[ Page 451 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment.

Ms. Sanford –– 451

Mr. Rose –– 453

Mr. Stupich –– 458

Mr. Barrett –– 463

FRIDAY, JULY 22, 1983

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to rise under section 35 of the Standing Orders and ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance: funding cuts for Silver Threads centres in Victoria and for 22 others in the province of British Columbia which were announced today by the minister. That announcement has sent an incredible shock wave through this community particularly. The Silver Threads centres here have served this region and this city for many years and their importance to the retired community is incredible.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're not on a point of debate. We're at the point of introducing a matter of urgent and pressing nature which must be stated briefly.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm trying to be as brief as possible, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You're not succeeding, hon. member. We can't use this forum as a method of introducing matters of debate.

MR. BLENCOE: I will try then to give very quickly the sense of the emergency to this House. It indeed is a matter of grave importance to those thousands of senior citizens, and I would urge the House to consider this motion under section 35 for emergency debate. It's the minimum we can do for the thousands of senior citizens in this community and others. Do you wish me to read the motion, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member; just forward the statement. I'll take a look at it and get an answer back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

MS. SANFORD: Last night, just before I adjourned the debate on this particular motion to hoist this bill for a period of six months, I was posing questions to the government about where they are going to get the money to pay for the problems they are going to create as a result of their actions in relation to the serious problems of people who are facing firing and unemployment as a result of Bill 3. We know that many difficulties are presented to people who must face unemployment. There are increased levels of stress, of heart disease, of all the stress-related diseases, including mental health problems; increases in juvenile delinquency, wife battering, child abuse, alcoholism — all of those things. Where is the government going to get the money to pay the costs involved in the treatment of those people who, as a result of this bill, will be adversely affected in that way?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I also want to know where the government is going to get the money to pay for the increased court costs that are going to result from the cutbacks in services of various kinds as a result of the firings that are going to take place. When the rentalsman's office is removed, the only alternative that people will have if there is a dispute, whether they are landlords or tenants, is to go to the courts. The courts are going to be so jammed as a result of that move alone that the costs to the taxpayer are going to be horrendous. Where is the government going to get the money to ensure that those court services are available to people who no longer will have the rentalsman to turn to?

Where is the government going to get the money to pay for the complaints that are going to come about through the whole area of consumerism? The consumer services of this province are going to be eliminated. The only alternative that people have when they buy an old used car that doesn't work is to go to court, because the consumer services are not going to be available through the Consumer and Corporate Affairs ministry. They're going to be removed. Who is going to pay for the vandalism that takes place as a result of the actions of juvenile delinquents who have been adversely affected because their parents are suffering and are under the stress of layoff and firing without cause and without any recourse as a result of this Bill 3? No just process is open to them.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The Premier wants to know what I suggest. I suggest that this government get some decency, that they learn how to deal with people fairly and equitably, and that they remove this kind of anti-democratic legislation that they have brought before this legislature. It's a disgrace. That's what I suggest, Mr. Premier.

[10:15]

What I'm saying is that the taxpayers are going to be paying very heavily for the decisions that are being made by this government. I spent my time yesterday pointing out how these increases are going to take place.

I've just learned that the land branch is going to be closing its doors in Courtenay. They have six permanent employees. The land branch in Nanaimo is also going to be closing its doors, which means that the taxpayers on Vancouver Island who need the services of the land branch are going to have to drive all the way to Victoria and spend all of that money in order to have any service at all, rather than being able to go into their local office in order to obtain the services that are now available to them. The ten permanent employees that are involved in those land branch offices have the option of relocating in Victoria. Where is the money going to come from on November 1 to pay the approximately $60,000 that it's going to cost to relocate those land branch people here in Victoria so that they can eliminate the service in Courtenay, Nanaimo and all of Vancouver Island? Now where's the sense in this, Mr. Speaker? It doesn't make sense from the viewpoint of the employees, and it doesn't make sense from the viewpoint of services, and it doesn't make economic sense either. It's absolutely ludicrous!

The school trustees have informed us that they don't want this kind of legislation. They don't want the right to fire without cause. They see this as a dangerous move on the part of government, and they don't want to be put in that position of firing without cause. They made that very clear to us. As a matter of fact, my own school trustees' association, School

[ Page 452 ]

District 71 in Courtenay, passed a motion just a week ago. I would like to read that into the record:

"It was regularly moved and seconded that the board approved the following statement outlining its position with respect to the legislation tabled July 7, 1983.

"This school board expresses its opposition to the centralization of power and erosion of democratic decision-making processes by the provincial government as shown in Bill 3 and Bill 6. Specifically we oppose the essence of Bill 3. This board believes that no school board nor other public employer needs the right to fire employees without cause; in fact, we feel that this aspect of Bill 3 is an attack on basic rights which should be available to all employees in a democratic society. As well, this board opposes the centralization of power embodied in Bill 6. This bill essentially removes all decision-making power from local school boards and deprives local taxpayers of the right to develop a school system geared to local needs."

They don't want this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker. They don't want to be put in the position of having to fire without cause.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Then they should resign.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, that would make the government very happy, Mr. Speaker. If only the school boards of the province would resign, then you could make all the decisions right here in the ivory towers in Victoria. Wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't it be nice if all the municipal governments resigned; wouldn't it be nice if all the regional districts resigned? This is what the back-benchers are calling for, Mr. Speaker. If the school boards oppose what this government is imposing upon them, then resign.

MR. REID: Good idea.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), as well as the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), think it would be an excellent idea if those people who disagree with the policies of this government and the autocratic anti-democratic approach that it has taken would just resign. Mr. Speaker, maybe the government could move them out of the province if they don't like what they're doing. I wonder if the second member for Surrey would agree with that. If people disagree with the policies of this government, maybe the government could come up with some money to move them out of the province.

MR. REID: No, we wouldn't do that.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, they wouldn't do that. Just ask them to resign and go away.

MR. REID: They're good people; they're just wasting our money.

MS. SANFORD: The school boards are wasting the money, are they?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the second member for Surrey to come to order and the member for Comox to address the Chair.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce what you said to the member for Surrey: if he wants to speak, he should get up and make a speech, instead of sitting back there heckling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that's been clearly stated. Will the House please come to order.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, that particular point of order raised by my colleague was applauded vigorously by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). I don't know if he's embarrassed by what the second member for Surrey is saying.

MR. COCKE: No!

MS. SANFORD: Oh! Does the minister agree that the school boards of this province are irresponsible and are wasting money?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Never!

MS. SANFORD: Oh, he doesn't agree. We have a fight on the floor of the House this morning, Mr. Speaker. The second member for Surrey says they are wasting money…

MR. REID: I stand by that.

MS. SANFORD: …and he stands by that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we can avoid addressing one another and address the Chair, and also address Bill 3, then we can carry on. Three minutes, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if those two members could have their fight in caucus. It's interesting to find the government benches fighting with each other over what the school boards of this province are undertaking. It seems pretty clear that there's a disagreement here. Of course I know that the second member for Surrey was suggesting the other day that we also do away with the Labour Relations Board.

MR. REID: Hear, hear! I'll second that.

MS. SANFORD: You see, if you do away with the Labour Relations Board.... There's the former Minister of Labour. I don't know whether or not he would agree with that; maybe he does. But then we could have more people traipsing into the courts, costing the taxpayers more money by providing a court system for that kind of thing. He wants to eliminate the land commission, the rentalsman, human rights....

MR. REID: Who ends up paying for it?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, he's unreal. But unfortunately he is representative of the attitude that is embodied in these pieces of legislation. That's why we are here asking for the government to come to its senses to agree with our motion to hoist this bill for six months. In order to give them a few minutes to consider their position on this, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[ Page 453 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 18

NAYS — 29

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

[10:30]

MR. ROSE: I've always noticed that when I get up to speak most of the audience leaves. I'm not shocked by this because it's been happening to me for years. I notice the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is about to leave. The last time I saw him he was in orbit caught by his own wind. He's getting out, though, by his feet. I understand he's a brilliant man and knows all about nerves. I know he makes me nervous.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Did you say nerves or nerds?

MR. ROSE: No, I said he makes me nervous. I would never call him a nerd because it would be unparliamentary, and I don't believe in using unparliamentary language even when provoked.

AN HON. MEMBER: It wouldn't be fair to the nerds.

MR. ROSE: My colleague suggests that I might be insulting the nerds. I guess the people in the gallery — some people refer to it as the peanut gallery — really wonder why we're doing this, and why only people on this side of the House are getting up to speak. Oh, we had a couple of isolated examples to the contrary last week, but by and large it's people over here who are carrying the debate. A little exercise in democracy.

I see I've driven a couple more of them out, but that's quite all right because I don't really think it's possible for me to get through to them anyway. As long as they go in their offices and turn down their speakers they'll never hear me, so it won't make any difference.

What the public should know and what we're attempting to tell the public is that we oppose Bill 3. But not just Bill 3; we oppose the whole package. We think Bill 3 is simply a symbol of a whole package of directions which will centralize all of the decision-making in Victoria and get rid of all other levels of government. That's why we oppose it as anti-democratic. It seems to me it's a progressive move; Bill 3 and the package of 26 or so bills that follow it move us directly into the nineteenth century and wipe out all the gains we've fought for for over a generation. We oppose it because we have a basic ideological and economic disagreement about how our country is supposed to proceed. That's fair enough. The party on the opposite side has the power, the members, the numbers, and it won the election; whether or not people expected them to go as far as they did is another question.

We're not going to take the blame over here for creating the fear. Yesterday the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) said it was the media or my friend from Vancouver Centre who was creating the fear in the minds of public servants. We reject that. That is another example of the big lie. I'm quite sure he had nothing to do with this headline in the Vancouver Sun: "Restraint to cut $50 aid to 2,500 unemployable" — those who work in drop-in centres and other things. Did the first member for Vancouver Centre create that fear? Of course he didn't.

In the same paper, the Conference Board of Canada has come out with a tremendously optimistic view of how we're going to recover. They'll say it's fragile; that's an Allan Gregg term that pops up in all the speeches written for the ministers. Anyway, the Sun says: "Consumer optimism fails to sweep through streets." The Conference Board is optimistic, but the people aren't. Why aren't the people optimistic? Are you going to blame my friend from Vancouver Centre for that lack of optimism? It's not his fault.

I thought it would be nice if you heard some quotes about some people's lack of confidence. These are from people interviewed on the streets, which the Vancouver Sun printed on July 21, 1983: "Many people said they have been disillusioned by the Social Credit budget." They don't have any optimism because they don't know who's going to be picked off next. "'I'm just lucky I still have my job,' Patrick Lee, 33, said, 'and this budget certainly hasn't done much for my faith in the economy. I think I'll keep my money.'" Thousands of people are going to do that across British Columbia. They're going to keep their money. One of our basic arguments against the budget is that it's going to create a climate of fear, to the extent that people are not going to go out and shop, buy homes.... Oh, they might buy a trailer. They won't be able to get out....

MR. MOWAT: Read the next paragraph.

MR. ROSE: I'll read the next paragraph if you like. But that's the point of it. If you're a public servant, and you can be fired without just cause, you're going to keep your money, like this man — I believe his name is Patrick Lee. "The Conference Board, a non-profit, independent institute, predicted renewed confidence will be reflected in a healthy boost in consumer spending and a decline in the level of…savings. Andy Scharffetter said he thinks the institute's survey 'is an absolute crock, especially for B.C.'" He's just one person; we all have our favourites. Some people like the musings of that great guru of the Fraser Institute, Michael Walker, because he agrees with what they think, which is a nineteenth-century kind of economic picture. The new right, it's called. Neo-retreatism under restraint.

[ Page 454 ]

MR. BARRETT: Charity tax deductions.

MR. ROSE: Yes, tax deductions for charities.

Here is another one: "A lot more people are back at work and there's more orders coming in." He's talking about the forest industry. I and a number of my colleagues were hosted by some members of the Council of Forest Industries last Tuesday night. They didn't say there were a lot of people going back to work. Interior lumber is doing fine — it's a lot better and they have some orders — but the pulp market is extremely soft and there aren't that many people returning to work. In fact, if you want some fear, many of those people will never return to work, because there will not be the kind of jobs left in the industry that there were and have been traditionally. And besides, that's the government over there that has cut the silviculture. What is more, we're going to pass the social costs off to future generations. Who is going to be doing the reforestation?

Well, they go on here, but I think I've made the point. One person said: "A lot of my friends are out of work now. They (the Conference Board) would hear something different from them. I'm thinking seriously about packing it up and leaving the country." That's what Mr. Hartman said. There's your optimism, the kind of reaction by on-the-street people to a reporter. The reporter may be biased....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, as a matter of fact, one of the reasons we have the vacancy rates that allowed you to get rid of the rentalsman is that people have left British Columbia in droves over the last two years. Check your own statistics. I have my sources, you have yours.

Mr. Speaker, I'm really sorry that the members of the government don't get up and try to defend the indefensible. We haven't heard from them for days. Oh, well, a couple of things. We had that sleek member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) get up and say: "This bill is not draconian or fascist, and I wish you'd stop saying that." Well, I haven't said that.

MR. DAVIS: I didn't use either of those words.

MR. ROSE: You said that we had overstated the....

Well, that's obviously what you meant. All right, I withdraw the quote. Does the ex-minister agree that some people have said that it was fascist and draconian – not just in this House?

If you don't need draconian measures, such as dismissal without cause, I would like the member to tell me why you need the powers. If you look like a duck and you walk like a duck and you quack like a duck in your speeches over there — I'm not speaking of you personally — there are bound to be some people who mistake you for a duck. I've said that I don't use those terms like fascist or draconian or Nazi. Some people have a greater and higher sense of outrage than I. Not that I'm not serious. I am serious.

I go by the offices of the members of the government and the cabinet ministers, and all I hear them saying is: "No, we're not fascist or Nazis. There's nobody in here but us chickens." You're the chickens, all right. You haven't got the courage to use the existing legislation under the existing contracts if you need to cut the civil service down a little bit.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm not using the term fascist. I would be very pleased to hear you come in on this debate and defend that. Where have all the Socreds gone? Where are they? The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.... Anyway, why do you need it?

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour made a reference to some school inspector making $100,000. He said the salaries went up 17 percent. Well, they're certainly not going up 17 percent this year. If you put everybody out of work you're certainly going to kill inflation in a hurry. He's not worried about that.

Haven't certain districts, such as the one that he represents, the right to hire the best people? If they want to hire certain people, why shouldn't they have that right?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Not any more they're not. With Bill 3 everything is going to be scheduled, from the school inspector, from the deputy minister, right down to the vice-principal of an elementary school. That's what's going to happen. So local autonomy is shot and they're not going to have the same rights. I think that this party, at least, believes in local autonomy.

I don't think anybody wants to defend somebody who is ripping off a system, be he a university professor, a cabinet minister, a doctor, a teacher or anybody who's not doing his job for his money. I don't think we're trying to do that. But why didn't the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, if he needs an example, pick on, say, a worker, a cook or a custodian in an old people's home. There's another publicly employed person and, I'll tell you, they're not making any $100,000 a year. Some of them are scarcely getting by. I can tell you what the average income is for everybody in Canada for that type of work, and theirs is far below it. He says: "Well, we can't afford it." West Van can't afford it? North Van can't afford it? Maybe not, but I'll tell you one thing: those aren't the highest-cost administrated areas in the school districts. I have a list of them, if anybody is particularly interested in seeing them.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am.

MR. ROSE: I'll give them to you.

I'm going to read from a left-wing journal called The New Republic. I have an article here that quotes the analysis of President Reagan's budget revisions for the fiscal year of 1982 — Congressional Budget Office, 1981. Reagan went through a similar exercise a couple of years ago where he thought that if he shifted the tax burden, all of a sudden that economy would rebound. And he did that, He used the Michael Walker laughable kind of technique called supply side economics. So he began to change the income tax.

I'd just like to read to you what happened after he did that. Those between zero and $10,000, who pay 36 percent of their income, got a 3.3 percent tax break. Those who earned $10,000 to $20,000, who pay 25 percent of the income tax in the United States, got 8.7 percent. Those who earned $20,000 to $30,000 — and that's 18 or 20 percent, roughly — got a 21 percent tax saving. Notice how these are going up. The $30,000 to $50,000 — 14 percent of the United States people earn this amount — got a 31 percent tax saving. You can see that the trend is clear. It levels off, and I'll read that

[ Page 455 ]

because I don't want to be accused of distorting the figures: $50,000 to $100,000, share of total return 3.9 percent. Why? Well, there are fewer of them. Even when we're distorting the figures we have to be fair about this.

[10:45]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You bought that program, not me.

Those with $100,000 and over got a 17 percent share of the tax saving. In other words, this was their payoff. I could go on and on in that line. I could tell you what happened in New York in 1976 too, from the same article. I'm sure you'd be fascinated by that, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, it's like this. "What New Yorkers were forced to accept, says Felix Rohatyn, was a period of austerity. That meant a wage freeze of 20 percent, a 20 percent reduction in municipal work force, increased transit fares and tuition at the city university, a shift of pension costs from the city to the union and new taxes." See? That's what they got there. I don't know that it helped them out at all. I do know one other thing: the bankers who held the bonds certainly profited. That's what happens when you soak the poor. I know that, say, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey would believe — he said it yesterday — that everybody should have an equal share in the sacrifice. He said that, and I agree with him. But I know if he gets a 20 percent cut in his salary it's not going to mean the same thing as that child care worker getting a 20 percent cut in hers — not a bit. It's not the same. Was it a 10 percent cut we had here last year in the MLAs' salaries? That would have amounted to about $4,000. Certainly $4,000 is a sizeable amount, but it's the income of some people, as well, and a 10 percent cut would mean you can't afford an apartment. Where are the vacancies? Are they in the low-priced apartments? They are not. I just spent time in my own riding looking for an apartment for my daughter, her husband and two kids, and we couldn't find one under $500 a month. There was no place to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring her over to Surrey.

MR. ROSE: What I'm afraid of is that if they go over to Surrey they might get contaminated. You might come calling.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: To the audience: some people listening here would think that we're not serious here. We are extremely serious here.

Mr. Speaker, Sydney Smith was a seventeenth-century essayist, and he had this to say about that same matter: "Do not think me foolish because I am facetious, and I'll not think you're wise because you are grave." I always took that as a kind of a motto, because I am extremely serious about this. It strikes at the very root of what I believe in ideologically. It's not my religion, but it is very important to me.

The minister suggested that perhaps we should all share equally and have an equal sacrifice. As a cabinet minister he's got about $80,000 coming in, and I'm not sure that his sacrifice, if it's done on a percentage basis, will be equal to that of that child-care worker who works in my riding. I don't think he could defend it. He also went on to say: "Look, we don't have any special interests in the Social Credit Party." I don't know. He blamed us, saying that the unions have us in their pocket. I've been in this party for a long time, and I have never once been told to do anything by a union. If they choose to support us. fine. I'm quite sure that there are some special interests in the Social Credit Party from time to time.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: You're going into orbit there; you've got to watch that, You're not getting any younger, and hypertension is bad for you. You'll get high blood pressure. Yes, we'd like to hear you speak. but it won't do you any good. You're another human. Even though I disagree with you, I wouldn't want you to have severe chest pains, so just take it easy there and we'll all be all right.

Anyway, what about the real estate industry and the developers? I wonder if they're not a little bit more friendly to the Social Credit Party than they are to the NDP? I just wonder about that. I not saying they are. I'm not going to make any charges about the Socreds using Block Bros.' computer or anything like that; I know that we're not using Block Bros.' computer. The multicorporations operating in B.C. — the big forest companies and mining companies.... One of their representatives is from my riding. He's a lobbyist over here, and he said: "After all, Mark, you'd better took after me, because I'm one of your constituents." I said, "Well. I'm sure that you've given me a lot of support over the years, and so I'll certainly be looking after you." What about the mining and the oil companies? What about the B.C. Employers' Council? Good old Bill Hamilton has gone his way to that great boardroom in the sky — not quite, but he's retired.

MR. REYNOLDS: He got an appointment like Leggatt did.

MR. ROSE: Is he a judge now? I think that he's a good man, but I don't think that he necessarily favours, as the chamber of commerce, our particular party.

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned because Bill 3 and its attendant legislation hits people....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Bill 3 is legislation.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Minister, if you would take some of the stumps out of your ears, you would be able to hear me. I think that would be an excellent use of a sort of recycled bark or something like that, which is probably worse than your bite.

Anyway, we're going to hack the Human Rights Commission, which is probably one of the finest pieces of legislation we could have to protect....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Again I would like to offer the member over there this opportunity to seek the floor as soon as I sit down and adjourn the debate. I want people to know why we're adjourning the debate. I really haven't got into my speech. Mr. Speaker, I haven't really gotten into my speech yet; I'm merely on the introduction.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have nothing to say.

[ Page 456 ]

MR. ROSE: If I have nothing to say, then I see no reason why you should respond.

The budget is going to cut $1.5 million from human rights. That's a saving, but $500 million to business is job creation, they say. I think that's a laudable objective if it works. For instance, if you take the tax off machinery and give them a $10,000 exemption and it does provide jobs, I think all political parties could accept that kind of incentive. It didn't work for Reagan. It hasn't worked in the drilling in the Canada Lands either. Do you know that there are 93-cent dollars up in Canada Lands for drilling for Dome, Gulf and all these other outfits off of Newfoundland? Do you know how many cents they pay out of every dollar? Seven cents. Now if that results in jobs and oil finds and all the rest of it, perhaps that would be worthwhile.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did you support the national energy program?

MR. ROSE: No, sir. I did not support the national energy program, and I didn't support PIP either. Go and look up Hansard when you've nothing else to do, and you'll see that I voted against it.

MR. MOWAT: Tell us about the Crow rate.

MR. ROSE: We're going to have a resolution on the Crow rate. I understand that the government is going to bring one forward pretty soon, and I'm looking forward to that. I won't say whether I'll support it or not; I hardly think I will. But I'm certainly looking forward to the debate. I think that would be excellent. All I know is that 7 percent of the traffic on the railroads is grain.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Bill 3?

MR. ROSE: Oh, Bill 3. Well, you know, your colleagues keep distracting me. If it weren't for those distractions, Mr. Speaker, I would have been right on in terms of the rules of relevance.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You wouldn't have anything to say at all.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether I would have anything to say. I wouldn't want to put a qualitative judgment on the nature of my remarks. But you're not saying anything. All you're doing is sitting there in the weeds barking. That's all you're doing. Get up and make a speech. One thing I know about that member, Mr. Speaker, is that he's very good on his feet. He's one of the best politicians in the country. There are better politicians in the city, but he's one of the best in the country. And that's where he should be — in the country.

Why do we need a six-month hoist? We were speaking here a little while ago about an amendment. Now an amendment offers this government a six-month period to cleanse itself of its wrong thinking, to get rid of its sins. Sins against whom? Well, sins against the people, in many ways, because what this bill does in this "without cause" section is to take away rights that have taken generations to build up. I know there is a moderate anti-organization, anti-collective-bargaining sentiment expressed on that side — not perhaps as vociferously by some members as others, but certainly it's there. We hear it so frequently in the catcalls.

But if you can dismiss without cause — and that's what this bill says, "dismiss without cause" — then how can you bargain for grievance procedures? If you're working for a company and you have a grievance.... Some people mention sexual harassment; some people mention minority rights. You're dismissed because you happen to be an East Indian, or a native Indian, or a woman. If you can be dismissed without cause, then how could you file a grievance? That is a mystery to me, a complete mystery. How can you bargain collectively for salaries if you're under a compensation program? And if you can be dismissed without cause, how is it then that you're going to get people to stick their necks out and take leadership positions? Because there is a cloud over them all the time. That is an extremely serious one.

What about if you were working in an unsafe place? The Ministry of Labour has all these commercials about people getting stuff in their eyes and chopping their hands off and all that. They're kind of gruesome and scary. I don't know how useful they are, but they have all these commercials on, which is kind of nice, because I got kind of sick of Fred Latremouille telling us how wonderful it was. I thought we were really going to go right out of sight and the boom was on. Now we hear it's fragile.

What about the seniority provisions? What about firing without cause? All those things need to have an opportunity to be conveyed to the people. I don't think we should rush these things through. I don't think that we should try and sneak them through in the dead of night — or in the dead of summer, when people are away and obviously occupied with other things. I know that we're going to be occupied with these things all summer. We hope that will make some difference.

Even with this business of tenure, I understand that there's been a reversal on the part of some people here. The other day I read it in the column of a celebrated local journalist in the Sun — Marjorie Nichols, who's a friend to one and all on both sides of the House, I assume. She said:

"Last Friday, Simon Fraser University president George Ivany met with government officials in Victoria to discuss the infringements of academic freedom, among other topics. When he emerged, Mr. Ivany was bubbling with optimism.

"He told reporters that he was satisfied the government would carefully avoid infringement of the sacred freedoms of academe in the drafting of regulations pursuant to the budget bills affecting the operations of B.C. universities.

"Optimism in high places is always nice to find, but a couple of integral points seem to have escaped the SFU president. First is that academic freedom cannot be protected by written regulations behind closed doors by politicians."

To what is the columnist referring here? I'd like to give you a little indication of this. I'm quite sure that Dr. Ivany of SFU might have been misquoted. But if he weren't, it's a pretty dumb move for a university professor — really dumb. What is he really talking about?

AN HON. MEMBER: Marjorie would never misquote anyone.

[11:00]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, he's at me again — or still.

[ Page 457 ]

He's talking about this sort of thing. He's talking about the fact that section 3 of this says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-council may make regulations that he considers necessary or advisable respecting implementation of terminations under section 2(1)." Regulations, as everybody should know, are not conducted out in the open. They are not debated in a chamber such as this. Regulations affecting tenure, job security, promotion, seniority, the whole works, are not arguably done in open court. You pass the bill, you reassure somebody like Professor Ivany, and then you rush off to the cabinet room and make regulations. The first regulations to be published are perhaps acceptable, but once the bill is passed, there's nothing to prevent one from changing those regulations the next week if they want to.

I understand he has recanted, because this morning's paper says he's changed his mind. "'Bill 3, regardless of current intentions, enables action or intervention in the areas of freedom of speech and thought,' SFU president J.W. George Ivany said in his protest letter, sent Wednesday to the Universities minister Pat McGeer. His letter was made public." I don't know what happened to him over the weekend. It sounds like the conversion on the road to Damascus. Anyway, he's changed his mind.

I don't think a lot of people are particularly sympathetic about tenure at universities.

I want to tell you something about tenure, because I had tenure.

MR. REID: How about Dr. Kane?

MR. ROSE: I think we should raise Cain about something like that. I don't think it should take six years to get rid of Kane. Maybe we should return to caning, as they do in the British schools.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You'd better talk to Mrs. Eileen Dailly.

MR. ROSE: He's at me again, Mr. Speaker. He's trying to get me off my topic and strike fear in my heart. I certainly wish he would speak. He has an evangelical quality to his speech. I think he even believes his own press releases. I wish he wouldn't try to deflect me.

It usually takes a long time for a university to grant tenure to people. In my own case, I think it took six years. I admit they had a little problem; I can understand that. But it didn't happen overnight. They have an opportunity to look people over pretty carefully. I know that some of us, as we're getting more grey and white, lose that kind of zip; maybe we shouldn't have tenure then. Somebody said that Wayne Gretzky doesn't need tenure. He signed a contract for $5 million; why does he need tenure? But when you need tenure is when you need it: maybe when you're 55 or 60 years old and can't get another job, or can't get elected to public office. But you need it for more than that. If a sociology or economics professor, like Reuben Bellan of Winnipeg, speaks out about how wrong-headed is the whole approach to the economy — not just in British Columbia — and if he hasn't tenure, then according to this bill he can be fired without just cause. That's why people need that kind of protection. If you don't have that sort of thing you can be picked on and scapegoated without any defence.

I'm not sure that anybody is going to be particularly concerned about the odd university professor, because they're considered fat cats. They do have nice jobs; they work in nice buildings, like we do — palaces, really — and they're not going to worry about that. But I think the principle is there. It's the freedom of an academic to pursue without fear or favour something that might be of value to humanity. What would have happened to Dr. Kinsey if he had gone into his particular research without any kind of academic protection? It's not just us — you know, the teardrop boys and women in the NDP — who feel that way about tenure.

This legislation is becoming world famous. Because of this bill, British Columbia is becoming absolutely world famous. Here's a copy of a cable forwarded to Premier Bennett which came into my hands. I didn't sneak into his office at night or anything like that. It came from the national president of the University Teachers of New Zealand.

MR. REID: What kind of government do they have in New Zealand?

MR. ROSE: It varies, but regardless of what kind of government they have currently, they have protected their university teachers, Through Conservative governments and Labour governments they have protected their university teachers. They don't try to scapegoat people like this government. This government is oppressive.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted to carry on and read my wire.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I certainly hope so. Will the House please come to order.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The minister across the floor thinks the question about scapegoating should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). That's all he knows about.

Let me tell you about this: "Our association is appalled at your proposals to attack university autonomy, academic freedom and tenure, plus civil servants and teachers generally, stop." "Stop" is just part of the telegram, but I think it's appropriate in there. "Legal rights of British Columbia citizens seem equally under threat, stop. Urge you to withdraw, stop." I agree with that, but it's not just that. It's not just the defence of some university. How many are there? What a minority. It's the defence of the larger body politic; it's the larger public that we're concerned about. That is why we want this hoist.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that I have just about finished my introduction. There's another equally important matter which concerns me. I don't have the phone book here, but I have lots of clippings. I think that one of the worst features of this thing is that there are likely to be confrontations. You've got the majority, and ultimately if you hang in there and you don't listen to anybody, you're going to win. We don't dispute that. You don't have to listen to me. Here are some able people who are talking about their concern for what might happen in a series of confrontations between working people and their government, and how it's going to be polarized here and how can that be good for the economy of the

[ Page 458 ]

country. I already said if you scare everybody so they won't buy anything, that's not going to be good for the economy of the country. If you have a confrontation, how's that going to help the country? That's not going to help the country at all. Even our old friend Mr. Hamilton of the Employers Council in his speech said: "Labour-management relations are not conducted in little black boxes which are unrelated to one another. Each negotiation, each strike, each lockout, each change of conditions of contract has repercussions and influence far beyond those directly concerned."

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He's at it again. There have been all kinds of editorials from the Financial Times, hardly a radical rag.

MR. LEA: He thinks Bill Hamilton's a pinko.

MR. ROSE: Does he? I know that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) thinks that Archbishop Remi de Roo is a pinko, but maybe Bill Hamilton is a pinko. I don't know about that.

MR. SKELLY: Compared to these guys he is.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to close on my concern for the future of the relationships between management and labour among people of the province with this quote from the Financial Times — hardly, again, a radical, right-wing journal. It says here: "It's hard to quarrel with the objective of smaller government, but a time of high unemployment — British Columbia's rate stood at 14 percent in June — may not be the best time to dump thousands of fired government workers on the labour market." How many? I don't know that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on with this because I understand my time has elapsed. I would like to move to adjourn this debate till the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[11:15]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 28

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

MR. NICOLSON: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. NICOLSON: I notice in the gallery, visiting with her two children.... They've been here for so long that I believe they really do deserve to be introduced, Mr. Speaker; they've been very attentive this morning. It's with pleasure that I introduce a long-standing friend, Sandy Edson, and her two children in the gallery with us today.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have some concern that we have not yet convinced the members on the government side of the House that consideration of this bill should be postponed for six months. Certainly the interest in this bill is building up in the community; there can be no question about that. Regularly in all of the newspapers and on the radio and TV stations we're hearing comments about the government's total program. Really, although we're considering at this point postponing discussion and consideration of Bill 3, it's awfully hard to differentiate between Bill 3 and the government's total budget and total program. I think we're debating much more than simple consideration of this, and we should really be talking about postponing the government's whole program for some six months — at least the program as we've seen it to date. We're getting....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You've been postponed for four more years.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations suggests that it's been postponed for over a year.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I said you have been postponed for four more years, Dave. It was a kindly aside.

MR. STUPICH: It's not quite the way I heard it the first time. He's now saying that we have been postponed. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I'm having trouble hearing him. That's the problem: he's sitting down. If he were to rise to his feet and use his microphone, I'd have no difficulty at all. I suggest that he wait; my remarks will be relatively brief, 40 minutes, and then if the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations has anything at all to say about this — and I rather suspect he will have before this debate is finished.... I expect he will.

I've been keeping track of the ones who have spoken in this debate. Let's look at the cabinet members who have spoken in the debate in total. With respect to the original discussion, before the House started giving real consideration to the idea of postponing the debate for six months, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) spoke — an ex-Conservative, but the only ex-Conservative I can identify who has spoken in this debate at all. Two other cabinet members spoke, both, as I understand it, ex-Liberals: the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Then we get to the consideration of the six-month postponement. Only two members on the government side of the House have spoken: the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), an ex-Liberal, and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), another ex-Liberal. No other Conservatives, not a single member of the old Social Credit group.

[ Page 459 ]

It's certainly obvious to me, and I think to everyone, that the government members have decided, or have had a decision made for them, that they'll not take part in this debate as to whether or not the bill should be postponed six months. Presumably they're listening. From time to time the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) tries to get to his feet, but each time he has an opportunity to be in order in getting to his feet, he forgets the thought that was racing around in that big, empty mind, and he has to wait until the next opportunity. He keeps forgetting what he's going to say whenever an opportunity arises. When he's out of order — when he's sitting in his seat, as was the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations — of course he thinks of all kinds of things to say. There are other members on the government side of the House who never fail to rise to the opportunity to defend government policy. There are some real good examples of that.

Apart from the Minister of Forests, who likes doing it on every occasion, the minister of industrial development and small business.... Well, he's been called all kinds of things, Mr. Speaker, but I'll have to call him that right now. Certainly if there ever was anyone who never resisted an invitation, never resisted an opportunity, never turned down an opportunity, to stand up and speak in favour of government policy and in opposition to motions such as the one I'm supporting now — the motion that we postpone deliberation of this for six months — then that particular minister was always very anxious to get into the debate to try to convince us and everyone else within hearing distance — and that's quite a distance, in his case — who would listen that the government was doing the proper thing.

In this debate, that particular member of the old Social Credit group has been silent, except to interject regularly when he happens to be in the House — but when he is sitting down, when he is completely out of order. He has nothing at all to say in support of the legislation, in opposition to the motion that the consideration be postponed for six months, nothing at all to say standing on his feet in his place. There are five Liberals and one Conservative on the cabinet benches. There is not a single Socred. There is one more Liberal still to be heard from. Apparently they are being given this opportunity to, once again, swear their allegiance, their loyalty, to the man who gave them the job they have, and they are being asked to do this during this debate in opposition to the motion to postpone this for six months, or in support of the legislation that we were considering earlier.

The old Socreds and other cabinet members are not necessarily so silent outside of the House. We're talking in the House about postponing this for six months because we really believe it would be in the interests of the community to defer consideration — to postpone consideration. Certainly we'd like to see it defeated altogether. But at least give the community some six months to recognize just exactly what the government is trying to do in this legislation, and perhaps to rally behind the government — hopefully, from where I sit, to rally against what the government is doing and to persuade the government that the authority that it is seeking in this legislation is authority that no democratic government anywhere in the world should be asking for; certainly no democratic government.

Certainly no government in Canada or British Columbia should be asking for the kind of authority that this government is seeking with this legislation. That's why we want them to postpone it for six months. Let them listen to the comments that are coming from within B.C., from outside of B.C., from other parts of Canada, and from other countries which are looking at this legislation and are shocked by the language in this legislation, shocked at the idea that any democratic government.... Any member of the Commonwealth of Nations bringing in this kind of legislation would never dare use the kind of words or give itself the kind of authority that the government is seeking in Bill 3. Mr. Speaker, it is important that consideration of this bill be deferred for six months, at least.

The only one, really, who spoke against the motion to defer consideration for six months was the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). There was another speaker from the government side of the House, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). but he had nothing at all to say about whether or not the bill should be postponed. It was simply an attack on the opposition — an attack on such things as tenure. He doesn't believe in tenure. You will recall that that is the particular minister who used certain trained seals at the University of British Columbia to make sure that he got his tenure. Even at the time he said he didn't believe in it for anybody else; it was something he wanted for himself.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Again, Mr. Speaker, if they'd wait until I stopped to take a breath, I could hear them; preferably if they got up on their feet, then we'd all hear them. We'd get these gems of wisdom. I plead with them to stand up and let us hear what they have to say. They might have an argument against postponing. I can't imagine what it would be. Certainly the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications gave no reasons for postponing it. His was a straight political harangue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What has the "trained-seal" tenure at universities got to do with your arguments? That's why we interject.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, tenure is one of the very important points in Bill 3. The concern about tenure is one of the reasons why we should defer consideration of Bill 3. That is one of the arguments that has been raised in the community about this legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Does the IWA have tenure?

MR. STUPICH: No, but they do have....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do the plumbers have tenure?

MR. STUPICH: I'm being asked by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations whether or not the IWA has tenure. Of course they don't, but they do have a collective agreement between the employers and the employees that does give some protection. Until we dispose of the legislation that's before us now, they even have some access to the human rights branch in the Ministry of Labour. They should still have it legally, but they don't. Obviously that's being done away with.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 460 ]

No, they don't have tenure. But there is an orderly procedure agreed upon for terminating people or for laying them off. That applies even with the B.C. Government Employees Union. Legally they have that now. It's obviously not very effective because they are being terminated without notice and without cause. The legislation is still before us and still on the books of B.C. It still gives them that protection, protection that is worthless, because the government has made it quite clear that it intends to remove that protection — another reason for postponing consideration for six months. They made it quite clear that even if some public sector employer makes the mistake of entering into some sort of agreement with employees that does allow some form of tenure, Bill 3 overrides any such protection. One of the reasons that we must defer consideration of this is that government members themselves have not had an opportunity to read the legislation, even though we've been debating it as long as we have.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, outside of the House we are getting comments. We got a long letter from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). We have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) travelling around the province and admitting that there's some blame on the part of the Socreds for not having properly explained what they're trying to do. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) asked if they stood up and told us what we were trying to do, would we support it? Give us that opportunity. Stand up and tell us why you're opposed to postponing this for six months; I'll go further into that and raise more questions about that during the next few minutes.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour did speak. I've often disagreed with what he has said in this House in the time since he's arrived, but sometimes I've agreed. Often he speaks in opposition to what the government is doing and then votes for it. He does that regularly. He's never voted against the government since he arrived in this House. I expect that he has never ever voted against the government in any House. Certainly in this House he's never voted against them, but he's often spoken against what the government was doing and raised concerns about what the government was doing. In this speech, Mr. Speaker, he didn't. He spoke in opposition to the motion to move a six-month hoist.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, once again that minister is objecting, interrupting and trying to help me make my speech. I don't find it very helpful, but I don't mind. It shows that he knows I'm here, and at least he's here. I do appreciate that. What if you gave a party and nobody came? What if you were speaking in the House and there just wasn't anybody left?

MR. REID: How many have you got here?

MR. STUPICH: I have enough here. I'm not complaining.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, they know I'm here, and I know where they are right now. I know what they're doing right now. They know that I'm here and they're quite satisfied that I'll do what's necessary so that they'll be able to do what they're doing right now.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could return to Bill 3.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it's been suggested across the floor of the House that we have three leadership candidates in the House, and everybody else is out....

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, only two.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, do you mind if I get to the thrust....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd appreciate that. Would the government House Leader please come to order.

MR. STUPICH: I really would like to get back to the remarks made by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. There is a person who experienced something that this bill is directed at. There's some question as to whether he was fired with cause — certainly a question in his mind. There's some question as to whether others should have been fired where there was even greater cause. In any case, he had no opportunity to appeal to the human rights branch in his instance; at least if there was an opportunity he didn't use it.

He spoke entirely in opposition to the motion to hoist this for six months. Yet it wasn't his regular speech, Mr. Speaker. Usually his speeches are well researched. Usually the figures he uses can't be challenged; usually the statements he makes in debate in this House are well supported by authorities. That wasn't the case with respect to the speech that he made on Wednesday, July 20. There's been a suspicion in the minds of us on this side of the House and certainly in the minds of the press.... It's been suggested by different columnists that the speeches on the government side of the House since we were called together from the beginning have been written by one or two researchers working for the Social Credit Party and that they're all saying exactly what they were told to say. This is the first real evidence, in my mind, that that indeed is the case. For the member for North Vancouver–Seymour to deliver the kind of speech that he did on July 20, there can be no explanation other than that somebody wrote the speech for him to give, because it wasn't his usual speech. It didn't come up to the mark as far as he was concerned. He did say something very interesting in the opening paragraph. Suspicious as I am that somebody else is writing the speeches, I can't help but wonder just what this means and what it bodes for the future of this province, certainly for the future of the Legislature in the next few days, few weeks, few months or whatever. I would invite someone to comment on this, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking about Bill 3, he said: "I know that it has to be seen in the context of other law in this province" — no problem here — "and other legislation yet to be brought into this House." Is that a threat or a promise? Is he saying to us: "You haven't seen anything yet. Bill 3 is simply a small introduction to what is yet to come. Bill 3 is only one part of

[ Page 461 ]

the picture; the remainder is yet to be filled in, and it's when you see the remainder that you'll know the full thrust of this government's policy in dealing with the people and the economy in this province." What is he saying, Mr. Speaker? We don't have an opportunity to ask him in the debate. But if he indeed was speaking for the Social Credit caucus when he said in the House that this has to be seen in the context of other legislation yet to be brought into the House, then I think we should have the answer to that. If it takes six months for the government to answer that question, then indeed that is reason enough in itself for the House to consider postponing debate on this legislation until we know what other legislation must be seen for us to fully understand the ramifications of Bill 3. It has given me great concern and it must be worrying others.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour felt it was important to say that in his introductory paragraph. What does he mean? What are the government members holding back? What is still to come? Let's postpone this legislation for six months and give the government the opportunity to see the rest of the legislation, which, according to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, must be seen before we can really consider the legislation before us. We must look at the total package in the context of the legislation yet to be brought into the House. Let's postpone consideration for six months.

He goes on: "First of all, our financial affairs in this province are not as good as they have been." There's little doubt about that. We've presented facts and figures from the Public Accounts and the throne speech to show there has been a steady deterioration in the financial affairs of this province over the last four years. Particularly — not particularly, but since the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) took office, we have had four deficits in a row — assuming we are in a deficit in the year 1983-84, and no one questions that. There is some question about the amount, but no one is questioning whether or not we are in a deficit position in the year 1983-84. So yes, our financial affairs are serious, and they have been made more serious by the present administration. It's become progressively worse in the last four years, although, according to the Minister of Finance, the turndown in the economy really hit us a year and a half ago. So some two and a half years before there was any problem with the economy generally, the financial affairs of the province had been deteriorating.

With all of their desire to cut back — according to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour — the budget presented still shows expenses exceeding income by 20 percent. I said, when I spoke during debate on the budget.... Do you remember, Mr. Speaker? There was a time in the affairs of this House when we actually were debating the budget. It's some time ago. The government has chosen not to have that debate anymore, and I don't blame them. Certainly I wouldn't want to be leading the debate in support of that budget, so it surprises me not one bit that the government has abandoned discussion of the budget, hoping everyone else will forget how bad it is as well.

We were told in that budget to expect a deficit of $1.6 billion. Included in that budget was an interim statement for the first two months. This is before any consideration of the draconian measures included in Bill 3, before any thought of the government — there was thought, I'm sure, but no discussion of the idea that the government wanted to be able to fire any number of employees. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) said there are 300,000 public sector employees. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) said 250,000. Someone else said 240,000. I suppose, when we get up in those figures, it's not all that important. The figures seem to range generally between a quarter of a million and 300,000. They want the right to be able to fire any number with absolutely no cause at all, simply because someone chooses to fire them. That's all there is to it. No right to appeal to anyone, to ask why, to question the decision. Nothing. The person in the position to fire can simply get rid of anyone that person wants to get rid of, and not explain to anyone why that's being done.

Without that authority, in the first two months of this year the government deficit has been $115.1 million. We can't multiply that by six and hope to get the year-end deficit, but we were told over and over in the budget and in the election campaign that we are on the fragile road to recovery. The fact that we are on the fragile road to recovery is supported by the fact that with the figures presented to us in this two-month statement, we've actually done much better than the government anticipated. They did admit in the budget speech that they couldn't compare it with estimates, since estimates had not yet been prepared at the time that figure was prepared. Nevertheless, it would look as though we're heading for a deficit of substantially less than $700 million, on the basis of the information we have as presented in the interim statements and the feeling in the community. This was borne out yesterday by three separate federal reports to the effect that we are indeed on the road to recovery. It may not happen in B.C. with the effects of the budget that we now have, but certainly we're bound to benefit in some way from what's happening in the rest of the world, in spite of our own worst efforts.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to bet on that? You wait and see.

MR. STUPICH: That we're going to do better in spite of our own worst efforts? I'm not sure. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is telling me that the government's worst effort will succeed in making things worse in B.C. than is anticipated in the rest of the country. He thinks that his government's efforts will actually stall the recovery in B.C. more than is expected by anyone else. It would certainly be something to be proud of if they did achieve that. If I've misunderstood his remarks, I'd certainly like to have him stand up and explain them, because what I said was that I anticipate that the government's worst efforts will not be able to slow down the economy in British Columbia. It's still going to improve. He's offering to make a wager with me on the contrary: the government's worst efforts will succeed in slowing down the economy in B.C. It's quite possible that that will be the case, but not as much, I hope, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is suggesting.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. STUPICH: I hope it's nonsense; indeed I do.

I suppose I'm reading from a source that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations wouldn't credit, but I'll read again from the remarks of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour: "Fortunately, with the turning around in the world economy, our income side will undoubtedly improve." I believe and hope that to be the case. I hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is wrong, but I do think income

[ Page 462 ]

will improve, and I think because it will improve and because expenses are going to hold, I hope, with the one exception.... The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is obviously going to overspend her budget, again as happened last year. I remember the attention we attracted by having a $100 million overexpenditure in Human Resources. It was $138 million last year. In terms of dollars, that is the ministry that has increased over last year's figures more than any other. Because they have, through their policies, put so many people on the dole in this province, they overspent their budget last year and they're anticipating to spend $116 million more than the overexpenditure last year. In all likelihood they'll be short even on that. I don't think there's any question about that one: it will go higher.

[11:45]

We start talking about figures, and this is where we're running into some difficulty as to how many people we are talking about. We should be talking not just about people but about the services that people are providing.

At this point I want to talk about the number of people involved. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour did: "When I hear that of a quarter of a million public servants in the province, a quarter of that number are going to lose their jobs and that 67,000 public service jobs are on the line, I have to react. It's totally false." I don't know why he would feel that he had to react. The figure given by the Provincial Secretary was that there are 300,000. The figure in the budget was 250,000. The figure in the letter that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs wrote and had printed in the paper was 240,000. He says we're wrong in talking about a quarter of that number. That's the announced target by the government to achieve that kind of cutback. Whether it's 67, 65 or 75, it's still a tremendous number to be talking about putting on the dole in the province of British Columbia. He says there are only going to be a few thousand. He went so far as to suggest that it might be two or three thousand, and then later on to say 10 or 15. There's quite a difference between 2 or 3 and 10 or 15.

If the government's program as announced by Bill 3 is going to achieve the firing of only two or three thousand people, then why are we debating it? If that's the intent and goal, why the need to bring in legislation that gives the government the authority to fire without notice, without warning and without cause? There is something wrong. Either they are looking for authority, the kind of authority that they do have in some countries where they don't have democratic governments, to get rid of people....

There has been talk of a hit list. Certainly I'm not reassured by people like the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. I've seen his record. When he was Minister of Education, I recall raising questions with him about people he fired from college councils. He challenged me across the floor at that time — this was early in 1976 — and said the NDP did the same thing. We were in estimates then, and I had the opportunity to ask him to name one whom we had fired for political reasons when we were in office. That was seven and a half years ago; I'm still waiting for that minister to give me the first name. Yet he did it in every college council in the province. He got rid of people for political reasons. There was no other explanation for the people who were fired from various councils at that time. They made some mistakes; they fired some people who had been appointed by the previous Social Credit administration — fired them in error, thinking that they had been appointed by us — and made a few more enemies for themselves, Nevertheless, I have no faith that that particular minister would have anything other than political considerations in mind when he was following this policy to fire without cause.

Again, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour: "Looking at the numbers, close to half of the 250,000 are under the federal government." Mr. Speaker, that's not what the Provincial Secretary told us. The Provincial Secretary was talking about public sector employees who work for the government, municipalities, hospitals, school districts, and various Crown corporations owned by the government, and saying that that figure totalled some 300,000. He wasn't talking about federal government employees, or employees working in federal Crown corporations. That's one of the reasons that makes me doubt that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour had anything to do with writing his speech. It makes me doubt that he ever read it before standing up in this House, or ever saw it before then.

Then he gets into the budget. He said: "We really aren't going to cut back anyway. In spite of all this furor, in spite of attracting the attention of people worldwide, we don't really mean that. We're not going to put these cutbacks into effect." He pointed to health. He said there is an 8 percent increase. Well, it's not quite 8 percent, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the budget, page 36, you'll see it's 7.3 percent. And it is the second-largest increase in the budget. But that doesn't tie in with the legislation before us now. If they intend to actually increase the number of employees in the health service.... That's what the member is saying. He says: "If we're going to increase the budget by 8 percent" — he should have said 7.3 percent — "then it means we're going to hire more people." Well, if that's really what the government has in mind, that they intend to hire more people in health services, then I certainly wish they would take the opportunity of this debate to stand up and tell us that Bill 3 really means that the government intends to hire more people in the health fields. I don't believe that that is the case. I don't believe that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour wrote the speech. I don't believe that he read the bill. He couldn't have, for him to say that the increase in health services referred to in the budget means that the government actually intends to hire more people in the health services. But I'd sure like to have somebody over there, other than the member who's already spoken, tell us that was the case.

He goes on to say that universities and colleges are another very large group of people who are not affected by this package of legislation. I say again, he hasn't read the bill. He's talking about a different bill; I don't know which one, but certainly the one before us now very specifically does apply to universities and colleges. There's no doubt about that. It's right in the legislation. Obviously he needs this six-month hoist so that he'll have time to read the bill.

However, going on with his remarks. "Their budget has increased roughly 8 percent" — the universities and colleges. Not only has he not had time to read the bill, neither has he had time to read the budget. Because, again, if you look at the budget, page 36, table 5, Consolidated Revenue Fund, operating expenditure by ministry, it shows an increase for Universities, Science and Communications of 0.5 percent. That wouldn't even cover the increase in hydro bills. I don't know where he got the figure of 8 percent. But he says that means they're going to hire more people at universities and colleges.

[ Page 463 ]

Mr. Speaker, there is a college in your area. There's one in my area. I know the cutbacks they've already instituted, and I know the trouble they're going through right now to find further areas of cutbacks to meet the government's target. I don't know where the member got his speech, but I say again that it's not the kind of speech he normally presents — a well researched document backed up by facts and figures. It's not his speech at all. I don't know whose it is. I would like to know, but I don't expect to be told about that.

He goes on to say that "not only are we going to hire more people in health; we're actually building new hospitals, and that provides employment — 10,000 to 20,000." I suppose if he can be out by 10,000, or if he wants a range of 10,000, he could also say zero thousand to 10,000, or 30,000 to 40,000. What does it mean? It doesn't mean very much, especially if they're building new hospitals at the same time they're closing down beds in other hospitals. There are still beds closed down in the Nanaimo Regional District General Hospital. We don't have the money to use the beds, in spite of the waiting lists of some 1,500 people.

On hearing of these cutbacks, a constituent of mine wrote a letter. She went to her doctor with a ruptured vessel in her eye. She's been waiting for five months to get into the hospital. It's elective surgery; she has to go on waiting. She still doesn't know when she's going to get the eye operation she needs. She's been waiting five months for that kind of operation. How much longer? In spite of that, we're told: "Isn't this a great government? It's building new hospitals." New, empty hospitals, for which it will not provide staff, and if it does it will close down other hospitals. That's not providing for the needs of the people, as the Lieutenant-Governor abjured us to do during his remarks in the House.

In talking about the opposition, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said: "They were talking about a big drop, a 10 percent drop." That's not what we're talking about. It's what the government is talking about. The government hasn't been talking about a 10 percent drop for the employees working directly for government. The government has been talking about a 25 percent drop for all public sector employees. Again it's obviously not that member's speech. Then he refers again, as I have, to the fact that the human services budget has gone up. It's nothing to be proud of to say that we're not going to increase the amount for the lowest-income people in the country. These are the people most in need of help — people who are getting social assistance. You say that we're spending more money in total on them, but we're not going to increase the amount. There are so many more things I would like to say about this.

Modest trimming. There's another place in the budget where it boasts about having achieved a 15 percent reduction in staff in the course of the past year. They've achieved that without bringing in the kind of legislation they're bringing in today, without having the right to fire anyone and give no reason — no purpose, nothing at all — and without having those kinds of draconian measures that are attracting the unwelcome attention of so many people in B.C., in Canada and throughout the world.

The government members need time to consider our motion. The government members need time to read the budget. The government members need time to read the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[12:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 28

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

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I thought I should bring to your attention the fact that the division bells did not ring in my office on this occasion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is undertaking an entirely new system on the division bells throughout the buildings. However, because the session is on, we were forced to delay the final implementation of the system, which will be completed as soon as we rise. So I would ask for the members' indulgence until that time. But I appreciate being informed of any problems, and we'll undertake to correct those as they are brought to the Chair's attention.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for their....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You've been spending too much time with the horses. That well-known punter has been spending too much time looking at the wrong end of the horse, because there'd be no other way that he'd come up with this kind of legislation, I'll tell you.

I want to thank my colleagues for that applause given right after I announced I was leaving.

As the official opposition we're standing here today to ask that this bill be taken off the order paper for six months — just for six months. Of course, if it passes, it means that the bill is killed, but I don't want to tell the back-benchers that; all I want them to understand is that we want a six-month hoist. Otherwise we'll have to debate it for six months, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, with all good will and all good humor, that's exactly what we intend to do.

I'm so happy to be here in this glorious summer in this capital city enjoying the outdoors and the good breezes. No other legislator would love to be in Victoria all summer long

[ Page 464 ]

working here on behalf of the people more than the new member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), the one and a half members for Surrey and the other members who are new to this House. None of them want more than to spend their summer here in this wonderful chamber dealing with this legislation. There isn't anybody who would rationally want some kind of logical time-frame to spend some time with their families or their constituents, or to enjoy that. No, after eight and a half months' absence from this chamber, and through an election that just went on, the government never once said what they were going to do if they won. Then they won the election, and what do they do? They come down here in the summertime, they bring this kind of legislation in, and they're going to put all those back-benchers through the heat of sitting here in the summer when their friends and neighbours are away with their families and rowboats. People are here on vacations....

MR. REID: We come here to work.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, one or two of them come here to work. The rest of them are out somewhere. I don't know where they are — including the Premier, wherever he is.

These are just my introductory remarks, Mr. Speaker, which must include the humble statement that I have been given the gracious honour by my supportive colleagues to be the designated speaker. This means that, as difficult as it is for me to find the words necessary to participate at any length in any debate, my colleagues have given me this challenge.

Just to conclude my opening remarks so I can get to the introduction, I want to respond to some of the statements that have been made so far by the government members defending this bill. For those of us sitting in this chamber — and once in a while we draw in the galleries; we let them know there's a lot of politics going on in here.... I wouldn't want anybody leaving this chamber from the galleries and thinking that there's a lot of politics going on here, but there's a lot of politics going on in here. Sometimes it's very political in this place. Sometimes people have biased points of view and they actually think that through logic and reason they're going to influence the other guy's bias. But once in a while, Mr. Speaker, we come up with a device — as we're debating here, so I can stick to the rules that we're confined to — that deals with removing a particular piece of legislation from the politics of this chamber and taking it out to community and asking the people of British Columbia what they think about it. They were never told that this kind of bill was coming in. No Social Credit candidate that I know of was told that this was happening. As a matter of fact, as I read it in the paper, a former Social Credit candidate, Mr. Begin, said that if he had known during the campaign that he was running for a party that was endorsing this kind of legislation, he wouldn't have run for them.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: And Graham Bruce too, yes. I want to know if you have ripped up his membership. If you go about ripping up his membership, I want to know. Let's get it out in the open here, because there are not many people around to report this. If you rip up a Social Credit membership card, does that mean they have to rip up their Tory card too? I want to know that. Because we've got a new Tory Socred, a three-day wonder, who sits down there representing West Vancouver. He's a latter-day convert to Aberhart's charting. You should use that at the races. It's very good. You'd have more luck with the A plus B theorem at the track than some of these people have here in the chamber.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Leave comic book characters out of this debate. We're dealing with real, live exhibits here.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what they're trying to do in this bill? I want to talk to you, never mind these other fellows. Do you know what they're trying to do? They're trying to tell people who work for the government that they can be fired for any reason at all. No reason at all. You don't have to tell them anything. Supposing this bill passes and some day the Liberals are elected to office in British Columbia. Do you know what would happen, Mr. Speaker? The Liberals would fire all the Socreds who'd been hired by this government.

MR. LEA: That would be everybody.

MR. BARRETT: That's it. There goes Tozer right down the tube. I stand up here and say that we've got to stop this bill to defend Tony Tozer, if nothing else. What other reason would he have a job other than that he's a shirt-tail relative of the Premier? Can you imagine some Liberal government coming in here who hasn't been messing around with politics in this chamber for a long time? They'd actually ask somebody, "What are your qualifications for a job," and the guy could only say: "Well, for goodness' sake, my only qualifications are that I'm a shirt-tail relative of the Premier." He'd be fired and he would have no protection under this legislation, because Bill would be gone. We've got to think of the Tony Tozers in the civil service. We've got to defend them, Mr. Speaker. We've got to stop this bill.

I'm, going too far, but that's the absurdity of it. This bill will emasculate any pretence whatsoever that there is merit, that there is quality, that there is qualification. It will reduce itself simply to who smiles best to this government that is presently Social Credit, made up of Tories, Liberals and everyone else.

[12:15]

What is even more iniquitous about this particular section is that you won't even know what party to join, depending on what minister you go to work for. Two of them showed up at the Tory convention. What kind of rules will they lay down for personnel practices when it comes to party selection under the heading of turncoats, loss of principles, floorswitchers and numbers of parties? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), the former Tory, went down to the Tory convention and sat in the gallery as Socreds watching the Tory convention. Now if you weren't a shirt-tail relative of the Premier, and you were trying to get a job in British Columbia, and you were trying to get a job through one of those ministers, you wouldn't know what kind of party card to hold, and that's not fair. At least we hope that when the regulations are published they will split each department and say: "Well, McGeer is a former Liberal, so you've got to have a Liberal card to get a job there." The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was one of those Liberals too, so you hold a Liberal card. If you want to

[ Page 465 ]

work for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources you've got to have a Tory card, or both. Or else, Mr. Speaker, you could even be nothing.

As a matter of fact, the best way to get ahead in this government is to be nothing and know nothing. It's a kind of populism. You could take out a card that says "I'm a know-nothing." As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't even have to give some of them cards; they're walking examples of it. They could have fill-out blanks. What we could do is hand out political cards where you just take a punch: "Today I am a Tory. Today I am a Socred. Today I'm a Bill Bennett relative." A MasterCard for getting yourself a job.

The one who's laughing most is one of the fellows with whom I have great political kinship, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon, A. Fraser). We've been around a long time. His department is riddled with appointees on the basis of patronage, but he's been fair about it. He doesn't mess around. He says: "If you want a job, here it is." He's always done it by open patronage; he's never messed around. I admire the guy. He never needed legislation or any of the niceties: "You, you're a nice boy — over here. You got a job. You, over here...." His department is loaded with Socreds.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm being interrupted by that highly skilled debater. I won't call him names; he's a new member.

Having dealt with that interruption, let me go back to the point that I'm making. Some of the ministers are more upfront about the patronage. They say: "If you want a job, vote Social Credit. If you want a key appointment in the civil service, become a shirt-tail relative of the Premier." How many can they marry? You can marry into the family. Can't you see the whole production? You want a job? Marry a Bennett. Sounds okay to me. Tozer did okay.

All of these devices that this government used time and time again were normally acceptable. Once in a while a cheeky newspaper reporter would say something about it, but they were just jealous because they weren't in the family. Once in a while some uppity columnist would say: "Naughty, naughty. We want to defend the independence of the civil servants." They're just naive, high-school-graduate journalists who don't understand how politics work. The reason they don't is that they're never in here for prayers. They come after. If they were in here before, they'd understand. That's the way it goes.

Since it's a cozy little chamber here, except for a few people around who promise not to tell anything they heard in here today, we all know what the game is, don't we? Hire a relative, take care of a friend, protect yourself. One of the greatest motivators of continuing Social Credit is known as enlightened self-interest. If you can't make it on a Tory card, join the Liberals; if you can't make it as a Liberal, join the Socreds; and if you're really in trouble, attack the pinko socialist coalition that is against all the things that are going on. You know what I'm talking about. The game has been great fun up to this point. We've had self-righteous editorials in those newspapers out there saying: "Well, we want some fairness." One or two observers from the east say they shouldn't be politics, but we've never reached the point of formalizing it in law. What we're going to do now with this bill is say to every civil servant, to anybody who comes to work for the government, anybody who is working for the government in any Crown corporation, police force and fire force, that unless you toe the line of this government, you can be fired.

That new member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), as I talked of this hoist, was the one who spilled the beans in an earlier speech about the real meaning of this bill. He's still new and naive and upfront, and he came in the House — I remember it very clearly — and threatened the mayor of Vancouver: "Get on board, or else." Do you know what that means? That means get on board and be a Socred, or you don't get nothing.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You see? He said that's right. He hasn't learned yet that there are some niceties. You don't come out with those bald-faced threats. That's too upfront. What you do is say: "Social Credit's got a better way." — i.e., "We're in power and we'll beat the slats out of you unless you go our way." Instead of that, he came right upfront and said: "Well, get on the right side."

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: What has happened to the caucus coach? This new back bench of the government proves how the silicone chip has influenced cloning. They put one word in that guy's head and dong! "Leadership, leadership." I know why he's in here: they can't stand to have him around the offices. They've got him programmed in here.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Speak up. Normally I wouldn't pay any attention to this kind of a misplaced, unguided missile that ended up in here, but that guy really thinks he's contributing something.

In a more serious vein, I would advise that people who know their way around the House, like these cabinet ministers, can't interject unless they're sitting in their own seat. It's a matter of decorum. I just bring that to your attention. If the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) wants to interject, go ahead. You go right ahead. You'll be the first real Socred to debate in this debate. All you've done is set up two Liberals who came over there and signed in blood that they were going to be good Socreds. The only two cabinet ministers to get up and defend this particular section have been ex-Liberals.

I hear about the Premier wanting to go on television and tell the folks about this bill. Let's have a hoist for six months while he goes on television. It's a heck of a good idea, because he hasn't stood up in the House and defended the bill. He hasn't stood up in here and said why he's supporting this bill. This is a major part of his new economic theory; a major part, they say, of the whole restraint and recovery program. They claim this is necessary to put British Columbia back on its feet. In the name of the hoist of this particular bill, why has the architect of this legislation, the person who leads this government and this party, not had the courage to stand up in this chamber and say in front of the elected MLAs why the bill is here? You tell me that. You tell me why he finds it necessary to drop little hints to the media that he's going to talk on television. If he wants to talk on television, then I make this challenge: let him face this chamber and we

[ Page 466 ]

will grant leave for television cameras to come into the chamber and see the debate and the response from the opposition on defending this bill.

MR. SKELLY: He needs cue cards from Doug Heal.

MR. BARRETT: We'll let Doug Heal sit over here and hand up the cue cards.

If there's going to be any bypassing of the debate in this chamber by the Premier saying, "I want free television time," I hope that the television stations have the guts to say: "Sure, we'll give you coverage; we'll cover you speaking in the Legislature on your bill." It has been over one week that this bill has been debated, and the Premier has yet to speak one word — not one word on this bill that radically alters the attitudes, the social fabric and the general direction and growth of where we are in British Columbia. Let the television cameras come in, let them cover anything he's got to say, and then let the television cameras, in turn, cover what I have to say. Let the people of British Columbia decide what they think of this bill on that basis.

If the government is so proud of what they're doing in this kind of legislation, then why is the Premier afraid to stand up in this chamber and speak in defence of taking away freedoms as this particular bill is doing? I find it passingly pathetic that they send a few cabinet ministers around to go on hotline shows, and say: "Well, maybe we've been crude in handling this thing. Instead of hanging people we should have shot them." What choice have they got on the basis of crudeness? The whole bill itself is an obscenity, and the only way it could be implemented is by crudeness. There is no finesse in taking away people's rights. When you say that a man or a woman will lose their job on the whim of an employer, without giving them any reason why they've lost their job, there is no non-crude way of presenting that news. It is the loss of democratic freedoms that we understand exist for all human beings, Mr. Speaker, and there is no nice way of doing it.

There isn't a citizen in this province who expected to see this kind of legislation see the light of day. There isn't one of them who stood up in any Socred candidate's meeting and said: "Vote for me and I'll bring in a bill that says we can fire people without cause." Not one of you had the guts to do that in the election campaign, and yet the bill is here. The bill has been here for a week, and the Premier is running up and down the corridors saying: "I want to talk on television." If you want to talk, come in here, in the chamber, where you asked for the job to be the leader of the government. Stand up as leader of the government and say what you've got to say facing the people in here, not running away down the hallway.

I have never seen this whole community turned around so much on one piece of legislation. We've had fantastic debates here before. Some nights we used to sit all night. We would say it was the end of the world and then wake up in the morning and it wasn't. But we've never had a bill like this before.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 42.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the new minister for Surrey has made an inadvertent slip here.

MR. REID: You made her minister?

MR. BARRETT: Sure, I made her minister. Isn't she Pat Jordan? I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I'm 52, my eyes are going. I've got new glasses.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Just a minute. Let's have a pause here and get all the interruptions coordinated.

MR. MOWAT: If you were in the House more often you'd know all the members on this side.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you're pretty good there. Now let's go back; there's been a mistake. Let's hear it once more. Leadership.

MR. REID: Leadership!

MR. BARRETT: That's it, thank you very much. I hope the people of Surrey hear about the quality....

MR. REID: There are 37,000 of them.

MR. BARRETT: Shush, shush. Mr. Speaker, I have never been so devastated by such an overpowering attack defending the Premier as from that member for Surrey.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You didn't want to hurt him, did you?

MR. BARRETT: There's the sparkling minister — such a brilliant example of public education.

Mr, Speaker, what we're dealing with here is a bill that is frankly destabilizing a generally small-L liberal coalition that holds together Canadian society. Although there are great differences on issues, legislation has generally been produced in this country in the centre arena, after having both ends of the political spectrum, part and parcel, formulate an attitude that develops into consensus. If there was ever a nation on the face of this earth that wrote its legislation based on consensus, it is this great Canadian nation. In that consensus there has always been room for ideas on the left, ideas on the right, captured in the middle by small-L liberal consensus.

[12:30]

One of the things that makes us different from the United States of America — which is our great neighbour — and one of the things that makes us different from our parent Great Britain, is that we have a synthesis of both their political styles and communication and structure. From Great Britain we received the structure. From the Americans we received part of the style. But the synthesis of that has always been taking time to develop legislation that generally reflects where people are in the middle. I know that. And any time that a government moves dramatically one way or the other, there is always a public reaction.

The member mentioned Bill 42. Bill 42 has stood the test of time, When we brought in that legislation, we said we must save farmland. There was an immediacy about it because developers were destroying any rational protection that was absolutely necessary to protect the 4 percent of this province's land that was arable. What is the urgency here for this bill? Will this bill stand the test of time? It won't stand the test of time, Mr. Speaker. It is already the subject of debate

[ Page 467 ]

from coast to coast in this country about the behaviour of a government that would take away basic human rights.

We're being watched by the whole country. I don't want Toronto knowing about us. When they find out what our weather's like they're going to come here. I don't want the rest of the frozen country to find out how beautiful it is to live here. But if you had gone out of your way to tell other Canadians not to come here, you couldn't have devised a better piece of legislation than this and the other package that takes away human rights in this province. The real motive, Mr. Speaker, is that those who have power based on their own personal economic interest are now extending that mindless philosophy to overtake the rights of every citizen in this province, as demonstrated through this bill. This is an attack on the middle-income people, the poor and the handicapped. The super-rich are not hurt by this because they don't worry about being fired. Who is going to fire the head of a chain of hardware stores without cause? When he gets fired it will be with lots of cause, and this will be part of it. But in the meantime, who else?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Do you believe that?

I was just beginning to move into that part of my debate that would have brought tears to the eyes of the members for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston and Mr. Reid), but because of other imperatives, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:35 p.m.