[ Page 415 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. McGeer ––

Mr. Blencoe ––

Mr. D'Arcy ––

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is with a great deal of sorrow that we learned this morning that our former Sergeant-at-Arms, Denny as we all affectionately knew him — Ashby, died. Mr. Ashby had an extremely distinguished career in British Columbia. After he completed a 30-year term with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, he served for some 25 years as a magistrate and a provincial court judge in Saanich. I see from the Journals of the House that he was appointed the Sergeant-at-Arms of this assembly on December 7, 1956. He served for 16 years, until January 20, 1972. Those of us who recall Mr. Ashby in the House, I'm certain, will agree with me that those 16 years that he spent here were years of excellent, professional and devoted service.

I do feel that British Columbia has lost an outstanding citizen, and this assembly a very good friend. We would greatly appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would convey to his wife and family all of our deepest and most sincere sympathy. Mr. Ashby — or Denny, as I stated — for whom we all have a great affection, will be long remembered.

MR. COCKE: On behalf of the opposition, we share the feelings of the House Leader and the government. Mr. Denny Ashby was a fine gentleman. I wasn't here long when he was, but long enough to remember that he loved people, antiques and flowers, in that order, as I recall. In any event, he is a loss to our province, and we certainly send our sympathy to the family.

MR. HOWARD: I didn't know the late Judge Ashby, but I do know members of his family. I'd like to express my own personal feelings to the family of the late Judge Ashby and join in the sentiments expressed by the government House Leader and the member for New Westminster.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, the Chair will undertake the appropriate steps on behalf of the assembly.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading, once again, of Bill 3.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, you will recall....

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, the Provincial Secretary, who is responsible for this bill, is not in the House. Could the Speaker assure the House that the current speaker is not designated as the Provincial Secretary to close the debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if that were the case, as I indicated the other day, I would forthwith inform the House. Anything other than that would be an unacceptable motion and would not be accepted by the Chair.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Provincial Secretary will soon be in the House, but if it is the wish of the House, I'll continue with some of the remarks that I was making last evening. Of course, it is disappointing to have the opposition not present during debate except for a foursome there who might well be the ones without tee-off times on this particular day. We have had that difficulty in scheduling of the House in past sessions, and I take it that this is the main motivation behind the many adjournment motions that we've had placed before us.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, I just wanted to correct the record.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, will you get some order over there? My point of order is that there are five opposition here, not four.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: It had been my profound hope that in the interim between the sitting concluded last night and this morning our colleagues from the opposite side of the House would have had an opportunity to reconsider their stance and their tactics. The reason, of course, is that there is a bill of fundamental importance before the House which needs to be dealt with, not — as the New Democratic Party wishes — at some mythical time in the future, but now. It needs to be dealt with now, Mr. Speaker, because there is an inequality in British Columbia today. That inequality exists between the private sector, which generates the income for government and for those who live from taxes, and the public sector, which is the beneficiary of those taxes.

Over the years, as my colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has reported in his budget speech, the pendulum has swung from a position where we had a robust private sector paying generous taxes to government and placing us in a position where we could provide for our people some of the most luxurious public sector benefits of any jurisdiction in the world.

Now what has happened this past year, Mr. Speaker? Corporation income in the form of taxes is down from $580 million in 1981-82 to $180 million in 1982-83. What does that reflect? It reflects such things as Endako Mines laying off 600 at their molybdenum mine. We had no debates in this Legislature about tenure for those workers. The market wasn't there, and they had to do without their jobs. It reflects that drop in corporation income tax. The income from forests dropped from $106 million to $85 million. MacMillan Bloedel — our largest private sector company in British Columbia — laid off 1,373 salaried employees and 2,841 hourly employees. There was no debate in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, about tenure for those people. In this period of time there was no recession. We heard great defence of our

[ Page 416 ]

physicians in this province — who were living from our Medical Services Commission — by the New Democratic Party, and we heard official spokesmen for the B.C. Medical Association saying that things went better with Cocke. But if one looks at the expenditures this past year, things went very well for the physicians in British Columbia. One, a Dr. Demco, earned $684,119 last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How much?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, $684,119 billed to the Medical Services Commission, where payments in this particular profession went up last year by over 18 percent.

There was no recession in the teaching profession last year. Provisional budget increases were for 21 percent, and when the proposal was put forward by the government, prior to the election, that in a time when the private sector was hurting maybe 17 percent should be enough, the answer from the BCTF, who supported the New Democratic Party in the last election, was: "That is not enough." In a time of recession, 17 percent was not enough. How many teachers ran as New Democratic Party candidates in this past election?

[10:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Maybe 23.

HON. MR. McGEER: Twenty-three. There was no recession in the universities, when the grants provided by the government went up by 9.8 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: How is your tenure?

HON. MR. McGEER: We're going to come to that in a moment, my friend.

But that 9.8 percent wasn't enough. All the newspaper headlines across the country were: "Cuts of $12 million."

MR. BLENCOE: How's your tenure?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's been 20 years.

HON. MR. McGEER: Now we're going to speak. Since our friends opposite, Mr. Speaker, want to know about these things, I would say this: because of the things they stand for and because they support special interests and not the public as a whole, tenure is short for New Democratic Party members in this Legislature. That's why you were defeated in 1933; that's why you were defeated in 1937; that's why you were defeated in 1941; that's why you were defeated in 1945; that's why you were defeated in 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966 and in 1969; that's why you were defeated in 1975; that's why you were defeated in 1979; that's why you were defeated in 1983.

There is a reality out there, and that reality was stated by the public on May 5 this year. If there are to be demonstrations by the minority which does not accept the judgment of the mainstream thinking in British Columbia but find their place on the Legislative lawn, with the support of the party that does back special interests in this province, maybe what we ought to have in 1983 is another election so the people over there will get the message. I tell you this: if there were to be another election today, based on this budget and on this bill, none of you would come back. This bill stands for equality in British Columbia; it doesn't stand for special privileges for the few. It says that in a time of restraint, when the pendulum has swung so far from the private sector to the public sector that it is a myth to defend the privileged, those people who are voting in a government and attempting to pay taxes in a time of layoffs and recession want consideration from their government and fair treatment for all.

That is what the New Democratic Party rejects. They've always rejected fair treatment for all. They have done so when in opposition; they did so when they were in government. That's why this province got into such difficulty when you were government: because you were for the labour movement, not for all the citizens of British Columbia; because you were against the resources industries of the province, upon which our wealth depends. As long as you are for one special group and against the broad majority of people who pay the taxes, you'll never be government. That's why we said to them when they went to Regina: "Reform. Repent." We asked you last night to do that, but no. They come into this House day after day supporting these special interests, attempting to adjourn the House so that they can discuss those special interests on the golf course.

MR. BLENCOE: What about landlords? You're selling out tenants by the thousands.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Be quiet. This is his maiden speech. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it is the same speech [laughter], but they're slow learners over there. I'm just hoping the drip, drip, drip of water.... I'll tell you this: when they were in power it was the Chinese torture for the people of British Columbia, and they knew that. Never again.

What this House must do is get down to the business of restoring equality and fairness in British Columbia, because when that is done, the economic health of this province will be coming back as it never has before. That's when we will have real prosperity, and we'll be able to supply services and prosperity to all of the people of British Columbia, including the special interests which the New Democratic Party supports.

MR. BLENCOE: Good morning to my colleagues on both sides of the House. What a start to the day from the minister across the way who talks about special interests and special, select groups. If there's anybody in this House who has defended special-interest groups, it's.... His position as a tenured professor — and he continues to wish extension of that tenure.... It's sheer hypocrisy from that minister, and I think most British Columbians recognize that. We've heard that speech over and over again. There's nothing new in it, and it's not really believable.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak this morning in favour of the hoist motion. We, in our generosity, in our kindness, in our fairness, in our understanding for the people of British Columbia, who are indeed irate and upset and wonder where this province is going with this government, want to give you a chance to repent. We want to give you a chance to rethink your modus operandi. We want to give you a chance to rethink what you're doing to thousands of British Columbians. We want to give you a chance to say to British Columbians that you support the principles and your own constitution — and I'll read some of that later, Mr. Speaker. We want to give you a chance to support some of your very own principles which you have endorsed for a number of years.

[ Page 417 ]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: At the convention in 1982.

We want you to rethink your own principles. You tell thousands of British Columbians that you support them and that you have honesty in those convictions.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has provided deep concern to thousands of British Columbians. We are attacked by the other side; they say all we're doing is supporting working people and the unions, but I can tell the other side that the coalition that is forming from the groups which are opposing this government represent an incredible cross-section of this province: not only labour but church organizations, mental health organizations, numerous community associations, consumer groups, human rights groups and even former Socred candidates. Think about that. A number of your own candidates in various parts of this province are saying the legislation that you have introduced in Bill 3 is something they could never ever support. That's got to reflect badly on this government. Your own candidates are saying to you: "Please reconsider what you're doing." Mr. Speaker, what we are giving the government the chance to do with this hoist motion is to think upon what not only former Socred candidates are saying to this government but what thousands and thousands of British Columbians are saying.

Many people — certainly on this side — have wondered where the Premier has been during this debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where's the lame duck?

MR. BLENCOE: I would remind those cabinet ministers that the Leader of the Opposition has already spoken to this bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where is he?

MR. BLENCOE: The facts are that the Premier of British Columbia disappears to his bunker every time there is an opportunity to debate this bill.

In the last few weeks I have had the opportunity to talk to some serious-minded, rational, intelligent Socred supporters in this community. Many of them have phoned my office, or the office of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), and said: "We never thought they would ever do this. We didn't vote for this. We didn't support a Premier who distorted what was about to become reality with this bill." Mr. Speaker, they say that they have been misled, that they have been sold a bill of goods by a corrupt and very evil government. I would have to say evil because the impression is gathering out there. They feel alienated and let down and they feel they have been cheated. Those Socred supporters feel that the very principles they recently endorsed at the 1982 convention of the Socred party have been sold by their own government. There's great dissatisfaction and alienation by non-Socred supporters out there. It's incredible. Mr. Speaker, when it starts to come from their own supporters and their own candidates, there's got to be a message there.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The Premier, the leader of the Social Credit Party, has yet to speak to this bill. Every time it comes up he disappears. He doesn't have the guts, the determination, the sense of forethought or the ability to tell British Columbians why he believes in Bill 3. Every time it comes up for debate he scurries to that door over there and disappears. He knows very well what's happening out there. He knows that his party is in disarray and that thoughtful, caring Social Credit supporters are indeed distressed with this bill.

[10:30]

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of this province should immediately come into this House and tell the thousands and thousands of British Columbians why he wishes to fire them without cause, why he wishes to remove fairness and equity in the workplace and introduce legislation that belongs in jurisdictions that you find in El Salvador or in Poland or in post-war Italy. Why doesn't he come into this Legislature and tell British Columbians why he's doing what he's doing? Does he believe in this bill, or is the Premier waiting for his hired information officers, Mr. Heal and others, to tell him the results of the polls which you are currently doing? That's how you run government these days. You don't run it based upon long-term thoughts or what's good for the province. You're running it on polls, and we all know that. That's why the Premier is not in this House. He is trying desperately to find out — and he will find out — that the majority of British Columbians oppose this bill 100 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Baloney!

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, you may say "baloney, " but the storm that you are going to reap — the deep mistrust of the people's government of British Columbia, the lies and untruths that you told British Columbians before the election — things that you would not do. Now you come in here with this kind of legislation, and others, and the Premier cannot even have the decency to come here and tell people why he is doing it. We know why. It's indefensible, because deep down somewhere those members know that the firing without cause or without reference to fair hearing, a tribunal, equity or due process under the law — the removal of those rights — violates the basic principles of a democratic system, a system that we have defended and fought for, and one that all British Columbians hold in high esteem. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Premier to come into this House today and tell British Columbians why he is doing this.

Neither the Finance minister nor the Premier have tabled the financial savings from these acts. We haven't had any statements of how much money they're going to save. We know how much more money they're going to spend on welfare because of all the thousands of people they're about to fire. We know that the unemployment ranks in British Columbia, because of the actions of this government, are going to get higher and higher, and the disillusionment, mistrust and lack of vision is creating a feeling of hopelessness in this province. The Premier of this province has a responsibility to tell British Columbians why he is removing basic democratic principles that all British Columbians support. Even in the heart of the Premier's country the Central Okanagan Capital News, in a serious editorial, has asked this government to rethink what they're doing. I could understand if this came from an area which does not necessarily support this current government, but this is from right in the heart of Socred territory. On Saturday, July 16, 1983, the headline in the editorial was: "Jackboot Politics." The opening statement said: "Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to ze era of jackboot politics. May you enjoy ze garden party." This particular act

[ Page 418 ]

is not a garden party for British Columbians. It's a basic suspension and eradication of democratic rights that all British Columbians support.

I mentioned earlier that I was going to quote from the constitutional bylaws of the Social Credit Party of 1982. When I last spoke on this bill I had a copy of the constitution — which was very difficult to get, Mr. Speaker; your own caucus didn't have any.

MR. KEMPF: We don't have any money....

MR. BLENCOE: You don't have any principles. That's why you don't have copies of your principles. You don't have them anymore. You've thrown your principles out the door.

Here is something I found that is even more dramatic and has even more impact on this government. This is what you tell British Columbians you support. The Social Credit Party is dedicated to "expose and oppose any attempts to weaken the democratic institutions of the people by means of increased centralization of power, and to oppose any attempt to spread or implant the seed of racial discrimination." We know that this bill will indeed open the doors to discrimination of all sorts. It goes on to say that they oppose class hatred or religious prejudice among the citizens of the province of British Columbia. Your own principles say you oppose the weakening of the democratic institutions of the people of British Columbia by means of increased centralization of power.

When a party violates its own principles for political gain and political ends — not restraint, but political gain and political ends — it has reached the depths and it has lost its principles. That is what many Socred members who are calling me are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes, they are saying that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: They're not Social Credit if they're calling you.

MR. BLENCOE: The constitution also says that the individual is the most important factor in organized society, and it has certain inalienable rights which must be respected and preserved. It's another of your four basic principles.

MR. REID: That's it and we believe in it.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, since the second member for Surrey says he believes in this then he should vote against this legislation. This government is violating its very own principles.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: They are yours, the ones you tell people. They're gone. I believe the Premier should come back into this House — if you say you're not violating your principles — and say that he supports these principles. Because of the incredible response to this bill and others you're bringing forward, he and, indeed, the rest of his party should repent and reaffirm their support for their own principles. They "expose and oppose any attempts to weaken the democratic institutions of the people by means of increased centralization of power." You are creating an incredibly centralized power. You're removing the.... You're ordering municipalities that they can fire now without cause. You're saying that police officers, when investigating delicate cases that might have political significance or might upset a well-known family in our province.... Through this legislation that police officer can be fired without cause.

MR. REID: Nonsense!

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes! That's what the act says. You can fire a police officer who in the course of his or her duty is investigating delicate issues....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, that is very significant. This government is jeopardizing law and order and the basics of a free and just society. Yes, you are. You can now fire a police officer without cause.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. BLENCOE: It's right there in the legislation, Mr. Speaker, and the member for Surrey and all those other members over there know it's very true.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about police officers and people being able to be fired without cause — and there are hundreds and thousands of them in British Columbia who can be fired without cause, without any fair hearing — I'd like to quote.... I referred earlier to postwar Italy, and I'd like to quote a dispatch put out in Rome on December 24, 1925. I think there are some significant overtones here for this government. This was following Mussolini's takeover. I think those members have been reading some of those dispatches. This is the law on the discharge of public servants in postwar Italy. Let me read it:

"Article I " — and I want those members to reflect on this — "Law on the discharge of public servants. The government is empowered up to December 31, 1926, to discharge from the service official employees and agents of every civil and military grade belonging to any administrative body of the state who by reasons of acts in or out of office do not give full assurance of faithful performance of their duties or who place themselves in a condition of incompatibility with the general political policies of the government."

Mr. Speaker, reflect on that dispatch of 1925.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: That's an incredible analogy to what this government is doing with Bill 3. That's why we want to hoist it: because thousands and thousands of British Columbians believe that what you're doing is allowing to fire if public employees do not give full assurance of faithful performance of their duties or place themselves in a condition of incompatibility with the general political policies of the government.

[ Page 419 ]

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows those members and that government over there to make out lists of people — because you can now fire without cause — who do not support this government, and they can fire them at will with no recourse. In my opening speech on this bill, I quoted from the United Nations charter of rights. I'm going to quote again, because I think it's got to sink into this government that not only British Columbians are offended by this bill; it's achieving international attention for its eradication of basic human rights that millions of people support. Mr. Speaker, the General Assembly proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7.... I ask those members again if they will stop talking among themselves and listen for a change. They might learn something.

MR. REID: What year was this, 1929 again?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey has no inkling of what human rights means. He claps every time more people are fired. He claps when human rights go out the window. He claps and pounds his desk because he doesn't believe in democratic principles like the rest of his colleagues.

Article 7: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any...."

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe in human rights, and I'd like the Speaker to know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. You will be allowed to participate in this debate, if you wish.

MR. BLENCOE: If that member indeed supports human rights, I'll fully expect him to vote against this bill.

MR. REID: The hoisting? I will. I won't. I will, I won't. I will not vote against the hoisting. Talk about the hoisting.

MR. BLENCOE: You'll vote against this bill. Are you going to vote against this bill? He won't vote against it, because he's had his orders from the Heal and Kinsella ministry of information.

MR. REID: I got my orders from my constituents — 37,000 voters told me what to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the second member for Surrey once again to come to order. No interruptions, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps you should ask him to leave the chamber, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: Keep your speech relevant.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to start again on article 7, because many of those members of the government opposite were not listening, as usual:

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination and violation of this declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

Public servants in this province are being discriminated against. They are to be the scapegoats for this government in creating fear and turning British Columbians against each other. They're creating fear.

Article 10 is an important one; I hope the members will listen to it:

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations...."

A fair and impartial tribunal. That's why we're asking this to be hoisted. We're asking these members and this government to consider such charters of rights and basic declarations.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The member across says they don't exist. They certainly no longer exist in this province, not with this bill.

I attended a rally the other night in the Memorial Arena, and 7,000 to 8,000 Victorians, British Columbians, attended that rally. I would like to tell those members across the way that many of them were not public servants. They were concerned British Columbians — young people, older people, retired people — who were there because they are deeply concerned and seared about the things you are doing. They see that with one swoop you can eradicate the human rights branch, tenants' rights and some of the rights that we've all accepted as the normal and natural part of a democratic system.

They were there, and they sent a message. The message is that the Social Credit Party may be in government, it may have the mandate of just under 50 percent of all British Columbians, but it does not have the mandate to sweep away basic rights that we all endorse, and that all British Columbians accept as facts. You don't have that right and you're going to find that out, because people are angry. Even your own Socred candidates are angry that you could have the audacity to bring in legislation such as this. There were 7,000 to 8,000 people there, all waiting to see what the Premier is going to say on this bill, how he's going to defend it. They demand from the Premier of this province an explanation of the government's course of action.

The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) asked me not to be so negative. It's extremely difficult not to be negative with this government.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right. It's interesting that you should mention that. That's a very good point, because what they are doing is symbolic of the old practice of the divine right of kings to divide and conquer and turn British Columbian against British Columbian; that says to keep your job you have to tell stories and innuendo about your fellow workers.

In my maiden speech I referred to the actions of this government as a return to the old feudal days, to the old divine right of kings. I discovered a very interesting quote from George III, which I think is very significant. This could be applied directly to the Premier of this province in his actions and in the legislation he's bringing down. George III said: "I desire what is good; therefore everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." That's the course of action this government is taking. It believes that if you're a public servant, and if you speak up against this government in terms

[ Page 420 ]

of its actions and therefore require a human rights branch and human rights commissions, you're some sort of traitor. There is an attitude across there, which is going to spread further and further, that if you disagree with this government you're going to be considered a traitor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true!

MR. BLENCOE: Absolutely!

That's the reason why, without tabling financial figures or showing how they are going to save money, they are eradicating some very fundamental institutions in this province. They have not shown us where they're going to save money. We know there are going to be incredible increases in certain ministries — for welfare — and we know why. They are forcing people out onto the street, without rights, with no recourse to a fair tribunal.

We urge this government and this Premier to seriously consider what they're doing with this particular act. As I said, it violates the United Nations Charter of Rights.

AN HON. MEMBER: It does not.

MR. BLENCOE: It violates the international labour charter, and you'll hear about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just the NDP manifesto, that's all.

MR. BLENCOE: It is an offence to thousands and thousands of British Columbians, and it violates their very own principles.

When I attended that rally there were many people there who voted for this government. They were asking: "How can they do it? What right do they have?" They will continue to ask. Editorials across the country will continue to be written about this government.

We would urge the government and the Premier to reconsider their position. A hoist motion endorsed unanimously would indicate to British Columbians that the Social Credit government indeed is having the decency to reconsider its position. They are demanding it.

I would like to read a little more from this editorial from the Premier's country. It's important because it comes from the heart of Social Credit territory. This is from Okanagan territory:

"Yes, we can now cease casting our glances over to Chile or Poland to make those superficial cluckcluck 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 — right here in our own backyard. Movie rights to be negotiated. Is Rod Stirling available?"

[11:00]

In all seriousness, this government must reconsider its position. You cannot fire people without cause. You cannot suspend or eradicate years and years of deliberation on labour law, arbitration proceedings and seniority rights, because what you're doing is creating chaos in the labour field. You have nothing left. The reason there are collective agreements and arbitration procedures is that it brings a sense of sanity and rational thought to the labour field. This government is removing that sanity. It is going to reap an incredible storm that it will not know how to get out of, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I urge this government to reconsider its position on Bill 3, support the hoist motion and allow some sane discussion on how to deal with the problems of restraint.

Mr. Speaker, 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 — 19

NAYS — 32

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm so pleased to note that in the gallery today are two outstanding citizens from my constituency. They have been such great community workers, particularly with our Vancouver aquarium and with the botanical gardens in our constituency. I would like to ask the House to welcome Dr. and Mrs. Watson MacCrostie.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For a minute I thought perhaps I was invisible to you.

We are dealing with a motion on Bill 3 that will allow the government to reconsider its actions in tabling this piece of legislation. We know, of course, that the Premier believes that it's all right to fire 25 percent of all the people working for Crown corporations, municipal governments and the B.C. government without cause. According to him, they're not doing their jobs.

We had some interesting references here earlier. I see the minister for tenured scientists and technocrats has left the chamber. It was interesting that that member made an allegation that he felt some people in the Legislature were not doing

[ Page 421 ]

their job. It's kind of curious to note, Mr. Speaker, that a very quick perusal of the Votes and Proceedings of this chamber since it convened on June 24 show that on recorded votes there have been three government members absent for every opposition member, on the average. So who is not doing their job by being out, allegedly, as the minister says, playing golf? It would appear — not appear, it is certain; there is absolute proof in the Journals of this House — that it is the government members.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing from people across the way who haven't the nerve and the guts to get on their feet and defend this bill. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I know you are a gentleman and we're not supposed to call people "gutless wonders, " so I won't call anybody that. I might refer to them, though, in my more histrionic moments as "eviscerated marvels." However, we would certainly like to see some of them get on their feet and defend this bill, instead of just yacking from the comers.

We constantly hear from this intermittent caterwauling across the way that what this province needs from the government is good government and leadership. First of all I would like to note that 51 percent of the people in this province voted against the Social Credit Party. What have they given us, this good government and good leadership which they claim to have — their version? Well, their version has given us a dropped credit rating, a $14 billion debt in seven and a half years of office. The Socred version of good government and good leadership has given us record bankruptcies in this province, 200,000 unemployed people — and this Bill 3 threatens to add perhaps another 20,000 to the unemployed rolls, and that possibly is a conservative estimate — and a negative growth rate of 7 percent in 1982: a 7 percent drop in real per capita income and real economic activity after you discount for inflation during 1982. That's the Social Credit version of good government and good leadership. God help us, Mr. Speaker, if we ever had what they thought was a bad Social Credit government!

What is really going to happen in this province if the government does not reconsider this bill? Let's assume they go ahead, ram it through the House and impose it on the public of British Columbia, including the 51 percent who didn't vote for them. Will the B.C. Hydro corporation function with 25 percent of its employees sacked? Will British Columbia Rail function with 25 percent of its employees cashiered by this government? Will municipal government and the hospitals of this province function when Social Credit has summarily fired 25 percent of the employees? Will ICBC function with 25 percent of its employees down the road?

We've heard speakers across the way fatuously and facetiously argue that we don't need tenure in this province. I agree. We don't need tenure in the universities and in the public service. But we do need fairness, decency and some sort of rational system of retrenchment in government. There is, of course, a very sound reason why we need retrenchment in the public service and in the Crown corporate service in British Columbia. We need it because we've had 28 years of Social Credit mismanagement. They talk about government growing too big, too many Crown corporations, too many employees. Who has created what they call an inefficient, administrative, overweight public sector? Social Credit mismanagement has created it.

[11:15]

When I was in high school in the 1950s, the national and international.... Unfortunately it was a joke, but we were sort of taught to realize that the province of Quebec was somewhat backward, that they had a Union Nationale government and a Premier named Maurice Duplessis who indulged in certain repressive measures. In fact when this rather autocratic, authoritarian, centralist Premier of Quebec — this was way back in the 1950s, 25 or 30 years ago — fired people without cause and put his friends on the payroll, and was asked by the press how he could justify that, he said: "Do you think I should hire my enemies?" That's the approach of Social Credit. They want their friends on the payroll, and we've seen that by the Tozerization of the government agencies in this province. There were other parts of the Duplessis government which were internationally an embarrassment for this country. Does anybody here remember the padlock law? Mr. Duplessis did not like Jehovah's Witnesses, so he simply passed a law which, fortunately for our human rights credibility in the world, was eventually overturned by the federal authorities. The Quebec government under Duplessis had a padlock law where if they didn't like somebody, for example Jehovah's Witnesses, they simply locked up their property — seized it, confiscated it.

MR. HOWARD: It happened to Jack Davis.

MR. D'ARCY: Well, that was my next point. It was bad enough when they did that to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, but the government of B.C. has imposed a padlock law on public servants in this province for no crime whatsoever, no belief, no religious convictions, simply because they happen to have taken a job with the Social Credit government in good faith. They no doubt heard the Premier speak a year or so ago, when he said: "Where I come from in Kelowna we don't need to write things into contracts, because a deal is a deal, a handshake is a handshake." How many people in the last few months have found out what a handshake from the Premier means? How many doctors or public servants have found out? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, how many business people, who innocently supported the Social Credit mismanagement team during its re-election bid, found out that they were faced with tax increases, royalties and additional impositions on the mere fact of doing business in this province. These aren't taxes on profits, and governments have so many ways of getting money out of successful businesses. We've seen a government which has moved in every way it could to prevent a recovery in this province and to prevent the growth of a thriving private sector economy.

We have not heard a single justification on a cost-benefit analysis basis for the measures that have been taken to remove public services in this province under Bill 3. Of course, the government doesn't have the right to remove those services as yet, but they've done it in anticipation of using a majority to jam unpopular legislation through this House.

We have heard spokesmen for both tenants and landlords in this province. Let it be know that they believe their costs are going to go up due to the cancellation of the rentalsman's office. Sure it's true that honest, decent and respectable renters don't need the rentalsman. It's also true that responsible landlords don't need the rentalsman's office. But we're going to have a field-day for the tenant who deliberately damages property and the landlord is faced with perhaps up to a year, and a very expensive year at that, in getting a court

[ Page 422 ]

eviction notice. We are going to have a field-day for those few landlords who wish to take advantage of people in some of the hideous and nasty ways by which a few irresponsible landlords have attempted to take advantage of people in this province in the last few years. The rentalsman's office is gone. The net result is going to mean an increase in the cost of living and in the cost of doing business in this province.

We have heard spokesmen for the government say that rent controls, even these selective patchwork rent controls which we've known in this province since 1973 or 1974, depress the supply of rental units. The fact is that over most of that time what the rentalsman's office and rent controls have done is create a situation whereby when there is a vacancy rate, and there has been one over most of that time, the tenant finds himself or herself with a real free market in rental accommodation. They can shop around and find a good unit at a reasonable price. That has been one of the factors in keeping rents reasonable in this province. A 4 percent vacancy rate does not mean 4 percent overall; it means a zero percent vacancy rate in controlled suites, and perhaps a 12 or 15 percent vacancy rate in uncontrolled suites. What the government obviously doesn't like is tenants in this province being able to take advantage of a free market situation in finding low-cost accommodation. They would rather see a situation where there are no controls — even selective controls — or even rent review. I want to go on record as saying that arbitrary rent controls, even on a selective basis, do leave something to be desired, but there is a great value in rent review.

Interjection,

MR. D'ARCY: You get on your feet and get into the debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the member is debating a variety of issues that are not related to the motion which is before the House. He is discussing the questions of rent review, rent control, the rentalsman and landlords. I don't see anything in the motion before the House that has any relationship to the issues which he is attempting to debate. We're not in the throne speech or the budget speech. There will be ample opportunity to discuss those issues at a later date, but right now I think you should stick with the motion before the House.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express an opinion to Your Honour on the point of order raised by the Provincial Secretary. I want to submit to you that the motion before the House is that the bill be read a second time six months hence. The arguments put forward to postpone it must, of course, relate to the reason we don't want the bill read now but later.

The bill contains provisions that permit the minister and the government to fire people without cause, thus reducing their income. Those who are renters and public employees, and are tossed out in the street by this government, will find themselves in the position of being at a second disadvantage because of the removal of the rentalsman. I want to submit that the argument being put forward by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) is perfectly on the mark, and the minister is just trying to toss red herrings in the way to distract our attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his logic. The Chair did not find that the speaker was being irrelevant, I would just like to remind the hon. member from Rossland-Trail, who's obviously aware of the rules, about relevancy. If he would continue, please.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been my observation in this House that it is members such as yourself who are relatively new here who have the best knowledge of the rules. As for those other of us, such as the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), with each succeeding year that we are in the House, we seem to have less knowledge of the rules that are traditional here.

Of course the bill applies to the rentalsman's office, because the people who were there have all been fired under authority which the government hopes to receive through this bill. Sections of this bill have also been used to fire people from the consumer affairs offices in this province.

I found rather interesting the minister's statement regarding employees in the consumer affairs offices: "We wouldn't want to stigmatize honest business people in the province because we chase down the few who are not responsible in terms of dealing with their customers." The consumer affairs offices did a tremendous service to business in this province, because honest business people were protected from being stigmatized by the dishonest people who attempted to rip off consumers. To state that we wouldn't want to characterize some people as being wrong is rather like having the Attorney-General of this province make a statement that he didn't want to chase after murderers, because after all most people weren't murderers and we wouldn't want to have guilt by association by having attention paid to the fact that some people committed manslaughter. It's an absolutely ridiculous statement by the minister.

What about the testing station people who have been fired under authority in this bill? What happens to car repairs and health costs in this province? What happens to the people who are injured or damaged because of accidents created by vehicles that are not properly maintained? Once again, straightforward people who keep their motor vehicles in good shape don't need the testing stations. When they take their vehicles to the testing stations they pass. The people who need the testing stations, or need the protection provided by the testing stations, are those who would not, without a flunk sticker, voluntarily keep their vehicles in good shape. Once again there is no cost-benefit analysis to show the effect on the cost of living, or the cost of doing business, of the laying off of people in the testing stations. While it may be true that the government has no responsibility or knowledge, or doesn't even care about the cost of living in this province, I always thought from their pious pronouncements that they did care about the cost of doing business; they did care, since we're export-oriented, how competitive our economy was with other provinces and other countries. But it seems that everything done under this act, and everything said and done in this session of the Legislature, would lead to increasing the cost of living and of doing business in this province. No wonder Moody's decided that we in this province were not as trustworthy as they once thought, in terms of credit rating.

We have, under the guise of good government and leadership as exemplified in this bill, seen more and more authoritarian centralism in this province. The member for tenured university scientists and technocrats gave us his speech number one again this morning about how he feels that some

[ Page 423 ]

people don't deserve to be in government. It's interesting that where we have had Social Credit-type conservatives in office in various countries of this world, what has happened is that just as in British Columbia, real growth has gone down and debt has gone up. The justification for Bill 3 that we have heard from over there is that the government needs to decrease its expenditures. The government's expenditures are up because of the crushing debt that Social Credit mismanagement has put on this province. It has been Social Credit-type economics or, as some writers have called it, "Socred supply-side monetarist or neo-classical economic model followers," that have resulted in resource-rich countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Chile facing a situation where they may have to default on their international debts. Is the member for Vancouver–Point Grey going to come in here and defend his monetary theories and economic policies, as they have been followed by those countries?

[11:30]

What's happened in Great Britain under these policies? Economic growth has completely disappeared, and we've had several years of negative gross national product in Britain, along with an increasing debt. This is in spite of the immense wealth of North Sea oil which has come on stream. What's happened in West Germany with the election of monetarists? What's happened in West Germany has been that the real growth that has gone on for 30 years since the end of World War II has now become negative again, with a burgeoning debt for the first time in that country's modern history. What's happened in Central America under the Socred-style monetarists? Again we see huge debt. Again we see falling gross national product and drastically falling per capita incomes. The same thing has happened in Italy under Social Credit-style governments, and yet they tell us that they're going to give this province good government and good leadership.

The reason the Socred government has to have this bill in to retrench the size of government is because they have been lousy administrators over the last 28 years. That's why they need it. They caused the growth of government. They caused the debt. It's interesting that the major debt that we have in this province is B.C. Hydro. We're told by government apologists: "There's a sinking fund to help pay it off." Do you know that if B.C. Hydro never borrowed another penny from today on but continued to make payments into the sinking funds at the same rate that they've made them over the last 22 years of its existence, it would take 300 years to pay off B.C. Hydro's debt? That's Social Credit economics; that's why we have a double-A credit rating, and that's why the government has to bring in this bill.

It's Social Credit that gave us a ferry debt on a system that never had a debt before 1975. They gave us mortgaged buildings, and we never had a mortgage on a building before 1975. They've mortgaged to foreign interests the universities and given us a debt when they were all paid for in 1975. They've mortgaged the buses, which were all paid for in 1975. They've mortgaged the computer system. They can't manage, and so they're desperate for some sort of retrenchment. So they scapegoat government employees, foreign governments, and Ronald Reagan, and say that it's the international situation that has caused this problem of government revenue and a low economy in British Columbia. It's the Social Credit government which has caused it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to go back to one of my favourite members on the other side, the minister of tenured scientists over there. He talked about no tenure for the poor workers up at Endako being laid off. The main reason those workers got laid off is because of Social Credit electricity royalties that have crippled the mining industry in this province. That's why they got laid off: Social Credit capital taxes, property taxes and electricity royalties. We do have an economic problem in this province, and one of the major problems is not that we can't attract new business to provide revenue so that we don't need things like Bill 3. Our major problem is that a great deal of our existing, installed, captive productive capacity cannot compete in international markets because of upfront costs and royalties imposed by Social Credit in this province.

It's interesting; some of the apologists for the government have said that they're going to roll back.... I even see this in the press. The press is not always as accurate as some of us would like; I think you would probably agree with that. They said: "The government has agreed to roll back water rental...." Well, they haven't rolled them back. They simply said: "We're not going to increase them as much as we were going to." Instead of increasing them by 40 percent, they're only going to increase them by 5 percent. That's an aside, Mr. Speaker. I know I'm out of order, but you're extremely tolerant. That's probably because your industry in Prince George has been severely affected by these royalties. You know that, but you're on the government side, so you have to say that privately in caucus; you can't say it here in the House.

Reference has been made before that this province has been mortgaged to foreign financial interests by the Socred government, and so more and more retrenchment has to take place. I don't like to see people who refuse to accept the results of their own actions and scapegoat other people. It was interesting that some reference was made earlier by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) to what Benito Mussolini did in his government in Italy in the 1920s. Il Duce was more honest than the Socreds. He didn't indulge in any gobbledegook about restraints; he was very honest. He called it the "Law on the Discharge of Public Servants." That was the name of it.

There was something else that he was more honest about. That fascist in Italy actually put a sunset clause in his bill; he only wanted 12 months to get rid of people they didn't like. Social Credit wants eternity; they want this always to hang over employees of B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail, the Assessment Authority, school teachers, hospital employees, and liquor licence inspectors. Mussolini was more honest; he was upfront about it. He said what he was going to do, and he put a sunset clause in it.

It's interesting. He said:

"The government is empowered up to...1926 to discharge from the service official employees and agents of every civil and military grade belonging to any administrative body of the state who by reason of acts in or out of office do not give full assurance of faithful performance of their duties or who place themselves in a condition of incompatibility with the general political policies of the government."

It sounds a whole lot like Bill 3 to me. It sounds a lot like the spokesman for Social Credit who said, when duly elected municipal government didn't do their bidding, that they all must be part of a communist-socialist conspiracy; or like the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, who said that the

[ Page 424 ]

city council of Vancouver, duly elected just as he was, should be stripped of its powers simply because they did something he didn't like, even though they were elected by the entire electorate of the city of Vancouver and he was only elected by the electorate of one-fifth of it in Little Mountain. That is the attitude of Social Credit towards democracy and towards people who are duly elected in other jurisdictions.

We know that a lot of things have been said in this Legislature. Another thing that disturbed me was something that was hollered across this morning. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) is a new member. He was attempting to stay completely in order, with greater success than I, but was interrupted much more than I. He was accused of being negative by members across the way. The people of the province look on the government as being negative. They don't look on the second member for Victoria as being negative. But they look on this bill as being negative. Even those who support this bill look on it as being negative.

It's interesting that the public also looks with a negative and jaundiced eye on such things as sales tax on telephone calls, which, once again, is an imposition on business. For most of B.C. businesses a telephone is a very important part of their operations, and that cost has been increased 7 percent by the budget. That is negative. The restaurant tax is negative. The debt of this province that leads to Bill 3 is considered to be negative. The capital tax and the cancellations of Human Rights Commissions and the human rights branch of government.... As the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has properly pointed out in this House, these firings in total eliminate services which, on a per capita basis, have cost the people of this province in the past few years the same as the price of a few postage stamps.

It was interesting to hear the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) say yesterday that people really had nothing to fear, because they were protected by their collective agreements. Admittedly, we have a point of view which is perhaps partisan; that's part of the nature of being a politician. But every independent observer, whether from the management side, the academic side or the trade union side, has said that Bill 3 and some of the attendant legislation effectively emasculates all collective agreements in the public sector, whether they be in a hospital, a municipal council, a Crown corporation, or in the direct, immediate provincial civil service.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour would perhaps have some knowledge of what it means to be padlocked out. He was a victim at one point, Mr. Speaker, of a Social Credit takeover. He once was a very competent executive and worked for a corporation called the B.C. Electric Co., which was a private utility. They were expropriated by a Social Credit government and he lost his job; he was forced to go into the never-never land of federal politics as a Liberal. So he knows what this kind of legislation is all about, knows something about Social Credit takeovers, because he was fired by a Social Credit government after they expropriated a private company.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Not a negotiated purchase, Mr., Speaker: a takeover by an authoritarian government.

This legislation has been compared to many things nationally and internationally that are very distasteful. But that great Czechoslovakian social democratic writer of the 1910s and 1920s, Franz Kafka, wrote about legislation like this, about governments like this, and about centralized, authoritarian states, whether they be of the right or of the left. If he were around today, he would have some very interesting things to say, because he's told us all about it before.

One of the things this bill is going to do, and that Social Credit mismanagement has done to affect the province of B.C., is put up property taxes. We have already heard from the second member for Victoria that municipal assistance programs which used to be outside the revenue-sharing program, such as sewer and water assistance, last year were put inside, effectively reducing the amount available from revenue-sharing.

We know that this government inability to meet its own commitments, due to its mismanagement, is resulting in other things which the government is going to have to bring in. So we want a hoist on this bill, because it is being used as a way of decreasing confidence in the economy, of decreasing efficiency within the 250,000-strong public sector — administrators, employees and professionals in this province — and of decreasing the province's chance of coping with the international depression which we are into right now. We want a six-month hoist to allow the government to learn something about public administration, about fiscal responsibility, about administering the corporation that is British Columbia, which they seized control of on May 5 by not telling the truth during their election campaign and fooling the public as to what their real intentions were. There are a number of people who supported Social Credit during the election — and, who knows, some of them may do so again — who are wondering why the government is taking these actions.

[11:45]

You can't go around telling people — Hydro engineers, B.C. Rail employees, liquor inspectors, assessors, truck drivers for the Ministry of Highways — that they're not doing their job and expect them to have any sort of morale,

A few days ago the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said that as recently as a year or 18 months ago it was considered unparliamentary to attack a public servant in this chamber, either individually or as a group. In fact, when references were made either by a government member or by an opposition member that could possibly be construed as an attack on a public servant, almost invariably there was a host of — and you know this, Mr. Speaker — catcalls across the floor: "attacking people who can't defend themselves, " "attacking the public service." To cover up their own administrative incompetence, the Social Credit government have decided that they are going to make a career, in an excuse for what they call a mandate, out of attacking the public service of this province, whether it be a hospital board administrator, a nurse or a gandy-dancer on B.C. Rail.

People have written that the only reason for this bill is retribution against people the government didn't like. Well, I would agree that that is a large part of it. I think the government had another reason for bringing this bill in. They knew they were going to have to have retrenchment in government due to their own incompetence over the years. But they had a problem. Administratively you have a problem when you have to — I'll use the buzzword — "downsize" the public sector. You have to be fair. You have to redistribute people throughout the service. You've got to lay people off who are the most recently hired, and you have to find work for others who are being removed from areas which are considered redundant by government. The government looked at that

[ Page 425 ]

administrative problem and they knew they were not capable.... They were too lazy, too incompetent to handle that kind of an administrative problem. They knew they couldn't do it. So that's another reason why they had to bring this bill in. They were looking for an easy way out of a major administrative problem, which they had created themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I know you're going to be tapping your electronic marvel there by your side in a minute. I hope the government members, most of whom are not in the House, and a number of whom aren't going to show up for a division this morning, reconsider this bill in the light of their administrative and fiscal and social and moral responsibilities to the people of this province. I hope they reconsider this bill for six months in light of the 51 percent who voted against them in the election. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House,

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 31

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

Mr. Lockstead moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.