[ Page 813 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Business bankruptcies. Mr. Stupich –– 814

Change of B.C. Transit colours. Mr. Macdonald –– 814

Reappointment of McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 814

Financial irregularities in the Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Cocke –– 815

Tourism information programs. Mr. Cocke –– 815

Financial aid for post-secondary students. Mr. Rose 815

Health collective funding. Mrs. Dailly –– 815

Trading in Sunmask shares. Hon. Mr. Hewitt replies –– 816

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 4). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis __ 816

Mr. Stupich –– 817

Public Service Restraint Act (Bill 3). Second reading

On the amendment

Mr. Barrett –– 821

MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in celebrating the visit of a very good friend of mine from Portland, Oregon, Miss Aletha Chavis. She and her daughter Jennifer are visiting the capital city today. I'd like everyone to join me in welcoming them.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a Mr. Alan Blackwell. Al is the present president of the Western Guides' and Outfitters' Association, and is a longtime friend and constituent of mine. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

MRS. DAILLY: Would the House join me in welcoming my two nieces, Alison and Celia Gilmore, who are here with their mother Mrs. Gilmore and their friend Geraldine Glennon.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Visiting with us today are 12 MLAs from the state of North Rhineland-Westphalia in the Federal Republic of Germany. They are here on a mines safety inspection tour, and are visiting with us in the gallery and in the buildings today. I would ask members to make them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: On behalf of the MLA for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), I would like to introduce constituents who are visiting here today from Cobble Hill. Would the House join me in welcoming Ross Prellwitz and his two children, Jeremy and Laura.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are three senior people from Air Canada: Mr. Bill Rowe, Mr. Zachary Clark and Mr. George Kennedy. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Also, in the members' gallery today are Mrs. Sue Beauregard and her son Kevin, visiting from Kamloops with their Victoria friends, Patrick and Nigel Slater. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. D'ARCY: Visiting with us today from the lovely community of Rivervale, British Columbia are Miles and Linda Dean, and their daughters Stephanie and Andrea. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of introductions. First of all, from the legal fraternity I have two guests who are practising lawyers in Victoria: Mr. Vincent Reilly and Mr. John Bracken, whose grandfather was the first cousin of John Bracken, leader of the opposition in Canada many years ago.

I also have Mr. Carl Burke and his wife, Gisela, who are from Boise, Idaho. He is the regional chairman of the American College of Trial Lawyers, and also is a member of the United States National Parks Advisory Board.

My final introduction is Mrs. Jan Grant, a friend from Hornby Island.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to join with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in welcoming Alan Blackwell, who is a long-time friend of mine as well; I'd also like the House to join me in welcoming a half dozen people from northern B.C. whose names I'll read and then indicate their purpose in the capital. Pat Moss, Jim Nyland, Louise Bergener, Peter Rodsuth, Arnie Tomlinson and Don Ryan. This group is from the north, and their concern is Kemano 11, or the Kemano completion project. They are here making representations. I hope the House will welcome them.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to introduce some visitors to our Legislature today who are guests of my deputy minister, Isabel Kelly. Her cousin, Michael Weir, is the director of Dr. Barnardo's Homes in Northern Ireland. They are facilities for underprivileged children. He is accompanied by his wife, Teresa, and their two children, Rachael and Corrin. I would ask the House to make them very welcome to Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is also a very special day for one of our senior House officers. At this time I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms if he would be good enough to approach the table.

[2:15]

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, today represents the final day of service to this House by Mr. Alan Myles Hutchinson, who is our Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. Hutchinson has served the Legislature for 24 years and through three Premiers. He has been in the House longer than any sitting member. Mr. Hutchinson served with the RCMP. That service was interrupted during World War II when he served with the RCAF. His wartime service included flying as air gunner in Burma and Ceylon with the RCAF on Liberator aircraft.

After the war Mr. Hutchinson returned to the RCMP, retiring from the force in 1958 and joining the Attorney General's department. In 1959 Mr. Hutchinson joined the Sergeant-at-Arms staff. In 1961 he was appointed Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms under the late Denny Ashby. In December 1971 Mr. Hutchinson was appointed Sergeant-at Arms and has served in that capacity for the past almost 12 years. He has had 24 years of service in the Legislature. Although it may be difficult to believe, on his last day today, Mr. Hutchinson is 81 years of age. On behalf of the government side of the House we would like to express our appreciation for the devotion of service to this House, to the province and to our country. We wish him the very best in retirement.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, we want to join with the Minister of Health and other members of the government of our House to wish Mr. Hutchinson well in his later years after he leaves this place. Many of us are jealous of his tenure here and wonder how we could accomplish remaining that length of time. He has been a distinguished and a gallant gentleman. He has served his country overseas, as the Minister of Health indicated, both in Burma and in what was then known as Ceylon. We are appreciative of his kindness and the manner in which he has related to members of this House. We wish him well in his years of retirement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members are invited to attend a reception at 3:30 this afternoon in the Ned deBeck Lounge in honour of the retiring Sergeant-at-Arms.

[ Page 814 ]

Oral Questions

BUSINESS BANKRUPTCIES

MR. STUPICH: Statistics Canada figures show that business bankruptcies in British Columbia this year have increased by 50 percent over the previous year, while there has been a decrease in such bankruptcies nationally. In view of the continuing serious crisis affecting small business in B.C., can the Minister of Finance advise why British Columbia small businesses continue to lag behind the rest of the country in terms of economic recovery?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that if one looks behind the raw number of bankruptcies in British Columbia, one will note that the number of business incorporations is quite significant as well. The two are interrelated, as the member will know.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: why don't you double the number of incorporations again so that the number of bankruptcies won't look nearly as bad?

However, I will ask if the minister has decided to introduce legislation protecting small business from foreclosure and bankruptcy, along the lines of chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy code, for example.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I must rush to point out that we on this side of the House, unlike the socialists, do not decide who goes into business and where and when, as the socialist government would. It's something called the right to succeed, and something also called the right to fail, if that must occur.

With respect to the second part of the question, I would suggest to the member for Nanaimo that there are bills on the order paper which directly address the question he has put.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot to say that the budget that was introduced six weeks ago and that we've forgotten all about is perhaps part of the reason these businesses are continuing to go bankrupt.

Has the minister decided to undertake a detailed analysis of B.C. bankruptcies with a view towards removing injurious taxes and fee increases from those businesses which can least afford them?

HON. MR. CURTIS: A very important aspect of research conducted not only by the Ministry of Finance but by other ministries in government is an ongoing review of business incorporations, of business success and of business failures.

CHANGE OF B.C. TRANSIT COLOURS

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the Provincial Secretary, having in charge B.C. Transit. The bus stop poles in the lower mainland are being painted blue from brown at a cost of $70 each — and to the confusion of the dogs. The buses are being painted in the Socred colours of red, white and blue at a cost of $600 each. The brown vinyl seats in the buses are being changed to blue at a cost of $300,000 for material already ordered. I ask whether the minister has authorized this work.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's a very interesting question, Mr. Member, but put to the wrong minister.

MR. MACDONALD: I would never knowingly ask a question of the Provincial Secretary. I made a horrible mistake.

The same question to the Minister of Human Resources, having in charge B.C. Transit.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question from the hon. member for Vancouver East. First, let me say that some time ago the board of directors of B.C. Transit made a decision to have a common colour combination throughout B.C. Transit. You're perfectly right, Mr. Member: it has been adopted as red, white and blue. It is a combination of colours which is very attractive. They have decided to have a consistent colour combination throughout the whole transit system; I would question the figures you used for the cost of doing so. I would be very pleased to let the member know if indeed his figures are correct, but I would question the figures he quoted as being very much too high. Finally, I would tell you that the conversion of the colour combination on the older buses to the new consistent colour combination includes our remarkable handicap program which was introduced in the last four years. It's probably the most effective custom transit service for handicapped in the country. It will carry on throughout individual transit systems, several of which have also been initiated by this government in the last four years in the province of British Columbia. It will also extend to the SeaBus and to the metro Vancouver and Victoria transit systems. They will all be done on an as-needs basis, including the posts at the various bus stops. They will not be done unless needed. However, the member brings up a very good point. If it is confusing to the public, I shall ask the board of directors of B.C. Transit whether it is in the best interests of the travelling public to have the bus stops all done at once.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how we got to discussing the handicapped, but my supplementary question to the minister is: since the handicapped are losing that $50 a month under the CI program, and this expenditure for frills, decoration and subliminal Social Credit brainwashing is going to cost half a million dollars in a so-called period of restraint, would the minister not reconsider these frills at this time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the question from the member is now couched in language which is meant, I know, to be totally inflammatory, and is totally incorrect. First, I think you misunderstood — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member — my answer. The repainting is being done on an as-needs basis. It is not done as an extra frill but as a maintenance program, which is carried on at all times during transit operations. It has been for many years and will be in the years to come, in order to preserve the vehicles in which we have a very large investment.

REAPPOINTMENT OF McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. I think he'll understand this one. Last week the Provincial Secretary professed ignorance regarding the agency that handles the entire government advertising account. Will the minister now inform the House whether McKim Advertising has been reappointed as agency of record for the provincial government?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and bring the answer back as quickly as possible.

[ Page 815 ]

FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES
IN THE MINISTRY OF TOURISM

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, isn't that incredible?

I have a question for the Attorney-General. The Premier could probably answer it because he directs the whole operation, as I see it. In any event, 27 days ago I asked the Attorney-General to bring the police in to investigate serious financial irregularities in the Ministry of Tourism. Has the minister now decided to bring in the police, or will he continue to delay?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the member for that fairly put question. The process of having officials of my ministry examine all the material before the auditor-general, and what arises out of that, is proceeding expeditiously, and will continue to proceed despite the efforts of gentlemen on the other side of the House to prejudge and prejudice the rights of persons involved, and also to prejudice the right of the Crown to pursue and secure information. Those things will take place regardless of their questions.

TOURISM INFORMATION PROGRAMS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the age of stonewall is with us. The only reason we're in the bind we're in — as the Attorney-General suggests — is because of the fact that it's not gone to the police in the first place.

I direct this question to the Minister of Tourism. The tourist industry is publicly complaining that business is substantially down, even when compared to last year's low level, in part because of the poor job of informing the potential visitors of the premium on the American dollar. Will the minister confirm that the information programs in the Ministry of Tourism have been thrown into chaos because of the preoccupation with problems arising from the auditor-general's report?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members' questions, as we know, must be questions, not expressions of opinion, representation, argumentation or debate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is no, there is no truth to his allegations.

MR. COCKE: Just one supplementary question to the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Speaker. Is there any problem with paying the bills at McKim? Are they getting paid?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Take it as notice.

[2:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have all my advisers from the other side of the House. It's amazing how clever they are from sitting over there.

Mr. Speaker, the government is not having any problems at the moment in paying its bills.

FINANCIAL AID FOR POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS

MR. ROSE: My question is to the Minister of Education. As the minister knows, because he decreed it, students must maintain an 80 percent course load or lose eligibility for the provincial grant portion of student assistance. Now we find that because of government cuts, a number of post-secondary courses will be reduced and thus many students may be unable to enrol up to the requirement of 80 percent. I wonder f the minister could tell the House what action he or the government has to avoid this catch-22 situation for students who might be denied financial aid because they are unable to enrol in a full-course program occasioned by the cutbacks at the post-secondary level.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have no plan whatsoever with respect to that. It seems to me that somebody who is attending a university or college on a full-time basis has an adequate number of courses to make selection from, and I don't think putting the amount of 80 percent on is asking too much for the taxpayers of British Columbia, when the amount of money which in fact is being advanced is in the form of a grant.

MR. ROSE: Just on a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain to the House why the federal requirements are 60 percent of the course load and why the minister has decided to limit the number of part-time students who are able to take advantage of this by putting it up to 80 percent locally?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, this government is trying to do something with its deficit. It seems to me that if we ask for an 80 percent enrolment it is not unreasonable. If the federal government wants to continue to put out at 60 percent — or, I suspect, even less from time to time — that's their prerogative. Our policy and our position is 80 percent.

HEALTH COLLECTIVE FUNDING

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health advise why the government has withdrawn funding from the nine-year-old health collective in Vancouver, which makes extensive use of volunteers to offer counselling on pregnancy and birth control?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of agencies throughout the province who were advised that their funding through the Ministry of Health would no longer be available after a certain date — I think it was September 1 or a date near that. That was one of the series of agencies. I do not have the specific details relative to that agency but, if the member wishes, I could bring back some of the information relative to that one agency.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a question I took as notice a week or so ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

[ Page 816 ]

TRADING IN SUNMASK SHARES

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) raised a question concerning Sunmask Petroleum Corp. and the allegation of a possible leak of budget information prior to budget day. I have now received a response from the superintendent of brokers. I am advised that investigators from the superintendent of brokers' office examined the trading in Sunmask Petroleum Corp. shares on the Vancouver Stock Exchange for a period beginning May 15, 1983, through to July 19, 1983. I am further advised that the trading is consistent with activities of the company as reflected in the information made known to the public through news releases, etc., and the investigators did not discover any information that would lead them to believe that changes in the volume or share price might have been the result of a leak of budget information or of any related legislation.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the report should be made public; it should be tabled in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, that is not a point of order. It could possibly be addressed in another question period in response to a question taken, but it would not be a point of order. For example, hon. member, tomorrow at 2:15 would seem an appropriate time for that question when it would be in order.

MR. HOWARD: But is it not that if a document is quoted or referred to, it should be tabled? That's what I'm basing my request for tabling on.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will take that question under advisement and bring a reply back to the House.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with leave, public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 4.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983, was one of the bills introduced on budget day some five weeks ago. Essentially it deals with two aspects of measures that were deemed appropriate by the government, one of them made public on November 10, 1982.

1 have a few comments to make, but in order that there be no doubt, I move second reading of Bill 4.

In addition to minor administrative amendments requested by Ottawa under the terms of the tax collection agreement, the bill proposes adjustments to the Income Tax Act. The most noteworthy is the introduction of legislation to repeal the renters' tax credit and the provincial personal income tax credit.

As I indicated a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, on November 10 of last year I announced that due to the economic circumstances of the province at that time these credits were to be suspended for 1982 at least. As the budget indicated and as the Premier and other ministers have indicated, and as many people in British Columbia know, there has been little significant improvement in the fortunes of the province in the interval. So we are confirming the decision to repeal both credits, certainly for this year and possibly for some little while to come. In taking this measure, Mr. Speaker — and I appreciate that there are other elements — it is important to point out to the House that through these measures the government will save approximately $82 million of taxpayers' money annually. The decision was taken after considerable review and reflection on the basis of the fact that with a deficit of something for last year in the order of $978 million, and for this year a forecast $1.6 billion, this money among other money was needed for more urgent social and economic programs serving the people of the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the existing statutory provisions concerning tax credit receipts issued by political parties in the province. It's interesting to note that the province currently has 11 registered political parties. Under the existing legislation a political party, once registered, has an unlimited lifetime to issue tax credit receipts. Most members will know, Mr. Speaker, that in the most recent election — this year — only the 11 registered parties fielded candidates; the remaining three, although they had sought receipting authority and stated to the appropriate officials that they would field candidates, did not in fact do so. In order that continuing public money is not made available to political parties with apparently no political intent, this amendment introduces a requirement for annual registration of a party's receipt authority. This requirement in no way impinges upon the ability of a political party to raise funds by traditional methods; however, a political party seeking funded support from the public must show a continuing public intent.

Finally, this bill, as is usual with an amending act of this nature, undertakes to amend various sections of the Income Tax Act to bring the administrative, enforcement and collection provisions in line with the Income Tax Act, Canada. Under the terms of the tax collection agreement, British Columbia has again agreed that it will maintain its taxing statute on the same basis as the federal act. These changes are among those requested by the federal government, and they arise, in turn, from previous amendments to the Income Tax Act, Canada.

Mr. Speaker, other points with respect to the second section of the bill would perhaps be more appropriately dealt with in committee. I assume the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is going to speak on this. I indicated the number of parties fielding candidates and not fielding candidates in the May 5, 1983 election. It might assist the House to review very quickly those parties.

The parties fielding candidates included the British Columbia Social Credit Party, the New Democratic Party of British Columbia, the Progressive Conservative Association of British Columbia, the Liberal Party of British Columbia, the Communist Party of Canada, the Green Party Political

[ Page 817 ]

Association of British Columbia, the Western Canada Concept Party, and the Western National Party. The parties not fielding candidates in the most recent election included the Libertas Party of British Columbia, the Real Share Value Party and the Unparty Party of British Columbia.

I look forward to comments by members with respect to Bill 4, and I move second reading now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. minister.... I mean the member for Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH: You're looking a little too far into the future, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: We shall see. The minister says: "long." With the record this government has built up for itself in the past seven weeks, it may not be all that long.

Apparently the government has once again flipped the roulette wheel, and has now come up with Bill 4. We met first on June 23, seven weeks ago last Thursday. On July 7, five weeks ago last Thursday, we started discussing a budget. After a few people had an opportunity to take part in that debate, we completely abandoned discussion of the advice given to us by the Lieutenant-Governor of the province when he delivered his opening speech. I've reminded the members of this previously, Mr. Speaker, but apparently no one on that side of the House is particularly interested. I'm going to try to keep reminding them, and I hope eventually to get an opportunity to remind people out of the House just why we're here.

Reading from the opening speech....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this is introductory to my remarks about the bill. The person speaking from his seat on the other side of the House said: "What about the bill?" I'll come to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, why are we here? The bill is one of the reasons we're here. The Lieutenant-Governor urged us in his opening speech by saying: "May I express the wish that your goals and aspirations and the needs of the people you represent will be met in the course of your service as individual members and as the Legislature of our magnificent province." As a government, we serve the needs of the people in this province by developing programs, by debating those programs here in the Legislature, eventually by approving them, and then by putting them into action. Every one of these programs, of course, requires the spending of public money. We discuss the spending of that money not when we discuss the programs in the House, not when we discuss legislation such as we have before us right now, but when we do the budget debate. That's when the government tells us their spending plans for the year. We might have expected to find in the budget some reference to this bill before us now — a bill that is changing a measure that was in the previous budget. But the government, for reasons best known to itself.... Perhaps it's lack of intestinal fortitude; perhaps there's some game plan of which we're not aware. I suspect even the government isn't aware.

[2:45]

The House Leader, when he introduced discussion of this bill today, said, "Adjourned debate on Bill 4." We've had seven bills; this is the eighth bill introduced in second reading. Each one of them proceeds in debate for awhile.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if those on the other side side would stand up so they could be identified, we would all know who's making these bright remarks. Individually apparently they don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand on their feet and say these things.

They say it's our fault. Is it our fault that the budget has not been debated? We didn't introduce the budget. Daily the government asks for leave to proceed with business other than its plans for spending public money, other than its plans for diverting the moneys that might have been spent in line with the program being cancelled by the legislation before us now. That's the kind of debate we should be having. Certainly it's not the opposition's responsibility to control what's happening in the House. It's up to the government to see that the budget is debated. The government prefers to sit.

On a daily basis — perhaps even during the day, for all we know — the government prefers to swing the roulette wheel again to see what number comes up. And if it's a number we've already discussed, then they spin it again until it gets to one of the 31 public bills now before us that has not yet been discussed, and say: "Let's have a whirl at that for a few days or a few hours and see what happens." They're playing a game. The government is not prepared to talk about its spending program. The government prefers, on an ad hoc basis, to pick a bill from time to time; today it has come up with Bill 4, amendments to the Income Tax Act. What a way to run a province!

The minister talked about the administrative measures in this bill, which brings the Income Tax Act in line with the federal Income Tax Act, saying that these changes were sought by the federal government. I did take some encouragement from that. It's the one thing he said on which I can most heartily agree with him. Mr. Speaker, you may recall that during a previous budget he warned us that B.C. might break its tax collection agreement with Ottawa and decide to go into a provincial income tax system. I'm pleased that is not before us now. I'm pleased he is still amending our Income Tax Act so that it is compatible with the provisions of the federal Income Tax Act, pleased we are still cooperating with the federal income tax people. I would hate to see us go to a provincial income-tax-gathering bureaucracy. Certainly, if they were trying to reduce the number of people on the government payroll, that would be the wrong way to go.

I was interested in his remarks about registration. There can be no argument about the need for registration. I wonder whether those parties took advantage of the provisions of the legislation, particularly the ones that did not field candidates. Later on, I suppose we'll have an opportunity.... The minister may want to comment on that, should he ever get as far as closing debate in second reading. I don't think the government wants to proceed that far with any of the legislation. It's beyond me, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure beyond you, what their plans really are for the future of the Legislature.

The minister announced this policy in November of last year, he said, in response to the economic conditions of the time, and after considerable review. To me, "considerable review" means that by November they had spent some time looking at revenues and expenditures, and had come to the conclusion that they needed to chisel this $91 million....

[ Page 818 ]

I believe he used the figure of $82 million — I'm referring to the budget figures. The figure of $82 million might be more accurate, or it might refer to the current year rather than to 1982. I don't know; it doesn't matter. We're talking about $80 million to $90 million. After considerable review — which indicates to me that they had spent some time on it — the government decided that in order to balance the books it was necessary for the government to chisel some $80 million to $90 million from those people in our community who are least able to afford that particular loss. But it was necessary to balance the budget. He then tells us that by the end of the year, although there was no indication of this in November, or not that I can recall.... The budget that presumably was going to be balanced by the end of the year, or close to balanced — or why bother? — by chiselling this $80 million to $90 million from the poorest people in our community was actually $978 million in the hole. I suppose they achieved something; they did, by this device, get it below the magic figure of $1 billion.

It's a lot of money. I can recall sitting in this Legislature when the Minister of Finance of the day proudly stood up and told us that for the first time in the history of the province our total budget was $1 billion. Now we find that when the Minister of Finance predicted that we would be in a breakeven position, our deficit for one year was actually in excess of $1 billion. The budget expenditures approved by the Legislature provided for this $91 million to go to the poorest people in our community. Had that money been spent in accordance with the wishes of the Legislature, our deficit would have been in excess of $1 billion.

That was quite an achievement for the Social Credit Party in such a short period, a period of only six years. They had been government for only six years, and had managed to turn a province that had not had a deficit for some thirty years into a province that had a deficit — and not a small one, but a deficit of $1 billion — as large as the budget introduced in, I believe, 1965. They managed to create that much of a deficit in a period of only six years, quite a record for even the Social Credit Party. Of course, the minister told us that this year the deficit is going to be in the neighbourhood of $1.6 billion. In passing, and as I have said before, I don't believe that figure any more than I believed the figure last year, when we were told we would have a balanced budget.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening to the would-be leader of the socialist party for the last 25-odd minutes and I would venture to say that by liberal terms he has probably spoken about 5 minutes out of that 25 on the principle of the bill before us. If we are going to have rules in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, they should be followed, particularly in debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well made. Relevancy in debate is always a parliamentary necessity.

MR. STUPICH: I suppose this isn't relevant to the bill either, but I made a note that I started speaking at 14:45, 10 minutes ago; and the minister has been listening to me for 25 minutes? One of us is wrong. I suspect he is wrong again. He is often given to exaggeration, often given to making absolutely no contribution, whether speaking from his seat or speaking from his feet. In this case I think he is making no useful contribution to the debate either, but if he wants me to speak about the legislation — and I know it would make it easier for you if I spoke about the legislation — then I'm going to. In doing so, I'm going to refer to the minister's own remarks. The wonders of Hansard; they are really up to it; I have his remarks here in Hansard, and from Hansard I want to read what the minister had to say about this bill.

The Hansard is dated May 19, 1981, page 5663; the bill is entitled Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981. Now it is 1983; that is the only change. It's the same minister. In the March budget speech.... This year, of course, the budget speech was in July. April, May, June, July — three and one half months later. It took them three and one half months to get around to wiping it out. The minister told the people of this province, warned the people of this province, that if they voted Social Credit the poorest people in the community would be asked to forgo $91 million in grants that they would otherwise expect to get — tax credits that had been approved by the Legislature. He told them that; he warned them. They didn't believe it, and they voted Social Credit anyway. It was that same minister that brought in this provision in March 1981. Eighteen months before — more than that; about 20 months before — he told them they were going to lose it after it had been in effect for just one year.

They never got around to doing anything about it. The House had been in session and there had been considerable review. The minister must have known, when the House was sitting, that they would to have to look at this, they would have to do it. He chose not to say anything about it in the House. He could have brought the legislation in then but he didn't, The House could certainly have met much earlier than June 27, 1983, but it didn't. Some people filed applications for those credits because it was the law of the land; some people didn't file, knowing they could always make their application at a later date in the event the Socreds were defeated. But the minister, in March 1981, spoke glowingly about this program, about the importance of it, the cost of it and what it was doing for the poorest people in the community, and that is what this bill is all about.

That is why I am quoting the minister's remarks from Hansard: "...in the March budget speech for the 1981-82 fiscal year, I announced several major changes that will affect British Columbia personal and corporation income taxes in the 1981 tax year" — as was done in the budget speech in 1983. "These changes are contained in the bill before us, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981." Many of the changes contained in the 1983 budget, delivered on July 7, of course are now before us in legislation — legislation that comes before us briefly, and then we lose sight of it and something else comes up; but nevertheless it's in the legislation. The one difference was that in 1981 the government was prepared; they had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and debate the budget first and tell us how they were going to spend the money they were raising from the taxpayers. This time they don't have the grit to do that.

Perhaps I could touch on a few of the main points which are contained in this bill.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm continually being asked to refer to the bill; well, I'm quoting the minister's own words: "One provision is for the new provincial personal income tax credit for the full year of 1981 and subsequent tax years." Well, there weren't very many subsequent tax years, were there? On May 19, 1981, the minister, speaking on the Income Tax

[ Page 819 ]

Amendment Act, 1981, said that the tax credits being provided for in that legislation would be available to B.C. taxpayers — and I have to emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that we're talking about the people in the community least able to afford to give up some $91 million, people who would spend it in their communities and who would get the economy going to that extent at least. Those are the people who are being denied the $91 million.

[3:00]

The minister told the people.... His speech is in Hansard, Mr. Speaker. After years and years of persuasion on the part of the CCF and the NDP, we finally got elected, and one of the first things we did was institute a Hansard. So we can now remind the minister that on May 19, 1981, he told the people of this province that the tax credits he was granting them in the legislation before us on that day would be available in 1981 and "subsequent tax years." It was great, wasn't it? They all knew that they were going to get this, because, after all, Social Credit promised it to them. No worry there; they always live up to their promise, election after election. They make promises and they always live up to them.

Mr. Speaker, I would be out of order if I started listing the very long list of campaign promises broken by this administration, so I won't bore you with those details. There will be other opportunities. But certainly here's one promise that the Minister of Finance made on May 19, 1981: that these tax credits would be available in 1981 and "subsequent tax years."

There were a number of provisions in that legislation. Of course we're dealing today with certain specific ones. Reading again:

One provision is for the new provincial personal income tax credit for the full year of 1981 and subsequent tax years. The credit will be equal to 3 percent of the tax-filer's personal exemptions less 1.5 percent of the tax-filer's personal income.

That was a principle that I heartily endorsed; we all did at the time. The minister told us why he was doing that.

You will note that I've used the term "tax-filer" and not tax-payer. This is a very important distinction and one that has been generally overlooked in the commentary immediately following the budget this year. The word "tax-filer" is used because the tax credit is fully refundable. Therefore many British Columbians who do not pay income tax, such as students and senior citizens with low incomes, will still be eligible to receive the full amount of the credit in the form of a cash refund from the government. To claim the credit, all they shall have to do is file a 1981 tax return.

It was great legislation.

I met people in my constituency and helped them file their tax returns. Many senior citizens who were barely getting by appreciated what the Social Credit government had done for them. They certainly were not paying income tax, and some of them had not filed income tax returns for years. But when I made it known to them that by filing a tax return they could get a significant cash bonus that would give them a little extra spending money at that one time of the year, they truly were appreciative of what this great government had done for them. When I told them that it wasn't just this year, that it was available in 1981 and would be available in subsequent tax years, they really were very appreciative of what the government had done for them. That's in line with what the Lieutenant-Governor asked us on opening day: that we should be doing something for the people of the province. In that respect the government did something for the people of the province.

As I said, I met senior citizens and students. Some of the students at Malaspina College were having a hard time. They were getting by, but some of them were living pretty hard on pretty skimpy rations. They very quickly became aware that simply by filing a tax return, if they were not in an income-tax-paying position, they too were entitled to a significant credit — a credit that for some of them made all the difference between being able to continue their education and having to drop out at the end of that semester, the end of that term, or even before the end. It was a good program, it was good legislation, and we congratulated the government at that time for bringing in that kind of legislation.

That was legislation that was — as the Lieutenant-Governor adjured us — doing something for the people of the province. This year the government is concerned because some legislation is taking longer than they expected to pass through debate in this House, The difference is that the legislation in those days was doing something for the people of the province. The legislation we've had come before us up to this point in time is doing something to them. There are words that I could use in describing that, but then Hansard wouldn't print them. So what's the point? Nobody would ever know I said them. In those days the government was trying to do something for the people of the province, and in that Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981, indeed they were. The students appreciated it, and no doubt some of them forgot, didn't notice it was going to be withdrawn. No doubt some of them remembered the importance of getting that money sometime in 1982 — remembered that and voted Social Credit. They know now, of course, that when the Minister of Finance said it was available in 1981 and subsequent tax years, he didn't mean anything by that. It was available in 1981, and that was the end of that program. As long as this government is in office, it'll be the end of that program.

Going on with the minister's speech on this bill — and what could be more in order than to quote the minister's own remarks? — I'd like to point out that the basic amount of the credit will be 3 percent of the tax-filer's personal exemptions. This formula has been used instead of a fixed dollar amount for two reasons. First, the formula will target more benefits to those tax-filers claiming more dependents. What could be better than that? Talk about progressive tax legislation! This is very progressive. Mr. Speaker, it was also good legislation for the elderly. So those most in need will receive more under this formula. As the Lieutenant-Governor told us, that's what we should be talking about in this session. Those are the people we should be trying to help — the people in our community who are most in need — instead of taking out of the pockets of the people most in need money that they can ill afford.

The minister gave an example. The maximum credit for a single taxpayer will be $95. To some people in the community $95 doesn't sound like a great deal of money — $95 once a year. But if you're barely getting by in a hand-to-mouth existence — as some of the elderly are, as some of the students are — that $95 payment in one lump sum in May, June or whenever the tax refunds come in, is extremely important. For a single pensioner it would be $155. Mr. Speaker, it may not be the case in your riding of Prince George, but I can assure you there are single pensioners in my riding of Nanaimo to whom that $155 meant all the difference between existing and living a little. It was important. It was good legislation. For a married taxpayer it would be $178. That's not much — not much for the recipient, certainly not much for the government. But, that was doing

[ Page 820 ]

something for people. To say to a married taxpayer, "Here's $178 to eke out" — in some cases — "your miserable existence" was good. For a married taxpayer with two children under 18 years of age, it would be $214. A person had to be in pretty dire circumstances to qualify for that $214. For a married taxpayer with four children under 18, it would be $246. For married pensioners it would be $235.

These are all good arguments in favour of the legislation that was brought forward for second reading on May 19, 1981. Because it was good legislation....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The second member for Vancouver Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) said something about being sick. I'm not sure whether the Sergeant-at-Arms should help him, or....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: In any case, he had six.... I don't know what his income situation was. I don't know what tax credit he gets. But if this provision were actually in effect for 1981 and subsequent tax years, as the minister promised, that particular member wouldn't need it for 1983. So I expect that that particular member will stand up and vote — when we do get around to voting — in favour of withdrawing this from the people who need it most because he's not in a position of needing it now, and, contrary to what the Lieutenant-Governor urged upon us, he is not terribly concerned about doing something for the people who need it most, not being one of those. That's not atypical for the members of the Social Credit Party.

The second reason we've chosen this formula is that personal exemptions are, as hon. members know, indexed under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, if inflation continues to increase in future years.... Even today inflation is continuing, certainly not at the rate at which it was in 1981 but we still have some inflation. The level of benefits under the tax credit will also increase proportionately without any further legislative action being required. Mr. Speaker, it's a pity we couldn't have left it at that. It's a pity we couldn't have left the Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981 untouched. I would have hoped that the government would have come in and said that the need is greater — that the elderly, the students and low-income people generally actually need more assistance now and that the legislation instead of the bill before us now.... There is nothing wrong with the bill we have before us now except that it withdraws something that it should have been increasing. That's a minor technicality that the minister could certainly change if he chose to, without great cost to the treasury but with tremendous benefits to the recipients.

Going on with the minister's speech: "The basic credit will, of course, be reduced by 1.5 percent of the filer's personal income so that if the tax filer has no taxable income he or she will receive the full basic credit. However, as income rises the tax credit is designed to phase out." Excellent legislation and an excellent approach. The minister is to be congratulated for having thought along those lines on May 19, 1981. But congratulations do not go to him today for being so niggardly as to take out of the pockets of the poorest people in the community money that they need to maintain, in some instances, a very low standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, I'm reading again from the minister's speech: "It's estimated that at least 40 percent of all British Columbia families and 75 percent of the elderly will benefit from this credit." That's some commentary on our day. Here we are on August 15, 1983; I don't know what those figures are today but I would suspect they're higher, if not much higher. I would expect that there are more than 40 percent of B.C. families which would benefit from the legislation that was introduced then and the program that we're cancelling with the legislation before us now. I would expect that more than 75 percent of the elderly would be getting some benefit from the program being cancelled in the legislation that is before us today. It is a commentary on our times that so many people in our community need the very low level of assistance that was offered in the program which was approved very quickly in 1981 — the program that is now being withdrawn, although to all intents and purposes it was withdrawn when the minister spoke publicly in November 1981.

Mr. Speaker, don't we have any concern at all for these people? Don't we have any concern as members of the Legislature who are doing not too badly? Don't we have any concern at all for the fact that 40 percent of B.C. families and 75 percent of the elderly would benefit from this low level of assistance? Mr. Speaker, are there not other things the government could have done to have saved that $91 million? Are there not other approaches they could have taken? If they're going to be $1.6 billion in the hole, was it necessary to scrape the barrel by another $80 million to $90 million to deny this kind of assistance to the people who need it most? I would hate, as Minister of Finance, to stand up and say that I'm bringing in a budget — Mr. Speaker, we haven't talked much about a budget, but we have one — that shows spending of $8.6 billion. It would have been $8,691,000,000 — that's not necessarily the exact figure, as I don't recall the figures of the budget exactly — if we had continued this program. No one would have noticed the difference in the total budget, but to the recipients, who were receiving in some cases as little as $45 and in some cases as much as $245, it would have made a tremendous difference.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we debated in 1981 wasn't simply handing money out to people. It wasn't just making this provision for the poorest people in our community, the ones who needed it most. It also provided ways in which that money was going to be raised. It provided for tax increases and for corporate tax increases. It provided for another tax reduction for people who were paying income tax in low brackets; it also provided for some tax increases for the high income people. So the minister wasn't simply giving away surplus money when he was speaking to us on May 19, 1981. He didn't say, "Well, we've got too much money here," or, "The economy needs an extra boost," or, "The elderly or the low-income people need some help and we're going to give it to them out of what we have in consolidated revenue and in some of our surplus funds."

That wasn't the case at all, Mr. Speaker. The minister introduced a program so that he got that money back. He raised taxes. There was some argument, certainly, about the way in which he was raising some of the taxes, but he did raise taxes to recover this. He didn't give the figures at the time, so I just don't know whether the money raised was more or less than the money that was paid out to the poorest people in the community. But he didn't tell us during the course of his remarks that it was actually going to cost more to make

[ Page 821 ]

these benefits available to the poorest people in the community, that it would cost more to make those benefits than he would get by increasing the taxes he did. And I would think that if that were the case, then he would have done so.

You'll recall some of the tax increases, Mr. Speaker. You may remember the surtax on the higher income taxes. Certainly there was no opposition about that. I heard of no complaints from the people in the high income tax brackets. I don't think any one of those.... The surtax, as you may recall, Mr. Speaker, was a percentage of the income tax being paid. When the provincial income tax exceeded $3,500, the excess was subject to a 10 percent surtax. What's wrong with that? Nobody paying that kind of income tax, to the best of my knowledge, made objection to paying a surtax so that the poorest people in the community would have a little bit more money to spend.

Mr. Speaker, we're now saying to those poor people: our deficit is $1.6 billion. Last year our deficit was $978 million. We have to get that back somehow. Our deficit would have been higher than $978 million, so we can't afford to give you some $80 million to $90 million. It would mean our deficit would be in excess of a billion dollars for the first time in the history of the province. This year our deficit would have been even larger than $1.6 billion if we continued this program.

But, of course, the tax increases that he imposed, when he discussed this legislation on May 19, 1981, are not being withdrawn in the legislation before us now. He's not doing that; he's continuing to collect those extra taxes. And of course, it's not before us in this.... If we get around to discussing the budget, we will talk about other tax increases that were brought in. The corporation taxes were increased; in some instances they were lowered. They were giving and taking on that.

In the course of his speech, the minister said something very true: no one likes to pay taxes. "What we have attempted to do with Bill 10" — in those days it was Bill 10 — "is spread the burden as evenly and as equitably as possible." Mr. Speaker, that's a very sound and very laudable principle. What the government should be doing, if it's going to follow the advice of the Lieutenant-Governor, is to spread the burden as evenly and as equitably as possible. And to a large extent he achieved that with the introduction and the passing — with little opposition — of Bill 10 in 1981. Now we're going in the other direction. Now the minister, in a niggardly way, is saying that the poorest people in the community, relatively speaking, are going to have to bear the brunt of his attempt — some four or five years down the road, he has said — to balance the budget.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this legislation. I believe the government needs time to reconsider its position on this legislation. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS — 46

NAYS — 1

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) could indicate how she voted. I was not aware of her voting in the affirmative or negative.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe the roll was called, and the roll will speak in that case.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3.

PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised. Perhaps the House Leader has made an error in calling this bill. If the government wish to reconsider, I could understand because a week ago we were promised the regulations. That's right. We were promised the regulations and the reason we were arguing for a hoist, which I am now speaking toward, Mr. Speaker, is because we were expecting the regulations. This is all the more reason for this hoist motion.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

[3:30]

It was just one week ago that the press were told that there would be regulations coming down on this nefarious bill. Just one week ago the people of British Columbia were told that the interpretation would be in the regulations. The opposition took this unusual step to ask that the bill be lifted from the floor of this chamber for six months to allow rational discussion of those regulations and the impact of the bill.

Like other citizens in the province of British Columbia, we believed that the government was telling the truth. We believed the government again, even though we have been disappointed time and time again. They have not told the

[ Page 822 ]

truth in the past, but we believed them again when they said that the regulations would be down last Monday. The minister concerned said that they would be down last Monday. Is that not right, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker? The minister himself informed the press, incorrectly as it turned out, that the regulations would be ready last Monday. Did anybody in this chamber see those regulations? Has the minister seen those regulations? Mr. Minister, if you are convinced that you're on the right track, support this motion for a hoist or bring in the regulations.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll send you over a copy.

MR. BARRETT: Ah, Mr. Speaker, a pleasant device from that minister. Sit down and he'll send me a copy. You've had eight days to send the press a copy. What's holding you up? What are you afraid of?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I respect this House too much to....

MR. BARRETT: Do you respect this House too much to tell the truth? I'm not twisting. I'm just asking the minister that question. When this hoist that we're debating now was brought in to the House, he told the press that he would give them regulations last Monday. Where have you been for the last seven days? Mr. Speaker, what can we believe when that minister speaks? Not very much, because he told the press that those regulations would be ready last week.

I'll bet you that the caucus hasn't even seen them yet. And they're the first group to be kept informed, particularly all those new MLAs who are called in and informed step by step of what's going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the bill?

MR. BARRETT: That's very good.

Those back-benchers are told what's going on day by day. That's why they welcomed the elimination of the Crown Corporations Committee. The member is leaving.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're fumbling for time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, did you hear that interruption from that outstanding minister? We're "fumbling for time." No, the people fumbling for time sit on the government benches. Where are the regulations that they promised to the people of British Columbia over one week ago? It's the most contentious piece of legislation introduced in this chamber in 50 years. That minister says that we're fumbling for time, when they promised one week ago that they would have the regulations, and broke their promise — another lie. They haven't got them. Fumbling? My friend, it's an absolute falsehood to suggest one week ago that you'd have the regulations and not deliver. They say that we're fumbling. What are you afraid of? Why don't you come in this chamber and keep your word? Bring in the regulations so that we can have the debate that you said would happen one week ago. I'll tell you where the filibuster is going. The filibuster is coming from a government that doesn't know where it's going. It can't produce those regulations, so it's been stalling on this legislation itself for over ten days.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'll give you some reasons why this bill should be hoisted. The minister thinks it's humorous for him to put in his mindless interjections. I don't mind mindless interjections; they reflect the source.

Let us deal with all that we have in front of us in terms of evidence as to why this bill should be lifted. I refer you specifically to the section that deals with the only regulations we have, pending the government bringing in amendments: section 6. I want to make the people of British Columbia aware that we really are reaching 1984 in this legislation. Does that minister or any of the back-benchers understand the interpretation of the existing regulations? I want to read this particular section to you, Mr. Speaker, so that we will have an idea of what we're dealing with that is brand-new and frightening in the province of British Columbia. It says: "The compensation stabilization commissioner, appointed under the Compensation Stabilization Act, shall, by regulation, designate a list of senior management positions for the purpose of applying this section to senior managers who hold those positions." When we talk about senior managers, we're talking about all municipal employees, all Crown corporation employees, everybody who is covered in this act; included are supervisory personnel for police and fire departments, for schools, etc.

Listen to what they can ask in terms of government control of police and other services. Listen carefully to this particular section which has not had the public scrutiny it should have: "(1) The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations...to establish, maintain and apply systems of classification of senior managers and of job evaluation, following principles that ensure objectivity.... The cabinet is taking that power unto itself. It may "establish classes of senior managers and expand, reduce, divide, combine, alter or abolish existing classes.... Do you know what that means? If you've got a policeman or a series of policemen responsible for giving assignments.... There may be an assignment to investigate the alleged criminal or civil violation of a law by a politician. Under this particular section the policeman who assigns that job could indeed have the classification wiped out and his job gone. That's a convoluted way to get police control; that's a back-door approach.

Let's read the next paragraph, buried away at the end of this bill, so we understand exactly how this bill can be used by the government to politically control police investigations in this province. I ask the lawyers to examine this closely. It's pretty frightening for anybody who believes in equal freedoms and the fights of individual citizens before the law — anybody familiar with the Orwellian philosophy of Big Brother. Let us understand exactly what this section will do when passed into law. This is what it'll do. This section says that the cabinet — i.e., the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, that group of politicians over there, who are hardly trusted as things go now — "may require public sector employers to supply to a minister information and records respecting the duties, compensation, terms and conditions of employment of senior managers employed by them" — these corporations — "notwithstanding any enactment respecting confidentiality, or any contract.... What this means is that if this legislation passes, any cabinet minister will have the authority to write a letter to a Crown corporation, a municipal police department, a city fire hall, a hospital, or anyone

[ Page 823 ]

working on the railroad and say: "Send me the personnel file on X, Y or Z." Mr. Speaker, in this modern day and age can you tell me what business it is of any cabinet minister to have delivered on his or her desk at any time, day or night, the complete personnel file...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. BARRETT: "Why not?" says somebody over there. Very interesting. I'm glad that I heard that interjection because it reveals the basic ignorance that some of this mindless legislation has been written in.

MS. SANFORD: It sounds like Pinochet.

MR. BARRETT: Pinochet? It's Orwellian.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I know that the minister over there thinks it's very funny. How would you like that minister to look at his seatmate two seats down, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), who unfortunately was the subject of police investigation? The Crown prosecutor in that case said that that minister should be prosecuted when he was an MLA, and that member got up and thanked the Attorney-General for stopping the proceedings. It's a matter of public record. A police investigation on that MLA led the public prosecutor to say that there was evidence that warranted criminal prosecution against that MLA, and the MLA admitted that the Attorney-General interfered for him. His words were: "Thank God for the Attorney-General." This is a government that has an unparalleled record of members being charged with criminal activities.

MR. REE: You weren't in government long enough....

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, if you have any evidence of any wrongdoing by any of our members or me, go to the police. Isn't it interesting, Mr. Speaker, what he said? The reason why there weren't charges against us is that we weren't in government long enough. He has accepted the philosophy that anybody who comes to government is ready to be a crook. Well, I tell you, the only proven record for that thesis is Social Credit, right here in the Commonwealth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: I take exception to those comments.

MR. BARRETT: You take exception? You joined that party that has the only record of having a sitting cabinet minister go to jail. You take exception to that? Quit the party. You joined the party that has an MLA who admitted publicly that the Attorney-General saved him from prosecution. You take exception to that? You quit the party. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that government has been scandal-ridden ever since it took to itself the name of Social Credit, and now it wants control.

MR. REID: Hello Hollywood!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter about our little friendly exchange; not at all. Nothing can erase the record of the criminal activity of individuals who have been associated with that government. Nothing can erase that record. If you wish to associate yourself with that party, that's on your conscience, but don't you come in here and support legislation that will now permit any single cabinet minister to call up the file of any senior police officer and go through that file and have subtle influence on whether or not that police officer is demoted, promoted, or comes under government scrutiny. What business is it of any cabinet minister to have the personnel file of any senior police officer, unless there's an attempt to intimidate? If there's no attempt to intimidate, why do you have this section in the bill to begin with?

I ask you this, Mr. Speaker: is there any other jurisdiction in the British Commonwealth that allows cabinet ministers direct and open access to the personnel files of police chiefs, police superintendents, or senior management people of corporations without any hearing, without any legal protection, and without any access to subsequent developments of reasons why action was taken? Hidden away in this bill, along with everything else that's Orwellian, is a direct, written legal access by this government to supervise, to scrutinize the senior files of police in this province,

[3:45]

Do you not recall, just two weeks ago, the ads in the newspapers put in by the police federation of British Columbia?

MR. REID: In bad taste too.

MR. BARRETT: In bad taste? I'll tell you, Mr. Member, any time a government fools around with independent police investigations in a free society, that's not bad taste.

MR. REID: Typical union move.

MR. BARRETT: The law is for all people, and the law should not be interfered with at any time by an attempt to interfere politically with the work of the police. What are you accomplishing by this? What are you afraid of with the police?

MR. REID: Nothing.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you don't have to be, but there's a record over there that obviously is. You'll be around a bit longer and maybe you'll get that whiff in your nostrils for the same kind of activity by this present government, and by previous governments. You blow some of that cabinet air up your nose and boy, you'll begin to wonder how your head changes too. It's a dangerous ether those fellows breathe. They're the only group that's ever had a cabinet minister go to jail.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The smell of a decaying leader of the opposition.

MR. BARRETT: I would rather be a decaying leader of the opposition, upholding the principles of justice, than a corrupt minister and in a corrupt government trying to take control any day of police supervision in this province. I would challenge that member to come on television and defend this government's legislation; and tell us why you want control of the police in British Columbia. What are you afraid of?

[ Page 824 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Go outside and say that.

MR. BARRETT: I certainly will say the same thing outside. What are you afraid of? What do you need control of the police for?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're a slippery, slimy....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Just a moment, we've got a little problem here.

First of all, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw any imputation of dishonourable motive to the minister.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any imputation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. And I'll ask the hon. minister to withdraw his comments that he made to the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I'll withdraw the comments, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

I might add, hon. members, we should always bear in mind that we're all honourable members in this Legislative Assembly, and imputations of dishonour are quite unparliamentary.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I've always assumed — almost always assumed, but by rule 100 percent assumed — that everybody was honourable in this chamber. Based on that assumption, why do we need this control over the police? If the government is not concerned about interfering with justice, not concerned about the working of normal police investigations, why is this section in here: "(c) require public sector employers to supply to a minister information and records respecting the duties, compensation, terms and conditions of employment of senior managers employed by them, notwithstanding any enactment" — listen to this — "respecting confidentiality, or any contract."

What other legislation no longer respects the confidentiality between senior management and public sector employees related to their personnel file? You might as well put wiretaps in here. If you don't respect confidentiality, what stops you from putting a wiretap on people in terms of their employment? I don't know why they need this kind of authority. I don't understand why they want to open the file on everybody, directly to cabinet ministers. Some of the cabinet ministers are harmless, Mr. Speaker — not by intent, mainly by birth. But there are others who may get bad advice and travel in bad company. I don't know what kind of company would be negative for them to travel in, but it could happen.

MR. MOWAT: Rugby players.

MR. BARRETT: Rugby players have a code of their own. They would never agree to allow the state to address any file to a cabinet minister, to check in on who's doing what to whom.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I hear the minister say "silly." Then take it out. These are your own words and your own legislation. Faced with this and nothing else, when we were told a week ago that the regulations would come in.... It's your bill, not mine; it's your words, not ours. It's your intent, which we disagree with.

Every police supervisor in this province can have his or her file called up by any cabinet minister and reviewed for their record. That's the old school principle. The same thing. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that there indeed may be one or two people over there who hate people who don't agree with them politically? Now I find that difficult to believe or understand. I thought this was a free society where the exchange of intellects over various points of view in politics was freely accepted, welcomed and encouraged in a free democratic society. But there may indeed be some mindless people who view socialists as dangerous. Or there may be mindless people who view capitalists as dangerous. Given this kind of legislation in the hands of a cabinet minister, checking on the personnel file would allow that cabinet minister to determine who should or shouldn't have a job, based on their political faith.

I'm sure that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) feels okay as long as the socialists aren't in power. But supposing the socialists were elected and they used this legislation the way you may use it. Then what? Why, you'd be out of a job. Had you ever thought of that, through you, Mr. Speaker, that a government that passes legislation may be subject to it itself, and its own biases may come back to haunt it? Legislation should be fair. Legislation should be just. Legislation should not be subject to bias of race, creed, politics or anything else. That's exactly what this legislation that is now before the House will allow cabinet ministers to do.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Fair Employment Practices Act.

MR. BARRETT: Fair Employment Practices Act, my friend?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It was fair.

MR. BARRETT: It certainly was. Is this fair to you? Do you believe this is fair? Do you believe that as a cabinet minister you have the right and should have the right to call any senior management person's file on your desk? Do you believe that you should have that right? Without any explanation, without anything, do you believe you should have that right? There it is in the bill. Do you want me to read it to you again?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No comment. You've got to kill time somehow.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, through you, I ask that minister, do you believe you should have the right to call any senior management person's personnel file on your desk at any time — or any Crown corporation or any police department? Do you believe you should have that right?

Interjection.

[ Page 825 ]

MR. BARRETT: All right, I'll read it to you. Do you believe you should have that right?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't know if he wants to check on McGeer or not. But there may be some academic rivalry there.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is perfectly clear. It says, and I point out that they may "require public sector employers to supply to a minister information and records respecting the duties, compensation, terms and conditions of employment of senior managers employed by them, notwithstanding any enactment respecting confidentiality or any contract." That means, Mr. Speaker, that that minister, above all, will be free to call any file at any time on his desk, ignoring any contract, or any agreement on confidentiality. If I'm wrong in interpreting that, I ask the minister to nod his head. Are you going to support this legislation? Nod your head.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Ah, Mr. Speaker, I will venture....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let us vote and I'll show you.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you'll vote, but you won't speak. You won't get up and defend this. Any of you have yet to get up and defend this legislation in the chamber. You've been hoping it'll slip through. You promised there'd be regulations. You hoped that everything would go by and be forgotten. Right after the election you dreamed that this would happen — that you'd bring in this kind of legislation. This is the kind of legislation that is totally alien to the British parliamentary system. There is no other jurisdiction in the British Commonwealth that has this kind of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: There will be.

MR. BARRETT: Ho, Mr. Speaker! I'd ask that member to tell us what other province intends to bring in this legislation. I ask if the federal parties believe in this legislation. There's no support for this legislation. Those emotional words are thrown around out in that community, and sometimes we say people are going too far when they describe this government in emotional words. But you know, this kind of legislation was passed in Nazi Germany. Yes, it was. It allowed cabinet ministers access to people's files.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Tell us about communism.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we live in a democracy. Are you a fascist or a communist? Both the communists and the fascists have this kind of legislation. What side of the camp are you on? Are you a communist or a fascist? You're the only party in the whole Commonwealth that supports this. Are you extreme right or extreme left or extreme crazy? Take your pick. You're the only one that has this kind of legislation. Communists, fascists and crazies — I give you three choices. The first two don't count in your case.

I've heard a lot of debate in this chamber, and I've seen a lot of bills go back and forth in this House, but I have never yet seen anything like this that would allow a cabinet minister to call anybody's file up on his or her desk and make decisions about that person's future, based on the whim of the cabinet minister. It does not even respect any contract, and it says so right there. If the employee has a contract with the municipality, police force or anything else the contract is wiped out. "Notwithstanding the contract" — it says so right here. What do you need those sweeping powers for? What have you got in mind? It's a question of confidentiality. Only Nazis or communists would bring in this kind of legislation; it has no place whatsoever in a democratic society.

I have not heard one single cabinet minister defend this legislation on the basis of freedom, justice or the rights of individuals in the courtroom. I've not heard one government spokesperson say why any cabinet minister should have access to the files of policemen, firemen, school principals, doctors who work in the public health sector or anyone else. There has been no public explanation of this part of this bill. The focus has been on the other section dealing with dismissal without cause. But this section deals with political interference with any senior employee of any municipality, Crown corporation or service related to the Crown. If they don't believe this, why is this in the bill?

What kind of government is it that needs to have supervision over senior police officials? Some people in the community might say they fear something. I wouldn't say that. They look like a fearless bunch to me; they just won an election. They won't be afraid for another three and a half years. So what do they need this for now? They don't even have to be pleasant right now, and they haven't been. When there are demonstrations against this legislation and wanting a hoist the Premier says: "Oh, I had as many people out to my tea party." Isn't that funny? He wouldn't have said that when the election was on, Mr. Speaker. You and I know that, but that's a game with politicians. You don't have to be polite, honest or open — you just won an election.

[4:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We would expect that the government would at least justify this kind of legislation. When we asked for a hoist we recognized that this is precedent-setting legislation. We know, for example, that there is no other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth that has this kind of legislation. We know also that the government itself has not publicly defended the legislation that has been presented to this House. Furthermore, we know very well that the government does not intend to offer any explanation to the people of British Columbia.

When the ads related to this bill and the hoist that we're asking appeared in the newspaper, the police professionals of the province of British Columbia took the unprecedented step of placing an ad in the paper which said: "How can we possibly investigate a politician with this bill hanging over us?" That police question has not been answered. Those regulations have not clarified this question. Tucked away here in section 6 is an even more insidious section dealing with access to personnel files.

It has bothered not just politicians but also people in the community who have supported this government. If I may refer to the Kelowna Courier, a newspaper in the interior of the province of British Columbia, the letters-to-the-editor section, dated July 25, 1983, contained this particular letter about the reason for having a hoist: "In response to Mr. C. Koncewiez. He should read the Bill of Rights; then he would...."

[ Page 826 ]

Mr. Speaker, may I bring your attention.... Well, I'd like to be up there, too, Mr. Speaker. Maybe you want a little recess. There's no quorum, How can I convince a majority if there's no quorum? I brushed my teeth and took a shower this morning. They're not offended by any of that, but there's no quorum, so I have to call that to your attention, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have determined that a quorum in fact does exist.

MR. BARRETT: A quorum exists, and an intelligent quorum it is.

I want to go back to the letter I was referring to while I had the attention of the House:

"British Columbia has historically violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Canada has agreed to follow as a member of the United Nations. The government of British Columbia in the past has ignored human dignity and equal inalienable rights of all members of the human family."

And this is a letter from a Social Credit member. When do I ever read letters from Social Credit members? Not very often. I continue to read:

"In all fairness to Mr. Barrett and the NDP, they have historically supported human rights at all times. I supported Mr. Bennett." That's not me, Mr. Speaker; I am just quoting the writer of this letter — "I worked as a scrutineer on his behalf during the recent election. I believed that he would be able to create employment and put most of our workers back to work. At no time did he indicate his intentions to bring in these bills".

Well, Mr. Speaker, it was a Socred, and Socreds are not naturally suspicious of their own party. Those of us who have seen the Socreds operate know. If I may continue:

"The B.C. Government is breaking article 23, subsection 1, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948, which Canada has agreed to uphold."

I intend to file this letter with the House, because I know the rule is that if one reads from a document it should be filed in the chamber. Notwithstanding previous rulings, that indeed will be my practice in this chamber. Mr. Speaker, having said that, I quote:

"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

That is what it says in the UN Charter.

"On the human rights bill, historically British Columbia government commissions have always ruled in the government's favour, usually leaving the victim with a ruling that the charges are unfounded."

That is correct, and I agree with that. This is a letter from a Socred, a Social Credit member writing in the Kelowna Courier just a few weeks ago.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't hear myself think with all that noise. Could you call the House to order, please? Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling order in the chamber. It is not often I read from a Social Credit letter, so I would like a little silence.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Killing time.

MR. BARRETT: I will kill time as long as you attempt to kill freedoms in this province. I'll kill time as long as you attempt to kill the justice in this province.

I have been elected in this chamber for a short period of my life; much longer in this chamber and every other chamber of the Commonwealth has been the right of privacy for individuals from political harassment from cabinet ministers. That right is going down the tube in this bill, and I will fight it as long as I can and in every way I can on behalf of everybody in this province. I will do it within the rules of this chamber too, because I have a right to speak. There is no section in this bill yet that says opposition members are not entitled to speak, but maybe they will call our files too and scrutinize them in a cabinet minister's office. Yes, once the government embarks upon this course and taking such power unto themselves, anything goes.

Let me continue reading from this thoughtful 14-page, 12-chapter letter from this Social Credit member. I am quoting from this letter written by Mr. Jay Hunter, who was a scrutineer for the Premier. "I have received many reports that government employees in the Kelowna area were phoned by members of the Social Credit Party and were threatened that they would lose their jobs after the election because of their support for the NDP. I find these reports appalling." I find this paragraph shocking.

What evidence would there be from any person — Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative, NDP — such that a government would interfere with anybody because of their politics? There was never any evidence of that until this bill was introduced. This section says clearly that if this bill passes, cabinet ministers will have the power to call employees' files to their desks — personally, on the request of any cabinet minister at any time. That includes firemen, school principals and police superintendents. It will be direct political interference in their doing their job. It says in this section: notwithstanding any confidentiality, notwithstanding any contract. Do you know of any other jurisdiction with a parliamentary form of government anywhere in the British Commonwealth that has these kinds of provisions written in a law? There are none anywhere else, in no democratic government that I know of. This kind of legislation existed in Nazi Germany and exists in communist totalitarian states. Take your pick: extremism of the right or extremism of the left.

Mindlessness is not an excuse. Although some backbenchers may retreat into that rationalization, it is not acceptable as an excuse. I will not accept mindlessness as an excuse.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I believe that you have to be intelligent to have someone read to you and absorb what they are reading to you. Whether or not you yourself can read is another question. But I am reading to you.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: People who turned on the Zyklon-B gas had the same kind of attitude.

MR. REID: Oh, order!

[ Page 827 ]

MR. BARRETT: Order? Mr. Speaker, I asked the member and I asked the cabinet to get up and defend this bill and tell me of anywhere else in the British Commonwealth — in the parliamentary system of government — where a cabinet minister can call up files in violation of confidentiality and of contract, have those files put on the cabinet's desk, and interfere with the employment of police superintendents, school principals, medical doctors employed by the government or of any other person whose file they want, as a whim, brought up on the cabinet desk. I have not had an indication from any government member that they intend to give another example from the British Commonwealth, where we believe our freedoms are protected by law, where those laws are violated by the cabinet itself. No other province, country or single jurisdiction in the whole British Commonwealth of Nations has this kind of legislation. We have not seen one cabinet minister defend this kind of legislation or defend this section. We have not witnessed the regulations that were promised to us eight days ago. We have these mindless interjections from well-meaning people who let their names stand for office. It could have been a broom-handle in some constituencies. Broom-handles or not, they're here.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: These mindless interjections from that very fine member.... And he is a fine person; I can tell that by looking at him. He's an honourable gentleman; I can tell that by looking at him. But I don't want him or anyone else on those benches looking at people's files, by law, to interfere with what they're doing.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, I don't want to raise odometers. It took 24 hours to figure out that word.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to reading this letter, to where I was before I was so rudely interrupted by that intelligent discourse. It says:

"It has also been reported that a direct line was installed from the Capri Hotel to the Hotel Vancouver, so on election night the Premier could talk to supporters without having to wait for a dial tone. The reported cost of the special telephone line was over $500. If this is true it can hardly be called restraint."

Mr. Speaker, I shouldn't have read that paragraph, because it's not appropriate to this debate...

Interjection.

[4:15]

MR. BARRETT: ...except for the title of the bill — that's right, Mr. Member. I'm going to skip a paragraph, because, again, I think it would be questionable whether it is in order. I'll go on to a paragraph that is in order.

"On the political spectrum I am middle of the road, so I cannot support a socialist party. But I can't support a fascist party either. So I will not hesitate to tear up my Social Credit Party card.

"Yours truly,
Jay Hunter, Kelowna."

This is a man who scrutineered for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of my remarks, in about three weeks' time, I will recall through my precise file that I quoted this letter, and I will ensure that the rules of this chamber are obeyed by asking leave of the House to table it. As a matter of fact, I could do this right now. I ask leave of the House to file this so the members can scrutinize the loss of the scrutineer Mr. Jay Hunter.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Do the members want a recess to scrutinize the authenticity of the document, Mr. Speaker? You don't think so? Thank you.

Now I want to get down to my file. I want to read some of the reactions of those notorious non-NDP newspapers in their editorials. I want to read some editorials from the Vancouver Sun and the Province, none of which supports the New Democratic Party, Lord forbid. I want to read to this chamber what these editorials are disseminating to the population as their interpretation of this government and this bill. Woe betide me if I should use such strident language; woe betide me if I should be critical of the Socreds. How dare a lowly socialist like me criticize this wonderful right-wing extremist government. So rather than my doing it, I'll go to the right-wing newspapers and see what they say about this government.

July 20, 1983: "The budget revisited" is the title of this editorial. It says: "There are some signs that the Social Credit government has begun to realize that it can best weather the storm of protest over its budget and legislative package through conciliation." The opening paragraph is one of a friend to a friend. After all, it was the Vancouver Sun that supported the Social Credit Party in the last election, and it is the Sun that is holding out the hope for conciliation between friends. That's why the opening paragraph.

"Criticism of the program is quickly sorting itself into predictable carping from those who always reject Socred policies, and concern from moderate supporters...." You see how the editorial writers separate themselves from the opposition. Automatically, anybody who is critical of the Socreds is a carper. But all of a sudden they're caught. Their favourite government is now in a position where it's going to be criticized by the editorials, so the editorials have to place themselves above the common folk, close to the right-wing extremism of this government, and say: "We don't mean to have carping criticism. Just so long as you understand it's your friends who are criticizing you." Not opponents like me, although on occasion I'm willing to be your friend. I've been seen in public with a Socred before.

"...and concern from moderate supporters and those many British Columbians who, thankfully, still count themselves in the middle of the political spectrum." They're not on first base or on second base; they like to be in the middle. Safe Canadian politics: stay in the middle. But there's no middle ground left in B.C. It's rapidly disappearing. We've got an extremist government. So even the Vancouver Sun editorial writers are finding they can't balance from one foot to another; they've got to take a stand, and it's making them nervous.

Listen to the next paragraph as we lead into this mild criticism of this extremist government: "It is now possible to point to the most reasonable areas of concern about the budget and accompanying 26 bills, and to single out some examples of government awareness of that concern.... Apart from the expected outcry by the public service lobby...." Those people only lost their jobs and have to pay their mortgages; their security's gone. The Sun says that

[ Page 828 ]

apart from that devastation there are some other concerns. How nice of them to deign to consider that there might be other concerns! Aren't we all thankful for these wonderful middle-of-the-road editorials not taking a position on anything, being on everybody's side forever and ever, until they get their fingers caught in the cookie jar? What are they worried about? Well, they've got to take a stand. And what is the stand that they have to take? You know, Mr. Speaker, and I know, what's bothering them: the extremism of the legislation. We don't mind your chopping off civil servants. We don't mind your laying off people and taking away their bargaining rights. We don't mind any of that, but when you start interfering with the police, we think we've got to leave the middle road.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Listen to what they say. "Apart from the expected outcry by the public service lobby, much concern has to do with the way the government has gone about its plan. Reducing the size of government does not necessarily mean firing without sensitivity, notice, cause, compensation or consideration of seniority." They're saying if you're going to execute somebody, give them a chance at how they'd like to be executed. Would you like gas? Would you like to be hanged? Would you like to be shot? Not that we disagree with your executions, go ahead and gas 'em, shoot 'em, or hang 'em, but at least give them a choice, because we're in the middle and we like to have a middle position. Our middle position is: if you're going to kill them, give them a choice.

Now we go further. There is even a suggestion in here of a smite of concern at the loss of the Crown corporations committee. It's an extremist position, I know, but find some succour and comfort from an unnamed back-bencher who will be stripped of perks because that job goes. I wouldn't suggest that it is anything more than a matter of principle that that opposition is involved. But it is. It hurts. The perk loss, too.

MR. KEMPF: Sit down and I'll tell you about it.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we now have a pledge from that back-bencher to get involved in the debate.

MR. KEMPF: If you're going to talk about me, sit down. I'll tell you about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm not talking about you behind your back.

MR. KEMPF: Sit down!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, throw him out, will you? They threw Reynolds out. Why should they pick on that guy? They're both Tories. Why throw one Tory out and let the other one stay in here?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps if we could return to Bill 3, we might maintain orderly debate. Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your protection.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, they're attacking the Chair. The next thing you know, they'll bring in a bill attacking the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Privatize him.

MR. BARRETT: Privatize the Chair! They'll bring in an outside lawyer to be Speaker, then they'll call his file and check on him. What kind of rulings will we have then? Can you imagine, under this section, how we'd pick a Speaker, Mr. Speaker? No more elected Speakers. We'd get another used car dealer to roll back the rulings in this chamber. That's what we're going to get, Mr. Speaker. I can see it now. I can see our new Speaker going around kicking tires as a prerequisite for getting a job in this chamber. I can see it now. They'll check his scuffed foot to see whether or not he's done the rounds.

But, Mr. Speaker, no levity. Let's go back to the serious middle-of-the-road position of the Vancouver Sun; this above-the-fray approach, this paternalistic understanding that on occasion there are differences of opinion between us gentlemen of the right, and let's push all that rabble on the left, or in the trade union movement, or those intellectuals, out of the way. Let's deal gently, as gentlemen, with how we keep them in their places. Do it with grace. Do it with dignity. Do it with style. If you're going to hang, if you're going to shoot, if you're going to gas, give them a choice. Don't shoot them all. Don't gas them all. Don't hang them all. At least give them a choice. Well, we've moved the Vancouver Sun a little bit: freedom of choice and how you want to terminate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to the next paragraph in this wonderful editorial that is challenging the basic foundations of this extremist government. "Provincial Secretary James Chabot seemed to recognize that when he said the government may allow long-term-public servants who find their jobs disappearing to demand transfer." How gracious! Isn't that wonderful? If you've worked 20 years for the government, and you are fired overnight, the Provincial Secretary appears to be aware that perhaps you should be considered for some other job. How wonderful, Mr. Speaker, that we have such an understanding Provincial Secretary, who shows such liberalism and sensitivity to the needs of somebody who's worked 20 or 25 years. Alleluia! The Vancouver Sun has found a way out for the Provincial Secretary. Now that takes some doing. But they've found it for you.

MR. MACDONALD: A pussycat gauleiter.

MR. BARRETT: A pussycat gauleiter! They've touched the central nerve of kindness in that whole government. It's embodied through that Provincial Secretary who once played Santa Claus in a rented costume some 30 years ago and developed a conscience since that time. Well, our new Santa Claus seemed to recognize that when he said that the government may allow long-term public servants who find their jobs disappearing to.... Oh, listen to this. As a further endorsement of the kindness of the minister, it goes on to say: "Mr. Chabot also promised that those laid off will receive their superannuation benefits." Isn't that wonderful! After 20 years of working for the government, and then getting the sack, the minister said: "We may even give you your superannuation benefits which you paid for and worked for." Isn't

[ Page 829 ]

that gracious of the good lord sitting on the government bench, Lord Chabot, elevated to a new position of godlike decision through this legislation? If anybody is going to play God in that cabinet it might as well be the Provincial Secretary. He has fewer illusions than others over there.

The legislation allows them to play God over people's lives. Even though we debate it in this chamber, it will be the first time, if this bill passes, anywhere that a working person will no longer have the protection of contract, the protection of confidentiality, something that people have given their lives for in the struggle of freedom in this Commonwealth of ours. Some people remember those things and bring those principles with them to this House. Other people don't. But be that as it may, we believe in the rights of every citizen, regardless of race, creed, colour or political affiliation, and no government should have the power to call up people's files onto cabinet ministers' desks. What for? What do they need the power for? What do you want it for? What do you want the power to call up somebody's file onto your desk for?

You know I remember when the Provincial Secretary was in the opposition. Had we brought in this kind of legislation, there would have been no person more quickly to his feet.

MR. MACDONALD: He's never been in opposition.

[4:30]

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he was in opposition. I remember, he was a freedom fighter then. I remember that he would have nothing to do with Liberals or Conservatives until he married them. What a strange marriage — political marriage, if I may say that. I remember when that member was a freedom fighter sitting down there, and he'd disdain the Liberals and Tories. And now, much to the shock of a whole generation of children in this province, we've seen this kind of handholding going on in public — politically. There he was walking down the hallway with his arm around a Liberal — politically. There he was embracing a Tory. That embrace brought forward this kind of legislation and that minister. "Mr. Chabot," it says — and I quote, because I cannot use the minister's name in the House, Mr. Speaker — "also promised that those laid off will receive their superannuation benefits. Labour minister Bob McClelland and Premier Bill Bennett say the government will be fair in paying severance." Well, isn't that nice? Fair in severance. They had a contract. It was written and protected by law, and all of a sudden the middle-of-the-road newspaper has to interpret that the government is being fair: they may even uphold the law. Well, considering Social Credit's record I suppose it's fair when it considers that it may uphold the law. But it's breaking the law in existing contracts in this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, but they're right-wing extremists, so they're acceptable, because they're right-wingers. We all know, as the Sun says, that the Labour minister, Bob McClelland, and Premier Bill Bennett say the government will be fair in paying severance. Oh, thank you, master! Thank you so much on behalf of all the serfs in this province. You have been so kind that you may even live up to the letter of the law in firing people. I mean, goodness gracious me, is it not a wonderful day when an editorial in a moderate newspaper that supports this right-wing extremism says, why goodness, they may even live up to the law? Are they implying that that's a change of record by this government? Perhaps they're referring to land deals or something like that. I don't know.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on and read this editorial. It says: "In other fence-mending gestures the Premier rejected the ugly impression that he thought civil servants were doing a lousy job." Do you remember that one? On a Friday he went down the hallway and said: "Aw, we're laying them off because half of them aren't doing their job anyway." I accepted that remark because I thought he was talking about his cabinet, and then I was shocked to discover, halfway down the article, that he was attacking some poor clerks in the bowels of this institution who gorge up the working papers that the government operates from. How unkind to treat those $900-a-month minions down there, locked to their desks in fear by this government. But Monday came and Heal got to the Premier. That $75,000 a year clean-up man said: "Pssst, some of them may remember you insulted them, so clean it up." So the Premier said, well, he didn't really mean what he said when he said what he didn't mean; on the other hand, he didn't mean what he said when he said that he didn't mean he said it when he said it. But if you're misinterpreting what I said, you must understand that the reporter was told what I said, but he's misinterpreting it because I didn't mean what I said when I was interpreting it to the reporter. But if the reporter is misinterpreting what I misinterpreted to the reporter, he must understand that I really meant what I said what I didn't mean what I said and I didn't mean what I said when I said it. So have you got it straight now? And the reporter said, "Yes," and the editorial said: "Isn't it nice, he's backed off."

That's the way it happened. I remember it clearly. They typed, verbatim, one of his statements in the newspaper, and it was a puzzle to PhD students in English to figure out where the subject was and where the verb was, where the adjectives were, and where those adverbs were flying all over the place in the past tense, present today on behalf of the Premier. I understand that his speeches are going to the archives. That's right. I understand that all of the Premier's utterances are going to the archives.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, they should go there before he utters them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're going back into the computer.

MR. BARRETT: They're going into the computer? No wonder they can't unlock that formula.

I'll go on to read this editorial as I make this case, and will make this case over the next three or four months, as I express my freedom and right to stand in this chamber — with complete bladder control.

Mr. Speaker, I go on. "Human Resources Minister Grace McCarthy said that in the event of firings, 'I want our staff to be the first to know.' " Can't you see it being delivered with a Smile button: "You're fired. Smile." I can see it now. They spent tens of thousands of dollars for that whole Smile program. I wondered what they were spending that money on. Now I've got it; I've figured it out. She was going to tell them first: "You're canned." But she was wrong. They heard it by radio dispatch and she missed the pleasure of canning them all personally. What a shock and disappointment it was to her

[ Page 830 ]

maintenance of that first-name relationship she has with the staff.

"Pat McGeer, " the former Liberal.... I'm not quoting the paper here. I remind the House that he is a former Liberal. I remember when he used to sit over there and say that Social Credit was an abomination on the face of this earth, that Social Credit passed the worst legislation. "Social Credit is a terrible gang. Social Credit is awful." Then he joined them. That's how much respect he had for his opinions, Mr. Speaker. He went over and sat with them. "Pat McGeer, the cabinet minister responsible for universities, tried to reassure faculty that the government will not interfere with tenure or academic freedom." This is the point that I want to make. The good doctor — the second member, is he, from Point Grey or the first member? — was asked in the newspapers the other day: "Does this legislation affect the tenure of university professors?" Out in the hallway he said no. Then they asked the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot): "Does the legislation impact on the tenure of university professors?" He said yes. Mr. Speaker, do you want this House to pass legislation on which one minister answers no to a question and another minister answers yes? It's been over six days since that contradiction appeared and they still haven't straightened that out.

I want to defend the right of the Provincial Secretary to continue to communicate through examples at the lowest common denominator. There's one thing I cannot stand and that is to allow the intellectual disparity of the backgrounds of cabinet ministers to interfere with their communication. I believe that the Provincial Secretary, although not the possessor of a BA, an MA and a PhD, like that member down there piled higher and deeper.... Even so, that minister has a right to communicate through the lowest common denominator. If he says yes, then how can the minister say no to the same question? Who's telling the truth? Is the truth being told? It has to be. Somebody's telling the truth over there. One of them said yes and one said no. I don't know how to ascertain which one of them is telling the truth. This is a clear-cut empirical argument. It's a classic case of abstract logic. The question is: will university professors have tenure under this legislation? The minister for universities says yes; the Provincial Secretary says no. The rest of the community is confused and not wanting to brand either one of them a fibber. I don't wish to brand anybody a fibber, but we have a problem here that would even pose a serious problem for the most highly skilled clerks that we have in this chamber. We can't say: "A member lied." We can't say: "Somebody's not telling the truth." When two ministers were asked the exact same question, one of them said yes and the other said no. Do you know what I would prefer to believe, Mr. Speaker? I'd prefer to believe it was a misunderstanding.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He speaks like a professor and I don't.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. I said that you appeal through the lowest common denominator — no ifs, ands or buts. There one thing about the Provincial Secretary. When he says no we hear it loud and clear — when we ask for leave. We know what he means.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have this problem. To resolve the problem we come back to the subject of my whole argument — to remain in order. That is, we should have a hoist of this bill so that the two ministers can straighten out exactly where they're going in terms of interpreting this bill to the community. After all, how will the Vancouver Sun handle it editorially if we have a contradiction between two ministers? To continue, here is something I want to read: "...and Pat McGeer, the cabinet minister responsible for universities, tried to reassure faculty that government will not interfere with tenure or academic freedom." This was written before the Provincial Secretary was saying that under this legislation there would be no tenure.

Listen to this next paragraph. This may be a bit of a warning to the official opposition, but I want to read it anyway. I'm relating it to the hoist. It says:

"While it is to be hoped that they and their colleagues will practise what they preach, it is worth noting that the government can satisfy some moderate opposition and still stick to its intentions."

Go back to giving them a choice: gassed, hanged or shot.

"Many of the savings on civil service salaries are to be retained on a program of layoffs that put more emphasis on attrition. The point about cost is true in another area of criticism: the fear that the government will weaken the ability to enforce human rights in British Columbia."

That was the purpose all along, but that's a separate bill, and the editorial is out of order, so I'll go on from there.

I want the chamber to hear this quote from the Premier; this one is in writing, so it may be incorrect. It attributes these remarks to our Premier: "Those who would attempt to confuse the situation or create fears where no fear should be extended are not serving the interests of British Columbia." That's what our fearless Premier said. Did you hear that? Now I want to know which one of those two cabinet ministers is creating fear, by the Premier's own definition, by confusing the situation. One cabinet minister says yes, there will be tenure, and the other cabinet minister says no, there will not be tenure. Do they not indeed fall under the definition given by the Premier of this province of confusion and not serving the people of British Columbia?

If I may leave the Vancouver Sun to its own devices, I will turn to that new tabloid document now known as the Province.

Interruption.

MR. BARRETT: Someone has told that child what is in the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You made her cry. You scared her.

MR. BARRETT: That accusation demands a legislative inquiry. I would expect at least a 20-minute recess so we can interview the child to see whether or not it has indeed been affected by my oratory. If there was ever a case for bringing back child-abuse rules, it's the fact that I'm speaking here today and having that effect. If for no other reason, those child-abuse programs should be brought back immediately. Isn't that right, Mr. Member — former-Tory-three-day-Socred-get-nominated...? Thank you for your liberal gesture. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad for the contribution of that former Tory member. He was a three-day Socred, and he won the nomination. Boy, when it comes to packing a meeting, you've got it, man; you did a terrific job. But you're not in the cabinet. What went wrong?

[ Page 831 ]

[4:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't be either.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, he will. I've got my money on his making it to the cabinet. I want this bill hoisted so we can lay proper odds on the chances of whether or not that member is going to make it to the cabinet.

Back to the bill and the reason for a hoist. I want to pose a problem that would cross any normal Clerk's eyes in terms of dealing with the interpretation of a bill. Here's the Vancouver Province attacking this government. Would you believe the Vancouver Province? I shall read from this editorial in the Province, page B-2, Thursday, July 21, 1983, the three-star edition — the three stars do not apply to the editorial, just to the time of the edition:

"No one should expect them to come out swinging with their names in the headlines, but some of B.C.'s top employers are concerned about the consequences that could flow from Bill 3 and are anxious to see the government move back a bit from the brink. How far they can influence Victoria to take a softer line is not clear."

Listen to these words chosen by the Province. It's very important to listen to these words in order to understand the frame in which this editorial viewed this government. These are not my words:

"They fear this blitzkrieg legislation may throw the province into a long war of attrition that will do nobody any good. If Victoria's ears are open, it will hear the warning."

Blitzkrieg! It's not the word of the humble loyal opposition. The word is taken from the editorial of a Vancouver newspaper, the Province, which describes that government as introducing blitzkrieg legislation. Where does the word "blitzkrieg" originate? It was the Nazi government in Germany that used blitzkrieg tactics. It's the Vancouver Province by association, this word and the legislation, that is making the point I'm trying to make.

"Bill 3 will cut 7,000 workers from the civil service by removing their rights against dismissal without cause. Whatever the employers think about the civil rights aspect, they are hard-headed enough to see the damage that B.C. could suffer if the bill goes through. When the province is moving gingerly towards recovery, Bill 3 could provoke a labour-management confrontation of monumental proportions.

"The businessmen know that what B.C. needs is better labour-management relations, not another confrontation that will blacken further the province's reputation. They correctly fear that Bill 3 will upset a trend towards some moderation in the workplace relationships brought on by the recession, but nevertheless clearly discernible. Victoria should try to understand the long-range view of the major employers who wish for some moderation in the government's approach.

"If Victoria were to achieve a quick-fix to its own problems with legislation that causes more difficulties in the private sector, how much will B.C. have gained? Nothing. A government that believes in financial realities should be able to see that."

That's an admonition from an editorial in the Province, which supports private enterprise, a newspaper that, like the Vancouver Sun, has serious questions about this.

Mr. Speaker, the editorial was referring not so much to the dismissal without cause, but to this particular section here, and the reason I want this bill hoisted: the section that would allow cabinet ministers to call up on their desk the file of any senior police official, any senior medical official, any senior fire official, any senior level of management in a Crown corporation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Get off the chair.

MR. BARRETT: I've got my shoes on. I'm not like your colleague over there who took his shoes off.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, protect me from the vicious interruptions of my good friend the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your good friend? Withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: He's my good friend. It proves that I have an unlimited ability to accept human behaviour and a diversity of opinion by calling that man my good friend. My good friend is wrong. My good friend is misguided in this legislation. My good friend is not acting on his own. My good friend the minister gives different answers than the minister of Education; nonetheless, as a social worker my heart goes out to him and he remains my good friend, mainly because the rules dictate it. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, it is my good friend, that minister, who is introducing legislation that has no equal in the loss of freedoms, the loss of rights in arbitrary management decisions by a government; no equal anywhere in the British Commonwealth or, for that matter, in any democratic administration that I know of on the face of this earth.

If we were in the United States, this legislation wouldn't have gone past first reading.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Because they have a bill of rights as a result of their Declaration of Independence. We now have a new Charter of Rights in Canada, weak as it is. Thank goodness we've made that small step. But the provinces can opt out of that Charter of Rights. Did you know that? They can opt out, and this legislation would allow this province to be Orwellian. It is only four or five months away from 1984. I guess that is why they want the legislation through by December 31. They want to be the first to go legally into 1984 with the Orwellian model. This legislation will allow any cabinet minister to call up any policeman's file. Supposing, that history repeated itself and a member of a Social Credit cabinet was under investigation by the police. It has happened once before. Supposing a member of the cabinet was under investigation by the police. Under this bill the police superintendent responsible for the investigation could have his or her file called up to the minister who was being investigated, and a decision could be made on that police inspector, violating a contract and violating confidentiality.

I know that if any cabinet minister were under investigation by the police, they would do everything they could to help them. But there have been cabinet ministers in the past who have not followed that pattern, and there was an Attorney-General in this province — and I am sorry to have to

[ Page 832 ]

mention his name — who sat on a police investigation of a cabinet minister for 707 days. It was Mr. Bonner.

MS. BROWN: That was more than a year.

MR. BARRETT: It is more than a year, and there was an intervening election as well. But that was before you were here, Madam Member, and things haven't changed since then.

MS. BROWN: I was just a baby then.

MR. BARRETT: You were just a baby then? I was here. How could you say that? Mr. Speaker, defend me from the government and my own member. I was here, and I was young and sweet. I was an ingenue in those days. Oh, yes, I came here with a tremendous sense of virtue. I looked at the government benches and I knew they were law-abiding citizens. The police must have made a mistake throwing that cabinet minister in the slammer. Yes, when they threw that cabinet minister in the slammer, I lost my innocence. I found out that there was a crook in government, so I became suspicious. I believed that once a sin befalls the government, it could be infectious. So I have always believed in an independent police force away from political interference, away from the persuasions of cabinet ministers and away from ever again repeating 707 notorious days when an Attorney-General sat on a police report on a cabinet minister.

In my elderly waning years, as I get ready to leave this chamber after having served in the prime of my life, I find that history repeats itself and this once young ingenue has turned into a skeptic with a touch of cynicism, only to be proven that I am right. This bill will allow cabinet ministers to interfere with doctors, police chiefs and school principals, without any protection from laws of contract or laws of confidentiality.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: If every cabinet minister walks into the hallway and protests that they will never use this power, then why put it in law? Now that is a conundrum, is that not correct, my lawyer friend? A conundrum.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, it is.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. I am always cautious in not directing the questions specifically to a lawyer, because I don't want a bill. Let the record show that a voice confirmed that it was a conundrum. A learned voice confirmed.

Mr. Speaker, why is this here in the bill? Would the minister for North Peace River use this legislation? He couldn't; he is not conscious. But I am worried for the rest of them.

Interjection.

[5:00]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, one of the ministers is ill. He has just read the paragraph and has been conscious stricken. There it is — it is a wounded bird. Nonetheless, I am just beginning to enter my opening remarks in this debate, and I intend within the next three weeks to begin the beginning of my debate. But while we're on the precis of the beginning, I want to refer to the fact that not a single cabinet minister is alive in his seat — not one.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, Municipal Affairs....

MR. BARRETT: Municipal Affairs is a different story. You can't tell, at any given time....

Mr. Speaker, not one cabinet minister is alive in his seat. They're all down there scurrying in their offices drawing up a list of police files they want to look at, doctors' files they want to look at, and principals' files they want to look at. I can just see it. If one of them is discovered to have failed in grade 8, should one of them have reached that far, I can see them going back to their school teachers' files and digging out, under this bill, something vile against that principal that dared to fail.... Mr. Speaker, they could go back and get even with teachers or with doctors.

I now want to carry the burden of my arguments again to my earlier reference to the Vancouver Sun. They've written a number of editorials on this. The subjects that they've raised in their editorials are good enough for four and a half months of debate by one person alone, to just rationally string out the valid points they've made.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from the Vancouver Sun, July 11, 1983:

"The most thorough piece of engineering in the provincial government's budget legislative package is the proposal to abolish tenure and seniority for everyone who draws a government paycheque."

That paragraph refers directly to my motion to hoist this bill.

"Included in a law that will allow firing without cause are civil servants, employees of hospitals, Crown corporations, municipal workers, teachers, university professors — one out of five B.C. workers, as left to government's discretion.

"The Public Sector Restraint Act is said to be aimed at decreasing the size and complexity of the public sector operations and increasing their efficiency and effectiveness."

Let's deal with that, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell me how a policeman's effectiveness is increased by having held over his head the right of a cabinet minister to call his supervisor's file up on the desk at any given time? Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, how a highways engineer who may have been aware of previous problems in this province of people having a divining rod for highways and knowing exactly where highways are going and buying property up ahead of time.... That's happened. There have been some people in this province who are more lucky than lottery ticket-holders. There have been supporters of this government who, by accident, knew where to buy property three and four years before a highway went through.

MS. BROWN: Shocking!

MR. BARRETT: Not shocking, Madam Member. It's simply a matter of good luck.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They never bought property in Ocean Falls.

MR. BARRETT: No, they never bought property outside of highway rights-of-way.

[ Page 833 ]

Supposing that their luck was impaired by a reluctant senior administrator in the public sector? After all, that senior administrator would only be referred to as a matter of confirmation: "Do you think the highway's going through here?" If that senior engineer, or that senior person, said, "I don't know," and then the next question was, "Do you know that your file is on the minister's desk?" Do you know what the answer to that hypothetical situation might be? "Oh, in that case, the highway is going here, here and here."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's just good business.

MR. BARRETT: Just good business? You know, Mr. Speaker, I have unlimited faith in the good behaviour of personkind. But on occasion there are some people who fall prey to greed, influence-peddling and inside information.

MR. MITCHELL: Who?

MR. BARRETT: Sometimes, my good friend who is also a policeman, some people who fall prey to greed are politicians.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. BARRETT: Yes! It has been known to happen, Mr. Speaker, that politicians have taken advantage of information they gain for their own personal benefit. They give the rest of us a bad name. So to protect the rest of us from getting a bad name, what is this section in here for? If the cabinet minister doesn't intend to use this power to call the file of any senior bureaucrat, the file of any police superintendent or chief, any police chief who may be investigating arson.... Yes, arson. It could involve the property of a politician.

MS. SANFORD: How about agrologist?

MR. BARRETT: Well, I haven't even come to them. What is an agrologist? Yes, those soil scientists who make the decisions and advise on the agricultural land reserve will have all of their files subject to scrutiny by the ministers.

Now I want to lay out a hypothetical question. Supposing that under the agricultural land reserve a certain minister's constituents were lobbying that minister to have property taken out from the agricultural land reserve and rezoned as industrial. What would that mean? It would mean that the person who is the titleholder of the land would have his property rezoned overnight, and property that may have been worth $1 million would now be worth $60 million.

I ask you, would a politician be tempted to interfere in the rezoning of such land, Mr. Speaker? I am afraid to say that the answer is yes.

It is the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who presented himself in person to a committee of the Environment and Land Use Committee, aware or not that there was a recorder, and every single word that the minister uttered in favour of rezoning that land was taken down on a piece of paper. Much to our shock, the hypothetical horror that I have outlined actually took place. We discovered that a minister of the Crown went to the Environment and Land Use Committee and made an appeal for the rezoning of land in his own constituency. Part of the group making the approach was led by that minister's constituency representative. Some suspecting reporters and inquiring nosy newspaper people went and told the people of British Columbia about it. In the old days, 400 years ago, we wouldn't let the reporters pass the bar, and the king and his men on occasion had reporters knocked off in the alleys before they could reach their newspapers. For some 350 years we've never had the newspapers in here, but some days, Mr. Speaker, they come in and sneak up behind you, and I have occasionally seen them in the press gallery. They do report to the masses out there, and the masses find out that allegations have been made that a cabinet minister sat in on a committee and tried to influence it to rezone land. That newspaper is still publishing to this day, and the press is hanging around here, Mr. Speaker. That's how we discovered that that minister had indeed been sitting in on those committee meetings.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Now I put this to you, Mr. Speaker — and I want to tell you that you have not aged a whit. I've done my best, but you seem to be refreshed. Nonetheless, suppose this bill had been in effect when that cabinet minister went to the committee. Do you know what would have happened? I'll tell you. The agrologist's file would show up: "I knew all along." Can't you see that minister calling up the chief agrologist and saying: "Whoo-hoo-eee! Come up to my office here. I've got your file on my desk."

AN HON. MEMBER: "What do you mean this is agricultural land?"

MR. BARRETT: That's not the question. You're on the wrong page. The question is: "Does that agrologist working for you know how to keep his mouth shut?" The supervisor says: "Oh, he's a professional, sir, and he's only giving his professional opinion to the committee." "Oh! Well, you tell that fellow that I have his file on my desk. I'm now going to give a professional opinion on his file, and I find trouble in his file."

Mr. Speaker, even though we politicians talk a lot, we have another language. It's known as a wink and nudge. You know? "You tell that agrologist that I've got his file — crunch! Does he like his job?" In writing that's an innocent question: "Does he like his job?" "Oh, yes, sir — he's happy." But there's a tone that can't show up in writing: "Does he like his job? You tell him — ker-r-r-r-runch!"

MRS. JOHNSTON: How should we spell that?

MR. BARRETT: How should you spell it? Watch closely. That kind of influence is spelled this way: S-O-C-R-E-D.

What happens? All of a sudden the professional report alters. It's a proven track record, Mr. Speaker. Where else did we have cabinet ministers going to committees to try to influence a decision? Where else did we have cabinet ministers going to jail? Where else did we have an Attorney-General hiding a police report for 707 days? Nowhere else in the whole British Commonwealth. To prevent that from happening again, what does the S-O-C-R-E-D Ker-r-r-r-runch Party do? It brings in a bill to say: "Aha! We'll look at anybody's file. We've got a troublesome cop down there? Bring his file up here. We'll give him the message. We've got a troublesome doctor down there? Bring up his file. We've got a troublesome agrologist? Bring up his file." Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 834 ]

this opens the door for 1984-Big-Brother-is-watching you and one Big Sister.

[5:15]

Mr. Speaker, 19 Big Brothers and one Big Sister, with the protection of this legislation, are able to call up any policeman's file, any fireman's file, or anybody else's file. I'm even going to call up the file on this bill, if I intend to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I go on — and I'm only at the second line of 47 in this editorial that I have to read before 6.

This is what newspapers are saying about this bill: "The new act denies job security to everyone in the public sector. This brutal return to an unfettered labour market is obviously in line with the conservative theory. Obviously the government believes that contract protection is an obstacle to efficient management." This is the paragraph that I wanted to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, in reference to interference from cabinet ministers. This is what a prominent newspaper wrote in an editorial: "Suits for wrongful dismissal serve only to obstruct the pruning of deadwood and bad apples. Competent workers don't need seniority; slackers and incompetents abuse it." That's the additude of this government.

Do you remember when they fired Bonnell? How much did that cost them out of court? It was reckoned that they spent over $1.5 million in incompetent dismissals. So rather than become competent themselves, they rewrote the law. I remember the Bonnell case. Do you remember him? He was the superbureaucrat brought out from Ottawa with credentials that would make a Liberal blush. It takes an awful lot to make a Liberal blush. He was hired and touted as being a responsible comptroller-general. The trouble with him was that he started becoming responsible, and he got fired.

MR. COCKE: It's called S-O-C-R-E-D.

MR. BARRETT: That's what you call S-O-C-R-E-D — you've got it.

Now they don't have to trouble with the courts any more. Who was that famous German judge who in the 1944 trials of those who had dared question the state after the July 20 Stauffenberg plot against Hitler? Was his name not Frausch or Forsch? Was it not he who held court and screamed at the defendants? Was it not he who said to those poor people trying to hold up their pants in front of the judge, as another method of humiliating those people, that the state has the right to make all decisions on conscience? Well, Mr. Speaker, I may be paraphrasing that gentleman who is long since dead — an Allied bomb came over and demolished his court one day — but, indeed, are we not presented with a bill that says the state has the right to determine conscience? Is this section not a clear-cut example of the state's taking unto itself the right to threaten the professional — yea, the economic security of any professional in a senior position — by saying: "Bring that person's file up to my desk"?

The police have already placed ads on one section of this bill. They were probably so horrified that they never got as far as section 6, which I'm reading from now. If they were worried about an earlier section of dismissal without cause, the police have every reason to worry about this section that allows a cabinet minister to call a file up at any time on that minister's desk.

I go back to quoting the editorial, Mr. Speaker: "There is truth in the view that seniority and grievance protection may be difficult in dismissal of even the worst employees. But the removal of job security has its risks, too. A feeling of security is conducive to good work.... Oh, listen to this, from the right-wing newspaper. I read this to you with all the good intentions that I can muster: "A feeling of security is conducive to good work. It is easier to work hard, to innovate and cooperate, if one isn't worried about being fired by the Premier in a fit of pique. Nor is one likely to be well motivated if one's colleagues are being arbitrarily dismissed." I'm going to read that again, because it is an observation from a generally right-wing newspaper. It is an observation of this government not uttered by an opposition member, but it raises serious questions about job security, particularly for policemen.

Imagine yourself as a police person, checking on a politician, and then you read or hear this paragraph: "A feeling of security is conducive to good work. It is easier to work hard, to innovate and cooperate, if one isn't worried about being fired by the Premier in a fit of pique. Nor is one likely to be well motivated if one's colleagues are being arbitrarily dismissed." Mr. Speaker, imagine if you were a policeman hot on the trail, and your file was called up to the cabinet minister. You're an intelligent person, Mr. Speaker; you wouldn't need even a wink and a nudge. Just the fact that the file was called up would be enough to put you off the trail.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's right: how many Serpicos are there in this world? How many policemen know very well what this act means? How many of them know very well that if they were on the trail of some wrongdoing by a prominent politician, their file would be called up? What do you need it for? I'll repeat the question: what do you need this power for? It has absolutely nothing to do with reducing the size of the civil service, absolutely nothing to do with restraint, absolutely nothing to do with good management. This section is deliberately drawn to impair police and others in doing their work when it may involve a politician. Not one cabinet minister has spoken publicly in defence of this section; nor has one back-bencher; nor has the Premier.

Why does this cabinet need this power, which is unlike any power in any other democratic society? It's unknown in the British Commonwealth. It's unprecedented in law in the British Commonwealth, unheard of in our Mother of Parliament, but here it is today in this outpost of British Columbia. Why? The only interpretation that can be given is that there is a whiff of paranoia in the government benches, and that whiff is frightened of letting logic, reason, justice, fairness, and plain and simple old-fashioned decency have its way. This government is so immature, so frightened, so lacking in trust in human beings that it wants to take unto itself power that has no precedent in any jurisdiction in any free society: the right of any cabinet minister to call up any file on his or her desk. Why?

We had a Christian clergyman on the steps of the chamber when 20,000 people were out front demonstrating against this legislation. The Premier's only response to that clergyman's appeal and to those people who were here was to say: "I had more at my garden party." It's a Marie Antoinette syndrome. That Christian clergyman asked a number of very serious question on the steps out here. When he referred to sections of the legislation, he asked the rhetorical question which I have repeated here: why? That Christian clergyman, that group of community religious leaders and those citizens who were out there on the stairs have a right to know, and I

[ Page 835 ]

myself would like to know: why does the government need this legislation? Why do you want the right to take files up on your desk? Why do you want the right to violate their contracts, the right to violate their confidentiality? Keep your nose out of people's business. This is still a free society. This is still a society that allegedly respects the individual. This is still a society that has the British common law code that says innocent until proven guilty.

Unlike any other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth, why do cabinet ministers want the power to draw up people's files and threaten them in that way? Do any of you back-benchers know? If you do, do you dare speak? Some of you aren't going to make the cabinet anyway. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is not going to make it. Come on, Jack, let it all hang out.

MR. MOWAT: He said if you sit down he'll speak.

MR. BARRETT: That's a threat. I'm staying up now.

Let's go on with the rest of this editorial. Even people who are confident in their abilities like to plan their future. I incorrectly attributed this editorial to the Province. This is from the Vancouver Sun, July 11, 1983. If Hansard would like a 20-minute recess to go back over the tapes to correct that error, I would be more than willing to give it to them.

For the information of Hansard, I am quoting the Vancouver Sun, July 11, 1983.

"Even people competent in their ability like to plan for the future. Since most government work outside B.C. still involves job security, won't our best people be tempted to move elsewhere?"

Some of them might, Mr. Speaker.

"Will talented outsiders be attracted to work here? University faculty may lead the exodus, though they have small comfort in the fact that the act presumably vacates the hard-won tenure of cabinet minister Pat McGeer."

That's an interesting question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister to inform the House when he closes debate next February whether or not Pat McGeer loses his tenure.

The government might have tried lesser measures. What if government eliminated section 7 of the Labour Code? "Sweeping power can be abused. It will take supreme even-handedness to avoid intimidating and demoralizing many competent workers and distracting even the most able."

Now I go to an even more right-wing newspaper: The Victoria Times-Colonist, a bastion of the protection of conservatism in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I know the Premier scoffs at conservatism. They're not extremists like you are. They're conservative; they have a philosophy.

I want to read this article that attacks extremists and the extremist government, Mr. Speaker. The Victoria Times-Colonist — not the Sun or the Province — for Tuesday, July 12, 1982: "Listen to Provincial Secretary Jim Chabot's words last November. Amid speculation that government was planning massive cuts in the private sector, he said the news media reports were premature and needlessly alarmist." They certainly were premature. You had no idea of saying anything like that in the election campaign, did you, Mr. Minister? It was after the campaign — through you, Mr. Speaker. "Last week the same cabinet minister became the government's chief executioner." Now that's a bit extreme, calling the Provincial Secretary "chief executioner." Under normal circumstances, calling the Provincial Secretary a chief executioner would have been a matter of privilege in this House. Isn't it curious that this right-wing newspaper describes our beloved Provincial Secretary as a chief executioner? No move was taken on a point of privilege to bring the editor down here to the bar to face this House and the minister and apologize for those words. Why is that? Because these are not normal times and this is not a normal bill. As a matter of fact, the Times-Colonist may have been able to prove the case.

"The crowning insult was Premier Bennett's weekend comment that many of the public servants who will be fired have not been doing their job. No doubt there are some who don't pull their weight, but there are in any trade or profession. To brand all those fired, and those soon to be, with this kind of sweeping accusation is unfair." It may even apply in my opinion — and I'm not quoting from the editorial — of the minister. There are some people who may have the opinion that the minister is not carrying his load. Mr. Minister, are you carrying your load?

Interjection.

[5:30]

MR. BARRETT: I have the assurance that the minister is carrying a load. I want to thank the minister for assuring the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer again to other reactions. Social Credit candidates — with an eye to other municipal elections perhaps — are quoted in the Times-Colonist, for July 21, 1983.

"Duncan. North Cowichan Mayor Graham Bruce, an unsuccessful Socred candidate in the May 5 provincial election, joined his council Wednesday in unanimous opposition to sections of the provincial government's Bill 3. The bill would allow the firing without cause of public sector employees. Council was unanimous in supporting the resolution."

This was the resolution, and I'll read it to you:

"'That this council has grave concerns with provincial legislation respecting the firing of municipal employees without cause,' said Alderperson Margaret Robertson. 'There's something going on here that is extremely dangerous. The first thing that happens in a dictatorship is to take away the powers of local government. This has been done in the case of our school board.' Alderman Alan Hussey said: 'This legislation has all the earmarks of George Orwell's 1984.'"

I couldn't agree with her more.

Who was one of the people who led this resolution? A Social Credit candidate. A former supporter of the Premier — Graham Bruce. He went on to say at a later interview that had he known that this was the intention of the government, he would have never let his name stand for the Social Credit Party.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the opposition was coming from me — or from you, Mr. Speaker — it would be different, but it's from a Social Credit candidate who was never told. That recalls to my mind the comments of some delegates of the World Council of Churches meeting in Vancouver. They issued a statement condemning the provincial government's policies, and the spokesperson for that group of religious community leaders said that had he been a candidate for

[ Page 836 ]

Social Credit, and been elected without being told the truth of the Premier's intentions, he would have been conscience bound to resign from the cabinet. Well, nobody's resigned from the cabinet. None of them have spoken on this section. So what conclusion do you draw, Mr. Speaker? They're going along with it.

They want the power to call up policemen's files, and if a policeman is checking out on a Socred, and the Police Commission or the police superintendent has his or her file called up, they'll get the message. That message will be "Big Brother is watching you." Or, in the case of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), "Big Sister is watching you." There are examples after examples of concern and protest about this legislation. It's got so bad that I've even written articles against it, and they are the most objective articles of all that I've read.

Here's a telegram from Mr. John Bender, president of the Federation of Engineering and Scientific Associations. It's addressed to the government of British Columbia, and it says:

YOUR GOVERNMENT'S ACTION ON JULY 7 HAS SHOCKED AND DISMAYED ALL CANADIANS. OUR FEDERATION, WHICH REPRESENTS A CROSS-SECTION OF PROFESSIONAL AND MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES ACROSS CANADA, IS ASTOUNDED AT THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION. CANADA'S PRIDE IS THE SANCTITY OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, CONCERN FOR THE UNDERPRIVILEGED AND INTEGRITY IN SOLVING PROBLEMS. AFTER A SUCCESSFUL RE-ELECTION YOUR GOVERNMENT'S ABRUPT TURNAROUND TO ABOLISH THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, REMOVE MINIMUM WORK STANDARDS, CUT SOCIAL SERVICES AND REMOVE ALL SEMBLANCE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF FAIRNESS IN EMPLOYMENT, IS AN AFFRONT TO CANADIAN TRADITIONS OF MODERATION IN GOVERNMENT AND PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL ATTITUDES. YOUR ACTIONS, AT LEAST, ARE IN PURSUIT OF SHORT-TERM GOALS TO SOLVE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS INVOLVING THE COMMITMENT AND PARTICIPATION OF ALL CITIZENS AND ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. NOTHING LONG-TERM AND MEANINGFUL WILL BE SERVED BY THESE ATTACKS ON BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. I URGE YOU TO RECONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF YOUR PROPOSED LEGISLATION. IT IS YOUR GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT BRITISH COLUMBIA STANDS BY TRADITIONAL CANADIAN VALUES.

JOHN BENDER, PRESIDENT,
FEDERATION OF ENGINEERING AND
SCIENTIFIC ASSOCIATIONS.

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a more eloquent plea for a hoist, this is it. Right on! Right to the mark! All in order, in this debate — a hoist to reconsider, to allow British Columbians, without fear or favour, to re-examine whether or not it is necessary to pass legislation that would allow cabinet ministers, at their whim, to call up personnel files.

Mr. Speaker, some people in this chamber may have forgotten exactly what the words are in this bill. In reading this telegram from Mr. Bender, the president of the Federation of Engineering and Scientific Associations, it would be worthwhile recalling what prompted that telegram. Part of what prompted that telegram is the section in the bill that says as follows: "...require public sector employers to supply a minister" — listen to this! This is police-state legislation. The employers would be required "to supply to a minister information and records respecting the duties, compensation, terms and conditions of employment of senior managers employed by them" — listen to these words, Mr. Speaker — "notwithstanding any enactment respecting confidentiality, or any contract." There is not another jurisdiction in any democratic country on the face of this earth that has such legislation.

I come back to the basic question: why is it required here, and why do they want this power? By their silence over these seven weeks, by not giving a straight answer to this question, every suspicion that has been raised by the editorials in the Vancouver Sun, in the Vancouver Province and in the Times Colonist — not exactly extremist newspapers — every question raised, and in fact the label given by the Times-Colonist, that this is an extremist government, remain valid.

You are attempting, through this legislation, to become the first jurisdiction anywhere in the British Commonwealth that would permit any cabinet minister without checks or balances, without a court order, without appearing before any judge, just on a whim, without a committee, without a right to appeal, without anything, to call in any senior civil servant's file, whether that person works for the government, a Crown agency or a municipality. If a police superintendent is investigating a politician, that police superintendent's file can be called up by the very cabinet minister who may be investigated. If one wants to put a little fear into people, if one wants to condition attitudes and thoughts, attack their basic freedoms and security. I remind you that the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers, in an unprecedented step, have already taken out an ad in the British Columbia newspapers asking how they could possibly investigate allegations against politicians if this kind of legislation passes.

[5:45]

If a government has nothing to hide and nothing to be frightened of, why does it need this kind of legislation? What is different about this cabinet and that government that is unlike any other jurisdiction in the British Commonwealth? The first thing that's different is that they're the only Social Credit cabinet — thank goodness for that. They're the only cabinet that has in its record while it was in office a cabinet minister convicted and sent to jail for the criminal offence of bribery, plus the admission of a sitting cabinet minister that the Attorney-General saved him from a recommendation of police prosecution. That is the record. A cabinet minister in that present government was subject to police investigation while he was a sitting member. The recommendation of the public prosecutor was to prosecute charges against that member who now sits on that government bench over there. That member stood up and said: "Thank God for the Attorney-General." The prosecution was stopped. Now this government intends to go even further. It intends to have the power to call in a file, to call in the personnel records, the right to break confidentiality, the right to breach a contract of employment, subject to the whim of any single cabinet minister.

I submit to my colleagues: would you not be suspicious of a government that wants this kind of power? Would the public out there not think that somebody is trying to cover up something? Would those skeptics who do not have a commitment to the parliamentary system not say that here is the example of 1984? Here's the method of circumventing the courts. Just bring a law through this chamber, ram it through this House, and give these cabinet ministers powers beyond those taken by any other democratic government. I don't agree with that. If you haven't gathered that over the course of this debate I will try to give you that reason, and others, why this bill should be hoisted.

I don't believe any government should have the kinds of powers that are in this bill. I don't believe any cabinet

[ Page 837 ]

minister should have the right to those powers. I don't believe those people who fought in two wars to protect the sanctity of law and the rights and freedoms of individuals in our parliamentary system, and in our legal structure, should be insulted by having this legislation presented in this House. No other political party in this country endorses this kind of legislation. Not one. No public legal minds have endorsed this document. No law school that I know of has praised it. Not one responsible person in the community from any walk of life — legal to worker, medical to professional — has endorsed this.

Mr. Speaker, suppose you had a friend who is a policeman — and that indeed might be the case — and there is an investigation by that friend of a politician. Would it not be right to speculate that that investigation would be hampered psychologically by the knowledge that, should that policeman find out too much, his file could be called up and disciplinary action by threat take place because of this legislation? Your friend the policeman would no longer have the protection of a contract on his job. Your friend the policeman would no longer have the protection of confidentiality. Your friend's file could be subject to the call-up and the whim of a cabinet minister.

Suppose we had a real estate development, and the planner on the development disagreed with the direction it was going; or the medical health officer said that the water supply was contaminated? Suppose there was an attempt to stop the developer on the basis of this professional information. Suppose that someone in the cabinet knew the developer and called up the files on the professional or the agency that was there.

Suppose that were to happen. Would the professional not be conditioned by the knowledge that the government could politically interfere with no protection of law, contract or confidentiality by calling up anybody's file at the whim of any minister at any time?

I repeat, Mr. Speaker: why does the government want this power? Why does this cabinet want this power to be able to call up the file of any senior policeman, police chief, fire chief, senior medical officer, senior regional planner, any professional involved in decision-making about either money or favour, directly to the cabinet — no cabinet committee, no judge. The police cannot even tap a wire without going to a judge. They don't have to go to a judge if this bill passes. They'll be able to call up any senior official's file, able to discuss among themselves confidential material and make administrative decisions without any accountability to a court or recourse to appeal.

The Star Chamber of One. Suppose some poor medical practitioner owned a horse, and he was in a senior position. Suppose his horse was not running too well. What would stop a certain cabinet minister from calling up that member's file to see if there was anything in the file related to the horse? Mr. Speaker, no names no pack-drill. Let us suppose that a certain horse-player in the cabinet, if such should exist in the cabinet.... Not in this hard-working cabinet! Perhaps in some other cabinet there was a punter of some note who was angry with the horse-owner and ordered that the file be called up. Outlandish, Mr. Speaker? No, legal!

AN HON. MEMBER: A good idea.

MR. BARRETT: It's a good idea. There you go, I've blown the cover of some poor veterinarian now.

As much as they laugh, that's the power they call up. It's the whole horse, not the rear end. That's the power they're taking in this legislation. Illustration after illustration. Mr. Speaker, the government benches enjoy a little laughter. Some of the things that have gone on in this chamber under the name of a Social Credit government don't bring back much laughter. Land scandals, insider information scandals, bribery convictions, stayed prosecutions — all of those are factual histories of this Social Credit administration; all of it is factual, recorded. I repeat: it is the only administration in the whole Commonwealth that has had a cabinet minister go to jail for fraud, that has had members stand up and thank the Attorney-General for protecting them from recommendations of public prosecutors to prosecute them. It has an anti-intellectual history, it has a no-nothingism in terms of populism of the extreme right, and it manifests itself in this kind of mindless legislation that has absolutely no foundation in the honoured traditions of our parliamentary system. It has nothing to do with the debate between socialists and free enterprisers, nothing to do with a debate between conservatives and liberals, nothing to do with the philosophical structures of political parties that have been part and parcel of the Commonwealth traditions for some 600 years.

It is unique, it is separate and it is identified only with this particular administration: a record that smells. That record smells up the annals of the whole parliamentary system. Time had already begun to erase that stench of their record, but now all of it is recalled on the day when we read the words in this legislation by a government that is blatantly unashamed, blatantly without conscience and blatantly grabbing for the power that leads to the Orwellian nightmare that most intelligent people fear.

I don't trust this government; I don't trust these cabinet ministers; I don't trust anyone in power who wants more mindless power outside of the courts, outside of the rights and freedoms and protections of every citizen. Woe betide the police chiefs of this province; woe betide the senior medical practitioners; woe betide the fire chiefs investigating arson; woe betide the town planners who go against the desires of cabinet ministers expressed to committees about removal of agricultural land. This will be a direct instrument for cabinet ministers and this government to have their way. Why else do they want this power? Why else would a cabinet want the right, in the face of established law and established precedent, to say in writing, in legislation, that they want the right to call a file, "notwithstanding any enactment respecting confidentiality, or any contract?"

In one sentence they want to wipe away all the legal protection that people have spent hundreds of years establishing for the right of confidentiality, the right of contract and, more than anything else, the right of privacy. The threat of violating the privacy of those people who must make important decisions that affect all the citizens of British Columbia will now become a reality. That threat will indeed be the challenge. That threat is embodied in this legislation for the first time outside of extreme left jurisdictions — i.e., communist — or extreme right ones — i.e., fascist. No democratic administrations have legislation like this. You have three choices as the motivation for this legislation: extreme

[ Page 838 ]

left, extreme right or crazy. Take your pick. What category do you fall in?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker's attention having been drawn to the clock, I recognize the government House Leader.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.