe. Section 2 states that a public sector employer may terminate the employment of an employee without cause — we know that. However, the criteria for dismissal will be determined by cabinet, and so on; and I'm repeating what I said there. This bill gives the government the power to reassign, reclassify or relocate any public service employee. This effectively guts the collective agreement. You don't need it any more.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to some of the other horrendous items in this bill which take us back to the 1920s in the province of British Columbia. I want to bring this up to date and read from an editorial that was in the Times-Colonist today, taken from the Toronto Star. It says this: "Bennett policies tarnish nation." Isn't it great that we are living in a province that has a government that has brought in such reprehensible legislation that all of us are being tarnished? Remember that that government was only elected by 50.1 percent of the people, and they are tarnishing the reputation of everyone in British Columbia and across Canada. Why? This is what they say: "All of Canada is diminished when the level of compassion and caring falls below acceptable levels in any of its parts." That is what that group over there do not understand. They don't seem to understand that this legislation is doing away with any compassion or caring.

"That is why the brutal measures in the B.C. budget, even though they fall entirely within areas of provincial jurisdiction, are cause for chagrin for all Canadians. Different provinces will naturally have different programs and policies, but there are certain thresholds of civility, decency and compassion for the most vulnerable, below which none of our governments should fall.

"The newly re-elected Social Credit government of Premier Bennett is busily smashing through those thresholds with a package of harshly retrograde measures that will cause real human hardship.

"In moving to abolish rent controls, the provincial rentalsman's office, the Human Rights Commission and the human rights branch of the Labour ministry, and to cut the budget of the provincial ombudsman, Bennett is striking directly at the protection of low- and middle-income British Columbians." Those are the people — I'm digressing now, Mr. Speaker — that this government does not really care about, because they are voiceless. The problem is that this government does not realize that those voiceless are going to have thousands of people to champion them this time round. They are not going to be alone in their fight against this government.

"It is the relatively weak in society, those lacking in wealth and personal influence, who must most rely on the assistance of such institutions. Bennett proposes to leave them more vulnerable. It is also the

[ Page 325 ]

weakest who will suffer most from Bennett's increases in already deplorable hospital user fees, and from his curbs on welfare, legal aid and student loans.

"A similar edge of brutality characterizes his approach to reducing the size of the provincial civil service. It is highly desirable for any government to trim out any fat it finds in its bureaucracy, but Bennett intends instead to hack at it with a chainsaw. Instead of identifying unnecessary positions and gradually eliminating them through attrition and transfers, he has set the arbitrary goal of reducing the size of the 44,000 member public service by 25 percent in barely more than a year. To achieve this, he has abruptly stripped all public servants of their job security and given his government the right to fire its employees without cause.

"It's hard to see how Bennett can attain those reductions without cutting back sharply on government services, and given the overall tilt that his government is demonstrating, there is every reason to fear that the hardest-hit services will be those that benefit the neediest. Moreover, at a time when some 185,000 British Columbians are already unemployed, to contemplate adding thousands of government workers to the ranks of the jobless is itself an act of social cruelty.

" It's a nasty business made all the worse by the fact that in his recent campaign Bennett gave the voters little inkling of the extreme to which he has now gone. In any event, with only 50.1 percent of the popular vote, he can hardly claim overwhelming public support for a right-wing rampage that affronts Canadian traditions of social compassion and embarrasses us all."

Mr. Speaker, that editorial which comes from the Toronto Star, which is not considered to be a....

[12:00]

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, it is my understanding that it is improper for any member in the House to use the name of another member. It seems to me that, as the Deputy Speaker noted in a comment yesterday, if you cannot do something directly, you should not be allowed to do it indirectly. I would ask the Chair to direct the hon. member to not use a name directly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is correct. The point of order is well taken.

MRS. DAILLY: No, it isn't — if I may speak to it, Mr. Speaker. I could be corrected, but I understand that when I am quoting from an article, if I don't use the word "Bennett" as quoted in the article, I am extemporizing the article.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understood and the Chair understood.... As you are aware, I am new at this job. I was accepting that as being the case, but I have found that I am wrong. We learn all the time. I have been advised that doing it one way or the other, it is really not parliamentary; it is not acceptable.

MR. LEA: I think there was an incorrect ruling yesterday and I would like to give you time to check with your Clerks to find out about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling stands that it is improper to use the name even when quoting from the newspaper. That is the Chair's ruling.

MR. LEA: I think we might need a bit more clarification on this. The ruling in this Legislature has always been that when you're reading an editorial that mentions a member's name, you read the editorial verbatim. It would be an insult to this House to make up your own words when you're reading an editorial to the House. It would be a misquote. The rule has always been that when speaking about another member, yes, you may only use the term "hon. member" or "hon. minister" and so on, but when reading from a paper that mentions that member's name and you're quoting the article verbatim, you would be incorrect to do anything other.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Here is a ruling taken from May: "a member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of putting them in somebody else's mouth."

MR. MITCHELL: I think we must establish right now that we do not have a double standard in this House. I believe it falls on your shoulders that the interpretations given in this House be consistent, If you check the Blues and Hansard, many members reading the ghost-written speeches from the Social Credit caucus stated time after time that they were "proud to be a part of the Bill Bennett team." The official Speaker and the Deputy Speaker have allowed that to take place. Now you're coming in with another set of rules, a different standard. If we're going to have a standard, let's have the same standard for all members of this House, and not one interpretation for the opposition and another one for the government. I ask you to reconsider your decision, to study the Blues and Hansard and come back with a fair decision that we can live with.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, for your comments. The Chair appreciates them very much. Now I think we should proceed.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important that we should establish the rules, and the rule is that when you quote, you have to quote accurately everything that's within the quotation marks. The only people allowed to divert from that is if a poet takes poetic licence with a quote and says: "I am taking poetic licence with this quote, and I am changing it in some way." I know we make rules and laws in this House, but there are some laws and rules that existed even before this House did. One of those rules is that when you quote, you have to quote accurately what comes within those two quotation marks, whether you're doing it on the floor of this House or elsewhere.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, for your comments as well. The Chair would like to take this matter under advisement and bring back a ruling for the hon. members.

MR. MACDONALD: When you do consider this matter, with the assistance of the legal personnel who are at the table every once in a while, surely the reference in May to unparliamentary language has nothing whatsoever to do with the point that's now under discussion, in my humble submission.

[ Page 326 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I started off my speech referring to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds).

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, I note the green light is suddenly on. Could you assure the House that the time taken in deciding that point of order has been deducted from the member's speaking time?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I anticipated this happening, hon. members. There was a ruling by Speaker Davidson last year that points of order are to be included, and the clock continues running during the member's speech. That is a ruling by Speaker Davidson.

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, I'd better huffy up then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have advised Hansard to take the time out that I took in contacting them on that ruling, so the member does have a few more minutes than just three, but that is all.

The member on a point of order — and the clock is running.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the ruling is contrary to what we have known in this House. It is entirely unfair to a member who is speaking to have other members stand up and raise points of order — often from the other side of the House — of a very spurious nature in order to deduct that from the time of the member who has the floor. That has never been the rule in this House. If that ruling is persisted in, I challenge the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a ruling by the Speaker. The Chair is challenged?

MR. MACDONALD: The Chair is challenged.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[12:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, with unanimous consent of the House there could be a withdrawal of the challenge. Is there unanimous consent of the House?

It is agreed, hon. member. The member continues in her address.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I started off my speech with reference to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I don't want him to think I'm picking on him, because he's about the only Socred who has at least gotten on his feet to defend this legislation. In some of his remarks, this member, who obviously is speaking on behalf of the Social Credit government, said: "I'm not ashamed to see the testing stations go down." He believes it's better in the hands of private enterprise, or it doesn't matter if you have it voluntary or not. In other words, that member and the Social Credit government accept the increased loss of lives and accidents that will happen in this province. They're accepting it. That member has said he doesn't care. He apparently doesn't care if there are more accidents on our highways. No longer will people have to have their cars tested in the areas where they had to before. How can a government that says it's concerned about restraint bring in an action which is going to bring about more costs in our hospitals? What a two-faced, hypocritical stance by that member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, and also by the government!

That member — speaking for the government, I presume — also said he was concerned about the taxpayers and restraint. Did that member speak up during the campaign when he heard that the party he decided to run for — albeit somewhat belatedly — had decided on and passed an order that would allow for $100,000 severance pay for deputy ministers? I never heard that member speaking up. I haven't heard one of the Socred back-benchers who come in here every day say: "We're concerned about the taxpayer." Where was your concern about the taxpayer when your government allowed an order to pass through which would give $100,000 of taxpayers' money for a deputy minister — just to cover them up in case the NDP were elected? I say shame on your hypocrisy!

I have a whole list — unfortunately not here, but if somebody wants me to bring it from my files, I will — on the number of public servants in high-level positions who were fired or laid off by the Socred government during the last seven years. Do you know an interesting thing.... This is particularly for the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who came up with completely inaccurate, untruthful statements about the NDP's record of handling public servants.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, the hon. member has just quoted me as saying I had inaccurate and untrue statements in my speech about the NDP yesterday, and I would ask her to withdraw those remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has taken exception to a remark that he feels is unparliamentary and refers to himself. Would the member, in the interests of parliamentary....

MRS. DAILLY: Always in the interest of parliamentary tradition, I will withdraw, But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the facts before the House. The NDP, I want to repeat, were the first government to bring in collective bargaining rights and proper grievance procedures, and they applied to the public servants who worked for us, including the particular public servant mentioned yesterday by that member. I think he should check the facts,

By the way, Mr. Speaker, that member also didn't seem to express any concern about the waste by his own government during the last seven years. During the last seven years a tremendous number of high-level — not down in the clerk level — high-salaried officials were relieved from their positions. We didn't hear much from them. I wonder why not. If you knew some of the settlements that were placed upon some of those public servants! That is one way to keep people quiet, and believe me, the Social Credit government did not care how much of the taxpayers' money was spent in very rich settlements in great number. Talk about the NDP's firings — my God, you should just look at the history of the public servants who were removed from office by the Socreds at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer.

Finally, Mr. Speaker — and I'm picking out these particular quotes because it symbolizes the attitude of the Socreds as came out of the mouth of that member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who said: "The government is

[ Page 327 ]

going to look after its people. The NDP is making too much of a fuss about what is going to happen with the loss of people services to those who need them." You know what he actually said? I had to read this about ten times to think I wasn't reading something from Hansard of 150 years ago in the British House of Commons. He actually said: "There is the Salvation Army." Can you imagine it? In other words, all these services that have been built up through the years, even by Bennett senior, who at least had more compassion and believed in the need for government to have some involvement in providing services to people — he wants it all wiped out. Let the Salvation Army take over. Back to the charity homes. Back to the charity hospitals. Back to the orphanages. What century does that member come from? What century does that government over there belong in? I can tell you, it's sure not the twenty-first century. Mr. Speaker, if he is so concerned and thinks that it's going to cost so much money to help look after the needs of the underprivileged — and he says, "Send them to the Salvation Army" — may I suggest that he should be consistent, and when the businessmen, developers, etc. come to this government with cap in hand for subsidies, send them to the Salvation Army also.

Mr. Speaker, the whole principle behind the thinking of the Social Credit government is absolutely abhorrent. If we follow through with what they want to do to this province, we are going to go back and lose 50 years combined, cumulative, progressive legislation, fought hard for by the official opposition in this province and, to give some of the credit to the former Premier, actually brought in by W.A. C. Bennett. But he wants our backs turned on everything we have achieved and worked for. I want to tell the people of British Columbia and the members of this Legislature that the NDP fought long and hard for the people of British Columbia to preserve their rights in free collective bargaining and to make sure that there is more equality and justice in this society. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to stop the fight, and we will win.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[12:30]

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 26

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

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on a question of privilege pertaining to a statement made by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). During the altercation dealing with the challenge to the Speaker's ruling on the last statement, the Minister of Health called across the floor to me that I was reverting to my roots. I want to make it absolutely clear, first of all, that I'm not asking him to withdraw that, because I'm very proud of my roots and hope that I never ever move too far away from them. I would like the record to show very clearly that I find that that comment of the minister was unparliamentary and uncalled for. However, it was certainly in keeping with a government which wipes out first the Human Rights Commission and then the human rights branch.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in the cross-House comments I said the member was reverting to her youth. I'm sorry if she interpreted it as meaning something else.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the matters which are in dispute are not a matter of privilege. The Chair has to accept both words, and the matter is concluded.

MR. STUPICH: One does keep hoping that there will be one member on the government side who has something positive to say about the legislation before us. Of course, we keep being disappointed.

With the bill before us now, Bill 3, Public Sector Restraint Act — and, of course, the budget that accompanied it — the government is showing its absolute, utter and complete contempt for a minority of the voters. I'm not talking about a minority who voted for the NDP, the Green Party, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. I'm talking about the minority of the voters, 49 percent, who voted Social Credit. They're showing their complete contempt for the voters who voted Social Credit in the election on May 5.

In 1975 the opposition went around the province in the election campaign making campaign promises that they proceeded to break one after the other as soon as the election was over. They made the excuse then that conditions were bad in the province, and that they had to break their own campaign promises in order to lead to recovery. One in particular that you may recall, Mr. Speaker, was a promise not to increase ICBC rates. Then they more than doubled them immediately. In 1979 — by this time they were the government — they went around the province in the election campaign making further promises. From the moment they were re-elected they started breaking those campaign promises. The promises in 1979 were actually included in the form of a budget. Some members, new to the House, may not recall that. A budget was introduced in 1979 giving back to the voters the money that had been taken from them in the years between 1976 and 1979. Taxes were reduced. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the sales tax was reduced from 7 to 5 percent, along with a promise from the Premier of this province that never again in the history of British Columbia would the sales tax be increased. In the next budget they increased the sales tax, and in the budget before us now they're increasing the sales tax again.

In the 1983 election campaign the same thing happened. Promises were made to get votes, promises which were broken as soon as the election was over. This time they didn't bring in a budget prior to the election. This year, no doubt, they had their plans ready. They promised, among other

[ Page 328 ]

things, that there would be no increase in taxes; then they brought in a budget that did include several increases in taxes.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

They promised, with respect to restraint, that there would be no firings, no layoffs; that cutting back in the size of public sector employment would be achieved by attrition. Not only did they promise that in the election campaign, but also they actually entered into a collective agreement with the BCGEU which provided that there would be no wholesale firings. There would be a reduction in the size of the public sector by attrition. But, of course, Mr. Speaker — I see some of the members smiling — perhaps they knew, perhaps they were in on it. Perhaps they knew that the Premier, in saying that, had absolutely no intention of keeping that promise. Perhaps they knew then his contempt for the people who would vote for him and his party, and knew that once the election was over they could once again, for the third time in a row, pay absolutely no attention to campaign promises and proceed to do the things that he wanted to do.

Another of the promises that were made in 1983 was that there would be no user fee increases for medical services, no increase for emergency rooms in the hospitals, no increase in co-insurance. When a member of the opposition came in touch with documents that were circulating in the Ministry of Health, showing that increases were, indeed, being planned, the Premier and the Minister of Health reassured their voters — it turned out to be 49 percent of the population — that there was nothing about which they should be concerned. These were not government plans; they were simply memos that were circulating within the department and things that were being considered by the public sector employees. But the ministers themselves had no interest in this. Indeed, they promised the voters that they would not increase hospital and medical service user fees. They said there was nothing to worry about. And then as soon as the election was over, as I say, Mr. Speaker, they showed their absolute, utter and complete contempt for the 49 percent of the voters who voted for them by saying: "Now we're in. We don't care a fig about the promises we made. We're in and we're going to stay in. You can't do anything about it. We're here to govern."

The legislation before us....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to listen, because that member may have something to say from his seat that he can't stand up and say on his feet. He just may have something to contribute. But apparently not. Either that or he just finds it quite impossible to rise in this debate. Or he has received instructions from someone who made it abundantly clear to the cabinet that he was the boss....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Me?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I can't identify him because the word "Bennett" has been ruled today as an unparliamentary word, so I won't use his name in saying who the someone was.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, that's still being considered? Well, that's something. We did make some progress today then. We are now reconsidering whether or not "Bennett" is an unparliamentary word. I think we're still considering whether or not spurious points of order may be used to use up a member's time if you don't want to listen to what he's saying. I think that's being reconsidered as well. I hope that's the case.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, the member's talking about job security. Of course, the legislation before us now is dealing with some 250,000 public sector employees — not all working directly for government — because the legislation lists them, and the government is at the top of the list. The list goes on: "a corporation or an incorporated board, commission, council, bureau, authority or similar body that has on its board of management or board of directors a majority of members appointed by the cabinet.... So only a majority. If the corporation or board or authority or whatever is controlled by government, then it falls under the control of this legislation. The list continues: "Municipality, regional district" — and they still exist even though there is some legislation threatening their role, but there are still regional districts — "improvement districts, boards of school trustees, universities, and institutions under the College and Institute Act, a community care facility, a hospital, a library board, an employer-designated schedule. Very wide-ranging legislation, and all of the people working in all of these organizations may be controlled by this legislation. Some 250,000 public sector employees are being told that in the name of restraint the government is taking unto itself the power, by this legislation, to fire any one or more without cause. That's supposed to be restraint. I suggest it's not restraint; it's revenge.

I have to lay it on the Premier's doorstep because he's made it absolutely clear that he's running the whole show. He's even made it very clear that he doesn't need a deputy to the Premier anymore. He doesn't want to share any of the control with anyone else; he's going to run the whole show. So this is his legislation and no one else's. There's no question about that. I don't think he liked it very much during the election campaign when some groups in society — I'm talking now about trade unions — felt that this government was going down the wrong road and that with their record of two previous elections they would have absolutely no intention of paying any attention to their election promises. Because of that concern, leaders of the trade union movement took quite an active part in the 1983 election campaign.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The member opposite is saying that they did it without a membership vote. Yes, that's right. The mining industry that opposed the NDP did it without a membership vote. I would suspect that many of the corporations that made contributions to the Social Credit Party in the election campaign — if you're prepared to make those public, we'll certainly share ours with you — did it without consulting the shareholders of those corporations. That's the way the system works. If you want to change it, bring in legislation dealing with that. That's another problem. Bring in that legislation and then let's see what our reaction is. But right now we're talking about public sector employees....

[ Page 329 ]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll ask the hon. minister not to interrupt. If he wants to take his place in debate he can.

MR. STUPICH: You took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to say exactly the same thing to that member. If he has anything at all constructive to say, or even destructive, please invite him to stand on his feet after I've finished and let's hear from him. It would be great to hear something about this legislation from another member on the government side of the House.

It's not restraint. It's revenge against the trade union movement for having taken part in the recent election campaign. There can be no other explanation for the kind of legislation we have before us now. What could be the effect of this? We've been cautioned by, I think, two members — there may have been others who have spoken in the debate; I can't recall now — who spoke on this legislation from the government side of the House. They cautioned us, perhaps not quite in these words: "Don't pay any attention to the legislation." They said: "Read the explanatory note." Well, that's a great consolation. I'm not sure whether any of them have had any court experience. But I would not recommend to them, if they are ever in court, that they rely on explanatory notes rather than legislation to get them through.

[12:45]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I've had some experience.

We're cautioned to read the explanatory note, that it will allay all our fears and the concerns of some 250,000 in the public sector; it's all in the explanatory note. Well, let's read the explanatory note. I don't think they were reading it very carefully when they tried to reassure us by telling us to read the explanatory note. "The purpose of this act is to permit public sector employers to terminate employees for the purpose of decreasing the size and complexity of public sector operations and to increase their efficiency and effectiveness in providing services to the public." It gives public sector employers permission to terminate any employee.

I suppose they could read this far, where it goes on to say: "In addition, the act provides that the government may establish an equitable and consistent scheme for compensating senior management in the public sector." So some carrot is held out to the the opposition. "Take your consolation from the explanatory note, " which says that the government, if it wants to, can do something to protect senior management people. It certainly gives no consolation or feeling of security to people other than senior management people. The explanatory note is hardly worth the few lines of type it takes up. That is one person's interpretation of the legislation. It is not the legislation itself.

Mr. Speaker, if you were one of the people being reassured by the explanatory note, being reassured by a government composed of Social Crediters who have told us in the past to trust them.... Thinking of unparliamentary language, using the phrase "dirty tricks" is not unparliamentary, but it's a phrase that did not come into the history of politics in this province, not that I'm aware, until the Social Crediters started perpetrating dirty tricks during an election campaign. Would you take any reassurance from a government composed of people who perpetrated dirty tricks the way they did in the 1979 election campaign? Would you, Mr. Speaker? Would you take any reassurance knowing that this whole thing, as I've said, came from one person — the boss, the top man, knowing that in one particular election campaign, election campaign expenses were being paid for with $1,000 bills coming out of his office? Would you take any consolation, any reassurance, any feeling of satisfaction that you were in good hands, that that person was going to draft regulations that would make you feel comfortable?

Would you feel comfortable knowing that the person responsible for drafting those regulations that are supposed to protect you was the leader of a party that organized a deliberate letter-writing campaign in which letters were signed by people who didn't exist, and in some cases signed by people who did exist but had nothing to do with the letters? Can you take any consolation from an explanatory note that tells you the person drafting the regulation is going to be a party to all of those actions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Five letters.

MR. STUPICH: Signed letters, yes. Signed by people who didn't exist. Signed by people who did exist but who had nothing to do with those letters.

Would you take any feeling, Mr. Speaker, in reading this explanatory note and knowing that the person who has to approve all of those regulations, even if that person is not going to write them all himself, is the same person who has led that party in three election campaigns, out of which have come in every case a history and a list of broken campaign promises? Would you take any assurance, Mr. Speaker, in reading an explanatory note?

I think it was yesterday when the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), talking in this debate, mentioned her father. There are some on the other side who didn't feel that was proper. Perhaps some of them didn't want to be reminded about their own fathers. My father worked in this province. My father was a coal-miner. He wasn't a union member when he started mining coal in South Wellington, because there was no union there. He was one of a group of eight people who met secretly once a week in a neighbour's house when they talked about the possibility of forming some kind of an association, union — whatever you call it — among the workers in that coal-mine. They had to meet secretly because if the people owning, running and controlling that mine knew that any of the workers were talking or thinking about organizing a trade union, they'd lose their jobs. It was just that simple. They'd be fired without cause, and with no recourse of any kind, so they had to meet secretly. The only people that my father knew who were thinking along those lines were the eight people who met regularly in that one person's house. No one in that group except for the host knew anyone else to discuss things with. They didn't dare do it on the job or in the privacy of their own homes. They had to be extremely careful who they invited to those meetings, or else they would all be down the road without a job.

What have we got here? Legislation that allows any public sector employer to fire anyone without cause. We're back to where we were in 1920.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Can't speak up at union meetings now.

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

[ Page 330 ]

MR. STUPICH: I don't mind the interjections. I wish that they'd be a little louder so that I could hear them, or if they had the intestinal fortitude to get up on their feet and say something, even if they opposed the legislation. I would welcome it, if they had the nerve to speak from principle. Do they have any principle left?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, would you make a note that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) wants to speak in this debate, so that he may get up when I sit down? He's nodding in agreement. That would be wonderful. Someday one of them is going to speak from principle — from their heart — rather than from the leadership of the boss, and will actually say something on behalf of the people in the province.

The members opposite are getting excited about this, and I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.