[ Page 365 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

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

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

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

Natural gas prices. Mr. Lauk –– 366

Disposal of contaminated waste. Mrs. Wallace –– 366

Amalgamation of Victoria hospitals. Mr, Blencoe 366

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

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

Mr. Passarell –– 367

On the amendment

Mr. Gabelmann –– 372

Mr. Lea –– 376

Mr. Cocke –– 381

Mr. Lank –– 384

TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1983

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It is my pleasure this afternoon to introduce two constituents of mine from the fine community of Powell River: Mr. and Mrs. Mould. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. REID: I would ask the House to give special welcome today to Karen Reynolds from Vancouver. She's a very active community worker and a very strong supporter of good government and good leadership. She's the mother of a lovely young lady who is also my godchild.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the members' gallery today are constituents of mine, Bill and Beryl Slessor, from Penticton, B.C.; and in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, friends from Faulder, B.C., a large community on the outskirts of Summerland, Sandy and Preston Mott. I would ask the House to welcome them both.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the visitors' gallery today is a long-time resident of the city of Kamloops who was very active in community life but is now retired. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Jock Thomas.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, visiting in the House this afternoon are three people seated in your gallery. I would ask the House to join me in making them welcome. They are Mr. Elmer Verigin and Mr. Finn Levick of Trail, and Mr. Peter Trog from Basel, Switzerland.

Oral Questions

McKIM ADVERTISING WORK
FOR SOCRED PARTY AND GOVERNMENT

MR. COCKE: I would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary. The advertising agency mentioned in the auditor-general's special report regarding secret bank accounts, double billing and a million-dollar cost overrun has been identified as McKim Agencies Ltd. Can the minister advise whether this is the same as the McKim Advertising Ltd. which was appointed in May 1982 as sole monopoly buyer of advertising space and time for the provincial government?

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could resign under the circumstances. If he doesn't know who does all their advertising, who would?

Can the minister advise whether this McKim Agencies is the one which acted as the sole buyer of advertising space and time for the Social Credit Party during the recent provincial election campaign? Or would he not know that either?

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

MR. COCKE: In view of the serious allegations of double billing, extra billing, overbilling and absence of responsible financial control, has the minister decided, since he's now informed, to suspend the McKim advertising agency as agency of record with the provincial government?

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

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

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It's a shocking revelation, but he said no, he's not going to cancel them. In view of this shocking revelation about the Socred's main advertising firm, which also provides the same function for the government, has the minister decided to request an investigation into other dealings of the McKim advertising agency in the 18 other government ministries? At the same time, would the minister advise the Attorney-General that it should be taken out of the Attorney- General's ministry and given to the police?

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

CITY OF VANCOUVER EXPENDITURE
ON TRIP TO ODESSA

MR. REID: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Does the minister have authority over the city of Vancouver in its expenditure in time of restraint of $30,000 of taxpayers' money on a trip to Odessa?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's a very interesting question indeed. The city of Vancouver comes under its own charter. It's unfortunate but such expenditures do not require the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

TOURISM REPORT ON
QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

MR. LEA: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Some time ago there was an internal task force looking into industrial and economic development surrounding tourism for the Queen Charlotte Islands. The minister sent me a letter, dated May 10, saying that that report was not available to the public. Can the minister confirm whether public funds were spent in the production of that report?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I cannot.

[2:15]

MR. LEA: To the same minister: I would assume that because it was done in the Ministry of Tourism, public funds were spent on that report. In the letter the minister said it was not to be released to the public. In view of the fact that so much money has been spent on tourism, according to the auditor-general's report, on matters not important to the public — in other words, they wasted money — can the minister tell me why this report that was paid for by public funds is not available to the public?

[ Page 366 ]

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

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

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

NATURAL GAS PRICES

MR. LAUK: A question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The federal government has decided to reduce the excise tax on domestic sales of natural gas, effective this summer. Has the government decided to pass this reduction on to consumers?

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

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

HON. MR. ROGERS: In due course.

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

Can the minister assure the House that the drop in the federal excise tax will not be used as an excuse to increase government revenues at the expense of natural gas customers in the province?

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

MR. LAUK: I take it then that all natural gas users in this province can expect to have an increase in their natural gas rates, and supplement the profligate spending of this government.

Has the minister decided . ?

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, has the minister decided to table the Govier report into natural gas pricing in British Columbia? It has been available, as I understand it, for some time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED WASTE

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet). Last month residents of Surrey were shocked to discover that barrels of PCB-contaminated wastes were disposed of carelessly in their community. As the minister knows, presently under investigation is the B.C. Place proposal to dump similarly contaminated wastes in the Straits of Georgia. Radioactive wastes continue to be a problem in Surrey and in other areas. Has the minister decided to take some action to provide for safe disposal of hazardous wastes in B.C.?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is yes.

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

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

MRS. WALLACE: Five years ago the Energy Board promised to find an appropriate site for wastes before December 1, 1980. Has the minister contacted the Atomic Energy Control Board to pressure them for action? Has the minister made any contact with the Atomic Energy Control Board?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not personally, no.

AMALGAMATION OF VICTORIA HOSPITALS

MR. BLENCOE: My question goes to the Minister of Health. Over the weekend the minister announced the amalgamation of the two Victoria hospitals. I'd like the minister to assure the House that the consolidation of the Royal Jubilee Hospital and the Victoria General Hospital will not result in staff layoffs. Can he assure the House of that?

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

MR. BLENCOE: I take it that by not assuring this House that there won't be, he us saying that there will indeed be layoffs. That's how I take it.

On a supplementary, the Diversicare report, which was written about these two hospitals, strongly recommended the consolidation of them, but it also recommended employing a firm of private enterprise health care managers under management contract to manage both hospitals for the new board. Can the minister assure the House that he has not decided to accept this recommendation of the Diversicare report along with the consolidation of the two boards?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member can take whatever he wants in whatever proportion and manner. That does not necessarily mean that it's policy. No, I can't assure him of

[ Page 367 ]

that. That could be the recommendation and the decision of the hospital board. Should they decide to make that recommendation at some time in the future, then it would be considered, but that may be the board's decision to make in that they have the responsibility for operating the facilities.

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

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

MR. BLENCOE: As supplementary, has the minister decided to allow for locally elected representatives on the combined board, or will he appoint the entire board?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Initially there will be four representatives from each of the two boards as they exist now, including the chairman, and there will be four or five members appointed from the community at large. That will be the initial composition of the board. What the future may hold may, to a large degree, be up to that board. We haven't decided as yet.

MR. BLENCOE: Who decides the board members?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The two existing boards will decide their four board members, one of which will be the chairman, and I will decide the balance of the board initially.

UTILITIES COMMISSION HEARINGS ON
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO ISLAND

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Can the minister advise why the Utilities Commission hearings on the Vancouver Island pipeline, earlier promised for June 1983, have been delayed?

HON. MR. ROGERS: There's been a delay in presenting the terms of reference for the hearing into the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. I anticipate their being available within ten days, and the hearings starting in August.

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

I have another question for the minister. In view of the fact that the Utilities Commission is on the hit list under Bill 3, can the minister advise this House that the Utilities Commission will be able to perform and conclude their hearings into the proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island in a meaningful and constructive way?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes.

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

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

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

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, if that man can become leader, anybody can in this province. The only difference between us is that I don't own a hardware store.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, let's get it over with. If we're going to start talking about grizzlies You people are bringing in this bill that's going to put 250,000 families in jeopardy. Do you want to talk about grizzlies or do you want to talk about what we're facing today, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) ?

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

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

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

Oh, no! Don't leave, please. Come, sit back. I always enjoy making a speech with my favourite son sitting over there, but he's leaving.

Mr. Speaker, I took this bill home this weekend, up to Atlin — beautiful, sunny Atlin — and was talking to a friend of mine who stopped over for....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A grizzly hunt!

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

So this friend stops by, Mr. Speaker. He's been out in the bush for about four months. He didn't even know the Socreds had won, so that was a shock to him when I told him that they really had 35 seats. He said: "Oh, come on now. They didn't get 35 seats." I said: "Yeah, they got 35 seats." So I said: "Bob, what do you think of this bill?" He says: "Well, let me see it."

Interjection.

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

So he looks at the explanatory note, which says:

"The purpose of this act is to permit public sector employers to terminate employees for the purpose of decreasing the size and complexity of the public sector operation, and to increase their efficiency and effectiveness in providing service to the public. In addition, the act provides that the government may establish an equitable and consistent scheme for compensating senior management in the public sector."

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

[ Page 368 ]

they never mentioned anything of this nature prior to the election, or during the election campaign, but once they had the 35-seat mandate, they decided to bring this in as one of their first pieces of legislation." And he says: "You know, the first part sounds good. But the second part: '...a scheme for compensating senior management in the public sector....' Anytime I see lawyers or government ministers start talking about schemes, it scares me a little bit. What else is in this bill?" He turns it to the interpretation section, and once again the first part says an employee means "a person employed by a public sector employer but does not include a justice or a person employed as a justice." So it's okay to scam everybody else with this scheme, except a judge. As you know, you can't deal with a judge that way, because he'd put you in jail. "It's still pretty funny," he says, and goes down through this thing to termination of employees.

[2:30]

I'm not going to refer to specific sections, Mr. Speaker, because we'll be dealing with them in committee stage, One of my hon. friends sitting across from me today will stand up on a point of order. We'll wait on that for a little bit longer so that we can stretch it out.

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

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Regardless of the Provincial Secretary's little jokes from across the floor, at least I did it by choice. I made a concerned effort to do it because I believe in this country. I left a country that was bringing in totalitarian legislation that I myself did not agree with. Legislation brought in by the country that I left ignored human rights and the right of the individual. I'm not embarrassed about the country that I chose to be a citizen of, but I am embarrassed that the province of B.C. is bringing in this bill.

When the United States brought in totalitarian legislation in the mid and late sixties, it took a while for people to get active and find exactly what was happening; but once they did, their voices were heard. It took many years after the Vietnam fiasco for the United States finally to get around to changing. I'm wondering if this government wants to find itself in the same position of having to wait years to undo the turmoil they're bringing forward with Bill 3. If they want to take the chance, let them go ahead. They've got the mandate for the next five years. They've got 35 seats to our 22, and in the game of politics the one with the majority rules.

MR. REID: That's democracy.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, it is, Mr. Member; it is democracy. That's the beautiful thing about this country. But when you start bringing in legislation like Bill 3, that's not democracy, not when you're talking about dismissing people without cause.

Termination of employees, just to go back, says: "A public sector employer may terminate the employment of an employee without cause." That's not democracy. We have acts for dismissing deadwood or people who are causing problems in the public sector, but to put in an act such as this — "termination without cause?" What does that mean? I know there was the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) if we want to talk about cause. I guess you probably believed in your cause at that time.

Interjection.

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

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

When we start talking, as in section 2, of termination without cause, what does that mean? Does it mean that an individual who works for the Highways department and never took out a membership in any political party is scared now that his job will have no protection unless he becomes a member of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia?

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

MR. PASSARELL: You're talking about individuals in the Highways department who don't do their jobs? I live in a riding which is a pretty isolated area, and I see a lot of good people out on the highways working. Sure, there's deadwood, but....

MR. REID: There's lots of it.

MR. PASSARELL: But you don't put in an act like this to dismiss people without cause. At least tell them why. There are ways now to get rid of that deadwood. I agree with the consent for the purpose of this government, but to start talking about dismissing people without cause...? It was always my understanding that if you worked for the public sector you didn't have to belong to the NDP, Liberals or Social Credit as a prerequisite for having a job. Maybe it is now; maybe that is what this government is bringing in. You're hanging a dagger over people's heads, saying you can dismiss them without cause. To the individuals who were talking earlier about democracy, that certainly doesn't sound like democracy to me.

I certainly hope that this government takes the responsibility of its 35-seat mandate to bring in legislation — not totalitarian legislation like this. When I was talking to Bob he said: "I know down there in the animal house of Canadian parliaments it gets a little wild. What kind of names are being thrown across the floor?" One name that I've heard across this floor numerous times in the debates over the last few days, and I'm pretty upset about it, has been the word "Nazi." I certainly would hope that all hon. members would hold back on using those kinds of terms. We can certainly clean this place up a little bit.

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

MR. PASSARELL: Just settle down. You ought to fix that Trans-Canada Highway. It's falling apart. Don't worry about that now. Fix that road so that the tourists can get moving again.

As I have said, I think that term has been a little loose-lipped in this Legislature. One of the individuals I'm directing it to is not in the House, but I think that his colleagues on both sides of the House could mention that those types of

[ Page 369 ]

terms should stop a little bit. It must be a bloody embarrassment for half these people sitting here every time they hear us calling each other "commies" and "pinkos" and "Nazis" and every other bloody thing across the floor. One individual sitting here....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speaking of language....

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

MR. REID: Clean up the act.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Show us leadership.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. PASSARELL: The first part I'd like to look at is the interpretation of this bill. The interpretation of it says that anyone can be terminated in the public service except a judge. Well, we heard the wisdom of old Bob: why didn't they put the judge in there, so they wouldn't get thrown in jail for doing this stuff?

The second aspect is termination without cause. That was something that I talked about a little earlier. I don't understand why you have to put in the first section of this bill, 2(l): "....may terminate the employment of an employee without cause." It's taken a long time in this country and across North America to start getting legislation to protect workers, and employers too, from unjust cause. It's not just a one-way street for workers. Part of this bill that I'll be questioning during committee is why vice-principals and principals are now senior management. While I was a principal myself I knew that there were times when you found yourself in the management aspect. It can work as a one-way street.

It's taken a long time to have some kind of collective bargaining in this province and across this country and North America, but it's interesting to note that in this bill in section 2(5) it says that everything after July 7, 1983, has no effect here. I just wonder when we start talking about termination and collective agreements being dismantled. Let's just take one sector, the teachers. We've heard from the Minister of Education (Hon, Mr. Heinrich) that approximately 3,000 teachers will be canned over the next three years, and it'll probably be closer to 5,000 or 6,000 out of the 29,000 teachers in this province — but without due cause. We see this bill and then we also hear of aspects like human rights legislation. The committee is being dismantled. What type of protection do workers in this province have if the government can go out without due cause and start canning people?

It was interesting that this government ran a campaign on jobs. It's kind of ironic that you're talking about jobs while you put in a bill like this where you can dismiss, hypothetically, 40,000 workers in this province without due cause. That certainly is not a job creation program, in my thinking.

Section 3, regulations respecting termination, is an interesting one, and this goes through Bill 3: the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations after the law is in effect regarding termination. That seems a little strange also. Here we are; we've already said in section 2 that we can terminate up to, hypothetically, 40,000 workers in this province, and now we have the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in cabinet, being able to make regulations after they've been canned in the law regarding their termination.

Section 3(2) says: "...determining which of the employees within the unit will have their employment terminated." So we're talking about little units now. It gets back to units. The whole interpretation of this bill is so wide-ranging that we can can 40,000 people, hypothetically, and here we have something where the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council can make the law.

Skipping along to section 4, once again the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council keeps cropping up. They can make compensation. The word is "can." I hope that's important, I hope that the back-benchers sitting in here will protect those workers with the word "can." Nothing is final; it just says "can" make compensation to, hypothetically, 40,000 people getting layoff notices in this province.

One of the strangest and most undemocratic parts of this bill is section 5, the powers of a deputy minister: "In respect of a ministry of the executive government, a deputy minister may exercise all of the power of the government under this act." I wonder if that's democracy: a political appointee may make all decisions for the executive government. Why even have elections if a deputy minister, a political appointee, has the power to make all decisions for government? I have always thought that people in a democracy elect representatives to make decisions for them, not that governments or political parties hire flacks to make decisions for this province. I don't understand why a non-elected person should have this wide-ranging power that's given to a deputy minister in this bill.

I think one intent of this bill is to cut costs. I think most us in this House forget political labels and really look at the constituencies we represent. I think people are expecting us to cut some costs and save some money for the taxpayers of this province. That's our responsibility. But, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many members in this House have read section 6. If you read section 6 closely in relation to the bill, it is going to cost a lot more just through paperwork than canning workers, which is the intent of this bill. The paper entrepreneurs shuffling paper again.

[2:45]

We see more than just cutbacks, particularly in subsections (2)(a) through (2)(e). The word conflicts comes up in this bill. Certainly there are going to be conflicts, when you talk about 40,000 public sector employees in this province, which affects 50,000 families. But this act prevails.

This week when I came back from my home in Atlin I noticed some newspaper articles, which I'd like to refer to. In the Vancouver Sun, Saturday, July 16, 1983, there is a whole section of letters to the editor. It says: "Right-wing policy plus love of monuments equals fascism." Well, I don't know about that; I think that's going off in a strange direction. "Right-wing policy" — sure. "Love of monuments" — I'll be one of the first to take credit for some statements I've made regarding building monuments in this province.

There's half a page here. Just looking at some of the names, I don't think these people are NDP hacks, or that any hack is being paid to write these. I think they are just concerned citizens of this province who are wondering what kind

[ Page 370 ]

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

Larry Kazdan, Vancouver: "I'm for government restraint. Put Bill Bennett in a straitjacket." Another one, from Barry Pither in Burnaby:

"What are you shocked about? Bill Bennett merely wants everyone to realize how easy it is to fool the people all of the time. After all, no doubt he found it rather fun to keep a straight face when talking about restraint during the election, knowing all the while that his top gun with the compensation stabilization program was being paid $300."

Another one, from Mrs. Hager in Burnaby:

"Why the furore because 5,000 public servants are losing their jobs? After all, in the last two years nearly ten times that number have lost their jobs in the private sector. Why should the government tax us just to keep someone in a job? We lived without their services before and perhaps it is the best thing that ever happened to us that they're being fired. Now we'll have to start to think for ourselves and use our own initiative to solve our problems."

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I don't think it was quite two to one; I think your popular mandate was 50.9 percent. Mr. Speaker, it's pretty difficult for a government to have the mandate I had: a 380,000 percent increase in popular vote from the 1979 election to the 1983 election.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: You should be leader.

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

To go back to this, why the furor over 5,000 public servants losing their jobs? After all, in the last two years ten times that number have lost their jobs in the private sector. That first paragraph is a pretty hard one to defend at times, but I'd like to concentrate on the second paragraph of this letter: "Now we have to start to think for ourselves and use our initiative to solve our problems." Let's say this bill, if it becomes effective, will can 5,000 highway employees; now does this individual in Burnaby expect somebody up in Iskut or Dease Lake to build their own, if they are having problems on the highway or their vehicle can't get across because a bridge caved in? Do we expect the public of this province to grab shovels? I think there was one individual in this Legislature.... He's no longer here. I don't see him.

MR. SKELLY: He's out selling shovels.

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

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Much better. Certainly much more beautiful than the previous first member for Surrey. I'll back off on that one, Mr. Speaker, and get on to Bill 3.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Speaker, "....use our initiative to solve our problems." All right, we start canning public sector employees in this province; are we supposed to grab a shovel to fix a highway if a bridge caves in? If we are having problems with a service that was provided by the government, do we now have to go out and do our own? The law courts are jammed with enough cases already, and are we to start looking at human rights legislation being denied in this province? Unbelievable!

The other one I'd like to quote from is "One Man's Opinion" by left-wing columnist Gorde Hunter. Any of us sitting in the hallowed Legislature would certainly know that Mr. Hunter is a left-wing journalist. Just a few quotes from him.

HON. MR. CHABOT: So is Allen Garr.

MR. PASSARELL: A few quotes for the peanut gallery here from the Times-Colonist, July 19, 1983: "The uproar surrounding the B.C. budget and the government's attempt to cut (a) the size of government and (b) the cost of government, is somewhat surprising and hypocritical." It goes on to say: "Government means to govern." You've got the mandate and you've got to do something. That's what the people of this province are looking for — but not down at this end here.

AN HON. MEMBER: No?

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

This left-wing-journalist goes onto say: "There can be no question some of the tabled Socred legislation is flawed and in need of second thought, second look, whatever." Even the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), if he wasn't misquoted, stated something very similar in this morning's paper — that they might just have to take a second look at this bill. But then, you can't always believe what you read. I saw him on television last night when I got off the plane at home, and he said, "No." After that five minute meeting he said, "No, that's what we're here for — to present a mandate, to present the legislation."

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I don't think you ever have to walk out on things. I think sometimes if we would spend a little bit more time, if we sat down and forgot these labels, we'd get a little more accomplished.

This left-wing journalist continues: "If Bill Bennett has any street smarts whatsoever, he will take that second look. But there can be no serious question of the need for cost-cutting moves." You are not going to find too many people in this House who don't believe in that statement. There have to be some cost-cutting moves. But instead of using a sharp knife, to get out an old butter knife and start hacking away at

[ Page 371 ]

things? There has to be a plan. If there is a plan, then it refers back to the scheme that came in the introduction of this bill. What is the scheme? Do you have a master plan in the bunker somewhere?

MR. REID: Restraint.

MR. PASSARELL: It would be nice, but this bill is not a restraint bill. I'd be the first here to agree with you if it were a restraint bill, but it isn't.

MR. REYNOLDS: Come and join us.

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

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

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

It's pretty hard to get up and try to be optimistic, to say something good about this bill. It's typed nicely; it's neat. It's got three holes that probably have seen some daylight, which is a little different than some of the holes that I've seen around here.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm trying to show something decent about this bill. It's got some nice numbers on the top. But if you start reading it, Mr. Speaker...

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

MR. PASSARELL: Bad news.

MR. MOWAT: How is it for spelling?

MR. PASSARELL: It looks good.

But you know what's going to happen? You start laying off 6,000 teachers in this province.... I'll tell you, there could be trouble. We're going to start a new language here — Socred language. Whatever it means is what we'll bring forward: "...may terminate...an employee without cause...." Mr. Speaker, how can these hon. gentlemen and ladies across from me here stand up and really defend this? The thing is, they haven't. We've given them many opportunities in the last two days to stand up. It's the usual practice, when you're debating a bill — for the individuals sitting above us, and for the individuals who will be reading the speeches later in Hansard — to have a government speaker and an opposition speaker, back and forth, to have good debate. But what's happening? The government is not getting up to defend its own legislation. There's got to be a reason. I certainly don't think they are masochists who just want to sit there and listen to the opposition. But maybe they are. Maybe you've got to be a masochist to bring in this kind of legislation. But to sit there and not even get up to defend it, I would.... If one of you put your hand up to say — after I finish speaking — that you were going to stand up and defend this bill....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, you. No, you can't. If one of the new back-benchers Would put his hand up to stand up and defend this bill, I promise I would sit in here and listen and not heckle, and maybe....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, but this is the peanut gallery. That's why you're stuck over there. I'm talking about the up-and-coming people over there. If you promise that you'll stand up in this House and defend this bill, I will think twice about supporting....

Interjections.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Return to the bill.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you.

I will sit here and listen to one of the new back-benchers stand up and defend this bill. I just might support this government. I've been known....

Interjection.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a bearskin.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that light flashing off and on there. How much time is there? Do we have an electrical short circuit here? How much time do I have?

Interjections.

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

Fve gone through this bill with my able assistant, who's been in the bush for four months, and I can't really find anything in this bill that I could support.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: He's a volunteer.

Looking through this stuff, it's unbelievable, Senior management. "A principal or vice-principal or any other teacher who is employed by a school board and who holds a supervisory position...." Are we going to start canning the little old ladies who come into the lunchroom who have a supervisory position?

[3:00]

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

[ Page 372 ]

province because of this bill.... I can't defend it. I'd be in a very difficult situation if I was sitting where the hon. members in the government are now, trying to defend this bill. Three holes and nice typing. Golly, what can you do with something like that, except scrap it? I think that's the only way. Scrap it!

I'll tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker. We in the north are like what the lady from Burnaby was talking about here — our own initiative. What we need up there, what would help the northern residents, is this government recalling all of this bill from everywhere. I don't know how many have circulated now — 50,000, 10,000, or whatever. If they will withdraw this bill, I will personally collect them for them, and use them as fire-starter up north this winter. There you go. You can get right out of it. Take this bill, pull it off the record and stop this madness of firing people without cause — hanging doubt over them as to whether or not they're going to have a job because they don't belong to a certain political party. We can use it for fire-starter up north, because I think that's about the only thing it's good for. This nice, typed-out, three-page piece of bill would-be some good fire-starter.

As always, we come to the end. I hope it has been productive; that I've been cooperative with my hon. colleagues across the floor, and brought a few chuckles here and there.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please.

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

MR. REID: Restraint.

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

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

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

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you very much for three minutes. It's better than getting the axe from this bill. I think some of the people have already found that.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair must advise the hon. member that when you are speaking to the motion and the amendment; that is all the time you have. You now have three minutes.

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

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

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

On the amendment.

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

The motion that we have in front of us at the moment is a motion that this debate be terminated for the time being and resumed six months from now. It should be clear that that in no way means we think the bill in its present form would be any better six months from now; rather, in six months two things might occur. The first of those is that members of the government might recognize what they have done with the introduction of this legislation. Secondly, and in some ways for me even more important, it would give members of the public an opportunity to become fully aware of the contents of this legislation and to formulate their opinions so that they can make known to all members of this House what their views are. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there are countless thousands of British Columbians — many are on holidays, many live in remote parts of this province — who do not yet know the contents of this legislation.

It is for those reasons that I wish to make a series of arguments this afternoon about what is contained in this legislation, with a view that that information can then be disseminated around the province and that at the conclusion of this particular debate we will be given six months so that the public can make some response, seeing the bill, the arguments for it and our arguments against it.

We have heard one primary defence for this legislation, and that defence goes something along the lines — we hear it more in heckling than we do in speeches — that this bill makes the public sector workers subject to the same provisions as the private sector. I don't even have to look to know that that's probably the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) who applauded that.

I want to give at least four specific and concrete reasons why that statement is not a statement of fact. First of all, one essential element of this legislation that has been ignored by all members of the government is that they now have the power to do much of what they want to do in legislation that has existed in this province now for ten years. Section 13(c) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act allows for negotiated terminations, and because of that section of the law that governs public service workers in this province, one of the six unions that negotiates directly with the government has certain provisions. One of those provisions is that there is a clause for dismissal. "A minister or deputy minister may dismiss any employee for just cause. Notice of dismissal shall be in writing and shall set forth the reasons for dismissal in the BCGEU master agreement with the government of British Columbia." The right to terminate for cause exists now in both legislation and at least one of the six collective agreements dealing with the public service unions.

It doesn't just deal with dismissals; it deals with relocation. "It is understood that as a general policy employees shall not be required to relocate against their will. However, the employer and the union recognize that in certain cases relocations may be in the interests of the public service and the employee. In such cases an employee will be fully advised of the reasons for his or her relocation as well as the possible result of refusal to be relocated."

They have the right to dismiss; they have the right to relocate. The third argument presented, however inadequately so far in this debate by the government, relates to

[ Page 373 ]

reorganization. What does the agreement with the major union in the public service say about reorganization? "In the event of any substantial reorganization in a ministry approved by Treasury Board which results in redundancy" — in other words, the elimination of a program — "relocation or reclassification, there shall be established a joint committee in order for the employer to consult with the union." Then it states that the committee shall be composed of equal numbers "to facilitate the reorganization." So the government is hampered from neither dismissal nor relocation nor reorganization in an agreement freely negotiated with its employees in the largest component of the public service unions. That's the number one argument about why this provision in Bill 3 leads us into a situation where public sector workers have far fewer rights than private sector workers.

The second argument is just cause, or cause without the word "just" in front of it, because under interpretations of courts in recent years the words mean the same. Cause is contained in every single collective agreement in the private sector in this province, and it is covered by the Labour Code which governs those private sector workers. Until this bill was introduced, in this respect, it also covered public sector workers. To take just cause for termination away from public sector workers is not, as the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) would say, to make public sector workers the same as private sector workers; it is to make them substantially inferior in their rights.

That deals on one hand with the organized private sector. What about the unorganized private sector? They too have the protection of just cause under common law which has been developed in this country and British parliamentary countries for centuries.

Mr. Speaker, you may be wondering what this has to do with the hoist motion. I'm making these arguments in an effort to make sure that when this bill is hoisted those members of the public who need to be aware of this legislation will have presented to them at least one side of the argument in full measure.

The third area where this bill goes far beyond the rights of private sector employees is when it relates to seniority provisions. There is not a single collective agreement in the private sector of this province that does not contain some form of seniority provision. That now will be wiped out, not just in public service unions but in public sector unions. That means that workers on the B.C. Rail will not have the same rights as workers on CPR and CNR. That's what that means. The second member for Surrey can holler and scream all he likes about making public sector workers the same as private sector workers; that is not what this bill does, and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) knows that I'm right about that point — and all the other ones I've made so far.

[3:15]

The fourth area — and there are many more, but I'm dealing with four at this stage — where this bill takes public sector workers to a state that private sector workers were in decades ago, but haven't seen since the thirties and forties, is the elimination of the grievance procedure and the right to arbitration. That is denied by this legislation. Again let me say that no private sector workers in the organized workforce in this province are without a grievance or arbitration provision. Public sector workers will now not have the right to grieve any matter. They have lost those rights. It's clear that the bill goes far beyond a simple reversion to management rights. We haven't heard that argument yet — I've been expecting it from members of the government — but it would be an argument that at least would be a rational and reasonable one that they want to return some additional management rights and that in their view the balance has swung too far the wrong way. We haven't heard that argument. They haven't made the argument because this is not a reversion to management rights. When you talk about management rights there is some quid pro quo, there are some union rights. What this bill does is to strip the essential and important rights.

Many of my colleagues have talked about some of the scary implications of the opportunity for managers to fire without cause, allowing for witch-hunts, whether or not they're intended now. I can imagine managers who say to themselves, once this kind of legislation is in place: "Aha, now I know how to get rid of so-and-so, and I don't have to tell her why." Or: "I don't have to tell him that I don't like the fact that he's gay and I'm getting rid of him." It may not have been in the minds of the drafters — I'll give them the benefit of that doubt — but it sure leaves to the managers that awesome responsibility. It also leaves forever, as long as this bill is in place, the fear that that's what might be done, even if it weren't done, and that's an awesome fear for 250,000 British Columbians and their families to have to bear.

Workers have fought and died — literally lost their lives in this country — to gain the rights that are being stripped away by this legislation. Some members might say that that's an exaggeration. It's not an exaggeration. Workers, from the beginning, understood that the essential rights that they were gaining by organizing, by forming themselves into collective groups to organize trade unions, were, on the one hand for income security, but more importantly, for job security, and equally importantly, for some kind of seniority provisions. Workers have literally lost their lives within the last hundred years in this country fighting for those rights. And the government casually introduces a bill, refuses to debate seriously, and attempts to push it through this Legislature before the public has an opportunity to understand fully the consequences of this legislation.

The stripping of this right deprives public sector workers of a right that is taken for granted in common law. We don't even argue about these rights anymore in common law. We don't argue about these rights — at least until these last few weeks — in labour law. Certainly the United Nations, through the instrument of the International Labour Organization, doesn't argue any longer about these rights. They are enshrined in western democracies. They are enshrined in the United Nations conventions through the ILO. But they're being taken away here in this province by government, who may be doing it deliberately, but who also may be doing it without really understanding what they're saying.

Interjections.

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The bill not only deals with these human rights that I'm discussing. It also has some serious implications for economic policy. When you have a quarter of a million families in this province living under the fear that they may or could lose their job at any point, do you think those people are going to be spending much money? No, they're not. Let me

[ Page 374 ]

give you an example of that from my constituency. During the height of this recession — for the last year and a half or two years — people who have worked full-time in good-paying jobs in Port Hardy have not been spending their money. Bank managers tell me they have been saving their money in unprecedented amounts. The reason they're saving their money is that they are worried that possibly the copper market might fall and if it does they'll be laid off — not fired but laid off. And if that were to happen they would need to have some money in the bank. Let me tell you that the impact upon the economy in Port Hardy has been disastrous. In the last couple of years more than 30 restaurants and at least an equal number of stores and businesses have folded in that community — not for lack of money or employment but because of fear. And now we're saying we're going to add, in this province, a quarter of a million families and put them in the same position? What kind of economic policy is that? It's economic madness.

Mr. Speaker, I think of the 55-year-old woman who has worked for 15 or 20 years for this government and now faces the prospect of termination — of being fired. She may be slowing down. She may not be in the same health that she was, and she may fear that her ability to do her job is not quite the same as that of some young whippersnapper. That woman faces a fear in her later life — and many women in those years are on their own — that not only could she lose her employment, she could lose her pension — her full entitlement — and she could go onto welfare. But you know what's even more important? She would know, deep down in her heart, that she would never work again in a society which has a designed 10 percent or 12 percent unemployment rate built into it.

Some of us think about people like that. Some of us think about people on the other end of the scale as well. Can you imagine being a young black gay union activist who happens to work for this government? I know people in that situation, and can you imagine their fear? Can you imagine what they think might happen to them with a vindictive manager who does not understand their particular role and activity in society? With the kind of government we have in place right now how long do you think people like that would last, given the right to fire without cause? But, you know, that young activist would survive. Someday they'd find another job. But that older woman will never ever find another job again. That's the sword that's placed over the heads of hundreds and thousands of people in this province.

Others in this debate — on our side of the House — have talked about the sexual harassment that's possible. I'm not going to pursue that any more, other than to say that it's pretty clear from the records and from the evidence in a variety of areas in the private sector — not to mention the public sector — that sexual harassment is a daily feature of many jobs. If you can now be fired for not putting out, Mr. Speaker, what do you think you're going to do when you've got a mortgage to pay?

There are economic reasons why the bill is absurd. I've talked about some of them. But let me try another angle. What we're talking about is putting 50,000 or 60,000 additional people onto UIC. Some of them will find other jobs, but that will mean that somebody else will be out of a job, because of the design of the managers of our economy in this country to make sure that we have a perpetual 10 percent unemployment. Let's calculate the saving to society of eliminating a $25,000 a year government job. Let's see what we're talking about. Are we, in fact, talking about saving $25,000 to the taxpayers? Let's assume that the average is $25,000. I don't know what it's going to be, because I don't know which workers are going to get the axe, but we can assume that that's going to be close to the average.

That worker would pay $5,275 in income tax, another $460 in UIC, another $300 in CPP and another $2,167 in other taxes, for a total of $8,202 remitted to the government. That doesn't count any of the multiplier effects. I'm not talking at all about any of those kinds of economic effects which we all know about. I'm leaving that aside for the time being. This means that the job costs society and the taxpayers roughly $17,000. If that worker were laid off, that worker would be entitled to just over $12,000 from UIC that first year. Some of that would come back to government — probably $2,500 in income taxes and other taxes. So the cost to society there is about $9,500 or $9,600. When you do the arithmetic, Mr. Speaker, we discover that the cost to society on average for a $25,000-a-year public servant is in fact $7,200. That's the cost because when you on one hand calculate how much money is remitted to the Crown through taxes and on the other hand figure out what it costs to keep people on Unemployment Insurance, the net cost in that case — and I emphasize this is an average — is $7,200 for one $25,000-a-year job. When we're talking about restraint we should understand that. We should ask ourselves whether or not that $7,000 or so is worth expending to keep money in circulation, to keep families together and to keep the services provided.

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: I recognize that it's going to cost $7,200 per job, so you can't hire an unlimited number, but we should set some figure that's reasonable and rational, a figure that deals with the fact that we need services and deals with the fact that on the other hand people are going to be unemployed and find the appropriate balance. The appropriate balance is not being found with this bill. The bill is not a restraint bill; it is a bill, in my considered, honest view, to politicize the public service. It has the economic impact of costing the taxpayer more in the long run than we save in the short run. I grant that we save some in the short run. We sure don't in the long run.

Other arguments need to be made, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, this legislation violates the promise — and this point has been made before in the House — made in 1983 by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), to every public service employee in this province. He said that their jobs were safe in the New Year's message. This bill flatly violates that promise.

Secondly, the bill also flatly contradicts the promise made by the Premier of this province last summer at a meeting in Robson Square, witnessed by the Provincial Secretary, Norman Spector, John Fryer and Norman Richards. The promise was contained in the final stages of reaching the agreement with the BCGEU. The promise was that no firings would occur in the public service. The word of the Premier of this province, Mr. Speaker, has been broken. Can we ever believe that man again? A lot of us have had trouble believing

[ Page 375 ]

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

[3:30]

Thirdly, the bill completely contradicts the promise made by the Premier and his government when they introduced the Compensation Stabilization Act. I remember driving down the Island and going to a meeting in Ladysmith the evening of February 18 when the Premier introduced the compensation stabilization program on television. In watching him that night I clearly heard him say that the private sector is restrained by the marketplace, the public sector has tenure — not true as I demonstrated earlier, but nevertheless he said it — and in order to redress that imbalance and compensate for the fact that public sector workers had tenure or had some kind of job security there needed to be wage controls in the public sector. What rationalization now exists for those wage controls? If the rationalization for wage controls in the public sector is that they compensate for security of employment, what rationalization is left now?

Fourthly, and very importantly, the bill, while it allows for the continuation of a facade of trade union structure in the public sector, effectively eliminates trade unionism and collective bargaining in public sector unions. Anybody who has any familiarity or any knowledge, or has read anything about trade unions will know that the most important things they bargain for are job security and all that goes with that, including seniority and grievance procedures. Wages are the things that get the headlines. The wage packet is pretty well known before the bargaining even begins. People know how that's going to work out. The tough battle in the trenches that trade unions have to fight is for those rights of security. If you don't have security, a grievance procedure and, by other legislation, you don't have the right to bargain for wages, what have you got left? You don't have a trade union that can bargain collectively for you any more, except on issues that don't matter so much. You effectively wipe out trade unions with this legislation.

I'm not going to use the kind of language and words that others on my side have used, drawing on examples from history. It's not my style. But let me tell you, I have a great deal of sympathy for the words that they were using when they cited historical examples of elected governments wiping out trade union rights. How quick we all are to support Solidarity in Poland! Even Ronald Reagan can do that, while wiping out the air traffic controllers' right to bargain. What absolute hypocrites most of us are.

The only other example in this country that I can think of that comes close to this legislation is that of 1958, when Joey Smallwood wiped out the IWA because he didn't want a union in the woods in Newfoundland. That was 25 years ago. Most of us who have worked in and around the trade union movement never believed that that could ever happen again in this country. It's happening here and now with this legislation, because what you basically do with this legislation is effectively wipe out the union.

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

MR. GABELMANN: The second chirping member for Surrey wants me to deal with the ability to pay. I intend to deal with the ability-to-pay argument when we get to Bill 11. That's the appropriate place for that argument, and you can believe I will be talking about it in debate on Bill 11, but it's not in order at this time. I recognize that even if the new member doesn't.

MR. REID: I recognize it.

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

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

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: Perhaps, if I could encourage him a little bit more, this might be a way of getting the government to actually speak in this debate. If we would subtract each one of his interruptions from my time and add it to his, we might actually get 40 minutes out of him, and perhaps 40 minutes for me. I'll talk about the so-called ability to pay when we get to Bill 11.

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: My fifth point in this resume relates to the way in which this legislation was introduced. The government violated a contract it freely entered into and signed. Section 102 of the agreement with the BCGEU and section 104 of the agreement with the Professional Employees' Association have both been violated by this process. The BCGEU agreement specifically sas, as agreed to by Treasury Board, that no legislative change can alter the contract while it is in place. This bill does that. A slightly different clause in section 104 of the PEA agreement says that it is required after first reading and before second reading — before the stage we're at now — that the government sit down and discuss with that association the contents of the legislation. That was not done. There was a meeting on Monday morning, but that did not meet the requirements of either of those sections of those contracts. The government quite clearly, willingly and blatantly is prepared to violate contracts.

Some unions in the public sector have been without contracts for many months — eight months and more in some cases, and different unions. As best I can determine, never once has the employer — the government through GERB — put on the table any of these questions that have been raised by this legislation. They have never once asked those unions to consider ways in which to reduce their workforce, ways in which to give the government more authority to relocate, dismiss or reassign; never once, even though the contracts had been expired for many months. Never once has the employer gone to those unions and said, "Here's what we want to do," despite the fact that representatives of those unions had said they were prepared to talk about these questions. Why haven't they done it? Is it because they're afraid of their ability to negotiate, that they don't feet they have any competence to do that? Or do they feet they have to go

[ Page 376 ]

through this political charade of a so-called restraint bill, rather than sit down with the people who work for them and have a calm and reasonable discussion about the workplace and how it should be organized?

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

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, I have.

When Dieter Brock signed a long-term contract to play football with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, he entered into a contract. Every football team in this country and every sportswriter now says to Dieter Brock: "You don't have the right to walk away from that contract with the Winnipeg football club to go and play football in the United States, because a contract is a contract." Everything in this bill contradicts that principle. It contradicts the principles that have been built up in common law for centuries in Great Britain and for more than a hundred years in this country.

I remember sitting in this Legislature from 1972 to 1975, when members who are now on that side of the House talked about the principles of contracts. Where are they now? It's all right to criticize social democrats for possibly violating the right of a contract, but it's also all right for Social Credit members to violate those same contracts or similar ones. Do you know why? Social democrats aren't to be trusted and Socreds are; it's as simple as that.

MR. REID: That's true.

MR. GABELMANN: They say it's true.

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

For me one of the basic principles in our society is that if I shake your hand, Mr. Speaker, and between us we agree to do something, I have no right under any circumstances, short of your full agreement, to renege on that handshake; I have no right to walk away from it. The government believes it has. It has demonstrated that with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of scurrying at the table. Just in case that might possibly relate to the germaneness of my comments to the motion to hoist, I want to repeat the argument I made at the outset: that is, that this bill needs to be hoisted. It needs to be delayed for at least six months so that people in the community have an opportunity to read the reasons that we have for the delay.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close my comments by relaying two conversations I had on the weekend. One was with a very close friend of mine who is a former teacher — an excellent teacher and an excellent worker with children. Her child has now grown to the age where she feels she could go back to teaching. All of her reports and records, and her colleagues, indicate clearly that her ability to teach is unparalleled. She's not going back into teaching, not because she couldn't probably get a job but because she does not want to go back into a profession with the uncertainty created by this legislation. I'm afraid we're going to lose countless thousands of people who are good teachers to other jobs, because good teachers are good at other things too. They will go to other jobs because they can't stand the insecurity of the classroom; they can't stand the class sizes that will be coming. They will leave. I say this seriously: I'm glad our kids are most of the way through their education, and I sure feel sorry for those kids starting out now.

I had a conversation with another constituent of mine, who works in a public sector job. He phoned me at home in Campbell River on Sunday evening and said: "My wife and I have an appointment with the bank tomorrow morning to take out a mortgage. Should I do it? Do I have any confidence that my job will continue?" I said to him: "I can't give you any assurance what so ever and be honest. I can't recommend that you go in there knowing you have a job for sure, because you don't." Do you know what his decision was? Not to take out the mortgage.

If you think those two examples are not repeated by the thousands around this province, then the members opposite don't understand what forces have been unleashed by this undemocratic, unprincipled and thoroughly rotten piece of legislation.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, because it's customary in the House, as you know, for the debate to flow from one side to the other, I was hesitating to get up because I thought that possibly one of the Social Credit members would feel the necessity of speaking in this debate. They didn't speak in the debate proper, during second reading, and now they're not going to speak on our motion to hoist the bill for six months.

[3:45]

I think it's important that this piece of legislation not be passed by the government members for six months, because there are two groups of people who need some time. I think the people of this province need some time to digest exactly what it is that the government is trying to do with their legislation. Just as important, I think it's important that the government members have a chance to think about what they're going to do, and I'd like to point out some of the things they should think about.

What we're really dealing with is the big lie. All of the legislation that we're dealing with, and Bill 3 is no exception, is part of the big lie that you can use restraint to bring around economic recovery. I'd like to read from a book. It says: "The truth is, no country can become prosperous merely by re-sharing its present inadequate income. You cannot turn scarcity into plenty by redistributing an insufficiency, nor one pound of butter into two by spreading it more thinly." It goes on to say:

"It is absolutely essential firstly, as a growing number of people are beginning to see, that the money required by consumption to enable it to purchase production shall reach it by some channel other than that of production. Indeed, why in the name of all that is sane, with production already glutted with more money and more goods then it can dispose of, should the only way of getting money to consumption lie in forcing production to receive still more money and in making it produce still more goods, so that a part of this money shall trickle through to consumption? Why? No one replies. There is no reply."

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The members from the other side ask who wrote that book. Harry Rankin? They ask me if some left-wing nut wrote it. The book is called The Meaning of Social Credit. Written in 1933, it's the very philosophy on which that party sitting across from me is founded. Yet they say: "Who wrote that book? Some nut?"

[ Page 377 ]

HON. A FRASER: On a point of order, the member is quoting from a book. Is it not correct that he table that with the House so that we all have an opportunity to read it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would have assumed that all Social Credit members would know what Social Credit is all about, but how far they have come from that populist party of the prairies! They've turned into the friend of the bankers, instead of people who were sworn to look at the bankers as enemies of the people — and they are.

I'd like to get to that big lie, because everything hinges on it. They have — and I'd say quite successfully — convinced people that the road to economic recovery is by making sure there's no money in the consumer's pocket; that restraint is the way to recovery, and the way to get economic recovery is to kill the economy even more. You have to give credit where credit is due — it's been a masterful trick. I don't know, first of all, how they convinced themselves, or even whether they have; but they have managed to convince a great many of the public. Once we have the big lie that economic recovery can be brought around with restraint, then they bring in the periphery legislation such as Bill 3, which is based on restraint. They say: "Now that we've convinced you that the only way to economic recovery is to take money out of the consumer's pocket..."

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, I didn't. But if I got it out of a book, I know it's one place you'd never get it, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, what have they done in the name of restraint? They've taken away the rights of citizens to have redress for grievances. They've taken away the rights of people not to be fired "without cause," they've taken away the office of the rentalsman, and they've taken away protection of the renters by taking away rent control. They've done all these things, and they've managed to convince the public that all of these things are part of the budget. They've convinced people that they're going to have so many savings from taking away human rights and rent control and the office of the rentalsman that this somehow or other is going to help what they call a "fragile economic recovery" blossom. It's impossible.

Surely they must have more than one economic measure they can take. I'd like to go back to a couple of years ago when the Premier went on the air during an inflationary time and said: "The way to cure inflation is restraint." Now he's telling us the way to get rid of recession is restraint. You can't have it both ways. When do you stimulate the economy" Is that not during a time of recession? Is that not when you want to put money into the consumers' pockets? They say: "Well, where you going to get the money from?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where?

MR. LEA: I think it's a good question and I'm going to answer it. There are $25 billion in savings accounts in the province of British Columbia. The job of government is to get that money out of the bank and into the economy by one of two means: either by making sure there's an incentive for people to invest in the economy....

MR. PARKS: The private sector.

MR. LEA: Absolutely, the private sector. What we're trying to find is a way to get that money out of the savings accounts of the province into the economy of the province and into the private sector. Is there one thing in the budget that gives anybody any incentive to take their money out of the bank and invest it in the private sector? Not anything. Not one incentive measure. Where do you get the money? Why not give some incentive to the entrepreneurs in this province?

MR. PARKS: There is.

MR. LEA: There is none in this budget. This takes away incentive from the private entrepreneur. That's what it does.

Mr. Speaker, there is another way of getting the money out of the savings accounts, and that is to use the taxation system. There are people in this province who make a lot of money. They're putting a great deal of that money into the savings accounts. Where do you think it comes from? So you do it by two ways: by using the incentive for investment in the economy, and by using taxation to make sure there's consumption in the economy. There isn't one economist in the world that I know of who wouldn't agree with me. The only people who don't agree are those backbenchers and that government. Even Social Credit agrees with me. It's in the book.

By the way, I don't think there's a federal Conservative either who would disagree with me. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you know full well that what I'm speaking is the truth.

HON. A. FRASER: File the book.

MR. LEA: I will file the book. Then we'll get somebody to read it to you.

Everybody knows that what I'm saying makes good economic sense. What have they done? Instead of going after some of the savings, either through incentives or through taxation, what they have done is gone after the sales tax. They've raised the sales tax. That one point will take $125 million out of the economy.

MR. REID: Hogwash!

MR. LEA: Hogwash? Take a look at your books that the Minister of Finance gave you.

What I'm suggesting is that you tax the high-income people with a surtax. That money would then come in and be spent by the low-income people who spend everything they get. Then you're putting money in the tills of the small business community, not taking it out. That way you get some economic recovery.

How in the world do you get out of a recession and get on the road to economic recovery by taking money out of the consumers' pockets to make sure they can't buy goods? You can't do it.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 3 takes away the rights of some citizens in this province. In fact, it makes two classes of citizens. It says to the private sector employees: "You are going to have some basic individual rights in terms of your dealings with your employer, but people who work for the public — the people who work for you.... In other words, the person who works in the private sector has someone working for him or her, and that is the civil servant, the public employee. Are

[ Page 378 ]

the public workers, the employers of the public employees, going to give themselves rights that the people who work for them won't have? That's what this bill does.

I don't believe that average British Columbians out there, whether they voted for Social Credit, NDP, Conservatives or the Liberals — no matter who they voted for — really want to take one law for themselves and another law for the people who work for them. I honestly believe that the Social Credit have misjudged the values of the citizens of this province and that we need six months for the people of this province to say to the government: "You have misread our values. We gave you a mandate not to be a crazy government. We gave you a mandate to have a restraint program." There's no doubt about that. But they didn't give the government a mandate to kill the economy, which they did in their budget. They did not give the government a mandate to take away basic rights of employees, which Bill 3 does. They did not give the government a mandate to take away the Human Rights Commission. They did not give the government a mandate to do away with the rentalsman's office.

I'd just like to spend a moment with the rentalsman's office, because I can honestly say that I've had more complaints from landlords than I've had from tenants about doing away with the rentalsman's office. In fact, half an hour ago I was talking to a person in my constituency who is a landlord, and he said: "Do you know how often I've used the rentalsman's office? Do you know the kinds of problems I've had with tenants? Do you know how much the rentalsman's office has helped me as a landlord?" On the other hand, tenants have come to me and said: "Do you realize how much help it's been dealing with the landlord?" So basically what you're talking about is almost a judicial function, an arbitration system carried out on behalf of tenants and landlords. Neither one wants it to go away. That's not the value in our society today, and yet this government is going to go against what both the landlords and the tenants want. You have to say why.

I believe that all of this peripheral legislation is thrown onto the table in this House to hide the fact that the budget is a big lie. That's what it's been done for. It's to lull the people. It's to take their minds away from the big lie that restraint can't get economic recovery and to turn their minds to human rights. Yes, we're all upset, but the reason the government isn't upset because we're all upset is that that's exactly what they wanted. They wanted us as an opposition to be upset about the loss of human dignity by taking away their right to redress. They wanted us to be upset about the rentalsman's office leaving. They wanted us to be upset about giving themselves the right to fire without cause, because the more we get upset the more the vision of British Columbia is moved away from the big lie which is the budget itself.

[4:00]

There hasn't been — have you noticed? — one Social Credit speaker get to his or her feet and defend the taking away of civil liberties. Is it that they don't want to, or they can't, or they've been ordered as a matter of political strategy not to? I'd say it's the latter. I get a wink from the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), so I guess that's right. A wink and a nudge, say no more. But that's what's happening. You have had the order — haven't you, Mr. Speaker? — not to speak during this legislation because they want the focus of British Columbia to be on it. They'd rather be called undemocratic than people who don't know how to manage the economy. To them the bottom line is a buck. They would rather take away people's dignity, the redress when civil rights have been transgressed and all those other things than lose what they consider to be their reputation as financial and economic managers. So the big lie becomes obscured behind all of the peripheral legislation. They don't mind being called undemocratic; they couldn't care less.

We're asking for six months. We're asking that for six months this government hoist this legislation and give the people of this province not only an opportunity to think about it but an opportunity to write to their MLA, specifically to the Premier and the cabinet and the treasury benches, and let them know what their views are. We know we won't get the six months, because if we got that then the big lie is a bit more exposed. We'd be back to the budget debate. The focus of the province would be on the budget.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that they've done as part of the big lie is to underestimate their revenues and overestimate their expenditures. They are saying: "Oh, times are rough. We're going to have a $1.6 billion deficit at the end of the year." They won't. The only thing that may make that come true is that the budget itself may put the province into a worse financial picture than even they imagine, and they may actually end up with the worst of all possible worlds: they will end up being called undemocratic and un-Canadian, and end up with the reputation of being bad managers of money and the economic system anyway.

There are parameters to politics beyond which we shouldn't go. Jobs for the boys: I think in general terms people expect that politicians are going to do that. Also, Mr. Speaker, in many cases I don't think they're that upset about it; they realize that a government that gets in isn't going to hire enemies to carry out a policy they don't agree with. You are going to hire people who agree with your thrust, and with your policies. People understand that. But there are parameters that they expect us not to go beyond in the name of politics, and that's why people are upset.

When we were in government, I was in the cabinet. When I went around the province, people were polite. They don't like to tell you, really, that you are not doing the kind of job they want you to do. Maybe you remember, too, Mr. Speaker; you were a cabinet minister. People don't come up to you and say: "Boy, that government you're in! You're rotten, and you're doing all those rotten things." They're usually polite and they move on. But people like the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), who was in the opposition when we were in government, knew very well what people were saying about us, even though we didn't know. They told the opposition. Mr. Speaker, they're telling us. They don't like what you are doing. They don't like the fact that the Human Rights Commission has been disbanded. People — not NDPers, not Social Credit, not Liberals, but citizens of this province — don't like it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. LEA: Name one! When she said, "Name one, " I actually thought, "I'll name some." Then I thought, "Like hell I will. I'll cost somebody his job." That's the way I feel, and that's the way they're feeling out there: people are frightened. When the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) took her place in the debate she said that when there was a police car sitting outside by the little store, she had a moment of wondering: "What are they here for?" It happens. The fear starts in society. After a while that fear turns to anger, and when it

[ Page 379 ]

turns to anger we are into a very, very precarious and dangerous situation in society.

Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the House they say: "Well, you people over there" — this is when they are being real nice to us — "are all right. You're not dirty, rotten, stinking human beings; you're just a little woolly-headed when it comes to reality and getting your feet on the floor." I admit that on this side of the House we do have a feeling that the poor should not be trampled on. We have a feeling that people who are down and out in society deserve to be handed a little bit of money so they can survive. We believe that, because we honestly believe that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers, to a certain extent. But on the other side they put out social assistance for protection money. They know that if you leave people destitute you cannot safely sleep in your bed during the night. They give money out of the government coffers for protection money. Mr. Speaker, my party and I stand condemned; yes, we do care about people. That's what they accuse us of all the time. They say: "You people over there care about people. What's wrong with you?"

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Look, you're a new member. I can tell you some of the things that have gone on in this House. When the Social Credit have been really mad at us they have called us every name in the book. But when it comes right down to it and they show you where they're really at, when they can't think of another thing to say, they look across at us in contempt and say: "You bunch of intellectuals!" They have then called us the worst thing they can think of, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: We don't say we're intellectuals; you say it. Because when we talk about being human beings, when we talk about those things that make life a little bit more civilized, you people think it's airy-fairy claptrap. The bottom line is where it's at — welfare payments so you can sleep in bed at night without being robbed; protection money. When we were in government they said: "You know, you gave people too much — pouring money out of the back of a truck." That's not true, but I'd rather be charged with being overgenerous with people than with being a bunch of stingy tightwads who make people suffer for their own political ends. That's what this budget does. That's what this piece of legislation does. And six months isn't too long to have the public digest this information.

Mr. Speaker, the government will live to rue the day that they've trampled on the rights of people. They think it's smart politics to hide the budget, to hide the big lie by bringing in legislation that will get the whole community in an uproar over the lack of civil rights, over the lack of dignity, while they go their own merry little political way. Is it really worth it? Is it worth stepping beyond what is recognized as good politics in order to achieve it? Is the government's goal so worthwhile that they will put aside in the name of politics those things that give civilization its name?

I believe that the people of this province will not put up with it. But they do have to understand what's going on. I can understand that the average citizen isn't that upset that the government's been spending money without legislative authority. Where in the school system that most people went through do you get that kind of knowledge? Where is the school system letting us know, as citizens...? That's my big complaint with the school system. We're turning out educated barbarians. We think that the only thing the school system should be there for is to train people to work. But equally important as training people to work is training people to be good citizens. If they were trained in our school system to be good citizens, they'd know that the Legislature has to approve money or else it's undemocratic, and you're moving to the brink of chaos and a breakdown in society. They would have to know that it is a dangerous step to take away people's human rights in order to further yourself politically. They would know that the political game, although unsavoury in part, has not gone beyond the parameters of democratic good sense in this country. But it has now.

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to believe — and prefer not to believe — that they're doing it willingly and wilfully. But what are we to conclude? Am I to conclude that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who's been in this House since 1963, doesn't know that you don't take away people's rights for political purposes? Surely he knows. If he does know and he's doing it anyway, that's tyranny.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: They can laugh and joke. It's hard for us to sit over here and be serious for days on end. You need that little bit of relief. I look across at the Minister of Highways — a man who I've been sitting across from for 11 years, and I've been accustomed to smiling and joking with — and to stop smiling and joking with him.... But I find it difficult to smile and joke with someone whose ideas are approaching what I consider to be dangerous. I find it absolutely repulsive that a government in the province of British Columbia would take these steps.

lt's not as if this government hasn't had other legislation turned over and disallowed because it was unconstitutional. They have. We found out $14 million later that a piece of legislation brought in by that government was indeed unconstitutional and turned over in the courts of our land. I believe that the legislation we're discussing now will eventually be overturned in the courts of justice. I believe that the human rights legislation that we're going to be facing in this House will be overturned by the courts of justice. But what kind of damage do we do while we wait? In the case of the heroin treatment plan that was overturned, at least all we lost was money. The government cost the taxpayers $14 million on that one. But money is a small price to pay. Our freedoms and civil rights are too big a price to pay. Is it asking too much that the government submit their legislation to the courts prior to passing it? Why not take it to the courts of justice and say: "Will this be turned down? Is it constitutional?"

[4:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: You want Berger to be the judge?

MR. LEA: No, I don't want Berger to be the judge, although I wouldn't mind Berger being the judge. Mr. Speaker, that's their lack of understanding. Because Tom Berger and Stu Leggatt were NDP and are now judges — and they no longer hold party cards, because as a judge you may not — they're suggesting that those two fine people would actually make a decision on the bench based on party politics. I have never heard anybody from my party accuse any judge,

[ Page 380 ]

whether Conservative, Social Credit or anything else, of making a decision based on partisan politics. The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) has so little understanding....

MR. SEGARTY: I said nothing!

MR. LEA: Or whoever the member was down there; I'm sorry if it wasn't you. But that's what they're suggesting. One of the Social Credit members suggested that we would like this piece of legislation to be tested by Stu Leggatt or Tom Berger, because obviously they would make a partisan decision in the courts. It's that kind of misunderstanding about how our system works that will allow them to vote for this legislation. We have failed as a society if even the citizens elected to this chamber don't understand how the system works.

They talk about the fragile economic recovery. Don't they realize how fragile is the system we live in; that it isn't very many short steps from a civilized state to a barbaric one, and that this legislation is one of the first steps along the road to a barbaric primitive state? Do they think that other countries that have turned...? I'm not saying we've turned to fascism, but we've taken the first step with this legislation. The first step is to put political considerations above the rights of the citizens, and this does that.

The big lie. I'm heartened by a number of letters to the editors appearing in all the newspapers in the province. Obviously a great number of citizens know the budget is a big lie. They're writing letters and signing their names at the bottom, saying you cannot get economic recovery by taking money out of consumers' pockets.

MR. REID: What paper was that in? I didn't read that.

MR. LEA: You don't read papers.

MR. REID: I read them all. Which one was that in?

MR. LEA: Take a look in the Vancouver Sun for the last three days. Every letter to the editor is full of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LEA: I was just talking to the guy who's talking to me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand.

MR. LEA: What letters? An hon. member has just handed me a paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: The right-wing Province.

MR. LEA: No, it's the left-wing Sun that endorsed your party before the election.

Maybe that's a good analogy. The Sun said: "...not really impressed with the Social Credit, but when push comes to shove I guess you'd better vote for the Social Credit." But on the editorial page today, the Vancouver Sun is saying very strenuously that they didn't endorse this legislation; that they didn't endorse the kinds of things the government is doing; that they didn't think the government would do what they're doing. If the Sun were a citizen and had a vote it would have voted Social Credit, but the Sun doesn't agree with what Social Credit is doing. Neither do a great many citizens, many of them Social Credit Party members, I'm sure.

This page is full of letters to the editor. There are seven letters on one page, all saying the same thing: that they don't agree with the way this government is going. Many of those letters say that they don't think restraint brings around economic recovery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that today's paper?

MR. LEA: Yes.

MR. REID: I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

MR. LEA: You'll get somebody to read it to you before the day is out. Just don't go home.

Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do with them? I think we're making a civilized offer. We're asking the government to hoist this legislation for six months. Tap into the pulse of the province; talk to your friends — government and government backbenchers. Go home and talk not just to your friends but to your party members and ask them what they think of it.

I had coffee with two Social Credit Party members on Saturday.

MR. REID: Did they pay or did you?

MR. LEA: I paid. I said they were Social Credit; they don't pack cash.

MR. REID: They've got none left.

MR. LEA: I'm not too happy to hear that, but I guess they're victims of the budget too.

1 had coffee with two Social Credit friends of mine and said: "What do you think of the legislation?" They said: "They won't put it through like that. They'll temper it a bit. They're going to pull back, don't you think, Graham?" I said: "No, I don't think they are. I think the government is serious about passing this legislation. The reason they're serious is that they need it to cover the budget — to cover the big lie." Those two people are not unhappy with the budget. They're two business people in my riding who are Social Credit members. But they are unhappy about this peripheral legislation. They don't like it. They're not barbarians.

MR. REID: Maybe we'll hear from them.

MR. LEA: I'm sure you will, but you're not going to hear from them unless you do what we're asking and hoist this bill for six months.

I don't know what more you can say when they think it's all funny. It's not as if they were standing up in debate, saying seriously: "Here's why we, as Social Credit members, think it should happen." They've been ordered not to by the boss. That is one mark of Social Credit I've seen over the years. I guess the last time I saw a real maverick was Cyril Shelford. He was a Social Credit back-bencher who did, on occasion, stand on his principles and say: "I'm not voting with you." This new crop is yet to be tested.

I mentioned in the throne speech debate that one of the anguishes of being a member of a political party and a

[ Page 381 ]

member of the Legislature is the anguish of dealing with your conscience and your party loyalty, and that's true. The government back-benchers are going to have their first real taste of that anguish when we vote for this hoist. It's not an easy decision to make; I know that. But I'm going to tell you another thing. This is not a finance bill. You can vote against it and you're not going to destroy the government. They'll survive. They will still be the government, but we won't have this piece of legislation. You're chances of going into cabinet might not be good....

MR. COCKE: They may be zero.

MR. LEA: They may be zero, but I ask you to put your province ahead of your personal ambition. I ask you to put your conscience ahead of your party loyalty. I ask you, when we vote on this hoist motion, to take your places with pride. You will save your government in the long run; more than that, you save the citizens of this province from being deprived of their civil rights, and that is even more important. Conscience before party loyalty is what's called for here. We'll see whether you pass the first test, or wallow in an anguish that will never leave you ever. This legislation and the accompanying legislation is no small matter. They should talk to somebody like Cyril Shelford. I'm absolutely convinced that if Cyril Shelford were in this House he would not vote for this legislation. I can say that with assurance, because I've seen Cyril Shelford put his conscience before party and I know he would on this. It's a duty.

I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 30

[4:30]

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that one government member, one back-bencher, one Premier — who is now rushing out the door — or at least one person on the other side of the House would have stood in his or her place and argued one way or another on this amendment. Let's make it clear, the amendment gives an opportunity to this government to approach sanity and to take the second look that is being demanded around this province. Who are making those demands? Trade unionists? Yes. The disabled? Yes. People of minority races and religions? Yes. The clergy? Yes. They are asking, quietly at this time, that the government take another look at what they're doing. Many of them are saying, as the Biblical phrase would indicate: "Forgive them, O Lord, for they know not what they're doing."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Those members of this Legislature who vote against this amendment and this opportunity to rethink what we and most thinking people across the province claim is a travesty are voting against everything that parliament stands for. Each and every member of this Legislature was elected in the democratic process, as fair a process as we have been able to devise to date. We expect fair play in those elections. Yet when a government is elected and within a very short period of time turns on the very people who elected them — many of them — and denies them access to the basic rights that anybody living in a free democratic society warrants....

We heard the minister, in introducing this bill, discuss the fact that nothing will be done without consultation. What we're asking in this amendment is that that consultation take place before the fact, not after it. Don't say to us: "Trust us." The government must not say, "Trust us; we're all knowledgeable and we will be fair," when the very essence of the bill that they have presented and proposed as a statute in the laws of this province.... When that bill in its every clause indicates unfairness, how could we possibly even think of trusting them on this issue? This issue is basic to freedom. This issue is basic to everything that everybody who's elected in this House should be standing for. I can remember, as we all can, when the Socreds were elected in a past election — it wasn't this last one — and they used the seagull to denote freedom. They were freedom-fighters then. These people who insisted that they stood for freedom in this province have introduced not only this bill — this travesty — but a litany of legislation that if passed will bring shame upon this Legislature and the statute books of this province as long as those statutes remain on those books.

If they took the time, I don't think they could deny what I'm saying. I'm persuaded that most of the members of that party had no idea what they were going to be confronted with when they came to this Legislature. They must be terribly ashamed of having participated in this action. If they're not, I ask this question. If they are not ashamed, why are they not on their feet speaking on the bill? They have had ample time to do that, and will have further time. Secondly, why are they then not speaking on our amendment? Our amendment gives an opportunity for the Premier to get out like he used to do in the good old days between 1972 and 1975. He never spent five seconds in here that he wasn't really ready to jump on his horse again. But it would give him an opportunity to get around the province and talk to people and ask their opinion on what he and his cabinet are doing with this piece of legislation.

[ Page 382 ]

When we hear words from the Provincial Secretary such as "a commitment to fairness" and "consultation," we may be naive but we tend to take those words seriously. Otherwise, why would he have stood in his place in this House and made those commitments? He said that there would be a commitment to fairness. As recently as just a few hours ago — yesterday, as I recall — he met with a delegation of people who have deep and abiding concerns over this piece of legislation. What an in-depth discussion that must have been, because we are informed by the media, who are usually quite reliable on matters such as this, that the meeting took place and lasted 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes, Mr. Speaker, discussing one of the — if not the — most abysmal pieces of legislation that has ever been put forward in this House. We thought Bill 33 was a travesty in the old days. Remember old Bill 41 and Bill 42?

MR. NICOLSON: Thirty-three?

MR. COCKE: Thirty-three, and I'll repeat it.

I am not asking any individual; I'm just asking them collectively to go to their caucus room to meet, to take this marvellous opportunity of a hoist so that the members can go back to their constituents and say to them: "What do you think about what we're doing? Do you think it's fair? Do you think that Bill 3 is a bill that should be made into a statute to be put into the statute books and become law in this province?" They will probably make the same — and I'm talking now about the constituents — observations as have been made by ministers of the federal Crown, who have said that this action — and I'll paraphrase — is deplorable.

But to get even closer to home, that group that is rather conservatively inclined might be impressed with what Mr. Baker, MP, said the other day on Sunday morning radio.

[4:45]

HON. A. FRASER: He's the guy who told Joe Clark he had the vote, wasn't he? And you know what Clark's doing now.

MR. COCKE: Yes, he's running for cover. He's running for cover on this bill, saying that the Conservatives would never do a thing like this. However, there's no question about that, because we've got Mulroney, who sounds to me something like this little rump group over here, who are probably the most right-wing people that have come into this House since 1930.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's about time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) indicates to me that I may be on — or am on — the wrong track, that gives me all the confidence in the world, because any time I'm on the same track as that member, I'm getting out of politics so fast it would make your head swim. That's for sure. That would mean that I have lost my mind, my marbles and my principles, and there is no way I want to do that as long as I'm in this Legislature representing the good people of New Westminster, who expect the best of their member.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), I'm sure, even with his conservative background, agrees with me in his heart of hearts that this bill should be hoisted and rethought, because that minister has a very large contingent of public servants...

AN HON. MEMBER:...who voted for him.

MR. COCKE: Many of them did vote for him.

But that member has a large number of public servants who now have absolutely no confidence that this government will be fair. In his heart of hearts — or, as another real right-winger once said years ago: "Deep in their hearts they know I'm right...."

I want to go back to 1973 where a very famous member of this Legislature made the following remark in Hansard: "I hope the member for Delta, who applauded my statement that democratic rights of the people of British Columbia should be preserved, will stand up and speak in this debate." She made two points, did Pat Jordan, in that statement. One point was that anybody with something to defend will stand up and defend it. They have not done that. They refuse to stand up in this House.

Beyond that, she talked about democratic rights. Again, that's the kind of talk we hear from there, but we don't see it in action. It's shocking when we see people all over our province — not just editorial writers or people within the trade union movement, but responsible people in all walks of life — saying that we are witnessing with this bill the trampling of individual freedoms in our province. No one is safe in the public service. When we hoist this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I am confident that we will — when the vote is taken and people are searching their consciences, and I'm sure they will — when this bill is hoisted we will give an opportunity for all those responsible people out there to make their case.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) asked that we hear witnesses. It was out of order. It will be out of order again when we get to committee. Nobody will come before the bar of this House and state his case. They won't allow it, nor will we hear, in our Committee of the Whole, witnesses from all over this province who would, if they could, express their opposition to this piece of proposed legislation which would trample on human rights and on individual freedoms. Why? When a government is elected with a good majority, not just a narrow majority but a good majority — not a huge difference in the vote in terms of percentages but nonetheless a good majority — why would they rush into a piece of proposed legislation like this which will forever damn them in the sight of thinking, concerned people in B.C. who cherish those rights and freedoms? If it's going to be ultimately challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada and is shot down, that hardly would be a feather in the cap of this government.

The opportunity that they have now is to gain their own feather. There are two ways they can do it. They can vote for this resolution to hoist, to think about it; or they can announce that the bill is withdrawn or at least put on ice for a period of time. I suggest that the minister or the first minister do what we are asking here: give the people of our province an opportunity for input. Innocent people at the present time are anxious to the extent where some of them, I'm sure, will be a charge on our health system. Some of them with major responsibilities in life face being fired without cause. If you happen to brush your hair the wrong way, or if you are not a Socred, or if you happen to have skin with a slightly different pigmentation, or belong to a religion that is not, necessarily

[ Page 383 ]

acceptable to the rest, you can be fired with no appeal and no recourse to justice.

Mr. Speaker, why are we standing here, and what are we talking about? We are talking about an opportunity that this government should give to everyone in our province. Why? Politicians across this land for years and years have fought for the very freedoms that we are talking about here today. Many ordinary citizens died for those freedoms: due process, access to appeal, justice, an opportunity to present one's case; but there is no such opportunity contained in this bill. Why then would we do anything but ask the government to rethink, to take this bill right out of our legislative group of bills and give people an opportunity to make their case?

Not everyone agreed with the gentleman about whom I will speak for a second or two, but everybody knew the one fighter in this country who fought for human rights, as hard as he knew how — John Diefenbaker. Were he alive, and were he to see this piece of legislation, he would say definitively that it flies in the face of everything which he stood for. He was not of my political persuasion, but I defy anybody on that side of the House to get up in this debate and make even one suggestion that John Diefenbaker would have supported it. He wouldn't even have supported a mild version of this. He would have got to clause 2 and that would have been the end of it, because he would see there — notwithstanding the Labour Code, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act — "a public sector employer may terminate the employment of an employee without cause." For heaven's sake, where are we living? Where in the blazes are we living?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't know about you, but I know where I'm living.

MR. COCKE: You know where you're living? Nothing, Mr. Speaker, could be further from the truth.

I cannot be confused on this because it is the clearest wording that one could ever see: without cause, without access to appeal, without access to due process.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Read section 3.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, I'll ask the minister and the member not to....

MR. COCKE: Mr, Speaker, the member opposite has the opportunity to get up and express himself on our amendment. He can get up and read anything he likes and put any interpretation he wants on it, but his views are not shared by the community of this province, and that's why we're asking that this bill be hoisted — to give people an opportunity to tell that minister and his colleagues that they're all dead wrong on this issue.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I didn't think that a responsible minister would make that kind of a comment, even under his breath. "Misleading" is not a parliamentary word. He knows it and I know it. I will continue, and I won't ask for a withdrawal from the minister.

[5:00]

Not only are we dealing with a piece of legislation that denies rights, but we're talking in terms of breaking up a legally responsible body — as a matter of fact a number of them: not only the Government Employees Union but all the other unions that are affected by this particular piece of legislation. When you take into consideration all the Crown corporations, societies, school boards and everybody else, you're talking about a great number.

In a Labour Relations Board report not too many years ago, there was a statement made that once a trade union is certified, section 6 requires both employer and the union to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement. Said certification gives the union the exclusive legal authority to bargain on behalf of all employees. Section 7 prohibits the union from acting in a manner which is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of those employees. What the government is doing is exactly what they asked the trade unions not to do. They're cancelling any number of collective agreements by legislation. Oh, yes, they'll let some of them run out. But then they'll trample all over them, because they'll have in their hot little hands — by then, they hope — a piece of law called Public Sector Restraint Act.

While we are dealing with the hoist, let me also ask that the government think in terms — while they're thinking over the whole thing — of changing the title. Of all the irrelevant titles this bill has the most irrelevant that one could even imagine. What in the world has this got to do with restraint in any event? Zilch! What it has to do with is to creating pandemonium in the public service, pandemonium in the Crown corporations, and a very unsettling feeling in the stomachs of the populace of our province.

It can be done. The members opposite can do it. The hoist gives them one opportunity. I ask them to vote for the hoist. Give it a chance to sink in. Let those members go back to the leader of their party, back to the policymakers of their party and ask them what on earth they are doing. What are they doing with the future of our province?

AN HON. MEMBER: And their party.

MR. COCKE: True, my colleague, because with this hanging over the heads of that party, it will make former labour legislation look pretty damned good. This is the worst. Surely it's time they thought about it. Surely it's time that group over there called a caucus meeting and in that caucus meeting had a full discussion of what they're doing. Surely there has never been in that caucus across the floor a proper, definitive, full discussion of what this means. It must have been superficially handled by someone who has a great deal of responsibility. But also, it must have been pushed by someone who has the power. If it's the Premier, let's hear about it. Who's pushing this bill? Let's take the time to find out. It's not coming from the electors, Mr. Speaker, at all.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If she can make the irresponsible charge that the electors want to treat the public servants in this province as second-class citizens, then she does not know the electors of our province. She'll get to know them a lot more intimately over the next four years, believe me. Believe me, with this hanging over her head, she's going nowhere. She'll be back pushing real estate, or whatever, as quickly as possible.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I beg your pardon.

[ Page 384 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All hon. members will come to order. The member for New Westminster will address the bill, please.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't push real estate.

MR. COCKE: Or whatever, I said.

She can get up and speak to the bill. She can get up and speak to the hoist and tell us why she won't support the hoist if she is of such a mind.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's your motion.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it's our motion.

That loquacious Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) indicates something about research. I suggest to him that this amendment gives him and all of his colleagues an opportunity to research what is in this bill. Possibly he'll even read the bill for the first time. Possibly he won't take as gospel some of the things that have been told him in cabinet and in caucus. Just possibly they may come back to their senses with respect to pushing this piece of proposed legislation. With the six months we're providing, he can go to the Crown corporation for which he is the minister responsible, and that's ICBC....

I see the green light, Mr. Speaker, and I will be very careful to finish my remarks as quickly as I can.

He can go to ICBC and ask management — people who have had a little more training in terms of labour relations than he obviously has — what kind of damage this is going to do to morale down there.

It needs to be hoisted because this bill will do more to harm the reputation of our province and this Legislature than anything we've seen here before. Why would they want to be party to that? Why are we already listening to other jurisdictions across the country saying: "Look what they're doing in B.C. again"?

MR. REID: That's good leadership and good government.

MR. COCKE: I keep hearing that drivel from those people hour after hour, day after day. It means absolutely zero. Now the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is back — the member who put forward this travesty. I hope that he will talk to his colleagues and say "you're released," because obviously somebody has told them they cannot stand up and speak on either the bill or the amendment. We have an understanding, don't we, Mr. Minister.

MR. LEA: We were told that you don't want to speak, right?

MR. COCKE: They were told. They were called to caucus. You hear those bells: ring, ding. We all want to remember that the first minister in this province not long after he was made first minister he stood at his place in this House and he said: "It took me two weeks to train my dog." Well, maybe he's doing a job. I ask the members to go home tonight, reread this bill and decide that the best opportunity that they have to date is the amendment before us now to hoist for six months.

1 move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the House to give the minister an opportunity to collect his senses.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[5:15]

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 28

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the reason we keep on moving adjournment of the debate is that we want to give time for the cabinet ministers to come out of the library, where we know they are preparing their replies to our arguments to defeat this bill.

I'm really disappointed that it's been some time since anyone on the Social Credit side has spoken in defence of this bill. If, for example, there is a defence and if this bill is supported by the general will of the public, then one might expect that one or two members on the treasury bench and one or two members of the caucus would stand up in their turn and debate this bill.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't lecture the government.

MR. LAUK: It's not a lecture, it's an observation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Speak to the bill.

MR. LAUK: The beast with two heads is flaunting before me.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Don't try to influence the Chair, Mr. Premier.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I've got to protect my money from you.

Mr. Speaker, we hear comments from the back bench, particularly from the most vocal members. I'd like to mention

[ Page 385 ]

some of them. I'd like the two people who represent darkest Surrey, not enlightened Surrey.... There's an enlightened Surrey and there's darkest Surrey.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: "The lights came on on May 5." Good lord! In terms of human rights, the last one out can turn off the lights.

For example, the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), with her sotto voce comments.... Some of them are quite witty and I appreciate them. I can't always hear them, because her voice is soft and gracious. But I would suggest to the first member for Surrey that there's an opportunity to debate. I think we should share with everyone, including Hansard and her constituents, the comments she has to make in defence of this bill. In cross-comment I asked whether the hon. member would be speaking. She's only made one speech, and we've been here for almost a month. There are only 57 members. Everybody has more than one opportunity in a month to stand up and represent his or her constituency, and the principles involved. I've checked. During the campaign that hon. member was very vociferous; she talked about everything — and part of it was true. I've checked with her colleagues on Surrey council, and they told me that she was very outspoken on many issues. Why is the hon. member so shy? What's the problem? In cross-comment — and I hope she doesn't mind — she said: "When I have something to say I'll say it." If the hon. member doesn't have anything to say about Bill 3, when is she going to have anything to say? This is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to be before this chamber.

We've moved a motion to vote second reading "six months hence" not only to give an opportunity for the government and the back bench to consider seriously the devastating effects of this legislation, as we've been pointing out, but also to give the public time to reach the government, to give the public time to respond — not only the interest groups of labour, but the disabled, church groups, human rights groups, and minority groups. We know that that only includes about three million of British Columbia's population. The other 12 people that are left, I guess, are the people we have to consider the general public. This bill is so comprehensive it strikes at the rights and basic democratic freedoms of all three million people in British Columbia. We think that with six months' time they'll be able to receive the message over there. Some people already have. Isn't it interesting? This bill has been two weeks in debate, less....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Where would any of us be without a newspaper clipping? At least mine are today's. The Provincial Secretary, when he reaches into that old folder that he used to have when he was Minister of Labour.... Remember when that was? That hon. member was Minister of Labour in this province a year after the Battle of Bosworth Field.

HON. MR. HEWITT: When was that?

MR. LAUK: In 1346. I don't blame him for bringing in his old folder of newspaper clippings, because he has one of the finest minds of the twelfth century. One of his ancestors was the Marquis de Chabot, Earl Marshal of England.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They were living in France!

MR. LAUK: Oh, no. You've always been a turncoat in your family. [Laughter.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a lot of levity, hon. member, but could you return to the amendment.

MR. LAUK: Well, the only levity about this bill is to relieve some of the tension from time to time in this House. But it is a serious problem.

I think that with six months many people will change their minds. Here is one. There is evidence in today's Province: who was the only non-cabinet minister to attend that secret Star Chamber cabinet meeting in the Okanagan?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Joseph Goebbels? No, he's dead. It wasn't Martin Bormann. It was Michael Walker, the director of the Fraser Institute; that Dr. Strangelove went out there and unfolded his scheme for the universe. These relatively naive, to put it politely, cabinet ministers and the Premier listened with rapt attention to this guru of economics. As Michael Walker sat in the sunlight in the Okanagan, in the lotus position holding a rose, and as the ministers of the cabinet sat at his feet around him, he expounded: "Rent controls will be the end of the world. Government interference is the hand of the devil. Direct payments to single parents are a cardinal sin." They wrote their notes and they developed their legislation. Michael Walker walked across Okanagan Lake and caught the plane back to Vancouver.

He fooled the folks. He went up and he fooled the rubes — the bush-leaguers in the cabinet. What happened this morning? After 26 devastating bills, after a budget that is neither deflationary, kind, honest, just nor equitable, based on the recommendations of Michael Walker.... Well, this morning Michael Walker started putting a great deal of distance between himself and the Social Credit government.

I always said that you can't trust an economist. You've heard me say that an academic economist is trained to be inconsistent. That's the whole idea. You can't get tenure unless you are going to contradict yourself at least twice a day. Didn't you know that?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: We get paid to take two sides.

Michael Walker says, "I'm really upset at the headline in this paper," and he is now paid to write a column for it. I was a little furious when I saw that one of the city dailies — Tweedledee or Tweedledum — hired Michael Walker to write a column for it. They seem to hire columnists like Les Bewley — talk about one of the finest minds of the twelfth century! Les Bewley thinks....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a lawyer, isn't he?

MR. LAUK: Les Bewley, I have to admit, went to a criminal justice subsection meeting once and argued that if

[ Page 386 ]

we did away with flogging for theft over $50 the whole social fabric of this country would crumble before our eyes.

[5:30]

Now to the bill. Here's what Dr. Strangelove had to say this morning — he was upset at the headline connecting the Fraser Institute with the government's policy. Last week he was taking more bows than Larry, Moe and Curly. He said, "This is wonderful," beaming, showing off all of his porcelain teeth to the press, taking bows. Here's what he had to say today, once he went home and heard from his wife and his neighbours and his kids, once the cab driver gave him his opinion about this kind of legislation, once he realized: "Gee, you mean this isn't all theoretical?"

MR. LEA: The dog wouldn't come into the House!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's this got to do with the bill?

MR. LAUK: There's the hon. member from the Peace River. You see, he's well decked out the last couple of days, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't get the opportunity in the Peace River to go to his Nanaimo tailor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you don't talk about your haircut, I won't talk about what I wear.

MR. LAUK: My haircut is just fine. I can't afford a haircut under this budget, I'll tell you.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You've got it wrong, Gary. Your hair can't afford to be cut!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't know if I should interject or not.

The hon. member continues on Bill 3.

MR. LAUK: Well, he said nothing inaccurate, so I can't ask him to withdraw. Getting on to the good doctor, he said:

"The Fraser Institute is an independent, national, policy research organization which makes known its views on public policy to the widest possible audience through the publication of books and studies. We offer suggestions and we criticize government actions when they are out of keeping with the public interest."

Foreshadowing, eh?

"Accordingly, the institute is often called upon by governments to present its views on public policy issues ranging from the esoterica" — now admitting it — "of research and development subsidies to provincial government policies with regard to the residential rental market.... It responds whenever it is called upon by governments, whatever their political stripe, to present its views on issues of public importance.

"Consequently the institute was pleased to respond when the Premier asked me to advise cabinet on the appropriate structure of public policy for its administration.... Any implication that the institute is an ongoing adviser of the province of B.C. any more than it is an ongoing adviser to other provincial governments is certainly not warranted. In the case of this particular budgetary exercise there were, for example, provisions on which the institute did not advise — civil rights commission — or presented contrary advice — tax increases and an expanded deficit."

MR. BARNES: What did they advise on?

MR. LAUK: Oh, he's backtracking. He's putting distance between himself and his government, and with great speed. Ten days. That should give you a hint, The hon. Provincial Secretary is already doing the old double shuffle — one step forward, two steps back — with the press out in the corridor. "Well, uh, perhaps I'll reconsider the methods.... After due consideration and due course.... bdee, bdee, bdee....

Already the response to the government's draconian position is being felt, even by him, the hon. member with the great reptilian epidermis. It's getting through to him. The good doctor says:

"One set of economic theories which has held sway for about three decades proposes that the best way to alleviate the human suffering occasioned by economic fluctuations is for government to intervene in the economic process to attempt to run it more smoothly. In particular, for government to spend an increasing amount of the community income by appropriating it from some members from the community in the form of taxation or borrowing and giving it to other members of the community in the form of what economists call 'transfer payments'....."

It is designed to destroy the international financial system. Oh, I skipped a paragraph.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Selective reading.

MR. LAUK: Oh, no. I'm reading it paragraph by paragraph. Okay. "In the form of what economists call transfer payments." You know what that is, of course: that's the International Monetary Fund. That's the banking act in Canada. This is the kind of thing that he's arguing: we don't want any interference in the free market system. If he doesn't want any interference, of course he's opposed to the International Monetary Fund. He's opposed to any regulation of banks. He's opposed to any kind of interference with the market system.

Further down he says: "Regulations designed to protect citizens as consumers have so stifled the commercial process that there are fewer opportunities for citizens as employees and entrepreneurs." You know what that means, don't you? If you cheat a little old lady and sell her $5,000 worth of vacuum cleaners, she's going to be stuck with the deal. But if some legislation is introduced saying she's got two or three days to consider the deal, somehow that's interfering with the marketplace and the whole economic system will collapse. "In short, the economic doctrines of the last three decades involved the attempt to correct the imperfections in the market economy by directly intervening in events." Again, that's the International Monetary Fund.

The opening sentence of the last paragraph is: "Good intentions do not make good public policy." Well, look, if in six months....

[ Page 387 ]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, you can read, can't you?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the rest of the paper.

MR. LAUK: Yeah, the ads for employment wanted are very high because of the programs of that minister's government. I'll tell you, if in ten days Michael Walker starts to put distance between himself and the government, then surely in six months other right-wingers, other woolly-headed academics who are advising the government, may change their minds and tell these bush-leaguers which direction to go next. We certainly have a suggestion. It seems to me that this six-month hoist is probably the best thing for both sides of the House, and certainly the best thing for the good people of the province. Bill 3 should be delayed. It must be delayed.

I notice that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) during the debate this afternoon, when the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was talking about teachers, shouted: "Good teachers have nothing to worry about." I've heard that before somewhere. When anybody wants to pass a law that is very harsh and draconian, they say: "Good people don't have to worry about that kind of law." Who makes the judgment about who is a good teacher? The Minister of Municipal Affairs? The Provincial Secretary? The Social Credit executive? Does a good teacher mean a teacher who teaches free enterprise principles? Is that a good teacher? Is a teacher who teaches comparative planned economies and socialist structures a good teacher?

MR. REID: That's a good teacher.

MR. LAUK: I'll bet. You and your cronies in the chamber of commerce would send all kinds of letters if somebody was teaching the socialist economic theories in the classroom. Throw them out. Fire them without cause.

MR. LEA: Burn the books.

MR. LAUK: Burn the books. The simplistic statements made by the government should worry the whole public of British Columbia.

I say to the members of the government, we're going to give you a chance: if you vote for a six-month delay you can consider revising the bill or bringing in another bill. Presumably this session might not last another six months. If this motion passes it might not. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that within that period of time, with consultation with Michael Walker again — now that he's changing his mind — and with a cabinet shift, so that the lean and hungry backbenchers who are eyeing empty places on the treasury benches might move up and provide a more cautious tone to the debate in the cabinet.... That might be a good idea. I'm not going to mention any names this time, because the last time I recommended somebody to cabinet he never did make it. So I won't say that I think the hon. second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers) would make an excellent cabinet minister. I will keep that a secret.

MR. MOWAT: He's already a cabinet minister.

MR. LAUK: Is he the first member? I told you I would not say that! But I will say the hon. first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) would make a good cabinet minister. He'd make an excellent minister. I'm going to write letters to the Premier to appoint him to the cabinet. That way, of course, he'll remain on the back bench forever.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I agree. But you see, you and I aren't making that judgment.

So the six-month delay will enable the government to consider bringing in another piece of legislation. In all honesty, certain efficiencies have to be introduced into the public service. Everybody knows that. But to introduce a hit list under the guise of efficiency, to start firing people who may be suspect in their politics under the guise of efficiencies in the civil service? Let me warn you, Mr. Speaker — and this is my second point on this motion — that six months will give the government time to consider what this process is doing to government service and to Crown corporations. We have already identified that it was known that a lot of the people being fired did not sympathize with the philosophy of the government in power. If that's the kind of standards this government is introducing, and if that's the standard they want for subsequent governments in this province, then will they be surprised if one day the New Democratic Party, when it forms the government, takes a broad axe to anybody who doesn't carry a party card? Would you like that to happen? When all of your friends and relatives who work in the highways department in Surrey are fired, don't complain. That's the standard you're setting. It was eliminated in 1949 by W.A.C. Bennett and now you're reintroducing that kind of hit list, that kind of patronage in government service.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, 1952. That would be a terrible thing. If the standard of dealing with the public service is going to be on a political basis, then that standard will be applied by a subsequent administration. For example, what if the Liberals were elected the government of the province? What if the Communist Party were elected government of this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You were, once.

MR. LAUK: That is an unparliamentary expression. I've never accused you of being a fascist or a Nazi. I've never exposed you to the public. I know you burned your card. A young man, an idealist at one time, you were a member of the Nazi Party. I know you burned your card, so we won't mention it. It was a foolish, youthful escapade. I understand.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You liked them both, did you?

AN HON. MEMBER: It sure helped in the last election.

MR. LAUK: It didn't do me any harm.

Interjection.

[ Page 388 ]

MR. LAUK: Oh, now, that is unkind. It's untrue, and you know it.

[5:45]

If this kind of standard for dealing with the public service is accepted, then a communist government can wipe out the entire public service and hire only communists into the civil service. Do you want that kind of standard?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, of course not. You agree with that.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The trouble is that before May 5 you didn't tell the story; before May 5 you didn't tell the truth.

Six months, it seems to me, will give enough time for the heat and the substantial, sensationalist response of interest groups and the public to this bill to calm down, and the government will have time to reflect. The government has a responsibility, when good order and safety in society is threatened, to pull back such dangerous legislation and give the public a chance to calm down, and give the government time to reflect on its actions. I really urge that upon the government, because it seems to me they have created by this bill a serious situation out there in society. In six months they will be able to order an economic impact study. It seems to me the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) pointed out the disastrous economic impact of Bill 3. If you fire civil servants, you're really firing three or four people in the private sector.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Is your medication not working?

The economic impact has a tremendous ripple effect. I think the government should not consult Dr. Strangelove again. He's putting distance between you and the government. You should fire Michael Walker. He's saying: "We're not responsible. We advised them against some of the things they have in this legislation — human rights and so on." Have you read the article? Your guru....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I've read the whole article. You can't deny that's what he said.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I didn't misquote him. That's nonsense. You have it before you. You know better than that.

So an economic study within six months will give the government some real information about the foolishness of their actions, and time to consult people who know something about it.

A social impact study is another thing. What is the impact of removing the social work teams in and out of family court? Do you know that the family court has already made orders based on family service supplied by the MHR? When children are apprehended, the court will make a ruling saying that for 6 months or 12 months, with social work services — they call it a service plan of some kind — the children may be returned after so many months. The courts are still ordering that kind of apprehension under the rules, while the staff who will supply that very service are being fired. So the courts are really making orders and judgments based on a system that no longer exists. That's happening throughout the government service. That should be carefully looked at over six months. You've got to analyze that kind of thing.

I want to talk a little bit about the sanctity of contract. I remember when we introduced legislation in this chamber in 1973 or 1974 dealing with the Pacific National Exhibition. It dealt with some contracts, most of which were unenforceable because they had an indefinite term. At law and in court they were unenforceable. When we introduced legislation to change the structure of the PNE and renegotiate these contracts, members of the opposition held up that bill for a long time. They were screaming: "Sanctity of contract." They were saying: "This government is a socialist government that has no respect for the bond between people and the community. Everywhere in the world they will not trust a government that will not uphold its end of the bargain." They were talking about contracts that had an open-ended term and were not enforceable at law.

You can't have a contract that is never negotiable. There's no such contract. It seems to me that going from that proposition and arguing so strenuously on principle at that time, and now completely obliterating the history of collective agreements with the government service and setting a standard and an example for the private sector as well, is a travesty. Talk about sanctity of contract. They have no respect for collective bargaining. They believe that the sanctity of contract only applies to the business community or between two entrepreneurs, not between a collective bargaining unit and employers. They have no respect for contract when it's between working people and employers, and they have no respect for agreements made between themselves and other levels of government like municipalities and school boards. They have destroyed the traditions that have existed in this province since the beginning of Confederation.

It seems to me that a six-month delay would enable the government to reflect on some of these aspects and to consider....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, I know you haven't heard a word of it because you're too arrogant to listen to these reasonable arguments in favour of delaying this legislation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't said anything.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'll tell the minister: if you delay this bill for six months, perhaps you could introduce some amendments. Why you're so amused, Mr. Premier, I don't know, because this is a serious bill. It is affecting people negatively in the province of British Columbia.

Delay this bill for six months and consider bringing in a bill establishing an independent commission that will devise ways to streamline and make more efficient the public service without these horrendous human-rights problems and without affecting basic rights of employment and property rights and so on. Why don't you consider the delay to bring in an independent commission to examine ways to make the public service more efficient? Isn't that fair? What can be fairer than that? You could not be accused of a political hit list, as you

[ Page 389 ]

obviously have to be in MHR and the Provincial Secretary's department, because that's what you're doing. If you had a commission to work out efficient ways in which to make the civil service more efficient, that's the democratic way.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did a commission help you make that statement about the banks, or did you make it on your own?

MR. LAUK: This is the kind of cheap shot from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. He doesn't understand anything. He's the worst disaster in that position the province has ever seen. He just sits there and takes potshots. He hasn't gotten up and defended this bill. If he wants to talk so much about the banks, why doesn't he get up and talk about them while he's defending this bill? I'll sit here and listen to him.

You've got tremendous opportunities. Instead of sitting in your seats and taking potshots, answer the arguments that the opposition has made in criticism of this bill. Answer why you won't delay the bill for six months. Why won't you delay the bill for six months? You can find independent British Columbians who are keen enough to trim back the civil service, to make it more efficient, but to do it in a fair and legal and democratic way. That's why we need six months.

I argue in favour of this motion. I suggest that it will give the government a chance to consider a new bill, to perhaps incorporate an independent commission, It will give the public time to reduce its heated reaction to this bill. It would supply good order and safety to society, because the reaction to this bill has been extremely angry. It will give them a chance to study the social and economic impact of this bill. It will give them a chance to reconsider what it's doing as a precedent in the hiring and firing of civil servants, and avoid the charge, which is now justified, that political considerations are being employed in the firing of civil servants. Lastly, it would give them a chance to reflect on the collective bargaining system, which incorporates the sanctity of contract, as being a subject also worthy of support.

Mr. Lank moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.