[ Page 391 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 391

Salmonid enhancement program annual report, 1981.

Fraser River Joint Advisory Board annual report.

Environment Canada annual report, 1982: Western Canada Long-range Transport of Atmospheric Pollutants.

Financial Information Act (Amendment Act) 1983 (Bill M203)

Introduction and first reading –– 391

Oral Questions

Government advertising contracts. Mr. Cocke –– 391

Appointment of government agents. Mr. Hanson –– 392

Colony farm. Mr. Rose –– 392

Sewage system financing. Mr. Blencoe –– 392

Rentalsman's office and court system. Ms. Brown __ 393

Washouts on Trans-Canada Highway. Mr. Reid –– 393

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

On the amendment.

Mr. Lauk –– 395

Mr. Nicolson –– 396

Mr. Davis –– 400

Mr. Howard –– 403

Ms. Brown –– 408

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 412

Appendix –– 414

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: In the galleries this afternoon is a fine gentleman from that great constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon, Mr. Alasdair Gilbert. I would ask this House to bid him welcome.

MR. REE: This afternoon we are graced by the presence of ten members of the Canadian Order of Foresters from the Vancouver area. They are in the gallery to listen to the high calibre of debate for which this House is known. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. H. Plumsteel from North Vancouver; also from North Vancouver is Mr. James O'Donnell. From Vancouver we have Mr. George Ward, Mr. and Mrs. R. Moon and Mrs. Dorothy Steer; from Burnaby, Mr. and Mrs. P. S. Town and Mrs. Irene Sutton. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MRS. WALLACE: In the precincts today, but not in the gallery, is a very important group from the Cowichan valley, 25 senior citizens who came down to see the Legislature and visit Victoria. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would ask the House to welcome Mr. John and Mrs. Carol Tyrrell, and their children Bruce and Anne.

As an honorary member of the Boy Scouts movement, I am honoured to introduce to the House Austrian scouts Reinhard Zeger and Guido Caratsch. Would the House please welcome these visitors.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and myself, I would like to have members welcome a former Prince George constituent, Mr. Peter Sorensen, who is now living in Vancouver and is with the B.C. Construction Association.

MR. MICHAEL: Would my fellow members of the House join me in welcoming three members of my constituency: Donna Calvert, the chairman of the Shuswap School Board, and Oona McKinstry, school board member from Revelstoke, and Jim Beblow from Salmon Arm.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I have two guests to welcome here today. One is Ricky Bilous of Roblin, Manitoba, who is visiting his sister Marlene Bilous of our research staff, seated in the Speaker's gallery. I'm very pleased and proud to welcome one of my strongest supporters, who also happens to be my grandson, John Van Dyk. He is visiting us today from 100 Mile House in the Cariboo. Would you please join me welcoming them.

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to welcome and introduce Mrs. Maryla Waters, from my riding. She is a member of the Judicial Council and director of the legal history project, University of Victoria, and has been a tireless worker for the Bastion Theatre in Victoria, among her other activities.

MR. CAMPBELL: We have in that gallery today four people from Winfield: Mr. Pilling, Mr. Toovey and Mr. and Mrs. Jack Vanderwood. Would the House give them a good welcome.

MR. REID: I would like the House to recognize that in the audience today we have a gentleman from Burnaby. He's the general manager of Metro Transit Operating Company, Mr. Bill Allan. Would the House bid him welcome.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled three reports: the 1981 annual report of the salmonid enhancement program, the fourteenth annual report of the activities of the Fraser River Joint Advisory Board, and the 1982 Environment Canada annual report: "Western Canada Long-range Transport of Atmospheric Pollutants."

Introduction of Bills

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ACT
(AMENDMENT ACT) 1983

On a motion by Mr. Skelly, bill M203, Financial Information Act (Amendment Act) 1983, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CONTRACTS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Tourism. McKim Advertising has been identified as the agency in the auditor-general's report which spent $5.3 million of public funds without authorization, which failed to account for cash advances, which operated a slush fund for ministry employees and which laundered accounts from other agencies, charging double commissions. In view of this information, has the minister decided to suspend McKim Advertising as agency of record with the Ministry of Tourism?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The report from the auditor general is being studied in depth by myself and others, and will be acted upon in due course.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister confirm that Vrlak Robinson held the account for advertising promotion of the Royal Hudson and other special events for the ministry during 1981-82, and is in fact agency C in the auditor-general's report?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no.

MR. COCKE: He can't confirm it. Again, will the minister confirm that the Vrlak Robinson account was conducted through the office of one Valerie Vrlak, special projects officer with the ministry?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: I have a supplementary. VrIak Robinson was involved in laundering several accounts through McKim Advertising for which double commissions were charged to

[ Page 392 ]

the government. Is the minister aware that McKim Advertising and Vrlak Robinson are substantially owned by the same parent company, the Spectrum Group of Los Angeles?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I will restate my first answer to that hon. member. The report is being studied in depth and will be acted upon in due course.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that he has not suspended McKim Advertising or Vrlak Robinson, because of the work that both agencies did on behalf of the Social Credit Party during the election campaign?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, has the minister now received a full accounting of the two unauthorized slush funds containing government funds which were maintained by Vrlak Robinson, and has he decided to table this information in the House?

Interjections.

APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNMENT AGENTS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier regarding government agents. I have information that the position of government agent in Penticton has been cancelled in the same way that the position in Kelowna was cancelled for Mr. Tozer. My question to the Premier is: why are you putting political appointees into government agent positions, and do you intend to fill that Penticton job?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the question might more appropriately be put to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is in charge of government agents; but I was not aware there was a vacancy in Penticton. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, that response of the Premier just indicates the route of patronage that this government intends to pursue for government agents.

On a supplementary, I have information that ten government agent positions had a closing date of April 27. Those jobs were paneled and people were picked, but no approval has been given, because they're going to make those political appointments. Why is the Premier pursuing this course of installing political hacks in these positions?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, when the government has an announcement on policy to do with appointments, they will make it in the Legislature.

MR. HANSON: To the Premier, do you intend to pursue a government policy of installing political appointees in the regions which government agents now occupy and where they have jurisdiction, and in deputy government agents' positions throughout this province? Is that the policy of your government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if such a policy determination is made, the member will be among the first to know.

COLONY FARM

MR. ROSE: My question perhaps would be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), but in his absence, since it is a shared jurisdiction with the Minister of Health, perhaps I could ask the Minister of Health. In light of the municipality of Coquitlam's endorsation of the GVRD's strong recommendation to maintain agricultural and rehabilitative functions on Colony Farm, has the Minister of Health discussed with the Minister of Agriculture a way of reconsidering the decision to privatize the farm contiguous to the Riverview Institution?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I haven't spoken to the Minister of Agriculture specifically with respect to the Colony Farm. I believe there has been some discussion between the ministries, and I would be pleased to find out how far that has gone.

MR. ROSE: To the Minister of Health again, since the farm manager reports that Colony Farm provides employment for about six forensic therapists plus a hundred patients, and that it operated in the black this last year, has the minister considered what other kinds of employment opportunities could be offered should that farm be closed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We would look into what employment opportunities may be available for those specific people, and we will be pleased to bring the information back when we have it.

MR. ROSE: On a supplementary, will the minister also consider what alternative therapeutic treatment might be offered those patients should the farm be closed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, we will, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct my final supplementary to the Premier. Perhaps it should more appropriately be directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), but since the Premier is his boss perhaps he could answer it for us. Can the Premier give us his assurance that, should that farm be privatized — sold — it won't be removed or carved out of the agricultural land reserve by the cabinet?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll be glad to take the question as notice for the Minister of Agriculture.

SEWAGE SYSTEM FINANCING

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last year in a major policy shift the province imposed tremendous costs on municipalities by reneging on its historic commitment to finance sewer development by including those projects in revenue-sharing, in effect paying the province's share with municipal dollars. This year the province has dumped even greater costs on local taxpayers by reversing the sharing formula for new sewer and water projects. Will the minister agree to consider the reversal of the cost-sharing formula in order to protect local taxpayers from exorbitant tax increases?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I think if the member would give some study to the program itself, it says "revenue-sharing";

[ Page 393 ]

that means sharing the revenue. Revenue is down, which means sharing is down. There will be no consideration to reversing the decision — for some time, anyway.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary to the same minister. Can the minister explain why the government has downgraded sewer systems from an essential program to merely a desirable one, to be paid almost entirely out of local taxpayers?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: In my opinion, all programs are essential. That program has not been downgraded.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the minister not recognize the fact that much of the cost of new sewer and water facilities is a direct result of project specifications demanded by the provincial government in the interest of public health and safety? Will he not agree that the provincial government should do more to pay for those essential projects, at the very least by restoring the previous cost-sharing formula?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I am unable to answer that question since it deals with future policy.

RENTALSMAN'S OFFICE AND COURT SYSTEM

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Attorney-General. I wonder if the Attorney-General has determined how many additional cases will come before the courts on October 1, when the rentalsman's office is closed and its mediating functions terminated at that time.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member will know that that bill, which is before the House, will be debated, and that there is a phase-out of that program in that bill, so the premise on which her question is put is incorrect as to that date.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Attorney-General's hearing is as effective as it should be. I asked him how many additional cases. I didn't ask him whether the program was going to be phased out or terminated abruptly. How many additional cases will come before the courts as a result of that mediating role played by the rentalsman's office being terminated?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to try again, Mr. Speaker. Last year the rentalsman's office handled 5,700 disputed eviction notices. I'm sure the Attorney-General must know that. Has the Attorney-General consulted, or even discussed, with the chief justice as to whether the court system would be capable of handling this additional number of cases?

HON. MR. SMITH: We're certainly aware that there will be an increase of business in the courts as a result of that legislation. So the answer is yes, we have considered that.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the Attorney-General can advise us whether he has conducted any cost benefit...

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...analysis.

MS. BROWN: Not necessarily an analysis. I want to know if the Attorney- General's ministry can give us any figures as to what the additional cost will be as a result of the closing of the rentalsman's office and the terminating of this mediation role.

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no, I cannot. It presumes additional cost, which is a presumption that may not be correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that your final supplementary, hon. member?

MS. BROWN: It's not final.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have other members standing.

MS. BROWN: Where?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: My assumption or presumption or premise, as the Attorney-General stated it, was based on the fact that I assume that judges are more costly to the system than rentalsmen are; but I could be wrong about that. In any event, is the Attorney-General telling us then that he is accepting this decision of closing the rentalsman's office, phasing out its mediation function, and putting these cases before the court without any kind of data or analysis, or anything being done to find out the impact on the justice system?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is emphatically no. We realize that it is going to cause additional burdens on the courts, particularly small claims courts. There's no doubt about that. But that is a matter that we realize is coming and one that we are planning for.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. second member for Surrey.

MS. BROWN: What is this, closure? I have a final supplemental.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I have recognized the second member for Surrey.

(Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

WASHOUTS ON TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a question of the Highways minister? Inasmuch as tourism is a major industry of ours and the Trans-Canada Highway has been closed and no notice has been given to the general public as to when it will be opened, can the Highways minister give us some indication as to when that highway may be opened?

HON. A. FRASER: As you know, where the failure of the bridge has taken place is under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada. They're working on it, It is my information that with our help the road should be open on Friday of this week.

[ Page 394 ]

[2:30]

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There appears to be an attempt on the part of the government to subvert the intention of question period. I submit that this attempt is done consciously, because I've watched this over the past number of days....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: The government has taken steps to ensure that each day during question period certain cabinet ministers are absent and thus not available to answer questions. Today the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was absent. When a question was posed to the Premier about it, the Premier said: "Ask the Minister of Finance." He's not here. There was an attempt to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). He's not here. I submit that that is an abuse of what question period is all about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. HOWARD: I think, Mr. Speaker, if you were to use the authority of your office, as you did just a moment ago, it would draw attention to the government that it is abusing question period and refusing to allow people the opportunity to pose questions. We might have a more appropriate question-and-answer period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair is not able to order members to attend this House.

Further, hon. members, it is the responsibility of the Chair to recognize members who are standing in their places during question period. When more than one member is standing, it is only reasonable to assume that the question period time be allocated somewhat fairly and somewhat evenly during that period of time. Hon. members, those are the rules which you have bound me to adhere to in this place. I ask for your cooperation in seeing that if those rules are not satisfactory, then steps available to us are taken to change them. Until then, hon. members, the rules of the chamber must be adhered to. The Chair has no alternative but to do so.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I think the Speaker has several times in the past advised the House as to the procedures of question period. I believe that he has said questions should perhaps be allowed a very brief preamble. The members opposite continuously make mini-speeches prior to posing what are quite often very nebulous questions. I think that if there is any abuse of question period it falls upon the members of the opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on this point I will recognize as the final speaker the second member for Vancouver Centre. But, hon. members, we cannot enter into debate.

MR. LAUK: I was going to comment on Your Honour's comments with respect to our House Leader's remarks. The point should be made, when you're considering the procedures, that when question period was being investigated by a parliamentary committee — chaired by myself, but also very capably attended, occasionally, by the now Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — we recommended to this chamber....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I was the chairman.

MR. LAUK: Well, I wonder how I signed all the reports, as chairman. Did we make an agreement about that?

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

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I've got lots of time. There's no problem.

The point, Mr. Speaker, is that when we discussed with the various parties in the House — and those were the days, as hon. members from Point Grey will know, when the House consisted of four parties — we discussed how the question period would be divided. There was a vociferous argument put up by all three opposition parties to the NDP that question period should not be taken up by government back-benchers, that a system be provided where inquiries legitimately should be answered on an informal basis by members of the treasury bench. This was always respected as a tradition in this House. I would think that recognizing the odd backbencher is not a real breach of that tradition, but if it were to become a practice, then, of course, it would be an abuse of the understanding that this House had when question period was first introduced.

May I recap for you briefly the history....

MR. SPEAKER: No! Order, please. The hon. member has made his point. All hon. members are aware of the rules of the chamber.

MR. COCKE: I would like to rise on the point of order that the Minister of Forests raised. The Minister of Forests outlined the fact that some of our members have long preambles. Those long preambles are short preambles compared to the filibustering that goes on over there. When you are looking at this whole question I think that should be taken into consideration as well.

MS. BROWN: On a new point of order, when a member of the opposition has embarked on a series of questions to a minister, it seems to me that out of interest, if nothing else, the Chair should permit that series of questions to come to an end before deciding that it is time to hear from another questioner.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The Chair had made that determination.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

[ Page 395 ]

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that I have five minutes. I have received a copy of an article from a newspaper that appeared in the First Minister's own constituency of Okanagan South. It appeared in the Central Okanagan Capital News and it's the kind of article that I think should be brought to the attention of the House.

I don't necessarily agree with everything in this article, but I should point out to you that this is the kind of reaction that is all across this province and, indeed, the kind of press and official reaction from across the country which I find alarming. British Columbia is becoming not just the laughing-stock of the nation; nobody's laughing any more. There is real fear not only in British Columbia but across the country. Let me read some of the remarks of this columnist on Saturday, July 16, 1983.

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

He says that "one of the worst attacks on human rights and freedoms ever mounted by a democratically elected government in the western world" is right here in British Columbia. He was pointing to the legislation. He goes on to say:

"If a municipality or a school board or any other public body covered by the restraint measures contained within the Public Service Restraint Act questions Kaiser Bill's commands, they will be subject to a $2,000 fine."

This is the kind of thing that's happening.

"Their legislation isn't aimed at curbing union power; it's going to hit us all. Look at what's happened already. School trustees, you are now redundant. Renters, on October 1 you will have no more rights. Minorities, you have been told you had best leave. British Columbia will no longer offer you any kind of protection. Teachers, you may want to say the Lord's Prayer more than just in the mornings. Employees, you are now eligible for instant dismissal for no reason, without recourse to the courts. You who are poor or ill, and you who are aged, they've decided that you contribute so precious little to the B.C. spirit that they'd be better off without you. You were part of the problem, but the boot boys have the solution.

"Bull rushes, I say. Mr. Bennett got votes by promising lesser government involvement in our lives, not to set up a totalitarian regime."

His words, not mine. "Totalitarian regime," says this journalist.

"Mr. Bennett promised no increases in health fees. Obviously that promise is no longer operative, to use a Watergate-era word."

Later on in the article he says:

"Yes, this should be a lesson to us. Why do we vote for politicians who won't tell us what their programs are? If the government is brought to its knees and another mandate is needed, let's make them spell out their programs and then decide whether they deserve our vote. If Mr. Bennett campaigns on the basis of the fascist legislation he introduced last week, I doubt he'll even win re-election in his own riding, never mind a majority in the Legislature."

This is an article appearing in a newspaper in the Premier's own constituency. I say to you that this is a condemnation, not of the opposition party in this province but of the majority of the people and a majority of the electorate of British Columbia. That's why I urge all hon. members of this chamber to look carefully at the motion that we have now moved, that Bill 3 be postponed for six months before we vote second reading of it. I reiterate my suggestion of yesterday, which I know has gone largely ignored. But I'd like to repeat it because I think it's a good suggestion.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It was a good speech too? Thank you very much.

I suggest that, to take away the criticism of an extreme right-wing approach on the part of the government, the criticism that they are going to fire civil servants on a political basis, we have an independent commission appointed, and they will have six months to do that if they vote for this motion to postpone second reading for six months. On that note, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

[2:45]

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 31

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, now that the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has failed in his attempt to have the afternoon off to play golf, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that that member quoted from a newspaper article during his speech on this motion, and I think it is the policy of the House that when a member quotes from a document he tables the

[ Page 396 ]

document. That member, when quoting from the article by Dr. Michael Walker, very conveniently paraphrased and did selective readings from the article so as to create the false impression that Dr. Walker had changed his mind. Just so that the record can be clear and we can all be aware of the fact that Dr. Walker has not changed his mind, I would ask the member to please table that document in the House.

MR. LAUK: On that same point of order, the minister has made an improper accusation. It is an untrue accusation. I did not paraphrase the article. The minister has obviously been upset the last few days, and that's his problem, but he shouldn't make false accusations of other members.

I ask leave to table the article I read this morning.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to debate the point with the member. I'm sure that the record of Hansard will very clearly demonstrate what was said and what is contained in the article.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, differing points of view are not subject to points of order in the House. They are matters of debate.

MR. LAUK: It becomes a matter of record, Mr. Speaker, when one of the members of this House makes an accusation about what I did. Under standing order 42 I have a right to correct that, and I do so. I have filed the article.

I wasn't reading from Michael Walker this morning. I was reading from Michael Walker yesterday, and Michael Walker.... It speaks for itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The matter has been resolved. The document in question has been tabled.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, I am offended by some of the statements made in this House from time to time, and I'm offended by the statement made by the second member for Vancouver Centre accusing another member of making a false accusation. I think that kind of statement should be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time for.... That withdrawal would be by the member to whom the incident referred. However, I would caution all members that language in the chamber must be of a parliamentary nature. We should all familiarize ourselves with those rules, regulations and traditions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On that same point, Mr. Speaker, I think that we have a responsibility not to make accusations against each other in this House, and I would think that that member should withdraw that false accusation. I would be offended if you were to allow that member, in my absence, to make statements about me. I would be extremely offended if some other member of this chamber could not ask him to withdraw that particular statement. I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that you have a responsibility to ask that member to withdraw the statement that the Minister of Forests made a false accusation, whether the Minister of Forests has requested it or not.

MR. LAUK: Obviously the Provincial Secretary did not hear the exchange between the hon. minister and me, or he wouldn't ask for the silly thing that he just asked for. What I said was that the minister had falsely accused me of wrongdoing in this House, whether inadvertently and so on. That's between the minister and me. If the minister were absent from this House then certainly the Provincial Secretary would have every right — and so would any one of his colleagues — to demand a withdrawal, but we all know that's not what happened. I don't know whether it's because of his twilight years that his hearing is failing him, but he should not jump to conclusions.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Now may I recap the history of the question period...?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member, in my opinion, did distort the intent of the article of Dr. Michael Walker. However, the record — once that document is tabled, and once Hansard demonstrates what that member said — will speak for itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly we are entering into a matter which no longer has any reference at all to points of order. May we now return to the debate before us.

MR. LAUK: I'm not trying to delay the proceedings. The Hon. Minister of Forests said that I deliberately distorted that article. That is a false accusation. He is not entitled to make that statement, and I demand that he withdraw it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member is again in error. I did not say that he deliberately distorted it; I said that he distorted it, whether it was intentional or not. The record shall speak for itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, clearly we have some differences of opinion. I would hope that no members have been offended by any other members, and that the Chair could now recognize the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who's been trying to participate in this debate.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that since May 5 there really has been a change in British Columbia. A lot of good people were defeated in that election, and in fact I suppose that a lot of good people from both major political parties went down to defeat in that election, and a lot of good people and a few new faces got elected to this House. There were some new people seeking election in the past election: both members for Surrey, one of the members for Vancouver South, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the member for Dewdney, the member for North Okanagan and one of the members for Vancouver Centre. Those people were successful in their bid for election for the first time. A few other people in the Social Credit Party were not successful this time.

One of those people ran against my good friend and colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds. He has been the head of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. Many people

[ Page 397 ]

scratched their heads when Mr. Gary Begin ran for the Social Credit Party. They thought this was a little bit of a contradiction in terms. I think that from what he is saying now, after viewing Bill 3 and Bill 6 — but particularly Bill 3, the bill before us today — Mr. Begin is saying that if he had any idea that this was the kind of legislation that the government was going to bring down, he would not have been running for the Social Credit Party. That is on record. That is what has been quoted in the media. I might say that I had a conversation with Mr. Begin last evening. I won't go into what he said in that conversation, because I consider it private, but it certainly confirmed that he was accurately reported in the media.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would like to ask some of those members over there to reflect on how they might feel, not in the flush of victory but in the chagrin of a political setback, if they had not been elected into this House. Would they perhaps also be looking at this in the same light as Mr. Begin, and, indeed, should it make any difference whether you were elected or not? Are all of you new members that soon detached from the feelings and convictions you have through your backgrounds in local government? Mr. Begin says that he has spent 12 years in local government. He cannot tolerate this legislation. I knew a good many of you before you were members in this House. I wonder how you could forget so quickly, in a couple of months, about all those years you served and toiled in local government, and turn around and say that local government does not know what it's doing, that centralized government authority in the hands of a very few people.... In fact, authority is being centralized in the hands of the Premier, who said to all deputy ministers: "Your loyalty is to me, not to your ministers." That shows you the degree of centralization that has taken place in this province.

[3:00]

How can one person govern this province? That one person is not going to govern. That one-person centralization of control is going to create a vacuum which only the most senior bureaucrats will pervade. It is going to be Norman Spector and Doug Heal and Patrick Kinsella and these other people who are going to govern, because one person who has to show political leadership and carry the political battles in this province is not going to be able in any way, shape or form to discipline senior civil servants.

We have seen what I think amounts to criminal fraud uncovered by the fine work of the auditor-general in one ministry. I cannot come to any other conclusion when I see consecutive receipts issued from a taxi company showing up in several different vouchers — through the fine sleuthing undertaken by the auditor-general. She should be congratulated on the work done. It is something which certainly must be taken further. It should be turned over to a full police investigation without any undue delay.

There is a great danger in this terrific centralization, as opposed to the trusting of locally elected people. We also see the other trend being set. The Premier is almost admitting that all government agents throughout the province will be political appointees and that there will be more political control.

This House is losing control. Certainly the official opposition does not control the bureaucracy of government. But now even the government side of this House is going to absolutely lose control to a few senior political appointees, most of whom recently arrived here from Ontario. That is the group of people who are going to seize power in the vacuum that is going to be created, because the Premier is only one person and he certainly cannot run this whole province. As in the days of the kings, we are going to have people like the Richelieus and others grab power, like those who sought political favour in the time of King Henry VIII and other monarchs. Those same people are still around today. If there is any responsibility for the people in this House, it is to make sure that the people of this province retain control, not some of these senior bureaucrats. That's where the abuses are taking place. Who are we asking to take the blame?

If this bill is not hoisted for the next six months, we are not just going to be firing 10,000 civil servants. This bill is aimed at 250,000 people in British Columbia. The trend has been set: chop by 25 percent.

MR. REID: Ability to pay.

MR. NICOLSON: There will be no ability to pay if this bill goes through as intended, because nobody is going to be left working in this province, my friend. If this benchmark goes through, if this quota of 25 percent is carried throughout the public sector, it's going to mean a direct firing of 67,000 people, not 10,000. If we don't hoist this bill, it is going to mean that for every one of these public service employees, three people will be fired in the service sectors.

I know travel agents in the tourist business. They have weathered the downturn in the economy; they have weathered everything — until this budget. Since this budget people are suddenly saying: "No job is safe in British Columbia. We are not going to travel." There has been a sudden drop-off in the last couple of weeks of people travelling. I believe that if we show faith in this province and faith in the future of this province we don't have to take this stubborn, Messianic bent, this turn which flies in the face of everything that is ever practised.

If you are looking for a laboratory for this kind of economic experiment, then I think the people of British Columbia are saying: "We don't want to be the guinea-pigs. Try it somewhere else." Mr. Gary Begin does not want to see the public education system part of this laboratory. He doesn't want to see vivisection of our public education system. Like many of you, he was a Social Credit candidate only a few months ago, seeking for the first time to enter this House. By failing to be sworn into this House as an MLA, he somehow seems to remember where he's coming from. It certainly wasn't the kind of thing Mr. Gary Begin ran for, and I don't think it was the kind of thing most of you people ran for. I think the finest hour some of you could have would be to show defiance.

I would like to quote from Sir Erskine May, and not quote from some later author who has sought to update the word of Erskine May. This is the real word of Sir Erskine May; I believe it is the last edition of his book, Parliamentary Practice: "The Legislative authority of parliament extends over the United Kingdom and all its colonies and foreign possessions" — we must bear in mind that he wrote this in 1883 — "and there are no other limits to its power of making laws for the whole Empire than those which are incident to all sovereign authority, the willingness of the people to obey, and their power to resist." That great parliamentarian was telling us that if the laws of parliament become too oppressive we do have the responsibility to resist. I won't read any meaning

[ Page 398 ]

into his words, except that I think he was looking at things like Guy Fawkes Day and other incidents in the history of the British parliamentary system. Many of the freedoms and rights which we enjoy today were not granted by the Crown but were taken from the Crown. There is a willingness of the people to obey, but they also have a power to resist.

Last night over 7,000 people showed that they do not want to come under this kind of an abuse of parliamentary power. Yes, we do have that supreme power. The legislative authority of parliament extends over all of our domain, which is British Columbia, and there are no other limits to our power for making laws except "the willingness of the people to obey, and their power to resist."

I have felt for some time that this government has not really been in control. There are abuses at the senior levels of government, but who is going to be put into the firing line? Who will be the victims of this kind of an experiment? Certainly not the people we see being rewarded with increases of thousands and thousands of dollars. People like Mike Bailey in the Premier's office, who got a 50-percent increase in salary — up from $30,000 to $45,000. He was rolled back by all of $1,300, so I stand corrected. He only got about a 47-percent increase in salary. That is the kind of arrogance these newly elected members should ask themselves about, and say, "Could I become like that if I were to spend the next 30 years of my life in this organization?"

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, it seems like 30 years to me since he's been here.

There are abuses in the public service at times, and I'd like to tell you about some of them so that we can focus on the areas that need addressing — but not the many hard-working civil servants.

In the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources a couple of years ago, when they were living high off the hog, the deputy minister was the one who made all the arrangements to take the then Minister of Energy to Broadway, for which he was dubbed "Broadway Bob." The same type of thing was happening. This is the way they've been spending the public money. I've got facsimiles of a couple of audit control number vouchers. Voucher No. 399366 is one of the vouchers which was under examination last year during public accounts. The payee was Mr. Roy Illing, deputy minister, and the amount was $245.78. That's not a huge amount, but what a symptom. It was reimbursement for hospitality expense, for the purpose of introducing Mr. Bob Durie to the senior staff of the ministry. Attending were Mr. Durie, Mr. H. Swain, Mr. P. Hirschoy, Mr. J. Files, Mr. T. Chatten, Mr. W. Quinn, R. Davy, N. Gillespie, W. Young, J. Lewis, R.H. McClelland, V. Ray, D. Ross-Jones and guests. The event took place at the home of Mr. Roy Illing, deputy minister. Attached were a bill from Safeway for $14.63; another Safeway bill for $36.59; government liquor store, $73.22; WilloWay Low Cost, $36.14; and a receipt for bartending of $80, for a total of $240.58.

On another occasion a business dinner expense was incurred for the purpose of introducing Mr. R. Durie to the senior staff of the ministry. In attendance were J.T. Files, Mr. E.R. McGregor, Dr. H. Swain, Mr. P. Hirschoy, Mr. D. Horswal, T. Chatten, R. R. Davy, N. K. Gillespie, J. Lewis, for a total of $274.50. Only two people on that list of guests didn't attend the other house party. If you're getting nervous because these new members appear to know more about relevancy of debate than you and I, Mr. Speaker, I can't understand why. All but two of these people had already met Mr. Durie at a cost to the taxpayers of $240.58, but now they had to meet him again at a further cost of $274.50.

[3:15]

I could also talk about how Mr. Illing rented a chartered fishing vessel from Burnaby. It was brought over here, did a quick little trip from the Pat Bay dock around to the Sidney dock, at a cost of some $800.

One could go on and on, but the point I'm trying to make is that here we have house parties being put on for colleagues at taxpayers' expense for the purpose of supposedly meeting somebody. The point is that there is no control by this government. They have allowed this type of thing to go on. The first time it happened was when the provincial comptroller-general was overridden in order to force the people of B.C. to pay all the bills for Mr. David Brown. Mr. David Brown stayed at the Empress Hotel and so on. The comptroller questioned the expenditures. The Premier wrote a letter and told him they had to be paid. I think shortly afterward there was a change, twice within a few months, of comptroller-general in this province. And now everybody has the message — or had the message for many years since the appointment of Mr. Brown and his subsequent departure — that you don't question government expenses.

Mr. Speaker, these types of things have been happening at the super-high levels of government, but the people being fired are career civil servants, not people who've just arrived here in the last year or two from Ottawa, or Ontario. We're talking about British Columbians who are being summarily dismissed. We're talking about measures under this bill which are going to see the loss of 200,000 jobs in British Columbia, because when you take the loss of all public sector jobs.... We see what's happened today, the announcement about ICBC, a 15 percent cutback. Mr. Speaker, it sounds very good until you suddenly are sitting in your retail outlet and nobody's coming into the store.

This is the most economically stupid move that could possibly be taken. It's being taken on blind faith. We see that Michael Walker doesn't endorse this. He dissociates himself from it. We see that former candidates who, but for a few hundred votes, could have been sitting in this House disown this type of move; they criticize it. Mr. Speaker, the target should be those cabinet benches, not these people.

I said the other day — and it is a matter of record — that by the end of this year, during his term in office, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) will have taken us from having $2 billion in liquid accounts and cash in the bank to being $1 billion in debt. All of that since 1980, when the present Minister of Finance took over.

If this bill is hoisted for six months we will have....

MR. REID: What did they spend it on?

MR. NICOLSON: What they spent it on, my friend, was avocado and shrimp, tossed salad, ham glacé, buns, broccoli, rice pilaf, strawberry shortcake, hot and cold hors-d'oeuvres and liquor. They spent it on Broadway shows. They spent it on private trips down south. They spent it on unauthorized accounts with McKim Advertising. They spent it $240 at a time, but when you add it up it comes to $3 billion of the taxpayers' money squandered.

[ Page 399 ]

Now who's going to have to pay? The people who are going to have to pay, Mr. Speaker, are the loyal public servants. I've been in this House before and have talked about some of the loyal public servants. I can talk about Ted Rutherglen. He was a conservation officer. Ted Rutherglen was a man who, if he heard a report of somebody poaching in the middle of the night, would come out at 10 o'clock at night, or 2 o'clock in the morning, and do his job. Maybe because he did his job too well, that man — an otherwise very strong and vigorous person — died of stress and a very premature heart attack. I can show you other public servants who have given very unstintingly of their time and didn't put in overtime bills when maybe they should have, trying to keep up with electrical safety inspections so that we could have a decent standard of house construction. I can show you another man who gave up his life for this province — dying in office of a premature heart attack, having had a heart attack and gone back to work too quickly. Those are the kinds of people we're talking about, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about real people here.

If I had a choice, you could take all the new boys from Ontario — all the hotshots — and send them back to Ontario. I'd sooner keep the British Columbians who've been working here year in, year out. I'd sooner back the people who believe in local government, who believe that it isn't Big Brother who knows what's best for this province, but believe that back in the communities we know what is required.

If there was ever a bill.... I regret, like many others, that maybe we have talked about other pieces of legislation brought into this House — the government reorganization act which was brought in about 1977 or '78. We used some pretty extreme language about that piece of legislation, which said that you could reorganize government ministries any way you wanted without recourse to the Legislature. But we thought things might end there. We never had any idea that a government would bring in such a huge amount of legislation. I'll continue to say it: you people won this election, but this isn't why you won the election. This is not what the people of British Columbia elected you for. I know four Social Crediters who are already down the road because they've been fired. I'm darned sure the people who work for you don't work to lose their job. There is no job in British Columbia that is safe until this legislation is put on the shelf and allowed to collect so much dust that it's going to take an archivist to dig the thing out and look back at this very sad little aberration in British Columbia history.

This particular piece of legislation deserves the kind of editorial comment that it has received in the Kelowna paper; it deserves the kind of editorial comment it has received in the Toronto Star; it deserves the kind of cartoons which have been put out depicting this province.... Mr. Speaker, that doesn't sit well with me, because I don't like to see British Columbia the subject of ridicule. I don't like to see British Columbia the subject of caricature. I do not like to see a once proud province held up as the only freely, democratically elected jurisdiction in this country ever to embark upon a piece of legislation which prohibits all public sector employers, be they municipalities, school boards, Crown corporations — who are going to have to compete to get the best people — from signing collective agreements with their employees and honouring those collective agreements.

Panama enshrines the right to a justified dismissal in legislation. Mexico enshrines the right to a just dismissal in legislation.

MR. REID: Look at their budget — the worst in the world.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member for Surrey would criticize a jurisdiction — Mexico — which produces more jobs a year than you have ever produced in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: They have high unemployment because they have the highest birthrate in the world, and if that member doesn't realize that.... They do have Toyota and Volkswagen plants in Mexico, and they also have the right to a justified dismissal. If some people would not be so parochial, if when they travel they would open their eyes or go somewhere besides from here to Hawaii and back, if they would look at some other parts of the world and get out there and look at their industrial sectors, they would realize that some of these so-called third-world nations, in spite of their huge indebtedness to the various world banks and in spite of their high birthrates. are at least trying. They have succeeded in attracting automobile plants to their country, while we don't have one here in British Columbia. They are manufacturing just about every major kind of automobile that we in this country are importing.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: There's another one — must have just come in — talking about the unemployment rate in some of these countries. I'll tell you, if we could produce as many jobs a year as Mexico has done, we wouldn't have to worry about unemployment. Down there, in spite of the fact that they have enshrined protections in statute for every kind of worker — public sector workers, people who work in tortilla factories, people who work in automobile plants, people who work in mines, people who work as domestics....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: We hear about people being put in prison without trial, yet we are bringing in legislation that is going to allow $2,000 fines for people in this province who would seek to honour collective agreements. For people who would seek to honour their given word, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be $2,000 fines. If any mayor or any alderman in a municipality honours a collective agreement, he is going to be subject to a $2,000 fine. What direction is this taking us in?

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Don't stop them, Mr. Speaker. I think they can write a very good speech in favour of this motion to hoist this bill for six months. Those members should not be dissuaded, because they do nothing but feed one with more and more information.

This government got us into a tremendous financial hole in spite of the warnings of the official opposition. We heard the same derision when we moved reductions in office furniture expenses two years ago, and again last year. So what have you realized? This year you've had to cut the office

[ Page 400 ]

furniture budget by 54 percent because you didn't take our warning two years ago, or last year.

[3:30]

What are we seeing now? We are going to see more and more reductions in services to people. This government doesn't realize that one of the major things we have to do in this province is to generate wealth, and we must also seek to redistribute it. Look at the wealth we've been bringing in through the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. We've probably been averaging about half a billion dollars through the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which, until the.... Well, I don't want to go back into history, and I won't; let's say that prior to 1972 that money was allowed to go right through this province. We trap about half a billion dollars in revenues through the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. It only takes 33 people to run the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, so even with the way this government spends money it doesn't all go out in wages and salaries. There are many hundreds of millions of dollars every year, and that wealth gets redistributed. Part of it goes to municipal authorities to assist them in various municipal works. It also goes into consolidated revenue. But that money gets out into the community, because in this country we have enjoyed the best type of medical care. We've had a very good education system, a system which encourages our tourist industry, a system of government that assists small business.

There is nothing wrong with redistributing wealth, because if that half a billion dollars just sat there and did nothing it would not be serving the people of British Columbia. Jobs in health care are real jobs, just as jobs in mines are real jobs. Jobs in schools are real jobs, as are jobs in the forest industry. Service and retail jobs are all real jobs. If we cut out any one of those sectors, we do diminish the others. That is the threat of this legislation. That is why Michael Walker put some distance between himself and this legislation. With a six month hoist, I would hope that this government could....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker....

MR. NICOLSON: I hope this interruption doesn't take away from my opportunity to adjourn the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order will please be brief.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This gets into the same point of order that was raised after the speech.... This member is implying that Dr. Michael Walker has changed his opinion and is now against the legislation brought down by this government; a reading of his article and a talk with that gentleman will prove exactly the opposite. This member is misrepresenting, either intentionally or unintentionally, the intent and meaning of what Dr. Michael Walker has said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order has already been discussed and has been dispensed with. If the minister wishes to enter into debate on the amendment or the bill, the minister has every opportunity to do it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That discussion was as it related to what was said by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). This relates directly to what the member who is currently standing on his feet — when he should be seated — has just said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: If this bill is hoisted for six months, many of these people over there will be able to get some distance. What you need is time to save face, so let's have the hoist. You'll look reasonable; you'll give it the second look; you can save face. You'll be praised in the editorials. I know you will be; you can have my word on that. It's happened before and my experience is that that is the truth.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, if that member wants to make any bet, I can give him some examples of where this has happened on previous occasions.

I 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

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

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote against this resolution. I'm going to vote against a resolution which hoists Bill 3 for six months because I believe that legislation of this type is essential and vital at this time. I know that it has to be seen in the context of other law in this province and other legislation yet to be brought into this House, but it is important for several reasons.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

First of all, our financial affairs in this province are not as good as they have been. They're still better than in any other province in Canada, with the possible exception of Alberta,

[ Page 401 ]

but still we have expenses which exceed our income at the provincial level by something of the order of 20 percent. That is exceptional in any jurisdiction, and it's a situation which cannot be allowed to persist for long. Fortunately with the turning around in the world economy our income side will undoubtedly improve and the deficit problem will not be as large in the next few years as it has been in the recent past.

We've a deficit problem; we've also got a job problem, To deal with the job problem — and jobs are important, both in the public and private sectors — we have to move deliberately. We have had a tremendous growth in the public sector, in the government side of things, in this country, and we've had similar — indeed, parallel — growth at the provincial level. We have record employment in the public service in British Columbia today. There is room, because of this tremendous increase in employment to provide people services, for efficiency measures and for some pruning, but I want to prove to you, Mr. Speaker, that while the measures which are being taken will hit some individuals hard — and the manner in which their retirement or release from service is dealt with has to be done sensitively — nevertheless, some jobs have to be pruned from the public service.

While they are being pruned, it is clear, to me at least, that there are other jobs developing, not only generally in the private sector but also as a result of expansion of expenditures in the public and government sectors and, indeed, in some of our Crown corporations, which in total exceed the number of jobs we're likely to use in some of our older-style ministries. In other words, in totality, when you look at the Speech from the Throne, at the budget, at the various programs and at the new expenditures which this government is making, on balance it's a job-creating budget, not only in the private sector but in the public sector as well.

[3:45]

When I hear that of a quarter of a million public servants in the province, a quarter of that number are going to lose their jobs, and that 67,000 public service jobs are on the line, I have to react. It's totally false. If I were quantifying the numbers of jobs that may be lost, I would say they're in the order of a few thousand. If I were quantifying the number of new jobs that are going to be created in the public service alone, it's of the order of ten or fifteen thousand. So on balance, in the public service or in activities closely related to the public service in this province, there is a creation of jobs. There will be additional people working in a year and a half, two years from now in the public service, or in closely related activities like the Crown corporations, so it is an employment-creating process. The budget certainly says this. The supplementary bills point in that direction. So we're not, on balance, losing jobs.

Our public service is a first-class service. We've got some very fine people, some very capable people, and some very dedicated people in the public service, and a few of them will lose their employment. Hopefully most will retire in the normal course of events, but some will be lost in the efficiency-generating process. They must be dealt with as sensitively and humanely as possible. I think we all agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I think we all assume that will happen in a province which has, by and large, treated its public servants well. It must continue to do so with even greater sensitivity in the next few months.

But back to the numbers game the opposition has been playing. They've been talking about a quarter of a million — or 250,000 — public employees in this province. They're talking about federal civil servants who are not affected, obviously, by this provincial legislation. They're talking about municipal civil servants who may or may not be affected. They're talking about the army, the navy, the air force. They're talking about the police force....

MR. HANSON: Not true! Tell the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. HANSON: Read the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. DAVIS: Well, for anyone who looks at the numbers, close to half of that 250,000 are under the federal government or federal legislation, or are working for federal Crown corporations like the CNR or for the armed forces, etc. Clearly this bill doesn't reach to those people. It doesn't reach to a number of our other operations. Let's take, for example, the health care side. Expenditures under this budget are up 8 percent in real terms. Most of that money — indeed, three-quarters of that money — goes to salaries and wages. It's obvious, therefore, that employment in the health care services will be up 5 or 6 percent, at the very least. So forget the health care side when you start talking about cutbacks. This bill doesn't apply to the health care side. It doesn't apply to hospitals, doctors, nurses, and so on. So there's another large chunk — 55,000 employees — to which it doesn't apply.

MR. LEA: Can we quote you?

MR. DAVIS: You can quote me any time you want, sure. The universities and colleges are another very large group of people who are not affected by this package of legislation. Their budget has increased roughly 8 percent. That's nearly all salaries and wages. If we don't have wage increases in this province, obviously employment in that area is going to go up, not down. We need more people to help train and retrain those who are looking for work.

So, clearly, in the health care and education areas we've got an increase in employment. We've got the employment development account, new projects, and new hospitals being built. Incidentally, British Columbia's the only province these days that's building new hospitals in some numbers, and adding to capacity. There's additional employment as well. Those increases have to be of the order of 10,000 to 20,000 more jobs. So that is on the positive side.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: I know you don't want to agree, but that's a fact.

On the negative side, on the down side — and I'm sorry to see the Vancouver Sun as well has incorrect numbers today.... They're repeating, in part, what the opposition's saying. They're talking about a big drop — a 10 percent drop, I think they say — in the public service. They're talking about the old-style public service, which has grown now to the order of 44,000. It was in the high 20,000s ten years ago. It grew to the high 30,000s when the NDP were in power. It's now of the order of 40,000. It is the intention of the government to bring it back to around 40,000 from 44,000. That's

[ Page 402 ]

4,000 jobs that will not be there, at least if the present declarations of the government are carried out 12 to 18 months from now. Getting on to half of those are temporary jobs.

So we're talking about several thousand permanent jobs which are going to be eliminated from the public service. Therefore I said there would be no loss of jobs — in fact, an increase in the health care and education sides, and indeed in the human resources side — because that budget is up. Several thousand jobs are gone.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: The opposition is talking about 250,000 jobs in jeopardy, but its....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour has the floor.

MR. DAVIS: The fact is that the number of jobs in the balance is 1 percent of the number the opposition has been talking about. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said 67,000 jobs were in jeopardy; he took one quarter of 250,000 — a number of that order. It's not 67,000. It may be 2,000 or 3,000 on the downside, but there is an upside of 10,000 to 15,000. Obviously some people are going to have to change jobs. I suggest that some of these people who are leaving the public service will be retiring in any case. Some part of this is attrition. That is the order of magnitude. That is the reality of it in terms of human beings, in terms of life.

The hon. member who last sat down used the word "vivisection." Others have talked about fascism, jackboot government and so on. Obviously it's nonsense. Some part of this trimming is needed. As the Minister of Finance said in the budget, government has grown too large. I think the opposition has even repeated that phrase a time or two. Since 1971-72 the provincial government has more than doubled the amount it spends for the average British Columbian. In roughly ten years, government has become twice its former size in real terms, and it's costing a lot. People are demanding most of those services; if they don't also want a commensurate increase in taxes, government has to be more efficient, and some modest trimming is necessary. This is all that is taking place. Bill 3 requests the authority to proceed with that modest trimming.

The opposition wants it hoisted for six months, which in effect would kill it for 12 months. They don't seem to be at all concerned with the fact that taxation is already onerous here, as it is across much of Canada. People don't want to pay more taxes; indeed, many of them cannot; certainly those who are unemployed cannot. They want the government to be more circumspect, to downsize reasonably and rationally, and to put money into other things which people clearly indicate as their priorities. In the provincial sphere it is health care, education and, due to the high level of unemployment, human resources. That is where the increases in expenditures are taking place. That's where the increased job opportunities are. Because they haven't been quantified in terms of today's civil servants, the opposition is assuming that it's nothing but cut, cut, cut. Of the several thousand people who will lose their jobs in the old-style ministries, three-quarters will probably be retiring in any case; attrition, etc. will look after their leaving. I really don't have too much trouble with that aspect of it.

What I think really gets the public upset is the clause in Bill 3 which says "without cause." I'm not a lawyer. I really don't know all of its implications. What it suggests to the public is that a person can be fired for any reason whatsoever and have no knowledge of why he was fired. That may be the literal interpretation of the clause. Public servants in this province — indeed, most public servants across Canada — are protected by the agreements their unions have with their employers, be they governments, Crown corporations, whatever. Their protection lies, first, in their agreement with the employer, and secondly, with the general framework of laws in the province. All other legislation isn't withdrawn as a result of this bill being passed.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the House to recognize the fact that the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour has the floor. Please give him the consideration of this House.

MR. DAVIS: To try to be succinct in this area, today in the Vancouver Province a management lawyer, Mr. Tom Roper, is quoted. He sums up what he thinks this legislation is all about: "What's going on is that public sector employers" — the government, Crown corporations, whatever — "are being given the same authority over their employees" that private sector employers have always had in dealing with private sector employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true!

MR. DAVIS: It isn't simply a jungle out there. If this bill and its companion legislation passes, public servants will be in the same position, in terms of protection from the law, that all the rest of us have been all our lives. I don't think that is all that bad.

[4:00]

First of all, many of our public servants have special training and special abilities, and have demonstrated their capability to do their jobs. They're not going to lose their employment; they're needed. That's one assurance they have. Secondly, they have very strong unions to bargain for them. Thirdly, and this is generally true across Canada today, public employees — I'll be glib: civil servants — are better paid than their opposite numbers in the private sector. They're better paid by the order of a third. That's the conclusion of people who've done research in this area. They're better paid; they're needed; and they're protected by a strong union. They have security during the lives of each of these union contracts which may go one year, two years, three years at a time. What else do they need? What else do they want?

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: The hon. member says jobs. Ninety-five percent of them will have their jobs one, two and three years from now. But 5 percent may have had to go in the interests of efficiency. In a reviving economy that isn't that bad, either.

[ Page 403 ]

1 really think that this bill and its impact on the public service has been overdrawn to an incredible extent. We're only talking about a few thousand — admittedly very valuable — lives, very competent and capable people. But on balance the number of jobs being created is several times that. Those who are not going to retire anyway through normal attrition can find employment. I'm sure that those who really want to find a job — the majority, anyway — will be out there and finding a job. I expect that the severance pay arrangements, the recommendations and so on will be appropriate to their finding other employment.

What does the opposition expect? We've had a public service growing and growing and growing. We've got people-programs like health, education and welfare growing and growing and growing. Is there no levelling off? Is there no turning around in some areas? Is there no intention of some greater efficiency? How would they handle it?

MS. BROWN: You said there were going to be more jobs.

MR. DAVIS: There are going to be more jobs in total, but they're not necessarily going to be in the same ministry, in the same profession, in the same area of skill. There's going to have to be change and readjustment, and obviously there's going to be some upset — considerable upset in some cases — in individual lives. This is what's been happening wholesale in the private sector. It's regrettable, but it's a fact of life. To introduce a small measure of this in the public service is regrettable, but it has to happen. Some adjustment is obviously necessary, especially at this time when we're already running a massive deficit, when we've got the biggest public service in history, when we're committing half of the income of every British Columbian to government. Obviously we have to do some trimming. We have to be concerned with efficiency and there has to be change.

We must maintain the merit principle. We have to be concerned with seniority. I'm sure that the representatives of the public service employees will insist on seniority as a concern.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to, please, restrain herself.

MR. DAVIS: Obviously we need a bill like Bill 3 — a bill, however, which has to be administered with sensitivity and with real care.

There's another element to this bill that we urgently need, Mr. Speaker, and that is the other part of the bill. One says: "Downsize government." The other part of the bill allows the administration to trim or level or reduce income at the top. We have a large number of public servants — I'll say dozens — in this province who are paid more than the Premier. In my particular riding the superintendent of the school district gets over $100,000 per year plus certain perks. There are six or eight people in that school district office who get more than $60,000. There are 50-plus — I'll call them public servants — in School District 44 who are in administration, in head office. The numbers have grown steadily while the number of young people in primary and secondary schools has declined persistently for the past ten years. The income of those people has gone up automatically at the same percentage as teachers' incomes. Last year in 1981-82 it went up 17 percent. That's ridiculous. The school board should never have approved increases of the order and magnitude for people who are purely in administration and are not teaching.

We have people — admittedly good people — around the province who are drawing, I think, unconscionable amounts from the public treasury. I am sure that we need legislation like this to allow the government to review these high incomes and set up a schedule that makes sense to ensure comparability for comparable ability and work effort across the province and then pay them by that schedule. A few may leave because they're not being paid what they used to be paid, but I expect that they'll stay because they're living in British Columbia, along with the opportunities and challenges inside the field of education. Most of them will stay, anyway.

This has to be done if we're going to be not only more efficient in government but more sensible. The public out there doesn't know about these anomalies. I doubt if one in a hundred voters in North Vancouver–Seymour really knows what the superintendent of schools is paid in our area or what some of the other senior people are paid not to teach. Those changes have to be made, and they should be made urgently. Our credit rating as a province has slipped because we're running a bigger deficit and we're not indicating the intention of tightening up and improving efficiency to the extent that those who will lend their money to us would like to see us do. Therefore this matter is urgent.

I'm going to vote for Bill 3. I'm also going to vote against the resolution, which says we should engage in a further copout and stall it for six months. That would mean a period when we're not meeting and would put off these tough decisions for another year.

MR. HOWARD: I don't know that I can declare as emphatically as the member who just sat down that I will vote against this particular amendment. I have some question in my mind about it because at the rate we're going, we may still be here six months from now. If the amendment passes, then, of course, what we're saying is that it'll be long past six months from now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're delaying its passage.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, it's delaying tactics; you've identified it exactly. Fascist legislation needs to be delayed. Hon. gentlemen opposite may not like the fact that a number of members are debating this, but you have to understand that in a political democracy the only defence in this Legislature against fascist-type legislation is a filibuster. That's the only one that's available. If we give up and we abandon that responsibility and that right, then we roll over and play dead to the steamroller of government opposite, and we can't countenance that. Hon. gentlemen may not like it, but that's a fact of parliamentary life and that's where we're headed.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: If the twofold Minister of Environment, Lands, Parks and Housing, and whatever else it is, wants to engage in debate, I'd suggest that's what he should do,

[ Page 404 ]

instead of chattering away from his seat making inane comments designed for no great purpose but to vent his frustration that he can't steamroller this bill through the House.

I listened with a great deal of interest to the member for North Vancouver– Seymour (Mr. Davis). When one seeks to substantiate a particular measure, as was done in this case, and uses inappropriate statistics, adjusts the statistics to suit his own convenience, misquotes statistics and generally plays what he says is a numbers game, one is only entitled to conclude that he has a very poor case in trying to substantiate this particular piece of legislation. He missed entirely the part of the bill....

MR. DAVIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is saying at the very least that I'm misquoting statistics. He's going further in implying that I am deliberately misusing them. I'm prepared to table any of the numbers, any of the background material, illustrating the veracity of those numbers at any time, for the edification of the hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. Temperate debate is always in order.

MR. HOWARD: The member just touched lightly in passing on the major question in this bill, which is the desire on the part of government to have a state-controlled centralized authority over a great bulk of public servants, and the right to fire them — to terminate their employment without cause, without reason, without justification or for whatever reason the government, whoever it might be, would seek to employ. He said he was concerned about that, but he touched over it.

The member, as I understood what he was saying, drew the army and the navy into it and then said that of course it doesn't apply to them. I don't know what he was talking about. We know it doesn't apply to them.

He also said, Mr. Speaker — and in this I think the hon. member either didn't read the bill or really wasn't interested in it — that it doesn't apply on the health care side, doesn't apply to hospitals. Of course it does. We have a Minister of Health in this province, and we have a Deputy Minister of Health. The government of B.C. is an employer under this act, and it applies to the health care side of the Ministry of Health. A specific reference in the bill identifies as an employer "a hospital as defined in the Hospital Act." He made reference to universities. Another employer under this is "a university as defined in the University Act." These are covered; they're not exempted or excluded. It applies all across the board to every employee in the public service at any level in the province of British Columbia under provincial jurisdiction. It does not apply to the Canadian National Railways; of course not. That kind of argument, based upon his desire to use figures and statistics to try to make a case, indicates that when he gets to the realities and the factual part of it, he's off base completely.

[4:15]

He said, Mr. Speaker — I wrote it down, and if I wrote it down inaccurately I'm sure the hon. member will correct me — that since 1971-72 government expenditures have doubled. That is the essence of what he said. In the narrow context of that particular sentence, I suppose that is accurate. But it's terrible misleading, because when he started to refer to government expenditures, when he started the debate with his opening remarks, saying that our finances are in poor shape, he was really engaging in a debate condemning his own government. He didn't want to go far enough though. So while his statement was that government expenditures since 1971-72 have doubled, you may say that's inaccurate; they've more than doubled. The facts of the matter are, from the budgets presented in this Legislature, that they have doubled since 1978-79. They have doubled in the last five years under this government; and yes, more than doubled over the last 10 or 12 years, whatever it is that goes back to the period he picked. I don't know why he picked 1971-72. Is there something magic about that particular year? No, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that profligacy started in this province under this Social Credit government and particularly under this Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The present Minister of Finance has introduced into this House four budgets; and do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in that period of time government expenditures have increased 85.11 percent? Why didn't the member for North Vancouver–Seymour identify that? Why didn't he say that's why we're in trouble in this province — because this government and these guys opposite and that Minister of Finance didn't give a damn about public funds? They acted like someone who had struck a gold mine, like someone who had new-found wealth, drunk with authority and power and someone else's money — and raised taxes to do it, in the process.

Let's look at precisely what has happened under this Minister of Finance, and maybe we'll understand why we are in financial trouble in this province. The fault lies exclusively and entirely on the shoulders of the Premier of this province and his particular Minister of Finance, the current minister.

I'll give you some actual figures for what went on here. In 1979-80 the hon. Evan Wolfe was the Minister of Finance; that was his last budget. The estimates for the budget of that year were $4.56 billion. The next year, 1980-81, was the first year the current minister became Minister of Finance. In his first budget the expenditures proposed — and they went above this, incidentally; I'm only talking about the proposal, what they could foresee what they wanted to do — were $5.54 billion, an increase in one year of 21.5 percent, a 21.5 increase in the squandering of public funds by this government in the first year that this minister was Minister of Finance.

In his second budget, in 1981-82, the proposal was $6.61 billion: an increase that year over the previous year of 19.1 percent, More squandering of public funds, more living high off the hog at the public's expense. Talk about shovelling money off the back of a truck! Of course, I don't know how they could get the truck into those bars they frequented, because that's where they shovelled it from.

In 1982-83 the third budget of this Minister of Finance had an increase of 9.4 percent. That's when he was talking about restraint. He cut back a little bit. And this year, the budget before us — if the government ever gets the courage screwed up enough to bring the budget back again, we may find this out — contrary to what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said a moment ago about an 8 percent increase, or something of that sort.... The budget itself, on page 36, points out the total operating expenses proposed in this coming year. Look at those as a percentage increase over last year, and this year — in the year of restraint — we're increasing the budgetary expenditures by 16.7 percent, not 8

[ Page 405 ]

percent as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said. I won't accuse him of deliberately using figures here. I'll just say he was ignorant of the facts, or using particular selected statistics in order to buttress a poor case. But that's why we are in trouble in this province, if we are in trouble financially. It's because we've had a government careless and indifferent about public expenditures. In fact, they gloated over it.

If you remember the budgets — the second or third budget brought in by this Minister of Finance — how many times he made reference in those budgets to, "We are increasing the expenditure on this, increasing the expenditure on that, " and hon. members opposite applauded at their desks until their hands were sore, applauding the increase in public expenditure.

In the 1981-82 fiscal year, to get back and deal with this question of fiscal responsibility — that was the second budget of the current Minister of Finance — we in the New Democratic Party could see from the estimates to the House.... That's all we had to go on; we couldn't get back into the ministries to find out what waste and extravagance existed there. We could only deal with the material that was presented in conjunction with the budget. But we saw then, in 1981-82, that something was seriously wrong. That level of expenditure, an increase of 19.1 percent, was improper, obscene, and not in the public interest. We identified, as you very well recall, four areas of public expenditure that did not relate to programs or services to people, but related to head offices, lavish travel expenses of ministers. We identified travelling expenses, office expenses, office furnishings and advertising as direct expenditures that the government was engaged in. In addition to that, we identified BCBC payments, which are simply a subterfuge to channel money out of public coffers into the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and we identified the B.C. Systems Corporation computer charges as another area.

In that year, the total amount of money that we identified just from being able to look at the surface was $81.9 million, that we in the NDP identified as being waste, extravagance, fat and lavish living: money sucked out of the taxpayers' pockets, pocketbooks, bank accounts and purses. We said that was wrong. That was in 1981-82. You remember, Mr. Speaker, every single amendment we put forward in this House to reduce those expenditures — just back to the year before; we didn't say wipe it out completely. We know people have got to travel. We know they have to have office expenses for paper and this sort of thing. They had to do some advertising, no question about that. All we wanted to do was go back to the previous year for a total saving of $81.9 million. And every single one of those amendments was voted against by hon. members opposite, including the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). In that year he voted to spend $81.9 million more than was necessary for running government.

The following year, 1982-83, we did the same thing when we went over the estimates. That was another restraint year, so we were told. We tried again to save the taxpayers of this province money, and again we went through the same exercise in a serious attempt to identify to the government — blind though it was at that time — and identify to the general public that savings could and should be made in government expenditures. We found another $76 million in that year, and every one of those amendments was voted down by the government. You'll remember that well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure. You were here. It may well be that you voted against some of them yourself, when you were not Mr. Speaker, of course.

One example is the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). He is not here at the moment, but I would like to make reference to this to point out the ridiculousness of what this government did two years ago. We took the estimates for the Minister of Forests for last year and I believe it was on vote 42, which is the minister's own office expenditures, that we identified $713, a small amount of money in comparative terms, as being an excessive request by the Minister of Forests for the running of his office. What's $713 when you're talking about $6 billion or $7 billion? It becomes pretty minor, and I make reference to it to point out the case, Mr. Speaker, that the person who led the vote against that particular amendment, just to save a little $713 out of the minister's expense account, was the minister himself. "No, siree, I want that extra $713." I don't know what he wanted it for — maybe to send Christmas cards.

I wonder if you know that the general public in this province give — they don't know that they do it, but they give — through an appropriation, an amount of money to every cabinet minister so that the cabinet minister can use the public money to go out and buy Christmas cards and pay for the stamps on them to mail them back to the general public. So if you got a Christmas card last year, Mr. Speaker, from any member of the cabinet, the taxpayers paid for it. It didn't come out of the minister's pocket. A small thing, but we need to talk in those terms of small, identifiable items in order to point out how profligate, wasteful and disgustingly obscene in financial matters this government is being.

Now we are being faced with a pro-centralist, extremist, fascist-type piece of legislation to make public servants pay for the mishandling of the affairs of this province. I wonder why the member for North Vancouver–Seymour didn't engage in that kind of debate, go fully into it and explain really what it was he was doing and what his rationale is for voting the way he says he's going to vote.

Never mind the financial part of it, Mr. Speaker. We're in trouble financially because the affairs of this province have been mishandled and mismanaged. When the accounts or the budgets, with respect to those fiscal affairs, have been presented to this House, they have been falsified so as not to show the true record. They show a picture other than that which in fact it is. Just the other day the auditor-general identified simply one area and said that there are many items in the Public Accounts that she cannot verify as being accurate, but as being false, and that's the situation we're faced with.

The government strategy on this bill appears to be to take the extreme position: create public furor, attack the groups in the province as they have done, and fire people by going to visit them on Sundays and on birthdays and not letting them come back into the office. They lock the doors, treat them like criminals and then afterwards, after the furor has been created, they step back a little bit and maybe make some changes. That was what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour hinted at earlier today. That's what the Vancouver Province this morning seemed to indicate.

Let me read a word or two from an article by Rod Mickleburgh.

"Sources close to the provincial government report that regulations being drawn up to accompany the

[ Page 406 ]

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3) will include recognition of employee seniority rights in determining public sector layoffs....

"Sources indicate the regulations will be unveiled as early as August 8 and that much of the inherent unfairness (to use a mild term) of the legislation, including loss of seniority rights, will then be eliminated."

[4:30]

Is that the game the government plays? It seems decidedly dishonest, if that's what government is up to, to lay out a case of wanting the ultimate hammer, power and right to fire people without cause, and then when the public clamour comes along, try to paint themselves as the nice guys by saying: "Oh, we're going to dilute this somewhat. We're going to prepare regulations in which we'll deal with the questions of seniority." The legislation is still extremist and state control, no matter what the regulations might or might not say.

The other part is, given the history of this government and the person who is attempting to pilot this bill through the House, it's easy to make regulations and soften the blow against the people who will be affected by this bill in the hopes that they will pull back and say: "Oh, well, that's nice. We'll accept that part of it now." Then later on they tighten up on the regulations in the secret back room of the cabinet and place the hammer on them again. If that's the strategy they're following, if there's any truth whatever to the article that Rod Mickleburgh has written this morning.... I've read his comments over the years from time to time and have found him to be accurate, fair and decent in his treatment of subject matters of this nature and factual when he refers to such matters. So I'm not questioning the truth of it; I'm just saying that if that is in fact what's going to take place, it's all the more reason to delay this bill, all the more reason to defeat the bill, because the government is asking for the ultimate power in legislation so they can fiddle around with the regulations as suits their convenience later on. The fascist orientation of the legislation is in the bill, and will remain there so long as it is in its present shape.

I want to talk about another brief item on mismanagement or mishandling of public funds. This relates to a letter, I believe it was, that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) referred to the other day — a New Year's message from the minister. This was just a few months ago. The article in the Sun said that Chabot told the House the government's objective had been to reduce government personnel through attrition, but because of the change in economic circumstances in British Columbia it wasn't possible; therefore they've had to take a different approach to that particular problem.

Is the minister saying that six months ago he, the minister, and the government didn't recognize what serious economic trouble we were in? If he is admitting that — and to me that's what he's admitting — he's got no business being minister. He's a mishandler and a bungler of everything that's come under his control, and he's now saying: "Six months ago I didn't recognize that we had economic difficulty in this province. That's why I wrote that nice letter saying Happy New Year. We're not going to fire anybody. We're going to let attrition take its place." What short-sightedness is that? The quip made across the floor of this House to that comment from the minister was the accurate one: "The only thing that has changed is that an election took place in the interim between last Christmas and now." That was a political message at Christmas that the minister was using, and the minister was giving the recipients of that letter misleading information. I say he knew it was misleading at the time, but he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to deal fairly and honestly with people in the public service. He wanted to hide the true intentions of this government in the hopes that if they got through the election, then they could bring in legislation of this sort.

Let's see what the Kelowna Capital News has to say about that. This is from an article last Saturday. I won't read the earlier part; it's couched in language purporting to be a language other than English. He talks about this particular bill:

"Yes, we can now cease casting our glances over to Chile" — Chile has a fascist government — "or Poland" — Poland has a Communist government; they both operate in the same way, by the state's domination of citizen's rights, and that's the course on which this government is set — "to make those superficial cluck-cluck noises. Sit back, sip your tea and coffee. Enjoy one of the worst attacks on human rights and freedoms ever mounted by a democratically elected government in the western world...."

That's pretty severe objective stuff, I submit.

MR. HANSON: Is that the Democrat?

MR. HOWARD: No, that's not the Democrat. It's some paper published in the home town of the Premier: the Kelowna Capital News.

He goes on:

"...right here in our own backyard.

"But what the heck, let's say it while we still have the freedom to do so. The next government salvo might include imprisonment for anyone daring to publish anti-Socred material. Impossible, you say? Consider that in the first round of 28 pieces of legislation is one edict which hasn't received much publicity. If a municipality or a school board or any other public body covered by the restraint measures contained within the Public Service Restraint Act questions Kaiser Bill's commands...."

I would never use a phrase like that in the House, Mr. Speaker. I think that's going beyond the bounds of ordinarily respectable debate. I'm only reading an editorial written for general consumption outside.

To proceed: "...they will be subject to a $2,000 fine." I notice that's a part that hon. members opposite didn't deal with. Let's see what this $2,000 fine says to members of a municipal council, a school board, a university or a volunteer group on the board of directors of a hospital society — dedicated public servants, volunteering their time to run hospitals. If they receive a directive.... Remember, this is not an order-in-council; it doesn't have the basic force of administrative law. Maybe the word is not "directive," it's "direction." If they receive a direction from a minister or the way I read this — a deputy minister respecting the compensation of senior managers, as the minister considers necessary or advisable, etc.... If they receive such direction from one person about compensation for senior managers that the one person deems acceptable or advisable, and don't put it into effect, whether because of a contractual relationship or a principle feeling on the part of any member

[ Page 407 ]

of those groups, there's a $2,000 fine. Is that a decent, fair way to treat human beings in a so-called free society?

The mere fact of a threat of a fine, the threat of a court case, the threat of forcing people to appear before a judge, which is what this would be.... The mere fact that that is included in a piece of legislation indicates that it's fascist. That's the orientation in this particular bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Would you prefer they go to jail?

MR. COCKE: Hey, did you hear that? Put it on the record.

MR. HOWARD: He does not have the courage to do that, just like the gentleman sitting behind him — a gutless wonder, snipes from his....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'm standing here on a question of privilege. That Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is gutless and hasn't got the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say directly what he's saying here by innuendo. I'll forgive him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to withdraw the unparliamentary remarks with reference to another member. That was an unparliamentary remark.

MR. HOWARD: What was?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair clearly heard a personal reference to another hon. member. I ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw that personal reference.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Skeena please withdraw the personal reference.

MR. HOWARD: I'm trying to get to that, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that reference. I'll look that member in the eye and tell him yes, I'll withdraw that reference, and I'll forgive him for the insulting comments he made and forgive the people behind him for the insulting comments they made in my constituency during the election campaign, and the foul and vile type of campaign they advocated people put on in that riding. You're forgiven.

If the Provincial Secretary wants to say anything in this debate, I suggest he stand up and engage in the debate. Get involved in it. Never mind standing there like a dog yapping and sniffing like somebody's got pork chops tied around their ankles.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, that member has made reference to comments that he claims I made during the election campaign. I would ask that he either be specific or else withdraw any inference that anything in any way dishonourable was said by me or anyone else during the election campaign.

MR. HOWARD: Before you proceed, Mr. Speaker, I said no such thing. And if the Minister of Forests would pay attention to what's said in this House, he'd understand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena has clearly withdrawn any personal reference to another hon. member. I will ask all hon. members of the House to come to order.

MR. HOWARD: What I was talking about, before that rude and offensive interjection from the Provincial Secretary, is that he is asking this House to give any cabinet minister the authority to issue a direction to a municipality, a university, a board of directors of a hospital society, a school board and to any other of the number of public sector employers identified in this bill and the schedule to it. Give him the right to determine what compensation a senior manager will get and to force that down the throats of any of those groups. If they disagree, take them to court and threaten with a $2,000 fine.

[4:45]

This is legislation that one would expect Jaruzelski or Pinochet to bring in, but not a human being in this province — if that's the appropriate designation to use. I only use that to mention that this legislation does have within it all the trappings, all the structure, all the domination that one would expect in a country that has a totalitarian government. We may spend days and days and days dealing with it, Mr. Speaker, and that process is the only avenue open to us. When legislation, to put it politely, is as offensive and intrusive as this, as undemocratic as this, there's only one way to approach it: delaying, by every conceivable, correct means at our disposal, the progress of it. That's what we are going to have to do.

To get back to this article by Rainer Ziegenhagen in the Central Okanagan Capital News, he knows what he's talking about. He said: "That's right. These Socreds will brook no criticism as they do their damnedest to dismantle our society and reshape it into what my mom and dad fled a generation ago." A simple explanation of that person's background indicates he knows precisely what he's talking about. Those of us in this chamber, or many of us in any event — many that I know of — didn't have to flee from some other country because of the politics of that country. I was born here and I didn't experience any of the things that this gentleman who wrote this article did. As a kind of a finale just to make the point, if one needs to make it: "Before this is all finished doctors and teachers won't be the only ones who will be told where to live and how to practise their profession. The guns are aimed at all of us."

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to give the government some time to think about its course of action, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

[ Page 408 ]

NAYS — 29

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

MR. HOWARD: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, during the course of my closing remarks with respect to Bill 3, just before moving the motion that we voted on, I was talking about the $2,000 fine against municipal councillors and the like that is contained in Bill 3. I heard the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) say something, which I misunderstood, and as a consequence of my misunderstanding that, I engaged in a cross-fire conversation with him. It wasn't till I sat down that my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said to me that what the Provincial Secretary hollered across the floor was, "Would you sooner they went to jail?" — meaning municipal councillors and so on. I thought he had said something else, and I do extend my apology for misunderstanding him and for engaging in the conversation with him.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in support of this amendment, I am sorry that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has left the room, because he made so many erroneous statements that I assume he said the things he said because he didn't have the facts. I wanted to set the record straight, and I will tell you about it.

First of all, what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said in speaking against the amendment was that the Ministry of Human Resources, because it showed an increase in its budget, would be creating jobs. I think that statement indicated very clearly that not only had that member not read the bill, but he certainly had not bothered to take the time to took at his estimate book. What the estimate book shows is a very clear decrease in the staff of the Ministry of Human Resources to the extent of 500 people at least, despite the fact that there is a major increase in the budget for that ministry. If he had taken the time to find out where that increase showed up, he would have found that the increase showed up in the income assistance program, which is almost double. What that clearly indicates is that the government is anticipating an increase in the number of people in this province who are going to be drawing income assistance. It is not an increase that is going to create jobs; there's going to be a decrease of about 500 jobs, but there's going to be an increase in the number of people collecting income assistance.

The March figures for this year tell us that there is something in the neighbourhood of 207,346 people in this province collecting income assistance at this time. This increase in the income assistance part of the gain budget — almost doubling, as it is — must be the government's way of acknowledging that it is going to be throwing people out of work and increasing unemployment and that it has decided that it's much cheaper to pay people income assistance than to pay them salaries to do a job. I think that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour should check the estimate books and read the bill at the same time. He'll find, for example, that in all of the programs in the Ministry of Human Resources there's been a decrease. There's a decrease in the seniors' supplement, the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, the bus pass program, the seniors' counselling service, and, as we know, the decision has been made to wipe out the program dealing with physical and sexual child abuse, along with a number of other programs. There's also a decrease in the opportunities to independence, the community residential care program — in the part of the budget that deals with rehabilitation services — and the community contracted services.

When that member talks about the increase in Human Resources in the budget meaning that jobs are going to be created in Human Resources, he really is saying the very opposite of what's going to happen. What the government has very clearly decided — I will repeat — is that it is much cheaper to keep people on welfare than to keep them employed. The government has decided that it would rather have people on welfare in this province than have people working, and that's the reason why it has increased its income assistance budget, although it has frozen the rates. There are not going to be any increases in the rates, but it has increased the budget for people on income assistance and decreased the number of workers who are going to be working with those people and wiped out a number of the very essential and necessary programs in that particular ministry.

I am speaking in support of the amendment because I really think that the government needs at least six months to re-examine some of the far-reaching impacts that this act is going to have on the province as a whole. I think they have not taken the time to look at the impact of this reduction of the public service on the quality of life of the people of British Columbia.

[5:00]

For example, I would like to know, looking specifically at the Attorney-General's ministry, who the 500 people are who are going to be released from that ministry. What is the service that they are presently giving which is going to be either reduced or eliminated? Which are the programs which they are presently involved in which are going to be terminated? Programs dealing specifically with the juveniles? Legal aid? What are those programs? When you look at the estimates you see that the major decrease in the Attorney-General's budget is not in his office staff or the kinds of things that he uses, but comes in the provincial judiciary and the provincial court. The provincial court is the court — if I can use the exact words of the estimate — that deals with "family and children service, small claims, criminal trials and justice of the peace services."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: And it will be dealing with the termination of the role of the rentalsman in mediation of landlord-tenant disputes. I tried to question the minister today in question period about the fact that at the very time when there is going to be an increased impact on this particular court as a result of the rentalsman's office being eliminated, the budget for that is being decreased. The one thing I got from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) was that there had been

[ Page 409 ]

really no research, no analysis done in his ministry of that decision on the part of the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But in looking specifically at the Attorney-General, I want to deal with a number of areas. First of all, I want to talk about the justice system and how it has always been unfair and has always unfairly penalized women who have the misfortune to have to pass through that particular system. I want to read into the record a letter which the Attorney-General received, which was signed by the women inmates of Oakalla. It says:

"In an article published June 29 by the Vancouver Sun concerning discrimination against women prisoners due to the fact that the new remand centre in Vancouver will only hold men, we would like to bring to your attention the statement made by Bob Hagman, the director of the new facility. He has stated that the remand centre will hold only men because there are only 'six to eight women on remand at any given time, and it wouldn't make sense to have a half-empty unit, as the smallest one would hold 13.' We would like to bring to the attention of the public and Mr. Hagman that at the present time there are 31 women awaiting trial in Oakalla, and that is what the average is.

"Once again, it is obvious to us that the women prisoners of British Columbia are being swept under the rug, with the corrections branch already turning half of the Twin Maples correctional centre for women over to the men, closing down Lynda Williams correctional centre for women, and more than likely turning that over to male inmates, and now not allowing women prisoners to benefit from being placed in a new remand centre instead of Oakalla."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am a one-issue woman! And I am not apologizing for that. I am not ashamed of the fact that I am interested in women's issues, but I am ashamed of the fact that your government has never ceased, on every opportunity it has had, to trample the rights of women in this province. That's what I am ashamed of.

Somebody has to say something to you and to your colleagues about the kinds of injustices that you continue to visit on the women of this province.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Rubbish!

MS. BROWN: You really believe that the kinds of things that this government — your government — continue to do to women and children in this province are okay? And to speak out against that is rubbish? That certainly says a lot about you and what you stand for.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if I may continue to read from this letter signed by the women inmates of Oakalla — whom I will be very happy to inform that the new member from Surrey, herself a woman, thinks that this issue is rubbish; and I'll see to it that her comments are forwarded to every one of the women who have signed this, and any other bright and clever statements that she has to make about women in this province I'll see to it that they get too....

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of Hansard, I'm quoting again:

"There are now only one and a half jails in British Columbia to hold female offenders, which leaves us to be crammed into Oakalla to await trial, and then stay there after we are sentenced as there is now nowhere else to go.

"When we were sent to prison, we all realized we would no longer have the rights of a Canadian citizen, but we held onto the belief that we would be treated fairly, without discrimination against sex, colour or religion. As the public cries out for help in dealing with prostitution, drug addiction and other forms of criminal behaviour, they have totally ignored the core of the problem, which is the fact that women offenders are given little or no chance now of choosing a productive lifestyle after being incarcerated. The programs designed to rehabilitate women and give them a sense of worth and accomplishment will be taken away by the closure of Lynda Williams. The opportunity for many women to live in a much less hostile and confined jail has been taken away by the admission of male inmates to Twin Maples, and now female inmates will not be allowed to benefit from a new remand centre.

"The outcome of all of this is simple. Society can expect more and more female criminals. Young and first offenders will learn the trades of the old-timers, and as the gloomy dungeon of Oakalla bursts at the seams with women, the frustration, depression and hatred — all the benefits of Oakalla — will be taken out with those women when they are released onto the streets.

Sincerely yours,
The Women Inmates of Oakalla."

This, Mr. Speaker, is one direct result of the kinds of things which will result from the implementation of Bill 3. This one letter, if no other, would be sufficient reason to ask this government to hoist this particular piece of legislation for at least six months, to look at its genuine impact on that particular institution and on the kinds of services that women inmates are not getting: specifically, the decision to close the Lynda Williams home, to not include them in the new remand centre, and to open up half of the Twin Maples to men. So I think that the government should take a second look at that issue.

The other issue that I want to look at, again under the Attorney-General's ministry, is this whole business of the government's conflicting attitude toward alcohol. When I speak about alcohol, I'm going to speak about women and alcohol too. So that's going to be another one of my one-issue issues. I'm also going to be speaking about men and alcohol, and children and alcohol too. The government views alcohol in a number of different ways, so I'm breaking it down into themes.

My first theme is the government's position of alcohol as an easy source of revenue. We are told that the government anticipates a $330 million profit on 1982-83 sales of alcohol. This amount can be increased at the whim of the minister. For example, Mr. Speaker, in the 1981 budget speech the Finance minister said: "I have asked my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to increase liquor distribution markups to raise an additional $28 million in the coming

[ Page 410 ]

fiscal year." This is easy money for the government to raise. The government justifies this on the grounds that the money raised through the sale of alcohol.... The government is a pusher; nobody pushes alcohol in this province but the government. The government is a drug-pusher; that's what the government is when it comes to alcohol. It justifies this by simply saying that it raises additional money to pay for some of the other services which it needs.

Theme number two is alcohol as a retail commodity, again sold by the government....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What does that have to do with the bill?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it has everything to do with the bill when the programs dealing with alcohol are going to be cut. The Drug and Alcohol Commission has been wiped out, its membership and support staff fired, all as a direct result of the bill. What I'm looking at is the hypocritical attitude of the government toward alcohol. It sells, pushes, advertises and taxes alcohol, and then it wipes out the arm of the government which deals with education and research and work to help people who are alcoholics. It increases its role as a drug-pusher, and then wipes out the Alcohol and Drug Commission, the educational program, the research and all of the services to alcoholics in this province. That's what it has to do with the bill.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm glad I told you. If you didn't realize that that's what that drug-pushing government of yours was doing, it's about time you found it out.

As I said before, the government in its role of selling, retailing, taxing and advertising does a super job. But when it comes to its role of dealing with alcohol as a potential health problem it fails miserably. In the annual report of the Ministry of Health for 1980 we were told that alcohol and drug abuse is a major problem in this province, probably the highest in all of Canada. Yet the statistics show us the kind of money that this government was spending: $7 million on alcohol and drug programs. It takes in $365 million, it was spending $2.7 million on the Alcohol and Drug Commission, and it's wiped that out. The $3.3 million that went into special funds was wiped out last year — the preventive program, the school-based program, the Counterattack program. There is no money for all those programs dealing with alcoholics.

I think it's about time that somebody talked about this hypocritical attitude of that government towards alcohol. We are told again — and I'm using some statistics from the Ministry of Health — that although death certificates do not list alcoholism as a cause of death, we can get this information from the number of persons listed as having died from cirrhosis of the liver and cardiac arrest. And, of course, the whole business of alcohol and traffic — alcohol and the road as a hazard.... I'm dealing specifically with the Attorney-General's responsibilities — and I'm sorry he is not in the House. He tells us that we have the toughest laws in North America to deal with it. You would never be able to convince one member of MADD — Mothers Against Drunk Drivers that that is correct. The facts don't bear up that statement.

We sit in this House and pass all kinds of laws, and then we turn around and say we have to change them, that there's no point incarcerating drunk drivers any more because it's too expensive for the system. So in order to save money, which is what we are told this bill is going to do, we say let's do something else; let's not be as hard on alcoholic drivers as we used to be. So the carnage on the road continues. The statistics are all there. Ten million dollars was spent on the alcohol and drug program and the Counterattack program. Those are all gone now in order to save money. The business of incarcerating drivers for alcohol offences is gone now. All of this is in the interest of saving money.

[5:15]

I believe this has not been carefully thought through. I don't believe the Attorney-General has put a good case to his cabinet colleagues and the government. If Bill 3 is implemented, he has to wipe out the Counterattack program, the Alcohol and Drug Commission, educational programs, research, and rehabilitation programs. In terms of the cost in human lives, that is not good economics. You just don't balance people's lives against a $10 million saving — not when you are responsible. The government is solely responsible for the sale of alcohol in the province in the first place. It just does not make sense.

I recently received a letter from a Dr. Leroux, who raised these very issues. He said: "When will any member of the Legislature stand up and really talk about the real problem of the government being pusher and rehabilitater at the same time?" This, I think, has to be said.

Another area under the Attorney-General's ministry has to do with the cutbacks in legal aid. This actually started in August last year. The Legal Services Society was informed by the then Attorney-General that their funding was going to be reduced by something in the neighbourhood of $625,000. They voluntarily decided to further reduce their services in order to try to meet the new restraint budget, which was so stringent that no one was eligible for legal aid of any kind unless they were totally destitute. For example, an individual whose income was more than $655 a month was not eligible for legal aid. A family of two with an income of more than $900 a month were no longer eligible for legal aid. This is the way the Legal Services Society cooperated and tried to live within its budget. We are told in the budget, and we see in the estimates, and we know that once this bill is passed and implemented, that in fact there's going to be no improvement whatsoever in this.

What have been the results of this? Last October the Legal Services Society laid off more than 10 percent of its staff; it introduced user fees for all its clients, even people on welfare; it restricted coverage to areas of criminal law in family matters. There was virtually no coverage left for people going into family court. The end result of this was that in British Columbia there were something in the neighbourhood of 5,000 people with family problems who had to go into court without a lawyer to defend them. These were primarily women who had custody and maintenance problems. The interesting thing with the government is that the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing. We have the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) about to introduce an enforcement of maintenance program at the same time as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) is cutting back on the legal services that are necessary to make that program a success. So that's the kind of thing that is going to happen as a result of this piece of legislation.

I'm reading from a fact sheet put out in April by the Legal Services Society. In criminal matters they say that there is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,000 people who went

[ Page 411 ]

without a lawyer in summary conviction charges. People were on their way to jail without ever having a lawyer to defend them. That is one of the reasons again that it seems to me that the government needs more time to study the impact on the quality of life in this province that this particular piece of legislation will have.

As I said, 500 people are going to disappear from the Attorney-General ministry, 350 people are going to disappear from Human Resources and people are going to disappear from Health and Education and all those other ministries. They were involved in programs which were of value to us. They were delivering services which were necessary. Under the Attorney-General we are going to find problems with cutbacks in child advocates, the cutbacks in funding for rape relief services and other programs like that — The Maples is one — and cutbacks in containment centres. We're sending juveniles to containment centres because we have no alternative plans for them because that's expensive.

The second point I want to raise and look at is the impact of this piece of legislation on the people who work in the public sector. What happens to a person whose security is completely removed? The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) said that all this legislation does is extend to the public sector the same level of insecurity that the worker in the private sector has always had. That's not true. The worker in the private sector who was a member of a trade union had collective bargaining protection. There were contractual safeguards built into the system to protect that worker from being fired without cause, without reason, or fired without explanation. The private sector worker who was a member of a trade union had that protection, and that's the protection which the public sector worker is now losing. The private sector worker who was not involved in a trade union did not have that protection. It seems to me that if the government really cared about working people in the province they would be trying to extend security to those people in the private sector who are not part of the organized labour force. That's what they should be trying to do, not saying: "Let's make everybody insecure." They should be saying: "How can we make these people secure? They are primarily women working in ghettos at low-paying jobs, primarily immigrants and minority groups working as farm labourers, primarily women — minority group people — working as domestics, primarily people in the service sector who are not a part of the organized labour force, and are not covered and protected by labour legislation. They are the ones who are insecure. So instead of helping them to get some kind of security, the government is now saying: "Let's make everybody insecure." Make no mistake about it, once they are through robbing the public sector of its protection, which they have through collective bargaining agreements and through being....

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with the bill?

MS. BROWN: It has everything to do with the bill. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that the government members have not taken the time to read the legislation.

The kind of insecurity which the government is now making law for the public sector worker, they will make law for the private sector worker too. So what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour was doing was forecasting the future. He was predicting what the next step was going to be.

1 want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my real fear is that what's going on here in British Columbia is really just a pilot project. If this government gets away with robbing public sector workers and robbing private sector workers of their right to be told the reason why they are terminated, their right to be protected from termination without cause, their protection from termination based on discrimination or other reasons, this is not only going to be picked up by other provinces, but it's going to be picked up by whatever federal government we have in Ottawa after the next election.

The other thing that the government has not looked at, of course, is the impact of this legislation on the business community. Have they taken the time to do a cost analysis on what this is going to mean to the small business sector? When you throw 7,000 people out of work, those are 7,000 wage earners who are not going to have the money to spend to buy the goods or the services, or to pay the rent and all of the other things that small and large businesses depend on. It's a direct threat to the economic fabric of the community. That government that's supposed to be the government of business has not taken the time to see what this massive increase in unemployment is going to do. For that reason, I speak in support of this hoist.

I think the bill should be hoisted for six months so the government could meet and talk with landlords, restaurant owners, small business people and the chamber of commerce, the people who run the service sector — the small appliance store, the dress shops and those kinds of things — and see what's going to happen when 7,000 or 10,000 civil servants around this province no longer have an income or wages out of which to purchase the goods and services that these people have to have — and the spinoffs from these jobs, the people who, in turn, are hired by these people....

I just do not think that this government has really thought about the impact of this business of laying off.... The member says they're not being fired, they're just being terminated — without cause and without remedy and without grievance procedure; people who work and give service to this province, who are involved in crucial programs that are so necessary. Aside from being a direct threat to their human rights, which is witnessed.... I know other parts of the world have this kind of legislation. South Africa certainly does. The workers in South Africa could identify with this piece of legislation because this is the kind of legislation they work under. They can identify with that, but is that what the government wants? Is that the kind of government that the people of British Columbia voted for on May 5?

There was an article in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday which I want to read into the record. It goes on to list the promises made by Mr. Bennett "on election night." I'm quoting; that's why I use that term.

"On election night, Mr. Bennett had stood in his...campaign headquarters and said: 'For our teachers, for our public servants and for all those who are British Columbians...ours will be a government for the many. Ours will be a government that, while we will not recognize privilege for special groups, will recognize the specific concerns of every group in society.'

"Throughout the campaign" — the Social Credit advertisements said — "the 18-month-old restraint program...is protecting jobs now, and is holding the line on taxes, that is preventing another spiral of higher costs for everything we pay for every day."

[ Page 412 ]

Two months later, of course, the government started to boost the sales tax and the tobacco products tax, taxed long-distance calls and added the tax on meals, and then the firing of 7,000 civil servants began.

[5:30]

It then talked about the fact that during the election the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) said that the government  "'was not planning any sort of increase' in health care or user fees." On July 7 they brought down, as you know, the increased health care fees for acute care, extended care, emergency and minor visits.

One of the really horrible things that this legislation does, aside from the fact that it's not yet law and it has already happened, has been the termination of the human rights officers and the extinguishing of the Human Rights Commission. I think that I want to quote from this article again, because I agree so profoundly with what it says.

"British Columbia has become a province where the colour of your eyes, the shape of your chin or perhaps the colour of your skin could be a determining factor in whether you keep your job. Civil servants can be fired without cause — any of the 250,000, regardless of where they work."

My colleague quoted earlier the comment made by the Social Credit candidate who ran against me in Burnaby-Edmonds, the former B.C. School Trustees' president, Gary Begin, who made it absolutely clear that if he had known that this was what Social Credit was all about he would not have run for them in the election. I would like the record to show, Mr. Speaker, that it's because I knew what Social Credit was all about that I defeated him in that election.

I want to say that the thing that really concerns me is what kind of climate this legislation creates for those of us who have to live and work here. I think that if we look at other countries and the impact of this kind of legislation on them, we find that we have to agree with the editorial which was in the Central Okanagan Capital News. The last sentence reads:

"And if Mr. Bennett campaigns on the basis of the fascist legislation he introduced last week, I doubt he'll even win re-election in his own riding, never mind a majority in the Legislature. On the other hand" — and this is a sentence that I identify with — "I could be wrong, and it could be that most people are right behind him all the way. Now that is a terrifying thought."

I really am terrified that in fact the government is not alone in bringing down this legislation and the whole body of legislation, plus its practices, which I very clearly identify as fascist. I'm not using rhetoric. I honestly and profoundly believe that when you look at the body of legislation, and when you look at the practices of this government — for example, the way in which it is trying to take over electoral practices with control of election lists and voter registration lists and those kinds of things into its hand.... When you combine that with the wiping out of the Human Rights Commission and the erosion of civil and human rights, not only of public sector workers but of tenants and of other groups in our society, there is no doubt at all in my mind that if the government is not yet fascist it is very clearly on the road to fascism. I relate everything I see here with what I read and know and understand about South Africa, to what I read and know and understand about Chile under Pinochet and what I read and know and understand about all of those other fascist countries down through history to the present time.

It has an opportunity to reverse my opinion. Mr. Speaker, hoisting this bill for six months would give the government the opportunity to change my opinion, but until they do so I'm going to have to remain firm in my belief that this is fascist legislation and that the government which brought this legislation down is fascist. That's the reason I am moving that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 29

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

AN HON. MEMBERS: The Liberals are coming out....

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased and honoured to speak about liberal tradition in the House and in the context of this particular debate. We have been called back to this Legislature time after time this past week to vote on motions of trivia. I dare say that if there were another election today, based on the issue before this House and the performance of the opposition since we have reassembled, not one of you would be back. There was no question on May 6 where the mainstream thinking of British Columbia was. That's the party that has gone. The last remnants of that party disappeared when they had their convention in Regina, looking to the past and not to the future. How we pleaded with them in this House: "Go to that convention with new ideas. Reform the New Democratic Party. Don't look backwards." What did we get out of that convention? We got pap like "controlled capitalism." Taking over a bank — that's the imagination of the New Democratic Party today.

[ Page 413 ]

1 can understand why the Leader of the Opposition would not want to face the electorate today in either a provincial or a federal election. What we need to face in this House, Mr. Speaker, is the bill; but what we are getting from the opposition is a refusal to face the bill or the issues of the day. Instead, we are getting, in effect, by the debate, motions and continual calling back of this House on matters of piffle and trivia, a plea not to face the bill or the issues.

[5:45]

Surely, Mr. Speaker, what the New Democratic Party should be prepared to do today, whether in this House or in convention in Regina, is to face the issues of the day. Where is the appropriate debate to this particular bill? There is no appropriate debate to the bill. All we have are motions to adjourn the House, motions to postpone the bill — no dealing at all with the issues themselves.

It is perfectly clear, both from the mandate on May 6 and mainstream public opinion as it exists in British Columbia today, that the issue must be faced, and faced squarely. There cannot be in British Columbia, as much as we would like this to be the case, two classes of citizens: one whose economy is tied to the marketplace, representing the majority of British Columbians; and another group who do not have to face the marketplace at all because they're protected by debate in this Legislature. That is not the intent of Bill 3. Bill 3 says everybody in British Columbia should be on the same footing; those in the public sector will be supported equally and to the extent that those in the private sector can support them. That's what the bill is all about.

That's not what the New Democratic Party stands for. They stand for privileges for the few. Do you know who the few are? The socialists and the trade unions. That's who they stand to support. That's not the philosophy of this side of the House. The philosophy of this side of the House is equal treatment for all and special privileges for none. Have you ever heard of that? To my friends opposite, through you, Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of equal treatment for all? Have you ever heard of special privileges for none, the party that allies itself with one group in society, the labour movement at the expense of everyone else? Is that not true? Are you not in favour of the labour movement as a special interest? Are there any over there who deny that? Speak up if you deny that you believe in labour as a special interest.

MR. LEA: Of course it's a special interest.

HON. MR. McGEER: Not one of you would dare deny that you would treat the labour movement as a special privileged interest in British Columbia, because you'd be in trouble with your own party tomorrow.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising as requested to answer the minister's question. This is a rare practice in this House; it's more frequently practised in Ottawa. But when a question is asked of a member, yes, I would answer the question. I would say that we will support minorities, whether they be orientals back in the twenties and thirties or working people or senior citizens. We will not just move with the expediency of the day.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, you can tell those who walk both sides of the street maintaining that they're not for special interest. Yet who calls the shots for the New Democratic Party? When was it agreed to at their founding convention in 1960? The labour movement does that. It's a party of the labour movement for the labour movement, and no one else. This party has to act on behalf of all British Columbians, with special privileges for none.

I explained to my friends opposite that I'm not in favour of tenure because the good professor, civil servant and union worker doesn't need tenure.

MR. LAUK: Why did you take tenure, then?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think that we should give this party opposite an opportunity to caucus to reflect upon their performance in this House since we convened after the budget and to begin to consider Bill 3 and its implications — special treatment for none, equal treatment for all, making it that no group in society be expected to be supported by the borrowings of those who are unemployed from the private sector, since the money isn't there. Everybody knows that. Since the money isn't there, we have to share the burden of the recession equally — all of us in British Columbia. We will have a happier and more prosperous society when all of the elected members of the Legislature recognize that that is a responsibility and that none of us should enter this House as advocates of any small group in society that is not willing to share equally the problems as well as the opportunity that society brings. There are so many, Mr. Speaker, who are prepared to share the opportunities — indeed, demand that as a right — but when it comes time to share the problems and the difficulties, that's not the case.

The New Democratic Party today wishes to have a bill hoisted and wishes to adjourn the House every ten minutes — I suppose to go golfing. I don't know why, but certainly not to face the issues of the day. In order that the New Democratic Party will have an opportunity to consider once more the position that it has taken, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

[ Page 414 ]

Appendix

34 Mr. Mitchell asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing the following questions:

1. What has been the estimated budget of the ecological reserves unit for each year from 1980/81 to 1982/83?

2. What has been the amount expended from the budget for the ecological reserves unit for each year from 1980/81 to 1983/84 (to date)?

3. How many ecological reserves were created in each calendar year, and what area of reserves was added in each calendar year 1981 to date in 1983?

The Hon. A. J. Brummet replied as follows:

"1. Budgets for the years 1980/81 to 1982/83 were part of the Land Programs Branch of the Lands Division. Information on past budgets is as follows:

"2. All budgets close to fully spent.

"3. New ecological reserves established:

39 Mr. Passarell asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following question:

What are the Government plans and programs for logging of the Bell-Irving PSYU?

The Hon. T M. Waterland replied as follows:

"The Bell-Irving Public Sustained Yield Unit is now a part of the Kalum Timber Supply Area. The Bell-Irving supply block of the Kalum TSA is presently financially inaccessible to and lacks sufficient sawlog quality timber to become a viable wood supply to Terrace sawmills.

"For those reasons, the Ministry has no specific plans and programs for that area at the present time and is prepared to consider viable proposals. There have been several unsuccessful attempts to develop the area in the past and several parties have expressed interest in the timber resources over the past few years. An acceptable proposal would have to be designed to utilize the profile of the forest, i.e., the pulp quality timber as well as the sawlog timber."