[ Page 427 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government advertising contracts. Mr. Cocke –– 428

Education financing. Mr. Rose –– 429

Reduction of Ministry of Human Resources' staff. Mr. Barnes –– 430

Tabling Documents

Public Service Commission annual report, March 31, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 431

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

Mr. Lockstead –– 431

Mrs. Dailly –– 434

Mr. Macdonald –– 439

Mr. Skelly –– 442

Ms. Sanford –– 446

THURSDAY, JULY 21, 1983

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are the executive of the B.C. School Trustees Association; Bev Rodrigo, the vice-president of the school district of Kitimat; and a number of other trustees, some of whom are board chairmen from around the province who are visiting our caucus and with whom we had rather an interesting meeting. I would like all members to welcome to the House today these most important functionaries, who are performing a significant job in British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: I, too, would like to join in welcoming the functionaries. I would like to welcome these people, who are district board chairpersons, as well as the BCSTA executive — and a special welcome not only to their chairperson but also to Mrs. Gwen Chute, who is the chairperson of the district of Coquitlam, my riding.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have in the galleries today Mr. Byung Yong Soh, the newly appointed consul-general of Korea in Vancouver, accompanied by Mr. Ki Ho Chang. I'd like the House to welcome them here today.

MR. NICOLSON: Visiting us today, representing school districts in the Nelson-Creston constituency, we have chairman Bernice Rutski from the Arrow Lakes School District, and a very old friend and acquaintance with whom I used to work side by side in School District 7. He is now a school trustee, and we were both employees at one time — Mr. Bill McNown.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's indeed my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to the House a couple from the central Fraser Valley, Dr. and Mrs. Deane Downey. Dr. Downey is the chairman of our local school board in district 34. We appreciate the strong leadership that we receive from Dr. Downey.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It is indeed my pleasure to introduce from School District 46 school trustee Diane McKendrick; from School District 47, Warren McKibbin; and the chairman of the South Coast trustees' association, Mr. Don Douglas. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MRS. McCARI'HY: I am very pleased to tell you that today I have a very special guest in the gallery, Mr. Peter Tseng. Mr. Tseng is a valued member of the business community of Vancouver, the owner of Kingsland restaurant, and a very active member of the Chinatown Lions Club, which I think I can say is one of the most active Lions Clubs in North America.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) mentioned the person that I'm going to participate in welcoming as well. I'd like to add a few extra words. I'm talking about the vice-president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association and chairman of the school district in Kitimat, Mrs. Bev Rodrigo. If the minister and the government would listen to some of the words that Mrs. Rodrigo has to present, maybe some of the northern wisdom will have some beneficial results.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome two hard-working members of the Kamloops School Board — School District 24 — the chairman, Dr. Russ Gerard and trustee Mrs. Meryl Matthews. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today from Winnipeg are Mr. Frank Wiesinger, his wife Barbra, and lovely little daughter Sarena. Mr. Wiesinger, a former architect, is now an inventor and an innovator and is working on a product which I hope will have some substantial value to our forest industry in this province. I ask this House to welcome him, and I wish him success.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today from Trail School District 9 we have two elected representatives from Rossland — the chairman of that school district, Mr. Jack Bryan, and vice-chairman Mrs. Jean Cormack. Also representing School District 9 in Castlegar and from Ootischenia, British Columbia, we have Mr. George Anutooshkin, chairman of that board. I would like the House to welcome these people.

MR. MOWAT: In the House today in the gallery behind you, Mr. Speaker, we have some very special guests, Wally, Joyce and Jill Seaman and Craig Brown from North Burnaby. With them they have some special guests from Blackpool, England: Mr. Seaman and William and Joyce Adcock. Wally and William have been pen pals for 50 years, and in their fiftieth anniversary the Adcocks have come to Canada. They have brought greetings to our city of Vancouver from their Stanley Park to our Stanley Park. I'm proudly wearing a Blackpool tie today. I'd ask the House to join in welcoming these special guests today.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon is a constituent of mine, a candidate for the Social Credit Party in the last provincial election who currently serves as chairman of the Burnaby School District — Mr. Gary Begin. I would ask the House to welcome him.

[2:15]

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, as well in your gallery this afternoon are three individuals representing school boards from my constituency: Mr. Nick Karelis from School District 54 in Smithers; Mr. Don Archibald, chairman of School District 55 in Burns Lake; and Mr. John Froese, chairman of School District 56 in Vanderhoof I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Because they've probably come the greatest distance, I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Adine Wong from School District 81 in Fort Nelson, and from School District 60 in Fort St. John, Mr. Ed Olsen and Mr. Wilf Chelle.

MR. COCKE: Hansard is busy today.

Mr. Speaker, from New Westminster, I would like the House to welcome Anita Hagen, the chairperson of our school board. Also from New Westminster, Miss Nina Saklikar, a student, who is very interested in politics.

[ Page 428 ]

On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Audrey Graham, her grandson Jason Laidlaw, and Mrs. Mary Reiland, also from the great municipality of Delta.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries today is a resident of West Vancouver, Miss Heather Walker, who is the president of the West Vancouver branch of the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

MR. DAVIS: I would like the House to welcome two distinguished school trustees from North Vancouver, Verna Smelovsky and Marg Jessup.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in wishing our Whip, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), a very happy birthday today.

HON. A. FRASER: In the galleries today from the great riding of Cariboo, we have the chairman of Cariboo-Chilcotin School District 27, Edna Telford, and Mr. Jim Bann. I would like the House to welcome them.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have two hard-working members of the Surrey School Board: our present chairman, Laurea McNally, and the present trustee and former chairman, Louise Sorenson. I would like the House to welcome them, please.

MRS. WALLACE: I feel that I must also introduce the representatives from Cowichan — probably one of the closest areas, but I wouldn't want them to feel left out: the chairman of the Lake Cowichan School Board, Mrs. Jean Brown, and a member of the executive of the school trustees and past president of Cowichan, Mrs. Joan Gillatt. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Along with the introduction of all these trustees, I'd like to introduce Mrs. Lil Corriveau from the Kimberley school district.

MS. SANFORD: Not to be left out, I would like to introduce Frank Sloat, chairman of the board of school trustees of Qualicum School District 69, and Stuart Hartman, from Courtenay, vice-chairman of School District 71.

MR. R. FRASER: In the gallery today is one of two sisters whom I greatly admire, a girl who graduated from the greater Victoria regional school district and went back east to further her education. This particular girl applied herself throughout her schooling, gaining scholarships all the way, and now at a very tender age finds herself progressing very rapidly through the boardroom chambers of eastern Canada in a large corporation — my niece Jennifer Lewis.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, may I add my words to this filibuster by asking the House to welcome the chairperson of the Vancouver Island West District, Mr. Tony Ellis.

MR. STRACHAN: No trustees, but representing School District 57 and a good friend of mine, Mr. Keith Gordon, who is a teacher in School District 57. Would the House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. Gordon and family.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we may have to ask leave for an evening sitting to continue the introductions.

I as well have a school trustee visiting Victoria today: not a member of the executive but a member of the Langley school board, Fern Wilson. I ask the House to make her welcome.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a former coroner of West Vancouver, now retired. Would the House welcome Bernard Nash.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in the somewhat unlikely event that no one in the gallery has been welcomed so far, could I please welcome them.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CONTRACTS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Premier. Two of the advertising agencies involved in milking the public purse for private gain have been implicated as working for the Social Credit Party. Can the Premier advise whether any officials of McKim Advertising or Vrlak Robinson were assigned to work at Social Credit Party headquarters during the provincial election campaign?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't agree with the premise. It is not only incorrect but very improper in posing a question. The answer is no.

MR. COCKE: Again to the Premier, the auditor-general has made serious allegations of impropriety involving McKim Advertising and Vrlak Robinson. Can the Premier advise why these agencies continue to be employed by the provincial government, despite the serious nature of this matter?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under review.

MR. LAUK: Is review another word for carpet?

MR. COCKE: No, it's comforter.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Tourism. Yesterday the minister refused to acknowledge that agency C in the auditor-general's report was Vrlak Robinson. Has he now read the auditor-general's report and investigated to determine whether Vrlak Robinson is the Social Credit advertising firm involved in this matter?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered the member's question sufficiently yesterday when I said that the report was under review and we will be bringing back an answer to this House in all haste.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we've noted the haste in this and other situations.

On a supplementary, can the minister confirm if agency B — this is one we haven't asked about before — which under the direction of the Tourism ministry spent more than $114,000 on a two-week junket to Germany, is, in fact, the International Conference Services Ltd. of Vancouver.

[ Page 429 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, again a complete report will be brought back to this House as quickly as possible to answer the member's question.

MR. COCKE: The stonewall continues.

As supplementary, has the minister determined why International Conference Services was instructed to launder $29,115 of their account through the Social Credit advertising firm, McKim Advertising?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, I find the member's question argumentative. I disagree with the preamble, and the same answer goes for the third question as for questions one and two.

MR. COCKE: I'll just ask one more question of the minister. In light of the fact that the auditor-general found only one invoice in the amount of $844 to document the entire $114,000 bill for the entire Germany junket, what steps has the minister taken to secure the documents which appear to have gone missing from the ministry files?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To repeat once more for the member, who refuses to accept my answer, we are looking into the report in its entirety, and an answer will be brought back to this House in all haste, or in due course, whichever the member prefers.

MR. COCKE: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary, who is becoming lonely. In view of the shocking disclosure by the auditor-general that Vrlak Robinson had two unauthorized slush funds containing government funds, has the minister responsible for government advertising investigated to determine whether any other slush funds exist in the Socred advertising firms in question?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I don't like the terminology that the member uses: "slush funds." It's most inappropriate in this regard. But I do want to say to the member that the question he posed to the Premier would probably be applicable here, and the matter is under review at this time.

MR. COCKE: One final question. [Applause.] I'll bet you're clapping. I'd be ashamed too. I'll ask this final question: since the matter is under review, will the minister suspend the use of McKim Advertising as the contracted advertising firm for the provincial government?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not at this time.

EDUCATION FINANCING

MR. ROSE: I have a couple of important educational questions to direct to the affable Minister of Education. Over the past year the school boards approved their commitment to restraint. In view of today's submission by the school trustees that the education-funding formula which was announced last week will result in increased administrative costs and increased costs in other ways, including plant operation, has the minister decided to suspend the new education-funding formula and allow the school boards to set their own budgets for 1984?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, there are also some questions about the equitability of the new formula. For example, North Thompson School District's enrolment is going to go down 2.1 percent, yet in 1986 its budget will be cut 11 percent. Compare this to Grand Forks, where the enrolment will go down 1.6 percent, but the budget only 2 percent. So it's obviously not fair.

I'd like to ask the minister whether he's decided at last, maybe, to take some advice from the trustees with a view to developing a formula with their assistance, instead of just the bureaucrats, so we can have a fair and equitable funding formula for education in this province.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the formula and system which was introduced a week ago last Tuesday seems to have met with considerable support from secretary-treasurers, trustees, superintendents and many school board chairmen. Right now we have some views which are being expressed by the BCSTA. The purpose of the system is to put in place equity and fairness for all. Now if the member is suggesting that one particular school district got too much money and it's not entitled to it, I'm glad he's brought it to my attention. But I want to tell you that the object of the entire process was to try to bring fairness on a per student basis to all students in British Columbia. I think everybody out there has recognized that this is required.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has obviously been listening to a different set of people than those who are appearing here today, because that's not what their brief says at all. It says that your new funding formula is blatantly unfair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you ask a question?

MR. ROSE: Why don't you get up and ask a question?

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask — finally — whether or not the new finance formula will be amended to permit school boards who wish to become members of the B.C. Schools Trustees' Association to use those funds to join that association.

[2:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, my reading of the brief would not indicate that there was a statement to that effect. That was made by the critic, the member for Coquitlam-Moody. I don't think they will find it expressed that way in the brief at all.

Now with respect to the comments on membership in the BCSTA, that matter is being reviewed; but I think it appropriate that we have a responsibility to all of the districts within the province, as well as the BCSTA budget of just about $1.9 million. If any of those funds can be appropriately placed in the classrooms, I think we ought to consider that. I think that the boards ought to have some consideration as well. What we are going to do, however, is examine that particular point. They apparently don't feel there's enough money in there, and we are taking that under advisement, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 430 ]

REDUCTION OF MINISTRY OF
HUMAN RESOURCES' STAFF

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Since last week, when the minister confirmed that Human Resources staff were about to be fired, or terminated without cause, the entire ministry has been living in fear of losing their jobs. Has the minister decided to come clean with the ministry's staff and indicate who is on the hit list and who has a reprieve for the time being?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is partially in order, and the hon. member knows that it's also partially out of order.

MR. BARNES: Who is going to be fired and who isn't going to be fired? People are presently waiting in tension and with fear of the future. Her ministry staff have cancelled two meetings with regional directors throughout this province. Why did you call those meetings if you didn't intend to follow through on them? The meetings have caused a great deal of fear, Mr. Speaker. Her staff has the right to know whether they are going to have a job or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure the minister has the question.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to just that part of the question that is legitimate. The member must know, having sat through the throne speech and the budget speech in this House, that it is government policy, because of our restraint program and because of the necessity for a restraint program in this province, if not in this nation, to reduce the public service.

The Ministry of Human Resources, like all other ministries in this government, will be effecting the reductions that we will have to make in our ministry in the best manner possible — in an orderly, humane and proper way. We also want to assure, and have assured, our ministry staff that they will be the ones who will be told. We will not be telling them through the efforts of the media. We will not be firing people through the media, as was done during the NDP administration, when people were fired over the television set. It will be done in an orderly manner and according to our collective bargaining process.

MR. BARNES: I thank the minister for her response. The question still remains: when will they know? In the meantime these people feel that they are under a great deal of pressure. They are unable to perform their duties, and it's a pretty sad state of affairs in that department. I think the minister has an obligation to advise them when they will know one way or the other.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the very question promotes fear, uneasiness, anguish and anxiety in the public service of this province. Because of that kind of statement, and because of that kind of politicking and the firing up of emotions that is being done by those members — not those on this side of the House — there is that uneasiness.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and the members of this House that the knowledge will be given to any member of my ministry. I have some 6,000 members in the Ministry of Human Resources. I feel that those people whose programs will be discontinued would have to have knowledge of that first, before I share that with members of the House or members of the media. I think that's only fair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order — very briefly — it seems to me that you and your predecessors in the chair, commencing with Mr. Speaker Dowding, have found it necessary from time to time to remind members asking questions that there are very strict rules with respect to preambles, argumentative nature and so on. That material has been distributed in the past. I feel that I can rise on a point of order today inasmuch as no questions were directed to me, but perhaps, sir, you might consider reminding members of the....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're never here.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, you might remind members of the fairly stringent limitations with respect to questions....

MR. NICOLSON: If you were here, you'd know that the Speaker....

HON. MR. CURTIS: I never ran away from my office, Mr. Member, the way you did when you were the minister.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order as that raised by the Minister of Finance, perhaps if Your Honour would follow what he is suggesting, you might also remind cabinet ministers that they have some rules to follow in answers to questions. Secondly, perhaps you could remind the Minister of Finance that he should have been here yesterday, available to answer questions relating to his department, but he absconded and was absent yesterday.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, for many days now the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), the Leader of the Opposition, has been absent from the sessions here. I'd like to ask a question under standing order 8. Standing order 8 says: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House." As I said previously, he's been absent for many days. I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether you can clarify for me whether the Leader of the Opposition has been given leave of absence to be away.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has the point, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I want to make a serious point of order, unlike the Provincial Secretary, who has been absent from this House for 25 years. During the course of question period, the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was answering a question of my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), and I could not hear it. I tried very much to hear the answer to her question, because it concerns constituents of mine. The reason I couldn't hear it is because the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was literally caterwauling over here to one of the members on this side of the House. I could not hear a word. Now I'm going to have to check the Blues several hours from now before I can get the proper answer from the minister in order to advise my constituents of the government policy. I would ask, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 431 ]

that you would take it under advisement and perhaps have a private chat with the Minister of Finance, who has been under a great deal of strain over the past 25 days.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege as a result of a remark made by the Minister of Human Resources in responding to my questions. She suggested that we on this side of the House are inflaming the public by suggesting in advance that people are going to be fired or not fired. I take offence at that. What side of the House suggested that 25 percent of the public service would be laid off without a program in place and without any work having been done in advance?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are obviously straying very far from the intent of points of order and the intent of organized business presently before us. When members try to seek the floor on points of order or points of privilege — which in fact may not be points of order or privilege, and that in turn spreads — we tend to lose control of debate and progress of an orderly nature in the House. I would commend to all members a close scrutiny of the little red book, for those of you who have not read it.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if she would withdraw any motives that this side of the House was trying to inflame the public service, because that is not our intention. She is the one that made the 25 percent announcement; we did not make the announcement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the withdrawal of unparliamentary language can always be insisted on, but if we were to stand and urge one side to withdraw remarks made by the other side with which we did not always concur or agree, very little debate would take place in this House between the points of order. Members will have ample opportunity to put forward their points in debate at future times.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the sixty-fourth annual report of the Public Service Commission for the year ending March 31, 1983.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, there was a question asked by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), and I believe reference was made to a particular document. I could not find some comments in the document. I would really like leave to file with the House the particular statement issued by the BCSTA.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: Actually, Mr. Speaker, it's a point of clarification. I think the minister....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Well, it's a point of order, then.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, yes.

MR. ROSE: The minister has suggested that I alluded to something in a particular document. I talked about the BCSTA brief. But the fact that there are no funds for joining the association....

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

MR. ROSE: It's in your document, your handout.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would hope that the Chair would not have to take any more stringent action in dealing with members who refuse to come to order upon being so called by the Chair, but clearly if that is the only alternative, I can assure you it will be taken.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

[2:45]

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm surprised that no government member got up to defend this bill. The Premier is heading for the door. The treasury benches are heading for their bunkers. The back-benchers are sleeping in their places. I thought at least one government member would get up to defend this bill and speak in favour of hoisting this bill, postponing second reading of this bill for six months. Actually it should be a lot longer than that, but this is our motion at the present time. I was hoping that at least one government member would take their place in debate, but apparently they're not going to.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I don't want to repeat the speech I made two days ago, at least not in its entirety. So to spare the members in this House a little bit I'm going to try to develop an argument on why we should hoist this bill six months hence by referring to some international agreements of which Canada is signatory, and to what other governments, federal and provincial, are saying about this proposed legislation.

To start things off, I guess I can come to no other conclusion but that this government is deliberate in its intent to undermine human, civil, social, economic and trade union rights of a large majority of people in this province. That's what's contained in this bill, and it's one of the reasons I think second reading should be postponed six months hence.

Where can I start? The shock value of the firings that have taken place, possibly illegally.... I don't know; I'm not a lawyer. To date a great number of firings have taken place in our public service; a great many more are fired in spite of seniority.

[ Page 432 ]

The minister responsible for this bill, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), shakes his head. I know the minister will respond when he takes his turn in closing debate on this bill some three months hence.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I'm just trying to protect the rights of our working people of this province.

It's interesting to me that the hon. Provincial Secretary would interject across the floor and shake his head. He said no firings have taken place. Maybe he objects to the word "firing," because the government prefers to use expressions like "termination" and "dismissal." Those are the expressions you are using. Don't tell me. Tell those fired people out there that they haven't been fired and that their rights have not been usurped by your government, in spite of your campaign promises. The shock value to the public service and to the people working in Crown corporations, listed here by the dozens.... The School Trustees Association, the BCTF, municipalities, regional districts, hospital boards are all clearly named in this legislation that we are debating today. I think you should rethink some of these actions that you are currently taking and contemplating taking under this legislation. That's another reason why this bill should be hoisted.

As I stated a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, the government did not.... I was going to say, "tell the truth"; in fact the word I have here is "lied," but I'll say the government was not candid during the recent election campaign. I've talked about this before, and I don't want to dwell on the subject too long.

This bill, by the way, is misnamed. They call this the Public Sector Restraint Act. It has very little to do with restraining the public sector and is going to do nothing to aid recovery in this province, so the bill has been misintituled. When we are giving section-by-section reading through committee, I don't think even the title should be allowed to pass, because it's the wrong title for this bill.

The first untruth is that the government led us to believe and, in fact, they discussed this during the campaign — that restraint leads to recovery. Restraint is a device used by this government, in my view, for punishing the enemies under this Bill 3, as the Social Credit government have clearly shown. It does not help the economy at all. The budget will tax more money out of the economy, as indicated in this bill. It's one of the reasons it should be pulled. As a Vancouver political columnist has said: "When 40 percent of the workforce is either unemployed or afraid of imminent firing by government, they will not spend their money in the economy." I would like to know from the Hon. Provincial Secretary, when he closes debate on this bill, how firing a large proportion of our population will lead to strengthening the economy in British Columbia. We have ministers who have spent and overspent a great deal of money on travelling around the world and doing all of these kinds of things. There's no restraint there. There's no restraint in giving their friends huge pay increases, yet the working people are expected to take part in this so-called restraint.

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly discuss the implications of what the government is doing under this bill. They are violating international agreements signed by our government of Canada through the various conferences held under the auspices of the United Nations and the international labour conference, normally referred to as the ILO — International Labour Organization. I won't read the whole thing; I obviously wouldn't have time. I do want to read a few pertinent sections of this agreement. It was finally concluded in 1978, although a number of conferences have taken place since 1948 on this matter. I want you to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the government of Canada has signed this document, as have more than one hundred other nations in the world.

I'll start with article 1, and I'll just read section 1, just to give the minister sitting across from me some idea. I quote now from the document of the International Labour Organization signed in 1948, page 2, part 1, under "Scope and Definitions." I'm sure you have a copy. You are a former Minister of Labour, Mr. Minister, and I'm sure that you know this document by heart, section by section. But for the other members of this House....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, where did he go? Mr. Minister, didn't you have some $2 million or $3 million for travel purposes in your budget? What do you do with it? Did you put it in a Swiss bank account? What did you do with all that money?

AN HON. MEMBER: Went to Bulgaria.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He couldn't spend that much money in Bulgaria.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps I could ask all members to come to order and the hon. member for Mackenzie to consider the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Not only that, but I've got to catch a ferry in 20 minutes. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that there is a large protest rally taking place in my constituency this evening. In spite of the fact that there are 24,000 people in that community, I would hope and think that probably half the population will be out there tonight, and I'm going to tell them what's happening in this House. I'm going to tell them all about you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I definitely will.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, in article 1 of part 1, "Scope and Definitions, " it says: "The convention applies to all persons employed by public...."

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I think this is important. I want the minister to hear and understand that this convention applies to all persons employed by public authorities — that's the government — to the extent that more favourable provisions and other international labour conventions are applicable to them. So that will give you the background.

Section 2, "Protection of the Right to Organize," which this bill and the accompanying legislation deals with....

This bill should be hoisted because it infringes upon the rights contained in this next section. Article 4 says: "Public employees shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment." This bill clearly destroys bargaining rights, and to some

[ Page 433 ]

extent does away with labour agreements that were reached in good faith by both parties — at least I thought so. Obviously, the working people signed these current agreements in good faith, and they are now being shoved down the tube by this government. This is clearly against the international agreements reached by many nations in the world under the International Labour Organization.

Article 5, section 2, "Dismissal Without Cause," says: "Public employees' organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by a public authority" — like the Social Credit government; it doesn't mention Social Credit; I'm adding that as a little aside there for Hansard — "in their establishment, functioning or administration." Yet clearly in this bill, Mr. Speaker, the government is interfering with the rights of workers, internationally agreed to on a document signed by our country on behalf of all the provinces of this country.

In other words, they're promoting violation of agreements, which is clearly against the International Labour Organization, sponsored by the code of the United Nations.

Article 7, under part 3, "Facilities to be Afforded to Public Employees' Organizations," says: "Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken where necessary to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment between the public authorities concerned and public employees' organizations, or such other methods as will allow representatives of public employees to participate in the determination of these matters." Once again, very clearly — I may go into labour law after this speech, I'm not sure....

In any event, Mr. Speaker, it's very clear that this bill violates that international agreement that was signed by the representatives of Canada on behalf of all of us. Basically what it means is unilateral government action without any representation — if they choose — from the organizations which represent the 45,000 or so government employees and the 200,000 other employees affected by this legislation.

MR. REID: Is that dated 1948?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's dated 1978. These conferences started in 1948, for the benefit of the second member for Surrey. I am sure that member is going to get up in this House and take his place in the debate and refute everything I've said. In fact, I'll lend him this international agreement, or give him a copy, so that he can study it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Table it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I can't, because it's the only copy I have and the next speaker has to use it as well. We'll run off copies for you. I'm sure you know the agreement, anyway, Mr. Member, because you were a Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A good one.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They really loved you out there, didn't they? Do you remember 1971 ? You got me elected in 1972 with your legislation in 1971. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The first job you ever had.

[3:00]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, that's a dandy.

Last but not least....

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's wrong with your glasses?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I sat on them and they broke. I have a spare pair at home. He wondered what's wrong with my glasses.

I want to read this one last section under "Final Provisions," article 2. Section 1 says: "This convention shall be binding upon those members of the International Labour Organization whose ratifications have been registered with the director-general." I guess I didn't have to say that, because I've said several times that Canada did sign this agreement under the International Labour Organization.

Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, this government has broken those international agreements. Certainly the federal government is quite interested in what is happening here in British Columbia at the present time, so I've taken the trouble to do a little research. A very serious part of our current constitution pertains to disallowance, which, as I understand it, has not been utilized since 1973 to deal with conscription. Prior to that, disallowance dealt with the Social Credit funny-money scheme that the Social Credit Party initiated in Alberta, putting this funny money around the country. My father used to call them "shin plasters."

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've got one.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You could put it over your mouth. In any event, Mr. Speaker, there could be some question about disallowance, and I suspect our present federal government would never interfere in a provincial government matter. I note some of the decisions in this regard by Peter W. Hogg, a so-called expert on constitutional law in Canada. He waffles a lot. In fact, he goes on to say that probably the type of case we're discussing here would be better resolved in the Supreme Court of Canada, rather than the government of Canada making arbitrary decisions.

What I'm trying to point out here is that this piece of legislation, and other legislation introduced before this House to wipe out human rights, is probably against the Human Rights Code of Canada federal legislation as well. We're not sure about that yet. That may end up in court at some point too. But this type of legislation has stirred such a great deal of interest right across Canada that other provinces, and certainly the federal government, are very concerned about what this provincial government is doing here in British Columbia today. But they haven't got away with it yet.

I don't have much time left, but I do want to get on to one or two little matters, such as getting back to the Social Credit promises made prior to and during the last election campaign. I don't want to dwell at great length on this, but the other day when I was speaking on this matter there were interjections from across the floor like "Not true! Not so!" when I talked about health care user fees, which the government said would not be increased during the election campaign; that taxes would not be increased; and on and on. Yet these things have happened. I suspect that if the government had been candid during that last election campaign and told the voters of British Columbia what they were really going to do if they won the election — which, unfortunately, they did — they probably would be sitting on this side of the House,

[ Page 434 ]

the three or four that would be left, and our party would be sitting on that side of the House. I want to draw to your attention an article that appeared in the Alaska Highway News on Wednesday, April 27, 1983, some seven days prior to polling day in this province. The article, addressed to the editor, says:

"I was incensed to hear that someone is circulating a petition among our senior citizens asking them to sign to prevent the Social Credit government from taking away health benefits from the elderly. It was sick enough when the leader and the health critic of the NDP tried to frighten the sick and the elderly with the false statement that the Socreds were planning to increase health user fees. This statement was an absolute lie, but it got headlines for the NDP. I thought it even sicker for someone to be going around with a false petition trying to individually frighten our senior citizens. I find it hard to believe that anybody could stoop to that level in order to possibly gain a few votes. Our senior citizens can rest assured that a Social Credit government will not jeopardize the benefits which the same government brought into effect.
A.J. Brummet, M.L.A.
North Peace River"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reference does offend anticipation, because it would be better stated on another bill. We are on Bill 3, Public Sector Restraint Act.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This is directly under Bill 3, and a good reason why this bill should be hoisted. It deals directly with what this legislation is and what we were told in the election campaign. But you're right. We'll read it out again under another bill. I've really got to get cracking here. In spite of all this material which I'm sure I can use again in second reading and third reading and fourth reading of this bill, possibly some time in August, I move we adjourn debate of this legislation until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.)

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 33

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I want to identify whether I heard the name Lockstead. Did I hear that name?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

[3:15]

MR. REID: On a point of order, as a new member in the House I'm surprised and shocked that, with the seriousness of the debate today, the mover of the motion has left the House before the vote is taken. Is that normal procedure?

MR. SPEAKER: It's not normal, hon. member, but it's not improper.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to support the official opposition in their motion to hoist this bill for six months. First of all, I would like to deal with the minister who is in charge of this bill. We haven't had a chance to hear from him yet, because he has to wait until the close of the debate; however, I had the great opportunity this morning to hear the minister's sweet, temperate, moderate, quiet tones — I'm not talking about the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), but about the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — as he was being interviewed on CBC. All I can say is: thank goodness for radio and the newspaper, because it is the only chance we get to find out what these members of the Social Credit government really feel about Bill 3. We've had the opportunity to hear from maybe two or three of them. We heard a weak, pallid, little speech from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) yesterday and a weak attempt to defend it. I'm going to get to the minister's attempts in a moment.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour had been referred to earlier in an editorial in one of the papers, saying that surely he could be counted upon to get up and be one of the seven back-benchers who would come out and defend the rights, perhaps even of the opposition in some of the concerns they've expressed — the lack of humanity, for one thing, in this bill. Unfortunately, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour did exactly the opposite. He continued in the same vein of showing no compassion, no humanity, and supported this bill right down the line.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I was not particularly disappointed. I've been in this House for a number of years now and I did not expect to hear anything else from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. However, I did hear the Provincial Secretary interviewed this morning, and I'd like to repeat a couple of the comments which I picked up. I know that if I've made an error, in due time he will certainly correct me. The Provincial Secretary was asked a number of questions by the interviewer re the bill. He said something to the effect — and I have to paraphrase it, because I don't have the tape — that he did admit there had perhaps been a little too much haste in the development of some of the bill. He said yes, maybe in the future it could be done in a different way. So I am picking up my arguments for a hoist from that statement by the minister. If he is ready to admit, as he did to the whole listening public — and it's a large audience that CBC has in the morning — that he feels there was too much haste in drafting this bill and different ways should be developed for the future, may I

[ Page 435 ]

suggest that the official opposition is giving him a great opportunity.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wasn't too swift this morning. I was sleepy.

MRS. DAILLY: Whether he was sleepy and not awake in the morning, I'm afraid his words are there for all the public to hear. The opposition has heard them; the B.C. public has heard them. When the minister who is in charge of the bill admits that he and his government have brought it in in haste and maybe he should look at it in a different way for the future, we are giving him that opportunity. I know that minister, if we follow these statements that he made this morning, has no choice but to support this hoist. I look forward to hearing the minister when his turn comes. Maybe by Christmas you'll have an opportunity to reply to this.

He also, if I recall.... I was trying to write this down rather quickly this morning. I was probably quite as sleepy as the minister at that time, but when I heard he was coming on I made sure I was awake to hear his sweet, moderate tones. I thought one of the most interesting things the Provincial Secretary said this morning to that interviewer was when she kept asking him: "Yes, but why have you put in this firing without cause, dismissal without cause, which is concerning so many people?" Do you know what the Provincial Secretary said?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I forget.

MRS. DAILLY: He's forgotten, so I'm going to remind him over and over again. The Provincial Secretary said: "Oh, without cause. That is really just legal terminology."

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that to all those workers out there who have already received the axe and the pink slips, and now don't know what their future holds, it means much more than legal terminology. It means the loss of a job. It means they're now in a situation where they no longer can contribute to society the way they want to, where they don't even know if they can pay their mortgages and make their car payments. What are they going to do about their families?

The problem with the Social Credit government is that they're beginning to look at everything that happens and all their policies in terms of full-time equivalents, in terms of efficiency, to the point where they forget they're dealing with people, with human beings. I happened to read one of the articles, by the minister who is just leaving, but he can go because it said absolutely nothing. He had no defence for this bill and so you may leave the floor. We can't deal with you right now. We're hoping that sometime the member for Peace River....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I have one of his reports. I went through some of the local papers, and most of the Socred MLA reports just repeat the official line. That minister doesn't seem to have the ability any longer to make up his own reports; it was pretty much the party line. It's rather pathetic.

One of the new members, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, made a couple of interesting statements....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MRS. DAILLY: Shuswap-Revelstoke, right. Thank you. You are awake now, Mr. Minister. One of those comments he made was interesting. He had been asked by a reporter in his riding, according to this article: "Aren't you concerned that with the firing of all these public servants, as we see in Bill 3, it is going to — for one thing — cause harm to your constituents in many areas?" This particular reporter expressed concern about the loss of the rentalsman's ability to adjudicate.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for bringing that matter to the attention of the Chair. I would like to read from standing order 6 which states: "The presence of at least ten members of the House, including Mr. Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers." There are precisely ten members here.

AN. HON. MEMBER: There are nine.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there are eleven. The member has difficulty counting.

There's one here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Would the member proceed, please.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was referring to a comment by one of the back-benchers from the Shuswap area who, when asked about the fact that the rentalsman was disappearing and whether he was not concerned about what was a vehicle now to help his constituents who might have rental problems, and his answer said: "We shouldn't worry about it. The free marketplace will look after rent. If, however, there is evidence brought to me that injustice is taking place, I will personally look into it." This is the standby that we hear from all the Socred back-benchers and cabinet ministers. They want to take us back to the old days again — the days of the old benevolence where "you just come to me and I'll help you." I don't know how many tenants that member has in his riding, but in my riding of Burnaby North over half of the population, which is well over 40,000 today, are renters.

I want to tell him that no matter how good an MLA may be, there is no way one MLA can deal properly with those complaints of the tenants, which are going to be increasing year by year. Under the Social Credit government there doesn't seem to be any impetus being given to the development of alternative housing accommodation which people within a certain income bracket desperately need. I want to say that that kind of talk from a back-bencher, saying that he will look after the problems, just shows that they haven't any understanding of the problems which tenants face in British Columbia today, and have faced. Also, some of the landlords themselves, as we know, are not happy at all about the removal of the rentalsman's abilities to mediate in disputes. We read those kinds of statements and yet we do not hear them in the House because most of those members — have either been told not to get up and defend this or they simply are unable to. I would say it is probably a combination of the two.

[ Page 436 ]

[3:30]

The other member, who always likes to get up in this House — he's enjoyable to listen to, but he is also a member who makes some statements that are completely inaccurate and are intended to whip up what I would say is mass ignorance — alludes to generalized statements with no backup facts. He should be ashamed because he is supposed to be one of the most highly educated members in this House. I know everyone is thinking it must be themselves, but actually it's the member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who got up and made, I think, a pathetic but noisier defence of his government than did the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — a former cabinet minister. The member from Point Grey — the cabinet minister — said a very revealing thing when he was waving his hands around in that old-style speech that we have heard and seen over and over again and which must be a real shock, actually, to the people in the public service, who have to say to themselves: "Is that the kind of person who is responsible for making the decisions that affect me?" He actually stated that the time had come when we all have to share equally. So he was saying to all the people out there who have suffered or are going to suffer from this iniquitous bill, just as the Premier has said: "Buckle in your belt. Go ahead, buckle it in. Remember, everybody has to share these problems today."

Well, let's examine that cabinet minister who says everyone has to share. I would like to say to that cabinet minister that I don't think that you are in any position to make that kind of statement when you are now in possession, and have been for a great number of years, of a very fine salary, provided by the taxpayers of British Columbia. A cabinet minister today makes over $70,000 a year. I'm not going to question now whether that's relevant to the work or not. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that that member has that kind of salary, with all the perks that go with being a cabinet minister; being able to return to his riding and his family whenever he wishes, on a government jet. He takes trips at the cost of the taxpayer, for God knows what purpose, all over the world, and runs around half the time.... He also spends time at the university, and he claims even though he has tenure that he doesn't believe in tenure. That member had the unadulterated nerve to stand in this House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and tell the people of this province, who are suffering because of this bill and this government, that everyone has to be treated equally. Well, I can say that it is because of members like that and their arrogant attitude that we are faced with this terrible bill, which we are asking to have hoisted. When you have that kind of thinking from one of the senior cabinet ministers, there isn't too much hope for this kind of government to be able to provide for equality in this province.

Mr. Speaker, that member, when he was in opposition, spent many hours on his feet condemning what he called inequity of governments at that time, and asked for a democratic government. And now he sits in what I would say is one of the most undemocratic governments which this province has ever seen. And he seems to be quite content because he is able to play around with being a cabinet minister at $70,000 a year, and also at the same time do his work at a university and travel the world. I'm sure that there are many people out there today who can't even pay their mortgages, who must look at him and wonder how he has the nerve to tell them that they must share equally.

Mr. Speaker, I thought that a very fine statement was in the paper this morning. It came from a rather unusual source for this kind of statement. The source is the mayor of Victoria, Peter Pollen. In this article he refers to the government policies which have brought about Bill 3. I find his remarks most interesting. Before I quote from the article, I would like to make the point that I think Mr. Pollen is well known as a former Social Credit cabinet.... I mean candidate. He would have liked to have been a former cabinet minister, I'm sure. Mayor Pollen is certainly not known for being a supporter of the NDP. In this article he does criticize the NDP — I don't want to be accused of just picking out of this article the things that will favour my argument — but that is to be expected; we know that he is not a follower of the NDP. But I want to quote a few statements from Mayor Pollen, who was a former Social Credit candidate, on the present situation with this budget. He says:

"The problem with the new provincial budget" — which relates to the hoist, Mr. Speaker; as I go through I think you will see the connection — "is that it is largely theatre; it may not be 'the greatest show on earth' but it is great illusion, great fantasy and manipulation. Worse, it reveals a cynicism and crudeness that is truly frightening. It reassures us with its demands for sacrifice, particularly by others, but it fails miserably in changing [sic] a course for the economy.

"Behind the tough-talking budget is a government which has been in power for almost eight years — eight years in which it has wallowed in indecision, in a lack of policy or program articulation, in an almost pathological obsession with megaprojects and image-making. Further, its inability to anticipate economic trends or to manage the province in a stable, prudent and effective manner is starkly evident."

I think that's a very interesting point Mayor Pollen is making, Mr. Speaker, as I digress from the quote for a moment, because we constantly hear from across the floor, in defence of the government's actions: "Well, we're going to have to bring down this public service. It's grown and grown." The interesting thing is that that government has been responsible for that growth for the last eight years. They've been responsible for all the major decisions made in this province.

You know, Mr. Speaker, for a number of years before you came to this House, that government's only defence when things were going wrong in this province was to put the blame on the NDP. Now even they can no longer bring up that old bogey. They have been in power in this province for a straight eight years now. The policies and the problems we face are the result of their policies. They are the ones who have to defend them and do something about them.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd like to continue with another statement from Mayor Peter Pollen:

"In these eight years the civil service and Crown corporations' staff, according to this government, have become bloated and largely unproductive. In these eight years our life-support industries of fishing, mining and forestry have become less and less competitive. Labour and management and government relations are more and more based on confrontation. The province's relations with our federal government are based on petty squabbling and rancour. More than 200,000 people are now unemployed, and in

[ Page 437 ]

scarcely a year we have gone from a so-called restraint program of 12 and 13 percent to one of 6 and 5 percent, then to zero percent, and now pay cuts and even summary dismissal. Our provincial debt, both direct and indirect, has soared, making the NDP's three years of government look miserly indeed. So large has B.C. Hydro's debt become that their bond-raising has been downgraded. This is astute management?"

To continue with Mayor Peter Pollen's remarks, with one last paragraph:

"No question, we need to atone for the unproductive and self-indulgent years brought on by the easy affluence of the past decade. But should it be a primitive catharsis of the magic wand of the provincial budget, a wand which is supposed to emancipate the simplistics of the 'free enterprise system' and allow prosperity to prevail once again in this most bountiful of all provinces?"

Whatever our politics, I must say to Mayor Pollen — forgetting whether or not you agree, Mr. Speaker, with the sentiments here — he certainly can write well. I happen to think that Mayor Peter Pollen, as a former Social Credit candidate, has put his finger on many of the problems which we are facing today in so many areas because of the ineptitude and incompetence of the Social Credit government in the last eight years. The tragedy is that this same government is sitting here today in charge of our economy, in charge of this kind of legislation, and their same ineptness and short-sighted thinking is prevalent again.

As I mentioned in an earlier, speech, what I find really tragic is that many of the policies which eventually.... I hope not. We shall struggle very hard to see that they're not passed. If they are passed, the results of many of these policies are not going to be seen immediately. I can assure you that as the years go along, all the social problems, social ills, increased crime, and all the other accidents, such as car accidents, etc., which are going to result from the Social Credit policies are going to come back to haunt the Social Credit government. All I can say is that I sincerely hope that at that time a more enlightened and progressive government will be in office in this province, a government with compassion and humanity, a government that is not incompetent, and a government that can get this province back to work again — put people to work, not put them out of work, which unfortunately is the end result of the policies that we are subjected to by this very incompetent government.

Over and over again one of the arguments we hear from across the floor about the public sector bill is: why should the public sector people get off so easily when private industry workers have a harder time and don't have nearly the same protection? That seems to be a very simplistic statement. I will say one thing about the Socreds: they are very adept at coming out with very simplistic statements, with the hope that most people out there will not go into any depth to analyze their simplicity. Before I go on to discuss the difference between the public and the private sectors, which was brought out in the House before, I want to point out to you that fortunately there are many people in our province today who don't accept the simplistic Reagan-type approach to politics which we are faced with with Social Credit. They don't believe the myth any more. They start thinking about these oversimplifications, such as: "Back to the good old days." "Get government off my back." The people who really think — and there are getting to be more and more every day, because they are being forced to think, because they know that the policies of the Social Credit government are not working — are beginning to question these overly simplistic statements.

I happen to have in front of me a very thoughtful, well-written letter from a constituent. The constituent's name is not familiar to me, but I certainly feel very pleased that he took the time to write to me as his MLA to express his concerns about Bill 3. I would like to read this letter to the House. I think it expresses things far better than I can. He says:

"Dear Mrs. Dailly:

"I'm very concerned over the various bills introduced in association with the recent provincial budget. The conservative ideology behind two bills, the Public Sector Restraint Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, is so extreme and so provocative that I seriously fear it may lead to unfortunate public unrest in the streets.

"I find myself, for example, often angry and even emotional over statements made by Premier Bennett. His comments in relation to the breach of contract with the federal government over the ALRT logo, that he thought the discomfiture of Senator Perrault was fun, betray an irritating lack of integrity and a completely annoying adolescent sense of political gamesmanship."

This is a constituent, I repeat again, who has just written a letter to me.

"His close to kill-the-messenger attitude toward reporters — he recently told a reporter questioning him about the above bills that his questions were argumentative — really makes me wonder how much he respects the role of the media in our democratic society.

"The point of all my prefacing is this: that there are people less educated to the remaining avenues of political influence than myself in British Columbia, and whose sense of irritation could have more destructive expression."

If I can digress from the letter before I continue here, when he says that there are some people who might be more destructive in their expression of their terrible concern over this government's policy, it brings back to my mind the fact that I had the privilege of seeing an excellent movie the other night which I hope you've seen. It is called Gandhi. What this man says in this letter was certainly symbolized in Gandhi. Gandhi, of course, as we know, believed in non-violence — passive resistance. I think that if everyone could follow Gandhi's way of achieving independence for India, we would have a peaceful world.

[3:45]

Why I'm bringing this up is that I know what this man is saying in this letter to me. He is saying there are a lot of people who, when they become upset, annoyed, afraid, insecure — all the things that are going to happen to many public servants in this province and other people who aren't public servants but are going to be out of work in increasing numbers because of the government's policies — reach out, unfortunately, in a destructive expression. I hope not. I know there isn't one MLA in this Legislature who would ever condone such action. It's our responsibility to see that it never reaches that. The unfortunate thing is that when you build up

[ Page 438 ]

confrontation and bring in legislation which is unjust, unfair, takes away their security and is frightening to people, you are asking for confrontation. This is another reason we want this bill pulled. If you do realize it's going to cause harm, I can't believe that you would sit here with a bill like this and let it go through. I'm sure many of the people out there who support the Social Credit government had no idea that legislation could possibly be brought in by the party they supported which could perhaps create very destructive turmoil in our province. It can.

I want to continue with this letter. This man says that he's worried there could be more destructive expression. He says:

"There are people whose jobs in the civil service are shortly going to be on the line in the most uncivil way imaginable, and who face mortgage payments and all the other painful economic realities of everyday life. They need the NDP to fight for them against the unfair nature and the capricious implications of these two bills. The Social Credit attacks on regional planning and other positive social policy instruments are certainly deserving of severe criticism, but their amending acts to the public service, because they strike so harshly at the ideas of due process and justice, must be addressed immediately and most urgently and energetically."

This is a letter from a constituent whom I've never heard from before, and who is telling me as his MLA: "You get in there and you fight to stop this terrible bill." That's why I'm on my feet, and that's why all my colleagues will be on their feet, and we will fight this bill as long as we possibly can, Mr. Speaker.

I thought it was interesting that this constituent should end his letter with a quotation from our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 7: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." That Charter of Rights is there, and yet I say to the Social Credit government that this action you're taking with this bill, and many others, is going to be a serious abridgment of the principles of the Charter of Rights.

When I refer to our Charter of Rights it also takes me back — although I can't be taken back personally; perhaps in a time warp — to the time of the Magna Carta. Do you remember when it was passed, Mr. Speaker? It was passed in 1215. I always remember one of the best teachers I ever had — we all seem to have one or two teachers we always remember — was teaching our class about the Magna Carta, years and years ago. He asked the class when it was signed. No one remembered, and he said to us: "It doesn't matter when it was signed. What was it about?" I always remember that, Mr. Speaker. What it was about is the important thing.

A quotation from the Magna Carta is very relevant, I think, to asking for a hoist for this bill: "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay the right of justice." I think this is the thing that the people of the province, many of whom might have supported your government, are really concerned about today. The government that they supported is bringing in legislation which is unjust and unfair. If you leave this bill sitting here, you are going to be responsible for creating inequities and injustice in the province of British Columbia the like of which we have not seen before.

I found it rather interesting to look up a few quotations on justice, and two or three of them are rather interesting. What is justice? Justice is truth in action. And, of course, the one most of us remember, Mr. Speaker: justice delayed is justice denied. As long as the Social Credit government continues to leave that bill sitting there and continues to let it go through, you are denying justice to the people of the province of British Columbia who are going to be affected seriously by this bill. It's not just the people who are involved in the bill; everyone in this province is going to see some repercussion from this very uncivil bill, to put it mildly.

I've listened to many of the members over there — they're not in the House, but we've heard them elsewhere — who keep saying: "Trust us." The people of this province trusted that whatever government they elected in the province of British Columbia, whoever they are today, whether Social Credit or NDP, would at least bring fairness and justice into their legislation. But they have found now that they have elected a government who think they have a mandate to ride roughshod over the rights of everyone. The people of British Columbia did not elect that kind of government. The Social Credit government does not have a mandate to produce inequities in this society. It does not have a mandate to take away from the people who are underprivileged and to concentrate far more on those who already have.

Somehow or other the members of the Social Credit Party, for whatever reason, seem to have lost the sense of why they are here and why they were originally elected. They are here to serve all the people of this province in a fair and equitable manner, and not just a privileged few. I want to say that this bill is a travesty. If it goes through in the province of British Columbia we will be known across Canada as a province that not many people are going to be proud to remain in.

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[4:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 33

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

[ Page 439 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising to support the hoist of this bill for six months so that the government can reconsider the matter. I notice the exodus from the chamber. It puts me in mind of one of the members of the British House of Commons, who was known as the "dinner bell, " because every time he rose to make a speech he emptied the House. My audience will diminish, and yet what I'm talking about is of great importance to the people of the province of British Columbia.

I asked myself why we should be consuming so much time of the Legislature of British Columbia and holding up — because that's what we're doing as the opposition — a piece of legislation which has been brought in by a government that has become a government of the radical right. But we know that. They were elected as a pretty right-wing government, and they're taking measures of economic restraint and moving towards small government. I disagree with all that. That's a matter of legitimate debate in this chamber. I wouldn't want to be part of a long filibuster about a difference in philosophies, which we all recognize on both sides of the House, but I participate in this one and will continue to participate in it and do everything I can to hold up this legislation, primarily because it has two words in it which I think are insulting and degrading to vast numbers of the people of British Columbia. The words are — we all know them by now — "without cause." People can be terminated from their employment without cause.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I heard with a great deal of disappointment the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) of the province of British Columbia, who is sitting opposite, get up and defend this bill. His argument — I have it here, and I don't want to misrepresent it — was that there had to be control in terms of the size of government: a legitimate argument. He said there should be the right to get rid of people who were not needed in their employment, that the taxpayer had suffered enough and this kind of thing. But he was really, as Attorney-General of the province, upholding arbitrary, capricious discharge — the abandonment of the whole progress of people in the western world to some kind of due process in matters which vitally affect their lives, not only in the workplace but in terms of the families who are either going to school, or dependent on them, or keeping house and trying to hold things together.

Now in the case of property taken away from anybody, the Attorney-General, I'm quite sure, would say: "Well, don't take that arbitrarily. Don't take it without any kind of process." Yet here is the chief law enforcement officer of the province of British Columbia defending the words "without cause." Why? What are the real reasons for this particular legislation? It is called the Public Sector Restraint Act, but that can't be the real reason for the legislation. The collective agreement of the B.C. Government Employees' Union has ample provisions in there relating to layoff and discharge of employees if a government decides to economize and cut back the public service. But it can't be arbitrary discharge, and nobody's made a case for arbitrary discharge on that side of the House. You wonder why, when everything that the government wants to do in accordance with its radical right-wing politics can be done under the existing collective agreements or done under other legislation like Bill 2, if they want to do it, in terms of changing clauses in collective agreements — arbitrarily, even in mid-term. Why would they want to revert to the Dark Ages in terms of the dignity of employees by inserting those words "without cause"?

I ask that question and I hear it answered by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds). I've been listening to the debate. He said that scaring people was a legitimate objective. "It would make them work harder," he put it. But I fasten on what he said about "scaring people," because when I asked myself why these unnecessary words were inserted in this particular bill, I think I know the answer. It is to establish a system of intimidation over the whole public sector and, by implication, over the private sector as well, because the same arguments would apply there.

I see the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) sitting over there. I'm trying to remember the name of the garage that I was his counsel for when we.... The IWA of Salmon Arm were seeking to organize it. I can't think what year it would be. I think it was called Salmon Arm Motors or Columbia Motors.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Columbia Auto, yes. Some of the employees of Columbia Auto had signed up to join the union, which was a perfectly lawful thing for them to do. And the moment they did that a number of them were discharged by the employer for flimsy reasons, but we knew the real reason. The employer had the right of arbitrary discharge. The dignity and worth of these individuals who signed the union cards was of no account whatsoever because they were subject to arbitrary discharge, and they were discharged. That hon. member and I went and fought for them. It was not the greatest battle that's ever taken place, but we felt good about it at that time. In a sense, we were trying to enhance the worth and dignity of human beings and to see that their lives would not be suddenly shattered for doing something that was perfectly lawful, because the employer disagreed with their union activities.

And what a falling-off there has been. I haven't heard that hon. member speak about this bill and defend those words "without cause." And I know I should be addressing the Chair, and I am, to the hon. member through the Chair. But I ask him if he can possibly defend that kind of thing that for capricious reasons, vindictive reasons, reasons of disagreement with the political opinion or because somebody has done something which the law allowed him to do that nevertheless doesn't meet with the approval of somebody up further.... Can you discharge that person and put his family through possibly moving to Fort St. John to possibly re-establish their lives and get the children back in school? There's been a long, long struggle to lift human dignity out of the Dark Ages where one man with the money power held that kind of control over other human beings.

So I ask myself why these totally unnecessary words are contained in this bill. I don't want to be mean about what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, but this is what I think. This is what has happened: the words have been put in there because of the Premier. We have seen on a scale that it's very difficult to credit, really, the extent of one-man government in this province. The Premier made the remark a long time ago, which has been bandied about in this Legislature, when he was looking over at the opposition in 1976. He said: "It took me only two weeks to train my dog." Now we have pleasantries, banter and so on back and forth across this House, but there was a terrible significance in what he was saying. A

[ Page 440 ]

little while ago he appointed the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) to his cabinet. That minister, as he should for the people of British Columbia, gave an interview and gave some of his views; they were very innocuous. I see the minister sitting back there. The Premier said, "That's the last time any minister of mine will speak out unless it is something that has been decided upon in cabinet," which means by himself. Nobody protested that a minister of the Crown should not be under the thumb of the Premier. Nobody protested at that breach of a fundamental privilege that has gone on.

But there are shades of difference in philosophy between cabinet ministers. Look at Great Britain at the present time, where there are very substantial differences of opinion and expressions of that public opinion without the thumb being placed on cabinet ministers. The thumb is being placed on members of this Legislature. The thumb of intimidation is now being placed upon the whole public sector.

[4:15]

Yesterday when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was speaking to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, somebody from the audience said that legislation that creates a high social outcry but has little effect on the bottom line was the description of this particular legislation. Then you come back to the question of why we have it. Why should we have this particular legislation at the present time, if I am not right in saying that there is a deliberate policy on the part of the Premier to intimidate the whole public service? The legislation before us is such a legal fandango at the present time that I would very much doubt that it will be used to any great extent in its present form. I don't understand many sections in it. You've got this business of "without cause," and then you've got regulations, and you wonder whether you could still protest your termination. You have the question of whether or not there would be a common-law remedy. I doubt it, because I would think that the legislation which says you have no rights whatsoever and you can be discharged capriciously or vindictively is all you have left. There's no use going into the courts and saying you want to take action for damages for wrongful dismissal, because your rights have already been stripped away by the language of the statute. So why is it done? I think there is an element of cruelty in what's happening here — callousness.

You've got all kinds of very good British Columbians out there: some teach school; some are in a police squad car, and they're in the public sector; you have nurses. You have all these different kinds of people, who I think have been doing a job to the best of their ability. I think there have been abuses in the system, where the system has not been efficient, and I think those should be addressed. But now all of them are told: "You speak out and you may be subject to arbitrary loss of your livelihood." What kind of Legislature is this that would give big government that kind of power? Have we no shame?

Don't tell me that I shouldn't take the time of this House, spending taxpayers' money, with a Speaker sitting there, and the pages, and all the panoply of the Legislature. There's a fundamental point of principle involved in this legislation, and we ought to fight it down to the last drop of our endeavour.

Arbitrary action. I notice in Thomas Berger's book that he brings back my recollection of the Gordon Martin case. Gordon Martin was a communist who nevertheless had been allowed to enter law school in the early 1950s and pay his fees. He was from Nanaimo, I think. He graduated and was qualified to be admitted to the bar. Nothing he had done was unlawful, but he was a communist. I know there's an irony about communists getting up on pedestals and defending civil liberties; it's an irony that doesn't escape me for one little moment. Nevertheless the benchers of the law society refused his admission to the bar, not because of anything he had done — because it was all lawful; he had run for office as a Labour Progressive candidate, for example — but because of what he thought, because of his convictions. Of course, he had had three or four years of law training wiped out — unable to use his training — by that kind of a decision. And the courts upheld it. It went to the supreme court and it went to the court of appeal, and that kind of arbitrary, discriminatory treatment of a human being, that would not be accepted today for one minute, was upheld in the case of Gordon Martin.

I can see that under this legislation the government can say the union will still be there — there will be the policemen's union, the government employees' union; the nurses' union will still be there — but they will hesitate as to whether they should run for union office and take an active part in their union and expose themselves to discharge without cause, without explanation, for no reason whatsoever. Somebody who is in this very wide public sector that we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, will think twice before he sits down and, on a matter of legitimate public concern, writes a letter to the editor that the government might find offensive. This is the extent to which these two words, "without cause," are casting a pall of intimidation and stripping away basic, fundamental liberties in the province of British Columbia. Is somebody from the law school at UBC going to take a part in politics after this legislation? We hear all about the abuses of tenure. There are some abuses there, in my opinion, and I think we should have a proper code so we don't again have cases like the Julius Kane case, which I thought was a fantastic misapplication of job security. There should have been a tribunal to quickly determine whether or not the kind of offence which he had committed and which was job-related should have led to the termination of his employment. I agree that there are all kinds of abuses of that kind, but there are other abuses that occur on the other side, which this bill encourages.

I fought a case once for a logger in my friend from Alberni's riding, near Ucluelet, and his name was Lucky Macdonald. He had a real row with the bullbucker in the woods about what he should cut and what he shouldn't — whether they got a proper count of his tally for the purposes of his wages. They went at each other verbally with hammer and tongs, and at the end Lucky said: "Well, we'll finish this thing off tonight." The superintendent had a big wedding reception — his daughter was getting married. After a few drinks had been put in his belly, Lucky Macdonald came charging up to this bullbucker, who was dressed in his nice suit and everything at this posh reception for the superintendent's daughter's wedding, and felled the bullbucker with a single swipe of his fist. The question, which was an important question of civil liberties, was whether what he had done justified his discharge, although it had happened after hours.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: How does it apply? You haven't the faintest understanding of what I'm talking about. Suppose someone in the public sector commits an infraction and

[ Page 441 ]

gets his name in the paper but it's not related to his employment — Lucky Macdonald's offence was related to his employment. Should a person be subject to this power of arbitrary discharge when his offence is not related to the work he does, in terms of hours of employment and the duties assigned to him? It will be, because that person can be discharged for something that happens in terms of his lifestyle or, as I say, his opinions or something that happens that is totally unrelated to his job. That's just a little point, eh? Somebody gets into impaired driving, or gets drunk and has a fight with a policeman in the city of Victoria after hours, and he is fired for that. Who's going to complain about that? Yet it is a basic erosion of the kind of fight for human dignity that has been growing up all through the years. That's what we're seeing in this legislation.

The government makes the argument that it should be for the public sector, and presumably for those who are under collective agreements, just as it is in the unorganized private sector. You think that, well, the employees of Bennett's hardware, for example, have no job security. They could put in 15 or 20 years and give their best endeavours to that job and make a real contribution to the business, but for some reason that need not be given to them — all they are entitled to is some notice, two or three months or whatever it might be — they can be discharged. Their whole lives shattered, and their families suffering, with an arbitrary discharge. The government says: "That is happening out there, so why shouldn't it happen in the public sector?" By extension, they are really saying: why shouldn't it happen in the lumber industry, where they have an IWA agreement?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or in your law office.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, in a law office or in real estate. The federal government has addressed that problem — and of course, they're light years ahead in their political thinking, in spite of everything else, of this government of the radical right. They have sections under the Canada Labour Code which apply to somebody who has served in the private unorganized sector and gives them some job security — the right to go to an adjudicator and the right to be reinstated if necessary. That legislation exists to enhance the dignity of human beings. It's not interfering with industrial efficiency and all of the rest of this nonsense that we hear about. It is one of the basic liberties that is beginning to develop in our society, one of our basic freedoms.

What the government is saying is that we should level down the kind of dignity in the workplace that has been slowly established, and make everybody like the employees at Bennett's hardware stores in the unorganized sector who could be fired for their lifestyle, or for good reason, or for no reason, provided you give them a few months' notice. Which way are we going in this province of British Columbia? Are we serious about going to that model? I suppose it's a great thing, in terms of a very radical government of the right, that the money power should control human beings, that the owners of the business should be absolutely in charge, and that the ultimate relation between employer and employee is one of feudal lord and serf; master and slave; complete, final authority of one over the other — not a cooperative relationship, not a relationship that recognizes that the employees too have built the capital of that business and made it prosperous. The arbitrary right of the owner to do what he likes not only with his own property but with the human beings who have contributed to the development of that property — that's what you stand for.

I say there is an answer as to why we have this legislation, and it is to be found in the political desire of the government, led by the Premier, to brook no opposition. There were difficult negotiations leading to the signing of the B.C. government employees' contract. Is this revenge? Is this the government saying: "I'll show that union how to forget looking after the interests of their members. I'll take the militancy out of that union. I'll make sure that there aren't any fiery speeches made that would reflect upon the government, because I'm going to take unto myself the power to fire any one of those members who works in the public service without cause and without explanation." It's a pretty formidable power over hundreds of thousands of people. What about the people outside who are left? If they have any sense in their heads, and I think they do, they will say to themselves: "If this kind of basic denial of human dignity in the workplace of the public sector is allowed to take place, we will be next."

Interjection.

[4:30]

MR. MACDONALD: "Scare them," says the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds).

MR. REE: The NDP will be next.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Yes, of course. I know.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: The next election will be more difficult, if this legislation goes through, because it will be very hard for a public sector employee to exercise his political rights under this legislation.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members will please come to order.

MR. MACDONALD: It will be very hard for people to speak up in a forthright, independent way — the way we expect them to be able to do under this legislation.

I notice the Premier's in the House, and I'll just repeat his one message. We have nothing to do with restraint in this bill. We have nothing to do with cutting back the size of government, which can be done perfectly well under the layoff provisions of that collective agreement. But we do have a bid for control over human beings by the Premier and this government. Discipline them. Cast the pall of intimidation over them all. Brook no opposition. These are fundamental reasons why we have to oppose this kind of legislation.

There are other examples out in that private sector where this kind of control over human beings exists at the present time — an unfettered, arbitrary control over human lives. I think, for example of real estate salesmen. To try and make some money, by the hundreds they pay $300 to $400 to go through the real estate course. Then they join Block Bros. or one of the other big firms, or they work through an agent. Of those 300 or 400 people that go through a particular course, only those who hustle well and make sales make it — Maybe 10 or 15 percent are able to make a worthwhile career out of real

[ Page 442 ]

estate; the rest are discarded. They're lured into the course, they pay their money, but the oversupply is simply enormous out there and very few of them make it. They just have to slink away and take their punishment.

There are all kinds of examples of the kind of thing I'm saying. I'm worried about the police and whether they'll be fearless in the discharge of their duties, without fear or favour, under this kind of legislation that allows them to be fired without cause. I'm worried about the prosecutors in British Columbia who have a duty to act without fear or favour in the enforcement of the law, but who can, under this legislation, be fired without cause. The judges are exempt; the prosecutors are not. I can see another thing happening in the Attorney General's ministry, which is becoming a ministry of injustice, not a ministry of justice. I can see that the regional prosecutors, the Crown prosecutorial system that's been developed so that justice would be done throughout the whole province without fear or favour, will be disbanded in the direction of employing counsel for a fee. Those counsel who are employed for a fee, and who can be discharged or not retained for another case, are very apt to work the will of the government rather than act without fear or favour.

I know there will be intimidation in the universities. I listened this morning to the speech by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). What a pathetic defence of the independence of the universities was in that speech! It was almost as if the hon. member had given up. Even the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) pretends that these words "without cause" don't have any meaning; it's really seniority, and the union agreement will apply. It's pathetic nonsense. We've heard these invertebrate defenders of the rights of the people. We say there's a great constitutional point involving human liberty involved in those words "without cause." We are prepared, to stand in our places as long as we possibly can until everyone in the province of B.C. realizes that the words "without cause" are an intimidation by the Premier of outspoken opposition sentiments that might be voiced anywhere within this province. We are prepared to stand here and point out that this government is rolling back the slow growth of civil liberties, of dignity on the job and the worth of the human individual. Turning back the clock to the dark ages of employer-employee relationships.

Mr. Speaker, 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 — 17

NAYS — 32

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of a full disclosure, some time ago in the House the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) referred to a business card which was purported to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, what is the reason you're seeking the floor?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wish to ask leave to file a document, Mr. Speaker. During that time the card referred to was said to have been a deputy sheriff's, or a sheriff's card, and in the interest of disclosure I'd like to ask leave to file this document with the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some noes, hon. members.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The chair recognizes the second member for Vancouver Centre rising on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: An explanation for the denial of leave must and should be given. When a card....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: This is a point of order to explain why the minister should not be entitled to table such a document. He is not willing to offer any proof of the authenticity of that document whatsoever. And until he does, it's not acceptable on the table. There's no reason why we should believe that anything he produces is authentic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, there is a question before the House, which we'll defer until the remarks from the member for Alberni.

MR. SKELLY: I rise to speak in support of this motion to hoist debate on Bill 3 until six months from today's date. I think this government needs an opportunity to consult with

[ Page 443 ]

the people of British Columbia. There have been so many newspaper articles and so many groups who have approached both the government and the opposition expressing their abhorrence of this type of legislation that the government is perhaps best advised to delay passage of this bill and to talk to some of those people to find out their reasons for the opposition to this bill.

[4:45]

This is a government that makes a great deal of its mandate and talks a great deal about its mandate — or its interpretation of what a mandate is. Mr. Speaker, a mandate to govern or to introduce legislation or to pass legislation isn't obtained solely by winning an election, although that's a large part of a mandate. It reminds me of the government of El Salvador at this time and its human rights policies. The government of El Salvador did win an election recently by a substantial majority, even greater than the majority obtained by this government.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'll ignore the comment, considering its source.

The government of El Salvador claims to have a mandate by virtue of the fact that they obtained an even larger majority at the polls than the government here in British Columbia. But they can't argue that that mandate gives them the right to kill hundreds and, in fact, thousands of people every year in order to protect the mandate of the government. It's interesting that the United States, in a new definition of what constitutes human rights, has stated that there's an improvement in the human rights attitudes in El Salvador now that the government only killed 1,054 civilians during the first month of this year compared to 961 during 1982. The Roman Catholic Church has estimated that 2,527 civilians were killed by the government and by para-military forces during the first six months of this year.

No government can claim by virtue of its mandate, or by virtue of being elected at the polls, that it has the right to treat human rights in the same way as the government of El Salvador does or in the same way that this government does, especially when you consider, Mr. Speaker, how that mandate was obtained from the electorate. It was obtained by false promises that this government has no intention of keeping, by fear tactics that this government used in their telephone campaigns, telling senior citizens that their houses and their pensions would be taken away, telling them that there would be no increase in user fees and telling them that there would be no increase in taxes. When you obtain a mandate by false promises, in fact it's no mandate at all.

The types of fear tactics used during the election campaign — the false promises, the lies and misinformation that were used to gain power in this province — mean that this government has no mandate at all by which they can justify the legislation that they've currently brought in. Given these facts the government should go back to the electors. I'm not talking about having another election where they can use the same kind of tactics, but go back to the electors and through a process of consultation find out whether the electors actually want this kind of legislation or not. That's the reason behind this hoist. We want to give the government six months to go out there and through a process of consultation talk to the people of this province. See if they want the annihilation of some human rights. Talk about the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act to see if they want the annihilation of tenants' rights and talk about the effectiveness of the Residential Tenancy Act and see if they want to get involved in the kind of employer-employee warfare that seems to be developing around the legislation that this government is currently attempting to force through the House.

Let me read some of the comments from columnists in newspapers and journals around the province to give you an idea of the thinking that's going on out there among the people of British Columbia. This one is from the Kamloops News of July 18, 1983 by Cam Murray. I see that the member for Kamloops is not in the House now. He very seldom spends time in the House. Here's what a columnist from his riding says:

"Less than 50 percent of the voters supported these mean-minded people at the polls back in May. But the platform of restraint, more of the same, is now seen to be a very hollow uttering when matched against the deeds of this very sorry collection. Restraint is not the major theme of this legislative program; revenge is. Many of the promises of the campaign have been swiftly repudiated, and those responsible haven't the decency to blush even a little."

What Cam Murray calls the Social Credit government is:

"....a disgusting collection of sycophants that masquerade as the government of this province. This parsimonious pack of petty, penny-pinching politicians has wreaked havoc throughout B.C. With the introduction of the budget and the more than 20 bills that were ruthlessly foisted upon the public of this province, the Socreds have swung B.C. far to the right."

Mr. Speaker, all around the province these types of comments are coming out in the editorials, letters to the editor, meetings of the people and in demonstrations such as the one that was held in Victoria a short time ago. The government simply does not have the mandate that it claims to have in order to pass this legislation through this House. That's the reason why we're attempting through these processes of delay to slow passage of this legislation — so that the government will have an opportunity to consult with the people.

There is a need to reduce the fear and the terror and the fear of the loss of their jobs that is currently being suffered by the public sector in this province, and by the private sector who feel that the axe is going to fall on them next. There is a reason to hoist this bill so that minority groups in this province can be consulted by the government to find out whether in fact and through what regulations and what changes in legislation they are going to be ensured the protection that in a democratic society minority groups have the right to. There is a reason to hoist this legislation and to delay its passage and implementation in order to ensure that tenants and landlords will be protected as a result of the changes in the Residential Tenancy Act.

There is a need to consult with client groups of the government to make sure that the legislation being passed by this government, and the actions being taken by this government, are actually going to achieve the kind of restraint measures that the government claims they will be providing. I'm talking about groups and services such as legal aid, diversion programs from sentencing, and services to the mentally handicapped and to those who suffer from domestic and sexual violence.

[ Page 444 ]

It's interesting that there was an article in the Times-Colonist this morning where in eliminating one agency.... The people in that agency claim that it's going to cost the government more and cause more suffering if the government eliminates the program. Apparently this is a program in Victoria that diverts hundreds of non-violent first offenders into community work. It was one of the first victims of the Socred restraint axe on Wednesday. The cost of this program to the people of British Columbia was $92,852, or about $106.12 per client. Yet it protected the taxpayers from the costs of putting these people through courts, where even if they enter a plea of guilty it costs something like $300 to $750 a case for every person to be processed through the courts. The fact is that this program that cost the people $92,852, as a result of the Social Credit restraint program is now going to cost the people of this province $500,000. That's some restraint.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and some of the other ministers admitted that they hadn't really done any kind of analyses of the ultimate costs of their restraint measures. Where eliminating a program like this increases the costs to the taxpayers and the general public by 500 percent, surely the government should be given more time through the measure of this hoist to examine the programs that they've brought about and to see if they actually have the effect of doing what the government says those programs were doing. Otherwise we have no reason to believe that they are restraint measures, and must believe that they are simply ways of attacking programs that the government is opposed to in a philosophical way. Most of those programs, of course, are programs that are designed to protect the poor.

It's gotten to the point where even the Times-Colonist newspaper has now relabelled the province of British Columbia. We now have a new name: we're called "Brutish Columbia" as a result of the passage of this type of legislation and the presentation of this type of budget and legislation to the province. In an editorial on Thursday, July 21, here's what the Times-Colonist has to say:

"Much of that unqualified support for the provincial restraint program has now vanished, atomized by the harsh methods the Social Credit government is using to reduce the size of the public service. In addition, there is growing resentment at the way the government has used its restraint theme as justification for a whole range of other moves which primarily affect the poorer, more disadvantaged members of society."

These programs are not restraint programs at all. They're simply reflections of the philosophical approach of the Social Credit government, and they represent an attack on the poorer, more disadvantaged members of society, The government needs an opportunity through the vehicle of this hoist to go out and re-examine the programs and measures they've brought in, and to consult with the people who are responsible for these programs and the people who have benefited from these programs, and also to see whether or not these programs actually constitute restraint, or whether they're going to cost the taxpayers a lot more, not just in the short run but in the long run as well.

Our caucus has had a number of discussions with local government representations, and we find in general; that prior to the presentation of this legislation there has been absolutely no consultation with the local governments who are going to be required to conform with the legislation or, in some cases, to enforce it — to fire the people who are to be fired without cause, and also to take the flak from the community. There's been absolutely no consultation taking place between local governments and this government on the regulations, which have yet to be drafted. The government is telling us in the opposition: "Trust us. It's not going to be firing without cause. We're going to bring down regulations which will ameliorate that drastic action." Yet we have seen no regulation, and we understand there has been no consultation with the public. We need a six-month hoist on this legislation to give this government an opportunity to talk to those local governments, whose members could be fined up to $2,000 each. Elected members could be fined up to $2,000 each, not for carrying out the wishes of those who elected them but for refusing to carry out the wishes of the central government, from whom they are in no way responsible, to whom they have no mandate — as this government defines a mandate. These elected officials could be subject to a $2,000 fine if they fail to carry out this government's orders. For that reason alone, and for the fact that many of these people have given their lives to local government, have made local government a career, through school boards, municipal councils, regional districts and hospital boards, they should at least be consulted prior to the implementation of this legislation.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The government might also meet with some of its allies out there. I understand that even its allies are expressing some concerns about the legislation that we're presently being forced to deal with in the House. Even Bill Hamilton of the Employers' Council of British Columbia — a man to be respected, a former Postmaster-General of Canada, a member of the Conservative cabinet several years ago....

"After the dinner Hamilton said the province's employers are behind the government's decision to impose restraint." So are most people in the province. Most people in this province recognize in the state of economic ruin that Social Credit has brought us to that restraint is absolutely necessary. Bill Hamilton goes on to say: "...but we have certain concerns with the proposed administration of the legislation. We want the opportunity to explore the legislation with the cabinet and to express some of our concerns. We do feel we have some helpful ideas on how it could be implemented with a minimum of dissension." This government has an obligation to go out and consult with its friends. The six months' hoist we're talking about here today will give the government that kind of opportunity. It's a very reasonable suggestion, one that the government should pay some attention to.

A hoist would also give the public and the government an opportunity for a cooling-off period. It would give the people an opportunity to examine in some detail the legislation that was dumped in this House last Thursday — 26 bills in all. It came as a total surprise not only to the people of this province and to the public sector employees, but also to the people who ran as Social Credit candidates. Gary Begin mentioned that if he had known this legislation was in the works he wouldn't have run as a Social Credit candidate. Graham Bruce, the mayor of Duncan, said the same thing: that he was absolutely unaware that this legislation was in the works or that this type of political philosophy was part of the Social Credit political philosophy. Even the Social Credit candidate for Victoria said that all during the campaign nobody had made him aware that he was going to be one of those who would have to

[ Page 445 ]

enforce this type of legislation against his constituents. It was kept completely secret until after the election. So there was absolutely no consultation, not even with their own candidates during the last election campaign.

Probably one of the reasons why the Socred backbenchers in this House are so silent, so afraid to stand up and justify this legislation, is that they weren't even made aware of it prior to the last election or during the last election campaign. The government, the sitting members of Social Credit, didn't even have the honesty to tell them what their plans were for after they came back into government. So a hoist would permit a level of consultation with the community, even with their own party members who were unaware that the government was going to take such a radical turn to the extreme right. I think the government should take this opportunity to sit down with the people of this province, with employers and employees, to develop a process of consultation — even with their own party members — and explain to them just why they have taken this radical turn to the extreme right.

As one of our members pointed out earlier today, or possibly yesterday, it will also give them an opportunity to re-examine the constitution of their own party, to see that this type of legislation violates even their own party's constitution, the things that they claim to stand for. But we know how seriously they hold their own party constitution and statement of principles. They are always willing to sacrifice those for whatever reasons they choose to sacrifice them whenever the circumstances allow.

There was an interesting article in the Vancouver Sun this evening, Mr. Speaker, in which it was pointed out that the Ministry of Human Resources plans to cut a $50 payment to people — mentally and physically disabled people, generally — who attend volunteer centres. The reason for the $50 payment is to assist those people to get transportation, to provide themselves with lunches and the necessary clothing, etc., and to allow them to go out into the community and be functioning members of the community through volunteer workshops provided by volunteer organizations. The government in its callous way is even cutting back on that and justifying it as restraint. I am surprised that the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) has never said a word about this legislation, never said a word about this type of program called restraint which fundamentally attacks some of the services provided to mentally and physically handicapped people in this province, whom he claimed to represent. When he was appointed coordinator for the international Year of the Disabled, he claimed to represent these people in the province. Now he has become a member of a government that has turned around and done nothing but attack the handicapped people of the province by cutting back even the pittance of $50 that they receive in order to participate in volunteer workshop programs.

Mr. Speaker, if for no other reason, we should hoist this bill, we should hoist the legislation, we should delay consideration of the budget until the government has had an opportunity to consult with the people of the province because of the reputation of this province throughout Canada and around the world. This place used to be called Super Natural B.C. As I pointed out, the editorials are now calling it Brutish Columbia because of the jackboot nature of the government we have in office here. The Toronto Globe and Mail for 21 July, 1983, says:

"In effect the government of British Columbia has declared open season for bigots, unjust landlords and exploiting employers. In their moral universe" — they are taking about the moral universe, of course, of the Social Credit Party and its government — "tenants exist at the pleasure of landlords, employees at that of the employer. In their imaginations tenants never pay the rent on time, employees goldbrick, and things are going to change. In the near future the self-described Eden of Canada is not going to be a very pleasant place to live if you are unfortunate enough to be one of those targeted."

Super Natural B.C., Mr. Speaker, or Brutish Columbia? Domed stadium or not, Vancouver may yet realize its true ambition and become the Hong Kong of Canada.

An editorial from the Toronto Star, recently reprinted in the Times-Colonist here in Victoria, says:

"All of Canada is diminished when the level of compassion and caring falls below acceptable levels in any of its parts. That is why the brutal measures in the B.C. budget, even though they fall entirely within areas of provincial jurisdiction, are cause for chagrin for all Canadians.

"Different provinces will naturally have different programs and policies, but there are certain thresholds of civility, decency and compassion for the most vulnerable, below which none of our governments should fall. The newly re-elected Social Credit government of Bill Bennett is busily smashing through those thresholds with a package of harshly retrograde measures that will cause real human hardship.

"Bennett is striking directly at the protection of low- and middle-income British Columbians. It is the relatively weak in society, those lacking in wealth and personal influence, who most likely rely on the assistance of such institutions. Bennett proposes to leave them more vulnerable. A similar edge of brutality characterizes his approach to reducing the size of the provincial civil service. It is highly desirable for any government to trim out any fat it finds in its bureaucracy, but Bennett intends, instead, to hack at it with a chainsaw.

"It is hard to see how Bennett can attain those reductions without cutting back sharply on government services. Given the overall tilt his government is demonstrating, there is every reason to fear that the hardest-hit services will be those that benefit the neediest. Moreover, at a time when some 185,000 British Columbians are already unemployed, to contemplate adding thousands of government workers to the ranks of the jobless is in itself an act of cruelty. It is a nasty business made all the worse by the fact that in his recent election campaign Bennett gave the voter little inkling of the extreme to which he has now gone. In any event, with only 50.1 percent of the popular vote, he can hardly claim overwhelming public support for a right-wing rampage that affronts Canadian traditions of social compassion and embarrasses us all."

Mr. Speaker, I don't expect the government to listen to this type of message, and I gather that they're not. I don't expect the back-benchers of the government to stand up and defend the type of legislation that's been passed here, since they were never consulted on it in the first place. But this

[ Page 446 ]

government has an obligation — if it's going to fulfil its mandate, and if it claims to have a mandate — to vote for the hoisting of this bill, to lift this bill for six months, to go out and consult with the people of the province and with the groups who are going to be affected: tenants, minorities, physically and mentally handicapped groups, and all the other groups who are going to be affected by the damaging legislation that this government has brought down at this time. It has an obligation, if it's going to realize its mandate, to consult with those groups prior to implementing the legislation. It has an obligation to talk to its friends and its own members, who were never informed during the last election campaign that this government was going to take a sharp turn to the extreme right, as indicated by the candidates who were struck with some surprise at the type of legislation that's now being presented in this House.

What we are doing in proposing this motion to hoist the legislation for six months is simply giving a positive measure to the government to allow them to consult with the people of this province and to determine whether or not the people of the province want the kind of legislation and extreme rightwing government that this legislation represents.

I strongly support this move, and Mr. Speaker, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House after today.

[5:15]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 31

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

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I had sort of hoped that one of the people newly elected to this House would take his or her place in this debate in order to speak on behalf of the constituents whom they were elected to represent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill has!

MS. SANFORD: Oh, yes, I do apologize: the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) did speak on this bill. But what about the rest of them? They were all elected here as freedom fighters, people out to protect the rights of their constituents and to ensure that justice is done in this province, yet they have very little to say about this particular piece of legislation. Certainly we've had no defence from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). He hasn't been up at all.

I think it's time that these members got up and entered this debate and recognized the cogent arguments that are being advanced by this side of the Legislature....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Speak to the bill and quit lecturing the House.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not speaking to the bill, I'm speaking to the motion, Mr. Minister. The motion is that we hoist this bill for a period of six months, and I'm speaking to that motion, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is time the government listened to the arguments that are advanced by this side of the House, time they came to their senses, agreed with us and said: "Yes, it is time we took a second look at this particular piece of legislation." It is unreal what has happened in this province since this House was called together and we had that avalanche of bills and the budget that was presented to us. People are reeling out there. People are hurting, people are frightened and worried, and with much justification.

This government has undertaken a course of action which we feel they must draw back from. They must at this time withdraw, pull back, start all over again. I would like to see one of those people over there move adjournment of the House so that we can come back and have a whole new budget and a whole new set of bills that have some rationality in them, some compassion, and not subject us to the kind of autocratic approach that we've seen over the past few weeks from this government. I didn't think I'd ever see it. This is not the Canada that I know. It's not the British Columbia that I know, or want to know. I, like so many of my constituents, am frightened and concerned, worried and distressed about the direction this government is taking.

The bill that we are asking be hoisted makes provision for the firing without just cause of thousands of employees in this province. Firing without just cause of a hundred?

AN HON. MEMBER: At least 100.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, is the newly elected member saying there will be at least 100 fired without just cause? But it is my understanding from the statements made by the Premier and from comments in the budget that it could be well over 100. It could be well over 1,000.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I see. He's backtracking now. He recognizes that thousands of people in this province could be subject to firing without cause under this bill. And if it's one, Mr. Speaker, it's too many, because no one should be subjected to the provisions of this particular bill. No one!

One of the things that I keep hearing, particularly from the back-bench members but also from the members of the cabinet benches, is that this is restraint. We have to bring in this kind of legislation because of restraint. They keep saying: "What would you do? Where would you get the money

[ Page 447 ]

to ensure that people can remain employed? What would you do to ensure that we can provide services to our people at this time?" I would like to point out that the costs of the action that these people are currently embarked upon, the present course they have decided to utilize, are going to be more expensive and more costly to the taxpayers of the province; that is, to fire willy-nilly, without cause, without any concern for the people who work for them — the very cruel, heartless approach that they are adopting.

Let's look at the kinds of costs we can expect to face as a result of the actions they are taking at this time. "Who's going to pay for it?" they're always saying. "Who's going to pay for keeping our people employed in this province? Who's going to pay for ensuring that services are retained for the people in this province?" That question is posed many times in quips across the floor of the House from the government side: "Who's going to pay?"

So many things happen to people and to our society as a result of the kind of action that's allowed under this Bill 3 that the costs are going to be horrendous to the taxpayers of this province. I'm not even talking about the costs in human terms; the suffering, anguish, distress that people feel as a result of the uncertainty people are placed in when they can be fired without cause, and when they know that the government intends to fire thousands of them. I'm not even talking about the anguish, suffering and distress that people feel as a result of losing the services they need — and desperately need, in many cases — at this time in our province. I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about the financial costs. Who is going to pay the financial costs of the kind of action that the government contemplates taking under this particular piece of legislation? I have spoken on a number of occasions about the costs, in financial terms — I'm not even dealing with the cost to people and the suffering; I want to make that very clear — of unemployment. We already have very high levels of unemployment in this province, and the government, through its actions, intends to add thousands more to those people who are on the unemployed rolls.

[5:30]

The other thing is that the costs can be measured, and they have been measured through work that was done for the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Congress decided that they would try to determine what costs there are to society when there are high levels of unemployment. Some of the costs that they determined are as follows:

"We find that people who are suffering because they are not employed or are worried because they might lose their job in the near future suffer a great deal from stress-related diseases, the kind of thing that we can expect whenever there is a large amount of stress put on people: diseases related to heart disease, ulcers, mental depression, alcoholism and all the accompanying diseases that accompany the disease of alcoholism, such as cirrhosis of the liver."

Those can be measured and have been measured in the United States for the U.S. Congress. The reports have been made available, and I hope that the members on the government side will consider these reports, consider the costs involved in adding to the unemployed rolls — which this bill will do — and ask themselves who will pay. Who is going to pay for the psychiatric help that people are going to require? The studies that have been done for the U.S. Congress demonstrate very clearly that an increase in unemployment results in an increase in mental health problems. It's very clearly documented.

Who is going to pay for these people who are going to require medication and treatment through psychiatric services in the province? Who's going to pay for the people who end up in hospital having to undergo an operation because they have developed an ulcer as a result of the fact that they fear they're going to be fired, or that they have been on the unemployed rolls?

MRS. JOHNSTON: We're going to develop one from listening to all that rubbish.

MS. SANFORD: It's unfortunate that the people on the government side are so uninformed about what happens when people become unemployed that they do not even understand that this has been documented at this stage. They have not read about it and they do not accept the fact that these are the results.... This is what happens to people when they stand to lose their job or when they have lost their job.

I would like to read, particularly for the benefit of the second member for Surrey, who seems very surprised at the information that I'm bringing to this House today....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: She's disbelieving. You're right.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm the first member.

MS. SANFORD: I'm sorry. I get them all mixed up. They're all the same, Mr. Speaker.

Harvey Brenner, who is the person employed by the U.S. Congress to look into the effects of unemployment on people in the United States, found that with each 1 percent rise in the unemployment rate there is a 4.1 percent increase in suicides. Mr. Speaker, I think that gives you some idea of the kind of stress and anguish that people are subjected to as a result of losing their jobs. They lose their sense of self-worth; they become depressed and they develop all kinds of diseases simply because they feel they have no place in society. They can't make a contribution. They can't keep their families together; they can't pay for their homes. It's quite understandable why this kind of stress would result when people are without work.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What about the taxpayers who can't pay any more?

MS. SANFORD: What I'm telling the first member for Surrey is that the taxpayers are going to have a tremendous burden to pay as a result of this. Who's going to pay for those hospital costs? When a person goes into an acute-care hospital in need of an operation for a particular problem, such as that resulting from an ulcer they've developed because they haven't got work, the costs in the major hospitals today are $500 a day.

MR. LEA: They hope they'll all commit suicide. It's cheaper. It's the bottom line.

MS. SANFORD: The same doctor indicated there was a 4.1 percent increase in suicides, which I've now read in to the

[ Page 448 ]

record; but there is also a 1.9 percent rise in deaths from heart disease. Their hearts are so badly affected in some cases because they haven't got a job, and it results in such stress that there is an increase of 1.9 percent in the death rate from heart disease with every 1 percent increase in the rate of unemployment. Who's going to pay for all of the costs involved in treating in hospital those people with heart disease? Who's going to support the families of the breadwinners who die from heart attacks because they have lost their jobs? Who's going to support them? Who's going to pay for them?

MRS. WALLACE: The taxpayer.

MS. SANFORD: Of course the taxpayer! And these people keep saying, "Where are we going to get the money in order to keep people working and provide services in this province?" The costs of not ensuring that those services are maintained are going to be very high to the taxpayers of this province.

In addition, there is an increase in cirrhosis of the liver and stress-related diseases. To quote from the article, a 5.7 percent increase in homicides with every 1 percent increase in unemployment. Does this concern the people on the other side? What about the families involved in those situations? What about the stress that's placed on them? What costs are we going to be subjected to because of this?

The doctor also found that there was a 2.3 percent increase for women and a 4.3 percent increase for men in admissions to mental hospitals. Do you know who has to pay for those? The taxpayer has to pay. Where are we going to get the money to pay for all these things that are going to happen as a result of adding to those unemployment rolls? The government says: "Where are we going to get the money?" I say, where are we going to get the money to pay for the problems that are going to result from the actions that are proposed under this bill? If the government would just consider the costs involved to the taxpayer in the future, I'm sure they would support our motion to hoist this bill for six months. They can't come to any other conclusions. Everybody has to pay for the hospital costs and psychiatric services involved. Everybody has to pay when families are put on support systems of various kinds because people who have been breadwinners have been driven to suicide or homicide. That's what happens, and this is what the government is proposing. This is the consequence of the actions of government.

Stress is one of the big side-effects of unemployment. Maurice Wood, an engineer from the Massey-Ferguson company in Toronto, was talking about the emotional burden of coping with a recession that has exacted a punishing toll on individuals. He talks about the increasing levels of stress, and how this bears down on many people, particularly the jobless, It's the jobless who are hardest hit by this kind of economic downturn.

We have a Dr. James Meuser, who says that a feeling of helplessness, the lack of control, is what creates stress. If I have ever seen a group of employees who have a feeling of helplessness and lack of control, it's those thousands and thousands of people affected by that particular piece of legislation. They are under tremendous stress.

It's not just mental health problems that develop. It's not just depression. It's not just an increase in suicides, homicides or alcoholism. It's not just an increase in all the stress related diseases that are going to require all these funds from taxpayers to take care of them. It's not just the fact that families are going to be left without breadwinners because of the actions they're driven to, namely suicide or homicide. We also have all kinds of other effects from unemployment. These too have been documented in the studies done for the U.S. Congress.

[5:45]

Problems like marital breakdown. Families break up when the breadwinner is suddenly unemployed. The breadwinner feels he has no self-worth, that there's no contribution to be made in our society. He loses incentive. A lot of marriage breakdown is directly attributable to the fact that people have lost their jobs.

MR. REID: What about the businessman who can't afford to pay his taxes?

MS. SANFORD: The businessman is going to have to pay tremendous taxes in order to pay for the kind of stupidity that you people are involved in under this legislation. It's just incredible, the narrow tunnel vision that some members in this Legislature have.

We have family and marital breakdown. That too is costly to society, because it very often means that the woman, particularly, who is usually left with the children, has to rely on government in order to support her and her children when there is marital breakdown. There is another added cost because of unemployment.

I'm only quoting the studies done. I'm trying to knock some sense into the people on the government side of the House, who have embarked on a course that's going to be tremendously costly to the people of British Columbia. The taxpayers can't afford your approach; it's too costly. Where are the taxpayers going to get the money? Where is the government going to get the money to pay for all of this? Where is it, Mr. Speaker? So what they're going to do is add to the costs by adding to the unemployment, by adding to the problems that people have related to health, mental health, marital breakdown, alcoholism....

MR. REID: We do that now. That's why the budget is so high.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ignore him.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I guess we have to give up. Some of them, Mr. Speaker, aren't capable of learning. I've discovered that they're incapable of learning.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will come to order.

MS. SANFORD: One of the other effects of high levels of unemployment is an increase in child abuse. That, too, has been documented by the U.S. Congress, whether the government likes to know about it or not. When you have an increase in child abuse related directly to the fact that there is unemployment, then society pays for the lifetime of that particular child. The effects of child abuse are usually noticeable, evident and persistent throughout that person's lifetime. I'm not talking about any of the human aspects of all of this, Mr. Speaker, just simply the financial costs.

[ Page 449 ]

The other thing that happens, again documented by Dr. Brenner, is that we have an increase in juvenile delinquency. That usually means that there are vandalism costs that have to be paid for by governments of various kinds, whether it's municipalities or the provincial government. When you have juvenile delinquency. one of the most frequent occurrences is an approach through vandalism. This is the way the juvenile delinquent behaves. They break things; they ruin them; they destroy them, and those have to be replaced. Who is going to pay for that? The taxpayer.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's right, and what you don't know is that you're adding to it.

The juvenile delinquent very often has to take up the time of the courts, Mr. Speaker, and that too is a very costly and necessary part of the democratic system. But your actions are adding to those court costs, because the increase in juvenile delinquency has been documented as a direct result and definite product of unemployment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Press on.

MS. SANFORD: You want me to press on, do you? Are you waiting for me to adjourn the debate? Is that what you want?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's up to you. Can you finish in five minutes?

MS. SANFORD: No. I've got lots here.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Adjourn, then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Is that what the House Leader would like — an adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House? I so move, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.