[ Page 1591 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen).

On vote 44: minister's office –– 1591

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Education (interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 6). Second reading.

Mr. Blencoe –– 1591

Mr. Macdonald –– 1591

Mr. Barrett –– 1595

Mr. Rose –– 1600

On the amendment

Mr. Cocke –– 1616

Mr. Macdonald –– 1618

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1619

Mr. Skelly –– 1623

Mr. Passarell –– 1627

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1628

Mr. Barrett –– 1632

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1637

Division –– 1638

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

On the amendment

Mr. Hanson –– 1638

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1643

Mrs. Wallace –– 1648

Mr. Hanson –– 1654

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1983

The House met at 8:05 p.m.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave not granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 44: minister's office, $182,438.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 6.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Victoria has, I believe, about one minute remaining.

MR. BLENCOE: In my wrap-up of the second part of my speech on this particular bill, I was asking the government, in the atmosphere of compromise — if there's anything possible in terms of compromise on that side — and asking the Premier of this province to take another look at this piece of legislation, particularly in keeping with the fact that his father used to do that and would consider such action appropriate.

There is a deep feeling in this province that the legislation that impacts on local governments is something that should be recalled and reconsidered. The move to centralize in the hands of the cabinet powers that have been traditionally reserved for local governments and local school boards — duly elected, Mr. Speaker — cannot be accepted or tolerated by this party, and we believe it is not accepted by the majority of British Columbians.

Within the framework of compromise, I once again ask the government to reconsider its action. You won't lose face if you take a second look; that's part of the democratic process. We urge you most seriously to take another look at your actions, because in our estimation you are not supported by the people of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: I looked with earnest anticipation to see if any of the government members opposite would rise to defend this bill. I've never seen such a disconsolate group when they're faced with the arguments relating to Bill 6. I have no intention of repeating the arguments I've already made on the hoist motion, because there is so much to say in opposition to this particular bill that no one need repeat himself or herself.

I had a dream that I was delivering a speech in the Legislature of the province of British Columbia at 5 o'clock this morning...
AN HON. MEMBER: I had the same dream at 2:30.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and I woke up to find that I was delivering a speech in the Legislature of the province of British Columbia. But I take nothing back from what I said at that time. I am amazed at the bungling incompetence of the government.

Here they have a little bill, with very few words, which gives the Minister of Education the power to issue directives to all of the school districts of the province — and I know there are fewer school districts than there used to be; I'm not sure what the total number is at the present time.... What is it, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Seventy-five.

MR. MACDONALD: From about 92, which I think was the highest we had in this province, it has come down to 75 districts. Not one government member has stood up in the House to tell us what a directive is. What power this little minister over here who went to Penticton and wowed them in....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: He wasn't even on the panel. The cabinet ministers, when they held their panel, didn't include the hon. Minister of Education. We had the age of the Hon. Bill Vander Zalm in education. As we look back, it almost appears to have been a golden age. I know that he gave different instructions and he made different speeches, and you never knew whether the wind was blowing north-northeast or south-northwest.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I always blow north-northeast. I am blowing that way tonight in opposition to this bill, but I feel, with all respect, that the hon. Bill Vander Zalm — and he has lost that title now, because a provincial cabinet minister, unlike the cabinet ministers of Ottawa, does not carry the title "honourable" when he has vacated his cabinet position, but still he is an honourable man — was shuffled out of this educational portfolio and would never have consented to have brought in this kind of a bill, which totally conceals the intentions of the minister. If he had tried to conceal it, with his ability to speak and his love of speaking in front of television and the radio, he wouldn't have been able to conceal anything anyway, but this minister has.

MR. BARRETT: He talks one way in Penticton and another way somewhere else.

MR. MACDONALD: What are going to be the directions? The present minister comes before this Legislature of B.C. and says: "Will you give me the authority to issue" — not to make regulations, even — "directives at any time

[ Page 1592 ]

before the beginning of the school budgetary year, May 1, that control the budget of any of the 75 school districts of the province?" What is a directive? It is not a regulation. It doesn't have to go to cabinet. It is, I suppose, any letter. Mr. Minister, supposing you picked up the phone and told the school trustees of Shuswap-Revelstoke — it is not the right name of the school district, I know, but it is close...

AN HON. MEMBER: Shuswap is 89.

MR. MACDONALD: I know, because I have arbitrated salaries up there in times long gone by on behalf of the teachers in the province of British Columbia.

Here is what this bill is doing. The local MLA thinks it is a great big joke that his school trustees in the district from which he is elected can receive a letter or a phone call from the minister, the all-high panjandrum of education, and by his fiscal powers under this bill he can say: "I order that special class to be discontinued. You trustees thought you could spend your budgetary allocation in this way or that way and allow something, say, for modern education, for driving education" — because there are hazards on the highways of B.C.... The minister says: "I know better — I am cancelling that course." What democratic legislature could consent to such autocratic powers in the hands of a single man?

I have never seen such farcical legislation as this passed. I have seen legislation come into this chamber which says that "the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council may make regulations...." And you say to yourself: "Before we pass the bill, why don't we see the regulations?" We're saying that about Bill 3. But this says that the minister can "by directive." What does that mean? It's not defined in the Interpretation Act. I would assume it would include a phone call. I would assume that under the Interpretation Act the Deputy Minister of Education has the power to wield the authority of the minister. I would assume that two people will have this absolute dictate over the 75 school districts in the province of British Columbia — the deputy minister and the minister — and they can exercise it with respect to any part of the educational program of a school district by controlling the finances. This little bill says that the directives can apply. It includes any special-education programs. That sounds like teaching: English as a second language, the facts of life....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. REID: You wouldn't understand that.

MR. MACDONALD: I would love to have that course. I don't think knowledge ever hurt anybody.

It's a very serious bill, however lightly we treat it. We're saying that the minister or his deputy minister can — by a directive or a phone call or a letter; what you will — tell any school district what can be taught in the school and whether they can have one or two janitors for one or two schools.

MR. MICHAEL: No.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, they can. "The budget or any portion of it." You control the budget. You control the school district. Why would any school trustee...?

MR. REID: That's the way it should be.

MR. MACDONALD: The iron heel, the big thumb of government, on all 75 school districts in British Columbia — that's what you want. That's what you're getting in this legislation: centralization, wipe out local control.

Why do those good citizens who have come forward in the past...? I can think of many of them. Many of them voted against the NDP, and that's their privilege; they're all good citizens. The ones who ran for school boards, unless they were like some who got on the school board — I'm thinking of the city of Vancouver — and then they got on the college board, and then they got on the city council, and then they got a couple of junkets here and there.... I know that can happen. I know it has happened in the city of Vancouver. I wouldn't mention names. They might even have a salary at the University of British Columbia while all this is going on.

Okay, there are abuses in the system. Do you think the NDP doesn't recognize that there are abuses in the system? Of course there are. Get after the abuses, but don't bring in this kind of dictatorial legislation to do it.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Still fighting the election!

MR. MACDONALD: We're fighting the next election, when this crowd over there will be judged. They won't dare to go back to the people before three or four years are up, not with this kind of program that they've dropped with their budget. They'll sit and take their junkets overseas. The Premier has already said: "We can't wait to get out of here, because all our ministers have got important targets in Europe and Asia" — and expensive hotel bills to run up.

MS. BROWN: And Hawaii.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and all over. They'll be jetting to the wild blue yonder all over the world, spending the taxpayers' money. But when a little school district wants to give a course in safe driving — maybe one hour a week — to save some children's lives, this minister can say: "That's extravagance. You're saving children's lives. We'd rather spend it on jet travel: Paris today, Rome tomorrow, China the day after." We'll watch it. You've done it in the past. That's why all of the cabinet ministers.... Mr. Speaker, if I can refer to this bill....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: How docile they are. Their deputy ministers report to the Premier. They can't even have a confidential conversation with their deputy ministers, but they get little rewards. The Premier says: "Let them fly the wide blue yonder to Paris, London and Rome, to develop markets and to stay at the Hilton and the Dorchester, and to walk the Elysée in Paris."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we might avoid some of the interjections if we could relate our remarks to the education bill before us. There must be some degree of relevancy.

MR. MACDONALD: The relevancy, Mr. Speaker, is this: I'm pointing out that under the laws of the province of British Columbia there will be two people who can issue the

[ Page 1593 ]

directives, because the deputy has the powers of the minister. He can pick up the phone and ask any one of the 75 school districts to do this or that. The minister and the deputy, under the reorganization that has occurred under Premier Bennett II — King Billy II.... He has had all the deputy ministers reporting to him. They cannot assume their offices with any minister in any department until they are pre-selected by the Premier. How close can you come to one-man government, one-man rule, a docile cabinet, a docile Legislature and — what he hopes will happen — a docile people of British Columbia than that?

The deputy ministers report to the Premier. The Premier will have the authority, as well as the minister sitting over there, to say through that deputy to any school district in the province of British Columbia: "Cut out that course. Add this. Cut out your operating engineer" — or whatever it may be. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) shakes his head. Why should anybody in that area decide that they should run to be a school trustee? They're not going to make much in terms of an honorarium.

MR. LEA: Why doesn't he tell us what he thinks of Bill 6?

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, he won't. There's no way. The member for Prince Rupert makes a perfectly valid point. There's no way that any of those members of the Legislature on the government side — the back-benchers, as they're called — will stand up and defend this destruction of the last remaining vestiges of the local autonomy of school boards. I defy that member to stand up and do so.

MR. MICHAEL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you please inform the member that I've already spoken on Bill 6.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter of public record. I think that is being looked after right now.

MR. MACDONALD: I wouldn't mind debating this bill with you in your own district, before the people — either in Salmon Arm or Revelstoke. Let's get a hall. What you're doing here is destroying the educational system that has been built up.

MR. MICHAEL: The Kingfisher hall a week this Saturday.

MR. MACDONALD: You accept the challenge? I'm speaking in Squamish on Friday night, but any other night. I'm delighted. While we're having a little bit of pleasantry here, Mr. Speaker, what we're saying to all of the good people who have come forward in the past — at personal sacrifice, because the honorarium wasn't all that great — to run for school trustee is: "You will just be rubber stamps in the future. The minister has the overriding authority over anything you may do, because he has the fiscal power and can pull the fiscal strings." That is exactly what this bill is doing.

There is another aspect of this bill that I'd like to discuss for a moment or two, and that's what happens to the teachers and to the other trade unions of British Columbia that bargain with the board of school trustees in the various areas of the province. What about the teachers? I started off my speech by saying that I've never known such incompetence on the part of a government. The teachers are going back into salary negotiations, starting in October. The notices will go out to bargain under the School Act. In default of agreement, a conciliator is appointed, and if he can't bring the parties together, they will have arbitration. The arbitration is to set their salaries or bonuses. Last year quite a number of the school districts went through the arbitration procedure. There was amalgamation of areas, but there must have been 10 or 15 arbitration boards sitting in the province — a totally useless exercise in view of the provisions of Bill 6.

The collective bargaining process for teachers has been completely gutted by this legislation. When I say incompetence, I point out that by adding Bill 6 to the existing collective bargaining legislation, you have this absolutely ridiculous situation: that under Bill 6 the minister or his deputy can completely negate any effective bargaining by teachers with respect to salaries or bonuses, because he can, by a directive, affect the school district budget, or any portion of its budget, and that includes the salaries of teachers and administrators.

[8:30]

We also have the legislation relating to the wage stabilization program that's administered by Ed Peck on behalf of the government. Number one is Bill 6; number two is the wage stabilization program, which has its own separate legislation and commissioner. Number three, you have the School Act, which allows teachers to arbitrate their salaries and bonuses, but not their working conditions. There's always been some question as to what is a bonus and how far that word extends. So here we have the absolutely ridiculous situation of having, in respect to the teachers, three separate and conflicting pieces of legislation affecting their collective bargaining and their terms of conditions of work.

The exercise in arbitration that the province went through last December was an exercise in futility. Various arbitration boards were set up throughout the province — I think there were 15 or 16 of them; the minister would know exactly how many — and they came in with awards. But the arbitrators were making their awards under the shadow of the fact that Ed Peck, the compensation commissioner, would overrule whatever they decided. He had that power. So the whole exercise was one of futility. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke shakes his head. In a period of restraint, how much did that whole exercise last December cost?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I am speaking to the bill, because the bill, the Ed Peck thing and the arbitration process are three bills that affect the conditions of work of the teachers. All three of them!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Is that right?

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Forests asks whether that is right — as if he didn't know the blunders and the inconsistent legislation, the blind staggers, that this government has been going through. I'm addressing you. I'm trying to pound something in with a sledgehammer, and you say you don't even know what I'm talking about. You're not even in the right seat. The Minister of Forests should be taken to the woodshed.

Interjection.

[ Page 1594 ]

MR. MACDONALD: He sounds more like a chipmunk than a Minister of Forests, but at least he's now in his right chair. At least the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) knows what I'm talking about.

As a government, you now have three totally inconsistent pieces of legislation, all working in the same direction and affecting the salaries and conditions of work of teachers. Which horse are you going to ride? You've destroyed collective bargaining for the teachers with the compulsory arbitration aspects that worked well in the past. You've brought in a whole new compensation stabilization program at great public expense, and now you bring in Bill 6, which does the same thing. It can affect the wages and salaries arrived at. Commissioner Peck can say: "Well, I'll allow X percent in such and such a district."

Let's take next December and see what is going to happen. You may very well have, at great public expense to the school trustees and the B.C. Teachers' Federation, a series of arbitrations to determine the salaries and bonuses of teachers in the various areas and school districts of the province. When that is finished, will it be the end? Not under this legislation, because a separate set of legislative provisions presided over by compensation commissioner Peck will then review what has been decided by the arbitration boards.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, ability to pay. I know it is important. I am talking to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and he knows what I am talking about. It's a terrible thing that people who are comfortably well off should pay taxes that might trickle down to some benefit of disadvantaged people in the same community. It is a terrible thing. He is always talking about how government is too big, how we have to cut back services to people, cut back on educational services, cut back.... No, not to privileged groups — no way is he going to cut back to privileged groups — but cut back to poor people, to battered wives, to the counselling services that are needed by all kinds of people. People living in Point Grey don't want to pay taxes; they say they are already overtaxed. They certainly don't want to pay income tax based on ability to pay. You tell me about the avaricious society. That's what you stand for — avariciousness.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We need a bit of order here. First, if the minister is going to heckle, he could return to his own seat. Secondly, if the member is going to continue debate, he could relate his remarks to Bill 6, the bill before us.

MR. MACDONALD: It is all one piece. I don't know whether I was that far out of order. What they stand for on that side of the House is a society for the privileged. They say we have to downsize government because it may help people who weren't born into that privileged society that they are so proud of. They are the ones who don't want to pay taxes.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the people who are comfortably well off. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. I am off the bill, Mr. Speaker.

So you have three separate kinds....

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to record in Hansard that I am acutely embarrassed by one of my constituents speaking in this fashion in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member. The records indicate that you will have every opportunity to participate in this debate.

MR. MACDONALD: There is a secret ballot in the province of British Columbia, but I want publicly to declare on the floor of the Legislature that I did not vote for that hon. minister, and I never would.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think I'm relieved.

MR. MACDONALD: There is no way I am going to vote for special privileges to the elite, well-off groups that he has espoused all his political life. So we have, for the teachers, three separate....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Why doesn't the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) get up and defend these autocratic powers that are being given to the Minister of Education? There's no way he will. Oh, come on; you know you are not going to get the floor under those conditions and make me sit down.

In addition to the powers that I have described, you have the added element of sheer incompetence. You have three whole legislative enactments that deal with the salaries and conditions of teachers in British Columbia. I think we should be proud of the working teachers of British Columbia. I know there is a great deal of anti-union feeling in the government benches over there. They think the teachers are just another union, and they are against unions. The B.C. Teachers' Federation is looked at by the government opposite as a union that has to be curbed.

MR. MICHAEL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I personally take a great deal of resentment to the remark made by that hon. member that the people on this side of the Legislature are opposed to unions. That is an absolute falsehood. The trade union movement has tripled since the first Social Credit government was ever elected in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member. The Chair really cannot entertain that type of motion.

MR. MACDONALD: The government, under this legislation, under the compensation stabilization legislation, has completely negated these rights of teachers which have been laid down in the Public School Act, and it hasn't had the guts to touch those arbitration provisions, so you've got all three in a display of incompetency that is unbelievable, and that every year, in terms of useless arbitrations, costs the public a great deal of money. You have all three of these things to curb the powers of the teachers, and that is what you are doing under this legislation.

The legislation is so dictatorial, so derogatory of any powers of the school trustees, that there is no reason why the citizens of the province of British Columbia should bother to

[ Page 1595 ]

run for the office of school trustee under this kind of legislation; and they won't. You're already had reports — we all have — from various parts of the province, saying: "Why should I dedicate myself to this public responsibility when under legislation like Bill 6 I'm being reduced to a rubber stamp, and my autonomy to make any meaningful decisions whatsoever within that school district has been absolutely eroded?" Why will they do it? Under this kind of legislation we're seeing the death-knell of local autonomy within the school districts. The people who speak to me and to other members of the Legislature about what an honour it has been in the past to run as a school trustee are now going to say: "Why should I bother?"

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll be there.

MR. MACDONALD: They will not be there.

Let's take one example. I'll quote from the Cowichan News, July 19: "The Cowichan School Board has been reduced to a powerless body through the centralization of education proposed by the provincial government. 'We seem to have the same power as the PTA,' said a discouraged Gerry Allester, acting chairman, after attending the July 12 meeting in Vancouver with Education minister Jack Heinrich." The PTA are a very worthwhile organization, but they recognize that they have only advisory powers. But the school trustees were elected to do a job: to forward the cause of education and protect the welfare of children in the schools of the province of British Columbia.

Here's another. Trustee Joan Gillatt had to agree. She I said: "The decisions we had previously made about allocation of funding are now totally out of our hands." That's exactly what's happening under this legislation. All of the meaningful decisions of a board of school trustees are being taken away from the local districts and given to the sole authority of the Minister of Education acting directly, or his deputy acting on orders from the Premier of province of British Columbia. That's the extent of the erosion of school board autonomy.

School trustee Joan Gillatt goes on: "They have decided to leave the present boards to do the dirty work of firing and of cutting salaries." So they will still have some powers there, but the meaningful decisions about the allocation of the budget and the educational programs within their district are being stripped away from them. They will be there as a charade, performing a meaningless role.

An editorial in the Times-Colonist of Friday, July 15, 1983, said: "After their meeting this week with Education minister Jack Heinrich, British Columbia school trustees appeared stunned by the grim news on restraint they had just heard." It has nothing to do with restraint. This isn't a restraint bill. This is a bill to centralize power. If it's restraint, let the minister get up and say where his cuts are. You already have the Ed Peck situation. You already have fair and public arbitration of salaries and conditions. It's not restraint. The editorial goes on: "Smaller budgets, more teacher layoffs, a general three-year freeze on salaries, reduced pupil-teacher ratio. These and other details were depressing enough, but what seemed to have shaken the trustees more than anything else is the discovery that they have now been stripped of their last vestiges of local autonomy." Our only surprise is that they're surprised, because everything this government has done for more than a year has shouted its intention of doing exactly that.

After pointing out the extent to which local autonomy has been completely stripped away from the local school districts, the editorial goes on to give some words of praise to Bill Vander Zalm.

This bill, like others we have had in this session.... Almost all of the 26 bills laid....

Why is the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) eating peanuts?

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're wrong as usual. I'm not eating peanuts.

[8:45]

MR. MACDONALD: All of the bills that have been laid before the Legislature with this budget have one feature in common: they all arrogate power to the cabinet, and they all arrogate power through the cabinet to the Premier's office. It is the thumb of control in this bill that is being placed on the school districts and on the boards of school trustees. But in the other bills that we have seen — and I merely mention them not to debate them but to point out their similarity — the centralizing tendency of arrogating all power ultimately to one man is the feature of all those other pieces of legislation.

Everyone in British Columbia understands the extent to which the Premier has made himself the absolute master of the cabinet. When cabinet ministers speak out of line, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) did when he was first sworn in, he is told....

AN HON. MEMBER: To the bill.

MR. MACDONALD: This is to the bill. I'm talking abot the centralization of power under this and other pieces of legislation. I'm talking about the centralization of power in the hands of one man, the Premier of British Columbia. We see that same thread through all of the other legislation that has been dropped at this session of the Legislature. The man who now controls his cabinet through controlling the deputy ministers in the various departments and controls the backbenchers on the Social Credit side of the government wants to go further and extend that control through the whole public service and through the school districts of the province of British Columbia. I say it is time to put an end to this arrogation of power in the hands of one man.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, may I seek leave to make an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In your gallery this evening, Mr. Speaker, we have two of my constituents from the White Rock area. They are two of the very hardest-working Social Credit members we have there. I would ask the House to please welcome Jim and Peggy Aldred.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, for one brief moment I was under the impression that the government members were going to speak to this bill. As matters stand at this point, four government members have spoken to this bill and the rest have remained mute. One of those speakers has been the minister introducing the bill. I suppose that in those conditions I should be humbly grateful for the House permitting me to speak, since I imagine if the government continues on

[ Page 1596 ]

this course in this bill and the package of bills that they are pursuing, this troublesome Legislature may even be done away with. Certainly they have made a conscious decision not to participate in the debate of the bills, and this bill in particular, which fundamentally alters the history of the relationship between the taxpayers, who are the parents of children in this province, and the trustees.

You think you know it all. You think you have the right to tell every parent in this province that they cannot instruct a school trustee to move in the direction that they, as parents, at the local level want. You think you have all the answers. There is no need for you to explain in this House why you are taking this authority. There is no basic honesty from your party in not telling, during the campaign, that this is where you intended to go. Not one Social Credit candidate said during the election campaign that the role of the local school board trustees would be dramatically altered should they be elected. Not one voter in this province was told that the school system that we have had functioning in this province for over 100 years, with direct input from parents, grandparents and interested people at the local level through elected school trustees, would be done away with. It would be interesting if this opinion and the comments that I have made were just confined to a member of the official opposition or perhaps to some disinterested third party, such as parents or school trustees.

I want to read into the record tonight an article in the Toronto Star, and as I read this article I think the importance of what is being said relative to this bill — and strictly to this bill — may come across in some manner to some of the less cynical members of the government who are still there. The article from the Toronto Star, dated August 5, 1983, is entitled "The B.C. Cutbacks." It is self-described as "the first of a series on how people in British Columbia are affected by cutbacks in the Social Credit government's controversial July 7 budget package."

"Burnaby, B.C. — Gary Begin has been a school trustee in this sprawling Vancouver suburb for ten years. For six of them he has been chairman of the province's fourth-largest school board, and for three years he has been president of the British Columbia School Trustees' Association. But when schools reopen next month, the parents who keep electing Begin are in for a jolt. He won't be helping to run their schools any more. A man most parents have never heard of and never voted for, Victoria bureaucrat Jim Carter, will have the final say.

"Premier Bill Bennett's Social Credit government is slashing the power of local school boards" — absolutely nothing to do with restraint — "and centralizing authority in the provincial capital. The move will help the government slash education spending by a proposed 17 percent over three years."

MR. PARKS: That's not restraint?

MR. BARRETT: No, it is stupidity and a patent demonstration that you do not trust the responsibility of the local taxpayers as represented by the school trustees. You, sir, and your colleagues do not hold the holy grail of responsibility for tax dollars. If it was measured by the record of your colleagues and the squandering habits of your colleagues in the cabinet, who drink Pouilly-Fuisse wine at $37.50 a bottle and say that's restraint, I say that's a hiccup of restraint, my friend. You've not demonstrated one whit of restraint in hiring limousines or buying tickets to Broadway shows. When it comes to spending money, you're the highest non-Broadway livers there have been. Limousines in Reno, limousines in New York, trips all over the world, and you have the cheek and the nerve to say that you'll tell the school trustees where to spend their money. No school trustee has ever been accused of drinking Pouilly-Fuisse at the public's expense. You've got a record, my friend, that is indefensible, and you have the nerve to sit there in silence and in contempt of this House, not defending this bill.

"Approval for the program cuts will have come from bureaucrats.... If trustees refuse" — in a free democratic society — "a Victoria order to fire staff in some popular local program, Bennett's cabinet could fine each of them $2,000 for not doing what they were told."

What is the point of them being elected, in this bill, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's not in this bill. You're anticipating another bill.

MR. BARRETT: It certainly is, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't see reference to that in Bill 6.

MR. BARRETT: The consequences of this bill are tied in as part of the other bill.

And I go on to read: "This is restraint in education, Social Credit style."

MR. PARKS: You're prevaricating once again.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The member will withdraw the remark. The member found it offensive.

MR. PARKS: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: It continues:

"It means an abrupt shift of decision-making power from communities to the office of Deputy Minister of Education Carter and the Socred cabinet room. Ironically, Gary Begin had hoped to be Bennett's Education minister himself. As a Socred candidate in the May 5 election, Begin came just 500 votes short" of winning the seat in the Burnaby-Edmonds riding.

This is what the former head of the school trustees in British Columbia had to say. This is what the Social Credit candidate who assumed that he may indeed have been the Minister of Education, should he have been elected, had to say — not an NDPer, not a Socred flack paid to advertise, not some lowly trustee, but a Social Credit candidate. "'If I had had any inkling that they were going to do this, to do away with local government, I certainly would never have run for Bill Bennett,' a bitter Begin says." He was never told as a candidate that this was going to happen. Neither were you. But you're going to vote for it anyway.

[ Page 1597 ]

I want to read further from the quote from Mr. Begin. I repeat:

"'If I had had any inkling that they were going to do this, to do away with local government, I certainly would never have run for Bill Bennett.... But I never heard so much as a peep about all I this. I'm very embarrassed.' Sitting in a tiny cafe across from his Mr. Gary's Fashions store in a small shopping centre, Begin feels he is a man betrayed. At 41, with a decade of successful local politics behind him, the ambitious United Church lay minister was looking for the next step up the ladder. Instead, he finds himself in a fight to 'keep an entire level of local government from becoming redundant in B.C. Under the guise of restraint they are attempting to change the entire direction of society.'"

[9:00]

A Social Credit candidate states publicly that he was never told during the election that this is what the government was planning on doing. He should not be surprised — the public of British Columbia wasn't told either. But for a Socred candidate to say, in stronger words yet to come, his opinion of this government — and for the back-benchers to do nothing other than perhaps interrupt the proceedings and introduce some friends in the gallery — is hardly adding any sense of responsibility to what may be the most fundamental change out of the whole package of bills as it affects generations of children in this province. It's not an accident that the night sittings were started on this bill.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We've got to get somewhere.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you have to ram something through. And you have remained silent in this chamber while a fundamental debate has been taking place about the right and freedom of choice of taxpayers in this province to have a say in how they want their children educated, where Social Credit candidates did not tell the truth during the election campaign, where a prominent Social Credit candidate....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that would have a reflection on hon. members in this House, and I'll ask for a withdrawal.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw, but I would expect that the government immediately put a motion of censure on the floor of this chamber against a citizen by the name of Gary Begin who has called the government dishonest in its electoral campaign. Mr. Speaker, what I have been forced to withdraw has been said by a Social Credit candidate. If I'm not permitted to say it in here, how is he permitted to say it out there?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is well aware, I'm sure, that you cannot use a device such as a newspaper article to bring unparliamentary motives to the House. The Chair has not asked for a withdrawal; please discontinue that type of reference.

MR. BARRETT: I've withdrawn, but I've never suggested that it was a bad parliamentary motive to get elected. Not at all. The question is the method, and that's on each member's conscience.

"'Under the guise of restraint they are attempting to change the entire direction of society, ' he snaps, his gold jewelry catching the sun. 'That is not only dishonest, it is terrifying.'"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There appears to be some rather loud conversation going on. The members will come to order and the hon. Leader of the Opposition will relate his remarks, in order, to the bill before us.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Begin says that this is not only dishonest, it is terrifying.

"Official papers outlining the rigid new school funding system state that the government wants school spending reduced to the levels of the mid-seventies.... In Burnaby, for example, the board has 20,000 adults in special community programs, and one-fifth of its staff is involved in special education for handicapped and gifted students. 'We decided as a community that we want the level of education,' Begin says. 'Now bureaucrats will decide, not the parents who built it over the years.'"

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your difficulty in dealing with rudeness, but that has not been a fine point of the government cabinet benches.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You stand up and deal with my expense accounts, and let us photostat yours. Stop blocking the Public Accounts from photostatting your records, your travel, your waste of taxpayers' money.

AN HON. MEMBER: My, he's self-conscious about his expense accounts.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, a lovely device we have going on here now. And since the Chair doesn't wish to rule the member out of order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We've had enough, if I could get to that point. The minister will come to order, the hon. member will come to order, and we will proceed with our debate on Bill 6, the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act.

MR. BARRETT: I never bought tickets to "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," Mr. Member, and that cabinet minister did. You won't let us photostat these vouchers. Let us deal with your past, my friend.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we've dealt with that one. The member will come to order, and so will the minister.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if you don't care to shut the minister up, I invite this kind of intellectual exchange from that spendthrift.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we've done that, please. Would you please relate the remarks to Bill 6.

[ Page 1598 ]

MR. BARRETT: It would be far better if the minister were to stand on his feet and tell the House why he supports this bill, along with other members...

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you prepared to yield?

MR. BARRETT: When your turn comes, and I will hold you to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you won't.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: We will see, when I am through my 40 minutes, whether or not the minister will indeed get up and introduce some guests.

Mr. Speaker, I continue quoting Mr. Begin, the Social Credit candidate, on this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: An impeccable source.

MR. BARRETT: Impeccable source? I rarely quote Social Credit candidates. If you are questioning his being an impeccable source, one must remember that your credentials, compared to his, are hardly impeccable. A three-day membership in Social Credit before you got the nomination does not smack of undue ambition, but it does allow for a suspicion of unremitting opportunism that is unequalled.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if he is going to comment on the hecklers, I would hope he would attribute the remarks to the correct heckler. If he was attributing that three-day membership to myself, then he is obviously attempting to mislead the House and I think he should withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, all members will have an opportunity to take part in debate if they so desire. But to rise on points of order when another member is speaking interrupts the flow of debate in the House, and I would ask members to consider the rules that bind us in the chamber.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I intend to withdraw at the request of that member. If the member finds that being a member of Social Credit for only three days before one is a candidate is offensive, then it doesn't apply to him. It applies to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds). Now he should withdraw, suggesting that it is offensive for him to be a member for only three days.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, Bill 6.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I know I am going through a convoluted withdrawal; nonetheless, the facts remain that not one of them, as a candidate, stood up on a public platform anywhere in this province and said, "Elect me as a Social Credit candidate and I will work for this kind of legislation." I cite the Social Credit critic on education: "We decided as a community what should be done. Now bureaucrats will decide."

He goes on to say:

"By 1986 Burnaby will lose 17 percent of its...budget.... Similar province-wide cuts will mean the loss of 3,000 of B.C.'s 26,000 teaching jobs.... How can teachers and administrators work together, Begin asks, when no one knows who will lose his or her job? How can trustees bargain for lower salaries in return for keeping jobs, if Victoria has already decided everything? Two weeks ago Begin led a trustees' delegation to the Socred caucus. His former campaign colleagues told him they were simply trying to protect their own political careers, he says."

I am not making an accusation that this legislation is politically motivated, but a very serious charge to that effect has been made by a prominent Social Credit candidate. He says that caucus members told him "they were simply trying to protect their own political careers." Would a Social Crediter lie?

Mr. Member, that is a rhetorical question. By the rules of this House I am not able to reply specifically, but may I reply with this question: is there any doubt?

May I conclude the remarks of Mr. Begin on this bill. As I say, when Begin led a trustees' delegation to the Socred caucus, former campaign colleagues told them they were simply trying to protect their own political careers:

"'I keep telling my friends in the mayors' offices that if the government can do this to us, they'll be next,' Begin says. 'We can only hope that sanity will eventually prevail upon the Premier.'"

There is a question by this candidate whether or not sanity prevails at this moment with the Premier. I am hardly professionally qualified to pass judgment on that, Mr. Speaker, but it is interesting that a Social Credit candidate has spoken out outside this House, admitting that none of this was discussed with him as a candidate; none of this was said publicly. He is embarrassed by the government's dishonesty, in his words. He was the candidate who carried the banner in Burnaby for the government.

One of the ministers is smiling. I suppose it's a smile of wry amusement at having won at any cost. It doesn't really matter what one says in an election campaign. I recall that when the present Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was defeated as a federal Tory candidate, he said: "I guess I was too honest with the voters." His career then altered; he joined Social Credit and never made that same mistake again.

So, Mr. Speaker, the ticket to success is to subscribe to basic dishonesty.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How would you know?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, my success will be measured by my conscience. I have never been ashamed of anything I've stood for in this chamber or outside of it, and I have always told what I stood for.

To all of you, should you care to listen....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you certainly are; you're not talking.

As we go through these continuous hour-by-hour debates, a device by the government to fundamentally alter education in this province by this bill, a vast number of British Columbians will not be aware of the nature of this debate, but will focus on the nuances of the exchanged insults, the level of rhetoric and corridor banter that is generally media fare. Rarely in this chamber, however, are we

[ Page 1599 ]

presented with legislation that dramatically alters the social structure of this province in an area such as education. When we are presented with such legislation, I am afraid that very little substantive awareness of what is taking place will be out there in the community.

[9:15]

As I predicted earlier, the consequences of this legislation will be reflected not in immediate signals and a breakdown of the educational system, not in immediate awareness that something has gone wrong, but it will leave a present generation — and unless there is a change in government, will leave future generations — of young students in this province who will be cheated of the maximum opportunity of developing all of their skills and interests to the optimal level necessary in a highly complex and rapidly changing society. This bill will prohibit immediate community response to dramatic changes that result from technology or shifting economic demand. So when we prepare the next generation of students to find its way in an increasingly competitive world, in a society that is changing so rapidly through increased communication and a media dearth of rational exchange of debate at the political level, we will have created a problem that will cost us dearly in the next 25 to 50 years. I said earlier today that there never really has been a fundamental debate in this chamber that I am aware of, over the 100 years of existence of legislatures in British Columbia, that has altered the basic philosophical commitment by other governments, whether they be Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit or NDP, towards local autonomy in education and the maximum amount of local participation through freedom expressed in democracy.

We are now shifting that. We are going to leave this chamber, when this bill is completed, emasculating any direct participation and decision-making in curricula by local taxpayers and parents through their school trustees. The direction of educational philosophy will be dictated centrally from Victoria.

I regret that not one citizen of this province who is a parent with children in school now was told prior to the election campaign that a fundamental shift would take place in the educational philosophy of this province. This has nothing to do with firing civil servants; it has nothing to do with the other bill that says that ministers can call up principals' files or police files. This is a small bill that dramatically alters the role of the school trustees in this province. As my colleague said, it is all to do with power. Psychologically speaking, we are dealing essentially with a group of frightened people who, having obtained power in this province, are too frightened to share it — too frightened to be open and above board in seeking that power and telling the people of British Columbia what they intend to do with that power once they have obtained it. Having worked their way through a massive propaganda program, paid for at the expense of the taxpayers, to get themselves elected without telling the people of British Columbia what they intended to do, they are now departing in a direction that is uncharted, unexplained and frankly inexplicable for most of the back-benchers.

It is part of the whole package, but this bill more than any other is dangerous because it cheats the future generation of this province out of a fair deal and honest and open free participation by the taxpayers in selecting what is best, in their humble opinion, at the local level for their children. After all, it is that local parent who pays the taxes anyway. As much as I have sought to find contrary to this statement, I have not yet seen one Socred bring a barrel of money over here to spend. They have always spent other people's money, and they are very good at it.

I believe they are taking away a fundamental right that we have assumed in this province belonged to the local ratepayer and local parents to determine for themselves the education they want for their children. I regret that. The thing that I regret most is that they were so dishonest about how they went about it. They never said one single peep in the election campaign, not by my word, but by their education critic, the Social Credit candidate in Burnaby. He was not told one word.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't believe everything you read in the paper.

MS. BROWN: Are you calling Gary Begin a liar?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, they are calling either the Toronto Star or Gary Begin a liar. Which one is it? Perhaps the best thing, Madam Member, would be for a calm, rational House committee to be established so that every interested citizen in this province now confronted with this change could come to a legislative committee, non-threatening....

AN HON. MEMBER: More stalls.

MR. BARRETT: More stalls? This, so far, has been one of the shortest legislative sessions in ten years. I want to point out that we went nine months without a session.

I want to point out that for the first time in the history of this province we went past the legal date for the government to spend money, and an unprecedented step was taken in the province, never before taken by any government except Social Credit, spending money illegally, without legislative authority, beyond the March 31 deadline. Are you to be trusted? Madam, through you, Mr. Speaker, it is our duty to protect the taxpayers, particularly on your record in the last year when you spent money without legislative authority. You did not call this chamber for nine months and did not tell one whit of the truth about what you intended to do should you be elected.

If Madam Member can produce evidence to me or to any other British Columbian citizen that this bill was discussed in detail during the election campaign, that she or any Social Credit candidate stood up publicly and said, "If we are elected this is the kind of legislation we will introduce," then I will withdraw my comment. Not only have they not brought that kind of evidence, but they have not even participated in the debate to defend the direction.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: As my colleague reminds me, they promised a White Paper in the first place. I assume they ran out of ink. The cynicism, the hypocrisy, the base dishonesty of a government that would seek electoral support without even stating openly what they intended to do is a measure of their own cynicism. Someday the citizens of this province will take a serious look at the debt load created by this government, at the vast expenditures, the cockamamie schemes such as the former Minister of Health had — a $20 million scheme for compulsory treatment for heroin addicts, $20 million down the tube without producing one shred of

[ Page 1600 ]

scientific evidence as to why he was going in that direction. The expenditure of tens of millions of dollars keeping the Princess Marguerite out of a run and hiring an American jetfoil with an American crew, spending taxpayers' dollars. Spending money on Whistler Mountain to save thejet set ski runs so their little rears won't get burned on the way down in the snow. While this bill is in the House and with that record of spending money that way, it betrays the commitments that are against children, against free participation by taxpayers at the local level. They will make the decisions centrally to spend $38 million on a new prison to coddle prisoners just a mile away from this town — $38 million for a new prison while schools are closing down in this province. You don't need that $38 million prison unless you are thinking of somebody's future — whose I will not suggest. I want to point out to you that when we are given these choices....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Got to have a place to live, says a member. Well that's planning ahead, Mr. Member. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings. I want to say that it is interesting.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Old rugby players have to go somewhere, yes, but on the rugby field — one thing about that — it was always open, always honest. You always knew where it was coming from. As old rugby players we knew what the code was, and it was consistent. Those rules don't apply here, my good friend. Unfortunately they don't. Lying is a measure of success here, electoral dishonesty is a measure of success, propaganda at taxpayers' expense is a measure of success — all of it to be joked about after you win the election. Yes, we lost. We didn't lose — the people of British Columbia lost.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member, sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me — especially incoherent words.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the fond attention of those members who are here, the collective IQs of about 20, which should measure on some Richter scale at about 1.5. I welcome their comments, their intelligent exchanges and their wise contribution to what should be a very serious debate. But I know that there will be no participation by any of them, particularly cabinet ministers or those whupped-in-line back-benchers, to state why they support this bill. Let us see. Thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker. I enjoyed the amiable control that the Chair had over the House this evening.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to defer because I thought the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) wanted to enter the debate. However, if he wants to speak in the debate, I wouldn't want to lose my place. I didn't know whether he was rising to speak in the debate or what he was trying to do.

Interjection.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Oh, I see. He only speaks from his seat. Well, he speaks from where his heart is.

I don't know the Minister of Forests very well. I haven't had the chance to hear him speak all that often, but he does a lot of growling and grunting and reminds me a little bit of the Tasmanian devil we used to see on the children's programs. He gets mad and angry about various things. I don't know why he does that, because I never hear him speak in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I should let you know that I have been designated as the designated speaker for this evening on this particular stage of the debate.

[9:30]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it does seem quite noisy in here. I'm having trouble hearing what the speaker is saying. Perhaps we could just quieten down a little bit.

MR. ROSE: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. I'm having trouble hearing what I'm saying as well.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You're not missing anything.

MR. ROSE: I don't know. There are probably a lot of people up there in the gallery that are anxious to hear what I am going to say; as a matter of fact, as I haven't composed this speech thoroughly, I'm rather anxious to hear what I'm going to say too. Nevertheless, even if they aren't gems of wisdom, I hope that I can contribute something to the debate. One thing I can say is that I am willing to contribute to the debate. I haven't heard very many people from the other side of the House, especially the Minister of Forests or anybody else over there, that is prepared to get up and mix in the debate. It's one of the things we lack.

I think a lot of the people in the gallery might wonder what's happening here. They're up here all poised and probably would like to see a cockfight that lasts all night. Why are we doing this? What is this nonsense about speaking all night? It seems like kind of a silly way for grown, mature people to behave.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're doing all the talking.

MR. ROSE: It's obvious that the Minister of Environment, Parks or whatever they threw into the latest grab-bag for him is certainly not doing any talking. He's sitting in his seat and heckling. That's all he's done. Even when he answers questions to the House he appears to be heckling.

I would like to briefly discuss this matter with the gallery because I think it's important that when we're dealing with Bill 6, in which there probably have been at least 22 members of this party speak on a vital issue involving the school children in every riding of this province.... Twenty-two people on this side have spoken twice and not even a dozen have spoken on the other side.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I want to say to you "not even a dozen" because I want to relate it to the dirty dozen of the bills. This

[ Page 1601 ]

is one of the bills we regard as one of the dirty dozen that we're pledged to fight. As the designated member........

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How long are you going to stall?

MR. ROSE: It isn't a case of stalling, Mr. Minister. Why don't you get up and stall? You don't want to stall because you spend most of your time horsing around. You belong in a stall.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Why the hell don't you just keep quiet and let somebody else speak here? If the Speaker won't protect me, I don't know who is going to protect me. An old friend and colleague from Dewdney in the chair — a distinguished member of this House — is going to have to do something to discipline the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) because he's spoiling the environment. He's involved in a lot of noise pollution. He should watch himself on that, although he's probably refused to fund any of the noise pollution inspectors, so he can probably get away with it.

All any opposition can do in the face of a determined majority government is to keep talking in the hope that somehow the error of their ways can be pointed out. Once a measure comes to a vote the majority side always wins. There are two main purposes for talking about and talking out legislation, and this is why we think it's worth our while. As I've said on a number of occasions, it is not our job to prevent the government from governing. That isn't our role at all. But it is certainly our job to allow time, through the only means we have.... As you know full well, Mr. Speaker, we don't control what comes before us in terms of legislation. As a matter of fact, we don't even know what's coming each day when we arrive here. We have no idea. We don't know which of the 26 or 30 bills will be called each day. It's a great lottery. We don't have time to prepare a lot of detailed responses — ones that would be considered oratorical gems. All we can do is to sit here on tenterhooks and try to determine which of the bills is likely to be called.

We've tried to discuss these bills with whatever intelligence, limited or otherwise, we can bring to bear on these particular problems and provide the public out there with the opportunity to gain some knowledge about the dangers of the government's procedures, process, aims and objectives, and, secondly, to allow the government to get the feedback from people so that they can govern in the interests of people. If we're all wrong about that, that is a political argument. That is to be answered at another or subsequent election. It could even be answered through surveys. I don't know about that. We don't make regular surveys — not that we wouldn't like to, but we can't afford to. We would like to know how things are going in various areas.

My job as designated speaker is not necessarily to make a great speech, but it certainly is to make a long one, and I intend to do that. I think it is extremely important that we have every opportunity for every member of this House to get up and make whatever contribution he or she wishes to the debate. If the contribution merely involves introducing a couple of pals from Surrey, well, that's a contribution. It's better than saying nothing. But if it's a more profound intervention, then that is extremely important.

I think we have to deal with three myths being put forward by the Minister of Education. He's an affable and nice guy — a friendly man. I don't think he's an evil man at all. As a matter of fact, I don't think he particularly believes in what he's doing. He can deny that. He can nod his head or bang it on the table, whichever way he wishes to do it. But you don't have to sin by commission; you can sin by omission. The things you do or don't do — on purpose or otherwise — can have a profound effect. If you do things through ignorance or through being impulsive or through taking orders where you should stand up and be counted, it doesn't matter — the results are the same.

One of the myths in this legislation — and I've heard it not just on the legislation but in the minister's musings throughout the province in press reports that I've read — is that bargaining will proceed as usual. There 's the first big lie. How on earth can that take place? The minister has embarked on a strategy....

I don't know what the minister is doing. I thought he was going to raise a point of order or something.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't believe in that. I'll get my turn.

MR. ROSE: Will you? That's fine. I hope the minister responds, because he didn't respond on the hoist motion. I think it's important for everybody to know that the minister is prepared to respond to the criticisms that have been levelled here. That's the whole purpose of this.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: There's the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) making a lot of racket again, but he doesn't get up and make his speech. All he does is try to heckle the people who are working in here. They're not just sitting around; they are actually working. They are up speaking, not just mumbling under their breath or fiddling around with a few pieces of paper.

The first big myth is that bargaining proceeds as usual. How can it? The minister has decreed that the total education global budget for the province will be diminished by 2 percent per year for the next three years. Are the teachers going to bargain about how little they are going to lose? Bargaining as usual. What's bargaining as usual? There used to be bargaining until you got to a place of compulsory arbitration. Who is going to be doing the bargaining? The school boards or the central.... What room have the school boards left to bargain on anything? None. If you don't like what they are doing, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, you can just send them a directive. I don't know if these are going to be public, but this party is going to insist that those be part of your annual report. We want to know what directives you are sending to the school boards, the nature of them, the extent of them and the kind of tone that they exemplify and reflect.

How on earth can you have bargaining as usual if you have a 2 percent per year global cut for the next three years? I ask the question again; what are you going to bargain? Will you bargain on working conditions? That was thrown out. Are you bargaining on safety or seniority? Bill 3 tells us there aren't any seniority provisions for anybody, so you are not going to bargain on seniority or wages — except for how much you might lose. You are not going to bargain on, perhaps, grievances. Can teachers bargain on whether or not

[ Page 1602 ]

a course that they have worked hard over the years to develop is an important course to the community? Can that be bargained, or is that going to be removed and wiped out by ministerial decree as well?

The next big myth — some people would call it a big lie, but I am not saying the minister lies....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, can we stick to the myth.

MR. ROSE: Well, sometimes a lie, Mr. Speaker, is a near myth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, what you are saying is a near myth, so we will continue with the myth.

MR. ROSE: I prefer to be a big hit, rather than a near myth. Anyway I will call it a myth, but I wasn't saying the minister lied.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, are you saying that the word "lie" cannot be used in this House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I am saying that I would prefer the use of the word "myth," and I just asked if the speaker would use that word.

MR. LEA: I understand that is what you asked, but as long as you don't attribute a lie to another member in the House, you can use the word "lie."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am well aware of that.

MR. ROSE: I thank the member for Prince Rupert, who is a real whiz and expert on the rules, for assisting me in that matter. I did take great pains to point out that I didn't say the minister lied. I didn't attribute a lie to the minister. I said that there was a large myth out there — a momentous and monumental myth — that the bargaining was going to continue as usual. Compared to what? What's left to bargain with?

A second one is that we are going to preserve school board autonomy. Myth number two.

MR. LEA: A near myth.

MR. ROSE: That may be a near myth, all right. If you issue directives which detail every nickel and dime a school board can spend on each of a thousand different topics — and if I had time I would read them all, because a school board administration is a very, very complex organization....

AN HON. MEMBER: You have time.

MR. ROSE: I know I have time, but you know I really don't want to insult or brutalize the House or try the Speaker's temper.

I know that somewhere in here there are all kinds of little boxes. These little boxes for the first time, I am told by the minister, will detail the exact nature of spending within the school board. There is some movement on that. I hear that it is somewhat possible to shift from one little box to another little box. Earlier we were a little concerned because the minister said: "Look, if there is an overspending here of a school board budget for justifiable reasons — the school bus breaks down or there is a bad winter and we need some extra heating oil — that would probably have to come out of teachers' salaries, and if teachers didn't take a cut, perhaps we would have to get rid of some teachers." Now, I don't think that many people....

[9:45]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, we could get rid of some students. We talked about that last night way on into the wee small hours, but there is no question about it that school boards are going to have way less autonomy. Now the minister will say: "Well, I've heard from a lot of secretaries-treasurer." Is that the plural of secretary-treasurer?; that's the pedantic plural. They like this arrangement. For the first time they've been able to slot these things into little boxes. They love that, because by and large secretaries-treasurer have an accountant's mentality. They like to know what they're going to be doing — and they're putting in the proper boxes — because they don't have to fend off any administrator or school board person. They can say: "Look, I've got to put this in this little box, and that's all there is." We've got these square boxes, and we can't put any round pegs in them. Now the minister is going to allow some fluidity, I understand. He tells us that's not going to be the case anymore. If the bus does break down or there's going to be a terribly cold winter and you need extra money for heating oil, perhaps he might consider this as ex cathedra or ex gratia payment. I think it's important that we have that fluidity. If we need to, maybe we could also have a local referendum to pay for the extra heating oil. Nevertheless, if you do that, and then you tell the school board, for instance, that you can only spend a certain amount of money and then you say to them, "If you don't follow our directions, you are subject to a $2,000 fine," I'd like to know where the autonomy is. That question isn't entirely rhetorical. I hope the minister will address himself to that. The school boards don't think so. They think you've stolen all their power, and they're not happy about that. Even the Socreds on the school boards are not happy about that. Anybody with any kind of decency and independence and self-reliance or any person who isn't just a doormat is going to be mad about something like that.

The Ministry of Education is the result of the local school boards, not vice versa. The local school boards built the Department of Education; the Department of Education didn't build the local school boards. Once upon a time somebody came into a district, put up some sort of shack, hired a teacher, and there was a school. Anybody familiar with the history of education in North America.... I know it's not absolutely congruent in Canada with that of the United States. We didn't have the same tendency to hire our own people. We usually sent to Scotland for some, and that's where we got people like Ryerson. As a matter of fact, we even have summer holidays because it coincided with the Scottish oat harvest, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that schools did develop autonomously. They ran their own affairs. They had their own school boards: 50 or 60 little school boards. Under the Cameron report, over the years they gradually amalgamated into larger ones. They were autonomous bodies.

It's absolutely ridiculous that one level of government can determine the nature and activities of another level of government. I know that this level of government in the province would not sit still for one minute if the feds came in and told

[ Page 1603 ]

you what you were supposed to do and told you that if you didn't do it you were going to be fined $2,000 and forced to spend next winter studying French or something like that. As a matter of fact, I was thinking that maybe we need a B.C. constitution. Maybe the School Act could act as the constitution. If we had a B.C. constitution it could have a charter of rights in it which would enshrine for all time — amendable, of course; maybe with a few "notwithstanding" clauses, so you could wiggle out of it after you joined it.... Maybe we could have something like that. I was thinking of a B.C. constitution, with a charter of rights for school boards and municipalities. That would prevent undue incursions into the legal, reasonable and proper powers of these autonomous.... I don't even put school boards into the same class as municipalities, because they tend to be creatures of the provincial government; historically I don't believe they are.

I think it would be a wonderful idea if we had a constitution. Then we could go to court. If the Minister of Education trotted in with a bill like this, which is the school board abolition bill, then the boards could go to court. I think they'll go to court over that $2,000 anyway. Guilt by association. Can you imagine, if I were on a school board and voted to follow the minister's directive, the minister's orders that came down from on high, delivered by helicopter over the school districts, and the board were all maverick Socreds, and here I was sitting as a meek little NDPer and decided that, yes, I am going to follow the directive, and the board decided to pay the superintendent $95,000 but the director said he could only have $75,000, because that was the rule for that size district with that number of classrooms and that amount of floor space? If I voted against the majority of the board, would I then still be liable for a $2,000 fine? So much for myth number two: school board autonomy — a big, fat myth.

The next one I'd like to talk about is the myth of productivity. We're going out there, folks, and we're sure going to get productivity out of those old school teachers and the kids too. The minister was asked what that means after he made a speech somewhere. I think it was down in Richmond or in Vancouver at a little....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, up or down, it doesn't matter. Sideways. Wherever he went. He might have been flying around in circles, for all I know.

Anyway he spoke recently and he was questioned following it. I have the reference here. I just have a few notes here because I only expected a five-minute speech tonight and I thought I might run out of material. He was asked what he meant by productivity. He couldn't define it. He hasn't gotten closer since. I hope that when he comes up here tonight at 4 o'clock in the morning, when I've finished my five-minute speech, that he will have some inkling and will let us into the deep and dark recesses of his mind so that we will know what he means by productivity.

Productivity could be defined in a number of ways. I think that's fair to say. Productivity could be determined by the number of kids taught by a teacher. You could go from individualized instruction, which is the ideal — the tutorial system, the one-teach-one system where you went to see your tutor and, as Stephen Leacock once described his experiences in Oxford, the tutor smoked at him and when he smoked at him somehow he ingested a lot of information.... What we've tried to do in the educational system over the years is to try to make the classroom as little as possible like a factory where we're cranking out widgets, but as much as possible like the tutorial system and individualized instruction. We know that everyone learns at his own individual rate. Everyone has his own unique set of talents, and while he will learn some things rapidly, he will probably not learn others quite as rapidly. This theory has some holes in it, and I don't think it's a complete theory, but it's worthwhile.

The other concept is to have a large class and have one teacher teach all of those people. I suppose the ludicrous extreme with that would be to have one teacher at a microphone or a large screen over television going to thousands — or put them in the new stadium, that'd be a good place. The fact is that I think it's educationally defensible to say that some things can be taught en masse. Other things, other people, other talents and other needs require specialized, individual attention.

But I'm a little concerned about how productivity sounds really great out in the general public and, as people are wont to say, among the great unwashed. If anybody stops to think about it: "Yes, I think productivity's a very good idea." I'm in favour of it myself, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not sure I know what it means. I know what it means in terms of stamping out widgets or lawyers, but I'm not sure what it means in terms of education. Does it mean one teacher or a group of teachers teaches a larger number of students, or does it mean that one teacher is able to enhance a larger amount of learning among an individual or a mass? Once I had in mind what the minister had in mind in defining productivity, then I think I could handle and grapple with that very complex question a little more capably, because I'm certainly swarming around in the dark.

So let me summarize the myths. In some of his public utterances the minister has uttered the following: "There will be bargaining as usual." That's myth one. "School board autonomy will not be threatened." That's myth two. And finally, "Productivity in the new system of education will be enhanced." What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that there will not be and there cannot be bargaining as usual because this new bill changes all the rules. School board autonomy, if not absolutely murdered, is certainly extremely ravished due to the centralizing approach of the minister. It's an interesting thing, too, just as an aside, that the people who shout "let's get big government off the backs of the people" are the very ones in this whole package of legislation here that are not decentralizing. They're not going to smaller units; they're going to centralize the power in the Kremlin. We're going to have several czars: the czar of education, the czar of tourism and the czar of health. There he is. I think that if that is not a contradictory position, it certainly appears to be inconsistent with the kinds of sounds they make about decentralization and getting big government off the backs of the people.

I don't think that the public out there really comprehends any particular threat. I don't think this is a big seller. I think you'll get away with it for a while, Mr. Minister. Some people are going to be affected and concerned. But I think it's going to be incremental. I think there will be an erosion of the school offerings. It's fashionable to say: "We'll cut our offerings to suit the cloth. We only have so much money, and our priorities are that we not spend it lavishly, not throw it away on kids or education." In spite of the fact that education is so deeply embedded, I think it's true that probably most people don't like schools and some of them are not very fond

[ Page 1604 ]

of schoolteachers, but they sure want something better for the kids than they had. If you disturb a school system you disturb a Canadian dream.

Like the minister was, I am one step up from the lunch pail — the first member of my generation who had a university degree. I think a lot of people want that for their own children. I think it is a reasonable objective or dream for a family to have. I think it's well known in most instances, even today, that if you have an education you have a greater opportunity of being employed, because skilled jobs aren't there anymore. I cited a set of statistics the other night: a month or two ago the unemployment among youths under 24 or 25 was around 24 percent in British Columbia. One out of every four young people is unemployed. Many of them are going to be permanently unemployed, and that has all kinds of implications for the schools, but I don't want to get into that at the moment. What I want to get into is that of those under-25-year-olds who had post-secondary education, only 8 percent were unemployed.

[10:00]

It's a legitimate kind of dream that people have for their children, as your parents had for you — and I'm sure they're very proud of you, as I'm sure mine are of me. But if you take that opportunity away from people you do it at your peril. You do them a disservice, and if it is not a traitor's act, it is a grudging kind of offering that is given. It's like telling the citizens of British Columbia who have the tremendous dream that we are going to go ahead that you can't afford their dreams anymore. And that is shattering. It's not only to those people who've gone in to become teachers either, because some of their dreams are shattered — about 5,000 shattered dreams because you changed the rules, Mr. Speaker.

This bill, along with others in the package, destroys the morale of the people. It destroys their hopes and dreams. I'm not the only one to recognize that. I'm not going to talk about tenure. There's all kinds of stuff associated with tenure and Bill 3. Now we have tenure and now we don't. I don't know what people understand about tenure anyway. All I know is that before I got it I had to work six years, and in order to attract people to this province as educators you're going to have to give them some tenure. Is this going to be the only burg in the whole North America, the Alabama of Canada, that you can't have that sort of security to attract able people? But I'm not going to get into tenure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good. You know a loser when you see one.

MR. ROSE: Would Hansard like to have that remark recorded? If you need it repeated I'm quite sure that this sensitive and honourable gentleman would be glad to repeat that remark to you.

I think one of the things that trouble us a lot is the fact that we're concerned about British Columbia. When morale is bad, people rally in the streets or sit in some sort of "sit-in" in terms of protest — and there are all kinds of legitimate forms of protest. What I'm doing right now is one of them. I protest what you're doing to the educational system in this province because of Bill 6. I think protest in a democratic society is a legitimate thing. It's not something to be scorned, because if we didn't have protest we wouldn't have a democratic society in the first place. We should always remember that. There are certain accepted ways to protest in our culture and there are ways that aren't accepted. And those things change over the years. I've seen a great change in them. I never saw anybody walking around with a picket sign on their back when I was a kid — not in my small town, which is the minister's small town as well. If we hadn't had people prepared to do that we wouldn't have had the advances that we have today. There is no question about that.

What I'm concerned about is that we have people whose morale is shot, who are upset about this, that and the other thing or they're afraid of losing their jobs or they're going to be whipped and pushed back in terms of their income, if they're lucky enough to have a job. They're not going to have any protection for where they live in terms of their own rents. Even the Minister of Land, Parks and Housing's (Hon. Mr. Brummet) own reports indicate that rents are going to go up alarmingly and people are going to be pushed out on the streets. Sure, there are all kinds of vacancies in high-priced buildings. I don't want to get into that bill, Mr. Speaker. I'm just using this as an example of how people do get upset about things from time to time, and legitimately so. But if they're upset and there are likely to be rallies and there are likely to be problems in the streets or sit-ins here or there, or job action in some other place, it's not going to be the most stable kind of atmosphere for people to invest or to create jobs to bring us out of this kind of economic doldrums we're presently in.

[Mr. Michael in the chair.]

I don't think there is any point in the Minister of Education going to the mat with teachers, any more than there is the Premier or the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) going to the mat with working people. It doesn't help anybody. It creates a kind of social chaos or social instability that makes investors nervous. I know that investors are not nervous in Korea, because you don't have any trade unions or anybody to cause you any trouble in Korea. I was really impressed by a July 20 column by Mike Tytherleigh. He's not always my favourite author, but he's talking about a possible showdown, about a Mexican standoff between, say, the trade union movement or Solidarity coalition and the government. What he says here is that the government really has all the aces in any game played with working people. They have all the aces. He says: "The Premier has undisputed legislative power." I agree with that, Mr. Speaker; we see that here tonight. He says: "He has the backing of those opposed to organized labour and the Kinnairds of the past and the Fryers of today" — speaking of John Fryer as former head of the BCGEU. "Although reasonable people are shocked by the wholesale dismissals in the civil service, Bennett knows there are many jobless in the private sector who have little sympathy for teachers, doctors and social workers." If people are unemployed and they have little sympathy with teachers, doctors and social workers, and even if they are employed and they don't like teachers, doctors and social workers because they feel that their snouts are too far into the public trough, is that any justification for a government going out and picking on them? I don't think that's the way to achieve stability in our society. That's why I'm concerned about the particular climate at the moment in British Columbia. I'm concerned about that part of it because I think that — as Tytherleigh has said: "When the fragile economic recovery needs labor-management cooperation, Bennett appears to be turning the clock back to the late sixties and early seventies when the labour scene was chaotic." He goes on to say that Don Munro, former head of the Labour Relations Board,

[ Page 1605 ]

reminded the industrial management association of B.C. about that chaos in a keynote speech in '79. Here is Rose quoting Tytherleigh quoting Don Munro, former head of the Labour Relations Board: "There existed a bitterness between many employers and trade unions certified to represent employees. Wildcat strikes by those employees were becoming an almost daily part of life, police involvement in labour relations disputes was not uncommon, a few people were jailed, and there was often violence on the picket lines and even a few deaths."

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I already told him I was designated. We have a retreaded Speaker, so he didn't hear. A recycled Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. ROSE: A replacement.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: A surrogate Speaker? I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that you didn't realize that I was here as a designated hitter. The people across the hall are designated listeners.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I just did discuss it earlier this evening, at the beginning of my speech. Not to break the trend of my thought, I was speaking about how, in a period in the sixties and seventies before we had.... Really what it amounted to in British Columbia, regardless of which party was in power, including the Social Credit, was that we had a social contract. There was very little labour unrest here for about ten years — relatively little compared to many countries. Of course, you could ban strikes altogether, as they have done in Australia, but there are more strikes down there than there are here. The only difference is that those down there tend to be the wildcat variety and here they tend to be the more legitimized, organized and have the support of their own unions. I don't need to remind members of the House what lengthy steps have to be taken before any kind of job action is even contemplated.

Tytherleigh concludes: "Today Fryer has the deck stacked against him in the battle with Bennett, but the danger is that the public will lose the war." I think that members on both sides of the House would agree with that. Similarly, Mr. Minister, if you proceed on a careless course that causes trouble in the schools — the collapse of morale and casualties among the teachers and students — then the public loses the war. You and I come and go here. Some people come and go faster than others. But the legacy of an inadequate education system will last for a generation or more, and we shouldn't forget that.

I'm quoting again for Hansard: "If the battle cannot be resolved by some diplomatic effort, then we can expect to return to the poor industrial relations of the past." He concludes with a statement of some considerable wisdom: "That is not the climate for economic recovery or competing with the world for dollars of tourists and investors." How do we avoid that kind of thing? Back off? Have no change? Do nothing? I don't think that's acceptable to anybody. Sometimes, as somebody else said in the debate last night, it's not always necessary to grind out legislation to have reasonable, good and competent government. It's only when you want to do something.

If it's not broken, why fix it? What is broken? You might better leave it alone. So if you have labour unrest, you have economic instability. If you have up to 25 percent of the civil service and over 5,000 school teachers concerned, are they going to have the confidence? Even if they are employed are they going to have the confidence to spend money to have an economic recovery led by the consumers? I think the answer to that is obviously no.

Look at the people who attended the PNE this year. Why is it down 20 percent in good weather? Because they haven't got the money for that sort of thing. Look at the number of people who haven't been going to the Whitecaps games. They can't go to everything.

AN HON. MEMBER: They got defeated.

MR. ROSE: Well, I know that they can't go anymore. Maybe that's the reason. They didn't go in Montreal and they're winning. Nobody is at those games either.

All I'm saying is that if people don't have the confidence that they're going to have a job, they're going to squirrel the money away. They're not going to spend it. Unless they spend it, how is that going to help the businessman? It isn't. So any kind of manner by which you can increase the security of people — not to make them fat, sassy, lazy and layabouts but provide them with a reasonable kind of security so they can operate without fear — I think is going to be helpful, not only psychologically but economically.

This bill is anti-education, anti-pupil, anti-board and anti-teacher. I've spoken a little bit about the interference with previously autonomous boards. I don't think I need to repeat much of that, unless, of course, I run out of other things to say. Probably the greatest concern expressed by the board....

I understand that deputy ministers are not necessarily going to be under the control of the ministers anymore. I don't know if that's true or if it's just an assertion. But if the minister doesn't have the power to control his own deputy minister, and the deputy minister has the power to make independent decisions and can report directly to the Premier, I don't know what the minister's role is. Certainly it will weaken the minister's power as it has with principals and vice-principals.

[10:15]

I'm not speaking now of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker, but of Bill 3. Even in the most affluent areas if a particular district wishes to buy or hire a particularly capable superintendent, and the going rate for those people happens to be higher than what the minister sets under the compensation commission of Bill 3, the local people will be told they can't hire that person. Similarly the local people will be told they can't have that course, or they can't offer that kind of space. That's a retrograde step and is part of that whole autonomy thing.

There have been some pretty strong things written about centralization and the way that this government has proceeded. I don't like to use the term "fascist" and I've said that in here before. I don't even like it if the shoe happens to fit. By the way, I looked in Beauchesne and it's not considered unparliamentary; "Nazi" is, but "fascist" is not. I

[ Page 1606 ]

won't be hurling any of those things across the floor, but I think we should all be aware that some people consider the direction of this government to be to the far right and not the democratic right. It's going beyond the democratic right, and I think they believe that with some degree of sincerity.

Rainer Ziegenhagen, who I guess should know what he is talking about considering where he was born, talks about jackboot politics, and he was writing for the Central Okanagan Capital News, which is a publication in Kelowna. He is talking about the $2,000 fines, the centralization and all the rest of it. I am not going to read it all, but I'll read part of it:

"Before this is all finished, doctors and teachers won't be the only ones who will be told where to live and how to practise their profession. The guns are aimed at all of us. Their legislation isn't aimed at curbing union power. It is going to hit us all. Look at what has happened already."

"School trustees, you are now redundant."

The minister may assure us that Mr. Ziegenhagen is wrong, but he has the right to say it and this is his opinion.

"Renters, on October I you will have no more rights. Minorities, you have been told you had best leave. B.C. will no longer offer you any kind of protection."

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You're wrong.

MR. ROSE: This is his opinion, not mine particularly, but I share that opinion. I think that if the federal government and the Minister of Justice for all of Canada is so upset about the possibilities of the destruction of human rights in British Columbia as to fund a group of people to protect those rights and to make public statements concerning the loss of those rights and the human rights commission.... In spite of the fact that I am not a Liberal, Mr. MacGuigan, a former dean of law — I think of Waterloo or York University — is certainly not bereft of intelligence. He is concerned about it, and his record isn't remarkable in terms of the civil libertarian, but he has certainly got a fine legal mind. If he has been the dean of law and the Minister of Justice, he can't be the village idiot. He is concerned about this....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: He is wrong.

MR. ROSE: Don't just say from your seat as the Minister of Tourism sitting on your portfolio that he is wrong. He may not be wrong and there is a good chance that he may be right. He goes on to say: "Teachers, you may want to say the Lord's Prayer more than just in the mornings. Employees, you are now eligible for instant dismissal for no reason, without recourse to the courts." Now I know there is an amendment put forth to change that, but that's shot full of holes too. That is just a euphemism. I wish they hadn't even put it there, because I think it is just going to lull some people to sleep.

Anyway, I am talking about Bill 3 and I realize I have strayed a little bit off that path.

The article continues:

"You who are poor, or are ill, and you who are aged, they have decided that you contribute so precious little to the B.C. spirit that they'd be better off without you. You were part of the problem. But the bootboys have the solution. Have you heard the argument that we really shouldn't complain because this is exactly what we voted for May 5 and now we are getting what we wanted?"

I will leave out the next sentence because he goes into some questionable words.

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

So a lot of people are really concerned about this. They are concerned about the growth of centralization and the destruction of autonomy. They are also concerned about the fact regarding one item I mentioned earlier. I think it is unacceptable for one level of government to assert its authority over the other level of government when the other level of government previously was autonomous. That is a central portion in Bill 3. I am not the only one who feels that way. As a matter of fact, it is doubtful whether this would even be legally acceptable, but there are a number of other people in the hall who are lawyers. I think it will be tested in the courts. Certainly if I were fined as a member of a board and this government came along and issued a directive and wanted to fine me for the fact that I made a decision contrary to one of the minister's directives, I would fight him in the courts.

"No matter how pretty a face you put on it," says Linda Hossie on page 5 of the Sun, July 20, "it is a travesty of democracy to permit a law that allows one level of government to authorize fines for members of another democratically elected level of government for voting according to their consciences or the wishes of their electorate." That is not going to happen any more with the college boards, because they are all going to be appointed and they will be well trained. They will be good people, people who are well motivated, but they are not going to be the people who will cause any opposition. They are not going to be the people who will cause any kind of trouble whatever. They're going to be people who are well trained, probably pals of the minister, or at least pals of the Social Credit government. That's the way it's going to be, and that's the way the government wants it. Anything which has to do with advocacy, whether you're talking about renters' rights or human rights — I'm surprised they haven't removed the ombudsman — college boards or anything like that is going to be slaughtered. That's the way they're proceeding. That's the game plan, and that's good, because if you take away all your critics then you don't have much to worry about.

I mentioned that there is a federal interest in here. Certainly people who are interested federally in the multicultural aspect are concerned about people's rights. If they're members of the visible minorities, they're concerned about that. There are also people who are concerned about the tack on the economy, the tack on civil rights and the tack on justice, as I've just mentioned. They're concerned with the fact that not even Reagan would operate to remove human rights. Of course, it's much more deeply ingrained constitutionally in the United States than it is in Canada.

An assault on human rights is not something that gets our people all that upset. I think all of us can recall — it was certainly within my lifetime — that Orientals even had the right to vote, so they're certainly not going to make any particular fuss about this. It's only those people who don't have any rights who really need them. It's not the people who are even hurt. The Orientals, the East Indians, the people who are visible minorities in our society are the ones who feel the brunt of bigotry. I've never been a minority, so I can't

[ Page 1607 ]

possibly have felt that way. But half the students in my class when I was in elementary school were Japanese, and I know how they were treated. They were treated that way with the support of the vast majority of the public, and they'd do it again if they had the chance and there were a particular issue. That's why I'm really concerned about this business up in Keremeos against the other one of our founding races, the French Canadians, who had all the trouble up there. It is easy to hate people if they're different and they're non-persons. If you take this protection away from them, then we have a far less civilized society and a more beastly society.

I'm concerned that we've become, as I said earlier, celebrated not only throughout Canada but throughout the world. We've had telegrams on these pieces of legislation from New Zealand, Australia and Japan. They're all concerned about the issues that are part and parcel of this putrid package. The federal government has been asked by the Canadian Association of University Teachers to move in and axe some of these bills. We are certainly celebrated over this. It is interesting too....

Oh, he's gone again. He was here and now he's gone. I guess I drove the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) out.

MR. REYNOLDS: He'll be back.

MR. ROSE: He might be back. If everyone goes we'll call a quorum and then we'll make them all come back. I think they deserve to listen to me. That could be their punishment — a fate worse than death! It's important — to me anyway — to say what I have to say.

When we are dealing with the school boards, we're going to take their autonomy away. When we're talking about planning, we're going to give it back to the municipalities, who, in terms of regional planning, have no capacity for it. They are involved in a large urban mass, whereas Bill 6 deals with school districts and they are in municipalities for a special purpose. In my one school district which I represent provincially....

AN HON. MEMBER: I've got two.

MR. ROSE: You have two. But how many municipalities do you have? About four or five?

What I'm saying is that school districts already go and do their planning over municipal boundaries. The same thing that is accomplished for school districts is now going to be eroded under Bill 9, and those planning powers taken away from municipalities to make sense of the urban mass and tangle.

I know we're not discussing Bill 9, but I'm trying to draw the thread, Mr. Speaker, between the distinction and difference in the government's attitude of autonomy for municipalities, in terms of planning, on the one hand — where I don't think it applies and shouldn't do so — and in the case of school districts where they want to take that away. I think that's a contradiction, and I don't think it is particularly bright or acceptable.

I understand that we have a celebrated education critic in the person of one Crawford Kilian. Someone suggested that he was once a school board member somewhere on the North Shore. Someone also said that he took a trip to Red China at one time, so that must be a putdown. I suppose Nixon would be put down on the same count. He goes on to support the contention that I've attempted to make, saying that school boards have really been stripped of all their powers. As I said earlier, I feel sorry for the minister. I don't think he wants to be Jack the Ripper; I don't think he can defend the indefensible; I think he's really caught up in this whole thing. He's on a roller-coaster, and there isn't anything we can do about it. Mr. Kilian had this to say in the Province, July 18, shortly after these bills were tabled:

"School boards are now so degraded that they have no real reason to exist except to draw fire away from the ministry and the cabinet. Trustees will earn their $4,000 a year by doing the bidding of a new group of satraps called budget information officers, ministry officials who will give each district its orders.

"Those satraps will answer to Deputy Minister of Education Jim Carter, whose power is now virtually total. Under Bill 3, the Public Service Restraint Act, Carter as deputy minister 'may exercise'" — and here's the crucial quote, taken from the act — "'all of the powers of the government under this act.' That means setting budgets, decreeing salaries and defining jobs.

"You never voted for Jim Carter, but he's now running your schools."

I was hoping to meet Mr. Carter this afternoon but had to cancel the appointment because of the fact that we had this very important and weighty matter before us.

"No matter how nice a guy he may be, or how wise, he's not accountable to you. It's not even clear whether Carter answers to his minister, Jack Heinrich, or only to Premier Bill Bennett."

We really don't know about the minister; we don't know whether he is the organ-grinder or the monkey. It will take a while to find that out. All I know is that when he was appointed, following the celebrated Member for Surrey, Mr. Bill Vander Zalm, he was greeted with open enthusiasm by the teaching profession and the trustees. He had a lot of expectations. I don't know that those expectations are still there among those who are his clients and constituents in the school district, but he certainly started out with a great deal of good wishes.

[10:30]

Mr. Kilian goes on to say:

"Senior administrators in our schools have been pretty well paid in recent years — better paid sometimes than the deputy minister and his assistants. Now a rigid formula will define the worth of every school administrator. Whether your school superintendent is a genius or a dolt, he or she will be paid on the basis of school district population. That's right, so many dollars per head, regardless of ability."

And regardless of the interest or affluence of the district. If the district wants a particular talent, it can no longer have it, because it won't be able to pay the money to attract that particular talent.

I'll go on a little bit, but not very long, with this particular quote:

"Heinrich tried to defend this seizure of budget power when he met last week with educators. He invoked a hypothetical school board that might cut special education for handicapped children unless Victoria stepped in. It was a striking argument, since

[ Page 1608 ]

his own budget for special education next year will be 12.3 percent below this year's."

So he's going to cut special education, while he goes to the trustees and tells them how much more he's going to do for special education. Why have you cut special education, Mr. Minister? You've mainstreamed them all, so there isn't the need for special classes anymore. The costs are going to be higher in some ways; busing certainly is, because they closed down one of the two special education schools in my riding. Anyway, he's going to do things for special education, while he cuts 12.3 percent over last year. That's how much he's doing for special education. The handicapped are going to be even more severely handicapped.

The article goes on:

"These developments raise an ethical dilemma for all educators and parents in B.C. Do we stay and fight it out, and try to protect our children and their teachers as much as we can? Or do we get out? Do we hand over what's left of the school boards to Socred stooges? Do we abandon our colleagues and our students? Do we try to find an adequate private school for our kids?"

This party believes that we should have the best possible public education. This is not Alabama or some place in El Salvador; this is a very affluent part of the world. If we can't afford a decent public education for everybody's child, then there's something wrong with our priorities. The fact is that we can afford it. Of course, if we make schools so unattractive, for whatever reason, that we drive people into private schools or into independent schools, that's going to further weaken the public system, because they won't be handling the handicapped kids. Those people going to Crofton House and York House.... They'll argue that perhaps we should have an even greater tax break from the public system. Could you use the same argument? They're not using the public system, so why should they pay? I know the average person can't. Why not use that argument about sending my daughter to a fancy Swiss finishing school? If I send her there, would it then be logical for me to expect the taxpayers to pick that up? After all, I wasn't using the local school. That's the same argument, isn't it? It's a ludicrous argument.

We set up that strawman, sent him crashing down to the boards with that. Not only me, but a lot of other people have been very concerned about it. Mr. Kilian says: "Only a Socred stooge would accept to be a trustee today." I'm not sure that's true. I think that there are going to be people who are other than stooges running for school board. I'm suggesting that they are going to stay and fight. They are going to fight this legislation through their organization, unless it's abolished because the ministry won't allow them to spend any money on the B.C. School Trustees' Association and its membership.

Another thing that I want to talk about is changing the rules of the game as far as young people are concerned. I'm going to give some examples of this, because I've got some examples here. I probably won't get to it immediately, but I intend to give.... It really doesn't matter, I suppose, whether it's in the order I intended or out of order. If I can find it, I will.

I received some very touching letters from people. There is a real dilemma, I think. Is it the government's responsibility to employ every professional trained in every profession? That is an interesting philosophical question. I've heard a very highly placed politician, who sits in the front row — I won't mention his name because I don't want to, but his initials are B.B.... I wouldn't want to reveal his name, but he said to me — and I don't think it was in confidence: "It's not my obligation to see that every plumber in the province is employed." So does it follow that every school teacher who prepares and qualifies himself or herself to be employed in our schools will be employed? That's an interesting question — a very interesting question.

I think there was a time when we went begging all over North America for school teachers: "Come to British Columbia. This is a tremendous place. We need you. We've got all kinds of growth going on here. We think you're wonderful. Come and live with us." That's what we said to them. I also recall a time when we said: "Look, things are tough all over. We can't get school teachers, so you'd better take 40 and 50 in your class. That's your class load because, after all, we can't do any more. We've got shifts and everything, and you've got to take more kids."

Now, in a time when we could have smaller classes, when it would be educationally desirable, we are saying: "No, we should load it up because we can't afford smaller classes — as educationally desirable as they are — any more." But the question is: should we? I think the answer is no, you don't have an obligation to employ everyone. But you have an obligation to tell people, over the years, that the demand for that kind of service is not going to be shut off like a faucet, but is going to be toned down, so that they have some other decisions that could be made before they invest four or five expensive years in that kind of training.

AN HON. MEMBER: Enrolment's going up.

MR. ROSE: Of course it's going up. Enrolment is going up everywhere, including the junior colleges, in spite of the fact you are cutting back courses. Enrolment is going up because kids can't get any work, and because they can't get any work, they say: "What the hell. If I can't get any work anyway, I should go back to school and prepare myself, and maybe then I'll be qualified for a particular job." I think there is an obligation for people to do some advanced manpower planning so we know whether or not we are going to have places for people and so they are not employing themselves to operate left-handed monkey wrenches when no left-handed monkey wrench operators happen to be around. We've stolen and imported skills from all over the world, like we've done with our money. We Canadians have been the biggest scavengers, in terms of skills, of any nation in the world. We haven't done our own training. It's only in the last ten years that we've even had community colleges. So you don't know anything about that side.

Here is a statement that says: "Prospects Hopeless for Unemployed Teachers." They go through some things here. I'm not going to quote from this, because it's another newspaper article. This insensitivity, where we don't feel as a government that we should do anything about the unemployed, or where we try to tie everything to the private sector, is absolutely ludicrous, in my mind. You want small government? The Bennett government had small government in the thirties. There certainly was no government on the backs of the people then. There were a hell of a lot of people unemployed and suffering. So the fact that you think that the private sector is going to provide that kind of engine for recovery is just absolute lunacy. It won't wash. It's not going to wash. It hasn't washed anywhere in the world.

[ Page 1609 ]

MR. COCKE: And it never will.

MR. ROSE: It probably never will.

I think we have a right to tell teachers or anybody else preparing for a profession what the odds are of getting a job. That's what I think.

"Mr. Rose:

"I'm a teacher. I've been working at the profession for ten years. My wife has been doing the same for eight. What is going on? I am truly worried whether we'll ever get a chance to have any kind of permanent employment, the kind of security that the system requires to get a mortgage for a house.

"I am not going to attempt to explain my understanding of the reasons for this. However, I know that you have the responsibility to speak up for us."

That's a pretty sad situation. Here is a person — I was talking about this earlier, when we were talking about a consumer-led recovery — that is not going to go out and buy a house. He's not going to employ a carpenter. He's not going to buy anything from the Bennett hardware store. He's not going to buy any fridges from eastern Canada or automobiles from Japan. He's not going to be able to do that, because he hasn't got any security.

Is that the former Speaker of the House?

MR. COCKE: That's the new Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder).

MR. ROSE: Is he the Minister of Agriculture? I'll talk to him later. But right now I don't want him muttering in his beard and distracting me, because I'm moving right along and coming to the climax of my speech....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSE: I didn't say it was the end; I said I was getting to the better parts of it.

I've got to keep this confidential. I haven't got permission to read it, so I'm not going to use the words here. I'll read part of it. This woman says:

"I'm sending along this resume. I want to tell you a little bit about my husband and our family. My husband" — we'll call him George — "started going to university two weeks after we were married in 1970. For two years we both went to school — George to be a teacher and me a nurse. One year after I graduated our first child was born, and I had five children in the next six years. I was not able to work full-time but have always worked casual and part time, because of the necessity.

"George continued to go to university, working towards his goal of becoming a teacher. When I was unable to work because of advanced pregnancy, he would take the terms off and take night school courses at whatever he could get to support us.

"In 1980 he took one complete year at UBC to finish his degree. We lived in Port Moody and he took the bus for four hours every day for his finals. You will never know what hardships our family went through to achieve our goal or how much we rejoiced at its accomplishment. 'Now we can start saving for a home of our own and not have to worry about every penny we spend.' But that turned out not to be the case.

"For two years George had a permanent part-time position teaching English and half a French immersion class. He took many, many extracurricular courses to make himself a better teacher. Letters of recommendation, including a resume, will show you that he's a good teacher. The money wasn't very much. He only made $700 a month, but we consoled ourselves with the thought that next year he would have a full-time teacher's job. Next year he lost his job completely."

It's a tragic case. Here's a family with five children. They spent a lot of time with great personal sacrifice because he thought the community wanted his skills. We find out now that we don't need them any more because we're going to have larger classes. He won't be buying a house either. We don't know what's going to happen to his kids. They're not going to starve to death, but he's certainly not going to be able to live and make the kind of plans that he thought he would be able to make and had every right to make.

From World War II on, Mr. Speaker, it's been a party. Maybe the party is over. Some of us are old enough that we could adjust to that, but some of us don't have to; some of the younger people have never learned to adjust to that. Their situation is tragic. I read two examples of what are very sad, if not tragic, cases. You could multiply them by a thousand, and you don't have to stick to teaching. You can go into everybody's dashed hopes in our society.

The answer isn’t centralization; we don't solve anything by centralization. People have asked me: "What do the trustees want? We've heard a lot about the teachers, but what are the trustees after? They must be after something." You know, in the past anyway, they were considered to be if not allies at least sympathetic to the Social Credit government. I don't know that they're not any more, but I know that the trustees are very concerned about this legislation for some of the reasons that I've mentioned.

[10:45]

When they made their brief to the various caucuses last July, they made the following points. They share with the government the concern about deficits. If you look at their study on taxation, you will find that school costs haven't gone up as fast as property taxes; as a matter of fact, school costs haven't gone up as fast as the costs of the provincial government. Anyway, they're going to be scapegoated. They say they share this concern; when they say that, I agree with them. They can prove their case. They think the recent moves are going to be not less costly but more costly. They think that what is going to happen here is that there are going to be increased costs arising from a number of things which their brief has discussed.

They say that there are going to be increased costs because of "increased legal costs." They expect increased costs resulting from various kinds of court decisions which could result from accidents in a school or some particular action taken on behalf of a parent for whatever reason. That should be good news to you, Mr. Speaker, because anything that increases court costs or lawyers' fees is always helpful, especially if you're in that business. One man's bad news is sometimes another man's good news.

They said that an increased number of administrators will be needed in some school districts. We've pointed out in this little document that it's going to be pretty inflexible in terms

[ Page 1610 ]

of administration henceforth. I talked about the little boxes for maintenance and busing and various kinds of things that go to make up the very complex thing called a school district budget. They think that could be a result.

They also talk about "diseconomics of scale." They say that bigger isn't necessarily cheaper. I think you can come to a point of no return or of limited return on those things. If I have time this evening, I can quote some studies to indicate, not in schools but in other areas of endeavour — business — that being too large causes diseconomies of scale. There are a number of studies that prove that.

What do they mean when they point out in their brief that there are incentives to keep the salaries of teachers high? They mean that the budgets are going to be based on the average teacher's salaries in the past year. If your school is populated with a lot of high-priced, top-of-the-scale teachers, then obviously your averages, and therefore your budget, are going to be higher. If the board is encouraged, in order to achieve an adequate budget, to keep teachers at the high end of the scale, instead of hiring new teachers when the other teachers would perhaps enjoy being retired early, that's going to increase costs. So that's the explanation for that point that they make. Point (b) under item 2 says about the increased costs: "a disincentive to reduce average teachers' salaries by early retirement;" and point (c) says: "a disincentive for teachers to use the collective bargaining process to preserve jobs by reducing salaries."

They're talking about a choice that was available to teachers last year but that has gone by the board, as far as I can see. Last year teachers were urged: "If you want to keep your salaries...." It was what would be called in some places a social contract: "if you limit your demands, you will keep your jobs," and most teachers felt that was a fair deal. Now if they can't do that, then why would they ever entertain such a notion if their jobs aren't protected? Last year we only lost 2,000 teachers; this year it's predicted that we'll lose 4,000 teachers. So what teacher in his right mind is going to accept a cut for the good of his colleagues if it's not going to preserve his job anyway? All he's getting is a salary cut and no job protection, so the trustees point that out too.

Then they talk about the increased costs of plant operation resulting from "disincentives to reduce fixed costs." Why should they? Fixed costs and floor space add to their budget, so why should they reduce them? "Disincentives to use plants as sources of revenue" — I know that the former critic of education made a great speech three years ago, he told us today, on community joint-use of those facilities, which can bring in rentals. If that is really to no advantage to a school board, then why would they do it? Because it's just more mud on the floor as far as most janitors and custodians are concerned.

Finally, there is "lack of incentives for energy-efficient investments." Why would they do that unless...? There's a great use of double-glazing and simple solar. We've got many federal programs — the off-oil programs and the CHIP programs — all designed to reduce our dependence not only on gasoline and motor fuel, but also on heating oil. If we don't have incentives built into our school and budgeting systems to use that.... There have been some tremendous advances in that very thing. A school board in New Brunswick — I've forgotten the name of the town, but it's just out of Fredericton — have cut their costs in that very harsh climate by about two-thirds by double-glazing, weatherstripping and all the rest of it.

The boards say in their brief, not only to the minister but also to the two caucuses, that there will be disincentives. Centralization is not going to reduce costs, because bigger is not necessarily going to be cheaper; it's going to cost more money.

Naturally the boards are also concerned about the loss of their interest in the community colleges. There was an indirect election of school board members as board members of community colleges, and that's going to be gone now. The trustees, in their representations to us, have been very unhappy about that provision. They fought it and continue to be unhappy about it. That's why people like Gary Begin and others, who have supported the government in the past, are very disillusioned with the direction this particular government is taking, and have said so publicly.

So those are some of the concerns. They are worried about small districts and the amalgamation of small districts — whether they will lose their autonomy. Will they then have half a superintendent or half a secretary-treasurer when they feel that they can afford one? Because they like to make that decision locally. After all, they raise their taxes locally, so why should someone from Victoria be running around telling them what to do? They want to have the right to determine salary levels within global budgets. They don't want the salaries of the vice-principals and various other people that are employed as specialists in their district, or even the teachers themselves, to be determined by someone miles away from the problem, or even half a continent away from the problem.

They want to be able to make certain that they have the right to determine what goes where and into what budgets, the right to decide who will be promoted and what their salaries will be. What they don't need is an army of snoopers running around their school system as administrators, looking in to see that they have the right amount of money to the penny in each of those little boxes that the minister has decreed will be spent in a particular way.

If they can't control their expenditures and their budgets, then they haven't got very much power at all. They want the right that they once had. About one-third of their budgets last year were stolen from them because the industrial and commercial-business property and machinery taxes were taken away from them. We had a situation — as a matter of fact we still have it, if you use the recent figures, if I can find them here — where the report on taxation put out by the school trustees said that we were among the last and lowest in British Columbia. Among the richest people in Canada — a budget third in size in all of Canada — we are among the cheapest and cheesiest when it comes to paying for education. The local shares steadily decline from the province; the province wants the power, but they don't want to spend the money.

In 1972 the local property owners paid, on an average, 56 percent of school costs; today the local property owner pays 74.2 percent. What does that mean? It doesn't mean they really do, if you change the rules. If you take the power from the boards to tax locally on machinery and property and give it to the ministry, then it looks like the ministry is providing most of the funds. It has only done that because it has stolen the taxing powers away from the boards and centralized it. Therefore it looks to me like the local boards are about one third now; however, more than two-thirds of the power is going to rest with the ministry.

Again it is the old business of taxation without representation and he who pays the piper calls the tune, and they don't

[ Page 1611 ]

like what is being done to them. They object to it, and they come over here and make representations about that. I have a resolution from a board that I represent, Mr. Speaker. I think you probably represent the same board, since we represent half of the same school district, and I am sure you have one of these too. I didn't hear you read it when you were giving your speech, but perhaps I missed that part. I could have, because I am not alert to everything you utter — every nuance, every inflection, reflection or deflection. This is a wire from the Coquitlam School Board, School District 43....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't they write a letter? It's cheaper.

MR. ROSE: They sent this because they felt it was urgent. They say: "Here's a copy of a telegram" — which was mailed — "sent to the Hon. W.R. Bennett. Coquitlam School Board suggests Bill 6 be tabled pending study of impact on local autonomy. Signed Pat Homenick, chairman, Coquitlam School Board."

I acknowledged that, and I said that as a representative I would pass on this information in this chamber at the first opportunity.

MR. COCKE: He sleeps all night long.

MR. ROSE: I know he has gone for a few quick naps, but I think he is probably listening on the blower. I think we could inquire into the whereabouts of a lot of people, including the Minister of Education.

MR. REYNOLDS: Why don't you get the Leader of the Opposition here? Where's he?

MR. ROSE: He just made his speech. At least he was here tonight to make a speech. He is not with us at the moment.

MRS. JOHNSTON: He has gone home.

MR. ROSE: Oh, he is not at home. If the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) went looking for him, I bet she would probably stumble over him somewhere if she weren't careful.

Who else has come in? Oh, there he is, back again. The minister in charge of noise pollution is back again, looking like Snoopy with his glasses up on his forehead. You look like the Red Baron from here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. Perhaps we can remind each other that we do in fact have a quorum, and as such I don't think it is the least bit relevant to debate under this bill who is or is not in the House. Perhaps the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody can refrain from digressing any further from Bill 6.

MR. ROSE: I withdraw that remark. I don't even know what the remark was, but I withdraw it. I only retaliate when provoked. What bothers me is that when I'm making a speech — and I don't speak in the House that often, but sometimes when I do, I make a long one.... But I think that I've stuck pretty well to the point here tonight. I am the designated speaker, and if the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) doesn't want to listen, he can go out of the chamber, where he usually is anyway. He's not usually in here. He comes in here and makes a few specious remarks about the nature of my speech, and then....

[11:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have suggested that all members be called to order and that you have the floor. No one has suggested that your time is running short. No one has suggested that you're not going to have plenty of time to complete your speech, so would you please restrict your remarks to Bill 6.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that, and I would also be very grateful if you would prevent my being harassed by the Minister of Environment, who comes in here from time to time only to make rude utterances and then leaves again. I don't know whether it's better to have him here or away, where at least we know what he's doing. He's sitting on his portfolio here making rude sounds.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sure I'd be pleased to exercise the discretion that a number of your colleagues suggested early yesterday morning. But for the moment, might I suggest that we refrain from digressing and restrict our comments to Bill 6.

MR. ROSE: What I'm summing up here are some of the things that I've said here for the last few minutes. What do the trustees want — these grasping people? What do they want on the part of the schools? They want the public to know that they are concerned about deficits, that they think they've done a damn good job of curbing the deficit in the last couple of years — better than the province has done. They want local autonomy returned and centralization removed. They want the college boards to have local input on the local community college boards. They object to firing without cause, but that's another bill. They don't want to be pushed into amalgamation where it doesn't exist, and they want to be able to determine salary levels, promotions, tenure and seniority. They want to be part and parcel of the bargaining process. They want to control the expenditures of their own budgets, and they want their taxation powers, which were stolen from them last year, on commercial and machinery and business property returned to them. They don't think this is a restraint bill....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but I would consider the term "stolen" to be somewhat unparliamentary. There may well have been some transfer of powers, but I think an allegation that there has been taxation authority stolen is unparliamentary. I would ask you to withdraw that. The member for New Westminster on a point of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a word has to be withdrawn if it's attributable. If he attributes directly to an hon. member of this House the word "stolen," then the word naturally is out of order. But under these circumstances, he's talking in generalities about a principle, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the word is not.... It's a very commonly used word.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With that qualification, I agree with your recommendation. The Chair retracts its request for the member to withdraw the term.

MR. ROSE: The taxing power is being stolen. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that you organized that. I know that no

[ Page 1612 ]

board offered the provincial government those taxing powers. So while they may not have been precisely stolen. they were certainly removed without their consent, and the boards want them back. There is no question about that at all, because what that does is it allows the central government to control the taxing power. Because it uses that excuse to grab more taxing power, it will then take and assume more and more of the spending power and use that as the justification, as they've done with the college boards. The colleges are no longer funded locally, even in a small proportion. Therefore the minister asserts: "It's our right as the central government to make certain that we determine how that money is spent, and not by anybody who's indirectly elected through a school board to a college board." I think we should make that crystal clear.

One of the justifications the minister has made here in regard to putting forward this new formula is that it's going to lead to a greater equity; that somehow the difference between the high spending, the high-rolling school boards and those school boards that operate in a more parsimonious manner will be narrow; that there will be that kind of rigidity, that kind of range removed. Well, our research refutes that. It absolutely denies that assertion. We disagree with that.

The minister mentioned that when he was talking about his own budget. He was talking about how, within three years of his formula going through, there was somehow going to be greater equity as a result of the new formula. I take equity to mean there will be more uniformity. Equity and equality are not always the same thing, and equity is not always the same as uniformity. If you're going to be cutting down some districts in terms of spending per pupil and raising others, or allowing a budget increase, you must be aiming at some central point somewhere. That to me would be some place for uniformity, or, to use the minister's terms, equity.

Now I dispute that, because we did the figures. The highest per-pupil-cost district in British Columbia in 1983 spends $6,547 per pupil. That's a fair amount. Nobody disputes that. The lowest one spends $3,825 per pupil. So the range is about $2,722. In 1986, by using the minister's formula, you'll go from $5,648 for the highest to $2,622 for the lowest, and the range is just about the same. So the range isn't changed at all; it's just that some districts are hammered more than others. There may be some dispute about the figures I have used, and I may not have the absolutely correct tops and bottoms. But I think the point is clear: we do not find any significant — and I use that term in a statistical sense — reduction of the range. What's really happening is that rich districts, the ones that are currently spending money, will be locked into it by the formula, by higher teacher salaries, the lower one will be locked down low by the formula, and the range won't change appreciably. It might get marginally smaller, but I doubt it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, that is what happens when you have, as my colleague says, stupidity and inflexibility.

I think it is kind of stupid and inflexible, but I'd like to be fair and say that any kind of formula is a difficult thing to apply. People have been looking for fair and equitable property taxation formulas for centuries, and they haven't found them. Any time you apply a formula from a central place and think it's going to work for everybody, you can expect to be disappointed, because it's not going to work for everybody.We should not be disappointed; we should expect that to happen.

We're concerned, too, that in spite of all the juggling that has been going on with the figures, certain districts aren't being treated fairly. Certain districts are being singled out and scapegoated. We've done some research on that. We have some figures here which, while not completely backing up everything, will certainly lead to some indication. I know that really isn't the intention of the government.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is sitting over there. When he was speaking on August 4 he said:

"The statement was made that funding should not be politically determined. I am making the point that that is correct. It should be objectively determined. There's a formula that is bringing in as many factors as the minister can to say objectively that this is how the funding will take place, and not on a political basis, just on a basis of political abuse. It's fair to say that the formula is one that is there to try to protect the education system for the students."

Those are the minister's words. These are the Blues, not the final copy, so I might not have read exactly what is in Hansard.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I was quoting you. I flattered you by quoting extensively, probably more than I should have.

We've done a little bit of research on this. What we have here is a situation which leads from Burnaby at the top, which is going to get a cut of 17 percent on its budget, based on this fair and equitable formula that we talked about, to Armstrong, which is going to have an increase in its budget of 7.65 percent. We looked at these and tried to figure out a reason. It goes Burnaby, Central Coast, North Vancouver, down to the average to where they get no gain at all, or no loss particularly. It goes down to Peace River South with no gain whatsoever, and then it gradually climbs until you get to Armstrong. There are some interesting comparisons and interesting topics, and I would like to share some of these with the House. I could give you each particular district if you wanted, but I couldn't explain why there are cuts for some districts and gains for others. Is it to do with growth? We find that certain districts with Socred MLAs didn't receive the same kind of cuts as those with NDP MLAs.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I don't believe it.

MR. ROSE: Not all of them, but some.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Go back to Ottawa; we don't want you. You lost your seat back there.

MR. ROSE: At least I lost it off the bottom, not off the top.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack.

MR. ROSE: I wondered if it was growth, for instance, and looked at some of these. I don't think the new formula is equitable, and that's what concerns us here. For example, the North Thompson School District expects its enrolment to go down by 2.1 percent; by 1986 its budget will be cut nearly 11

[ Page 1613 ]

percent. How is that equitable with Grand Forks, where the enrolment goes down 1.6 percent by 1986, but the budget by only 2 percent? How is that equitable?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a simple formula, but the formula is well over your head.

MR. ROSE: It's got nothing to do with growth then? So the formula is not tied to growth or anticipated growth. If it's not tied to growth, then what is it tied to, Mr. Speaker? That's what we want to know.

What we need is a formula that is both fair and equitable.

We looked over all these budgets — and I tried to use the representative growth areas as a defence for the budget — and we found that according to the statistics given out by the minister's own ministry, school enrolments are expected to go back up to over 500,000 by 1986. In Social Credit districts the average growth will be 1.97 percent and in NDP districts the growth will be 1.62 percent. How does that justify a decision requiring the Social Credit districts to take only 53 percent of the cuts that the NDP districts are forced to take? That's what we'd like to know, because we put this thing through some pretty severe tests of statistical significance.

The second point: if it isn't growth, maybe enrolment is the major consideration. Not total growth, but just enrolment growth may be the major consideration. School District 21, Armstrong, qualifies for a 7.65 percent budget increase by 1986 on an 8.5 percent increase of enrolment. School District 34, Abbotsford, has a 14.6 percent increase in enrolment but only qualifies for a 5.59 percent budget increase by 1986. I think these are legitimate questions. These are legitimate opposition questions and they deserve an answer, because we haven't had one so far. Maybe we can say Socred districts are more efficiently administered. Maybe we could use that as an argument. That's why they seem to be treated better than the NDP districts. I want to know whether the minister is advised that Social Credit districts spend rather more on administration than NDP districts — about $3,900 more on average. And there is really nothing to choose between NDP and Social Credit districts on that basis. So it isn't administration, it's not growth, it's not enrolment. If the minister were to say that enrolment and efficiency of administration are the main criteria, then why is it that Delta has about the lowest per-pupil costs in the province and their enrolment is expected to decline by 4 percent by 1986, but this translates into a budget cut of nearly 5 percent? A Social Credit district.

[11:15]

So there are enough anomalies in this whole thing that I think we deserve some answers to these questions. It is quite obvious that the funding formula is not working out equitably. The Minister of Environment said in his speech that the funding formula was developed so that we could have greater equity. I've shown that the range hasn't changed. The range isn't going to change with this budget, for a number of reasons that we've already discussed. If it's not based on growth, not based on enrolment, and does not reflect administration — or a combination of all three — we can't answer the questions. Here we have Delta: enrolment is going to decline by 4 percent by 1986 but it has a budget cut of 5 percent. Why is that equitable as compared to Saanich? In Saanich, enrolment is expected to increase by 4 percent but their budget goes up by nearly 7 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Finance.

MR. ROSE: I didn't say that, Mr. Speaker. Someone heckling asserted that it might have had something to do with the Minister of Finance. Well, I don't know that that is particularly parliamentary. I can back up these things with statistics, but all you’ve got is your allegations. You don't have any numbers; you're not a number-cruncher.

This is how we proceeded. Districts were ranked in order of budget reductions so that School District 41, Burnaby, with a 17 percent cut, ranked 1, and School District 21, Armstrong, with a 7.65 increase, ranked 75. Districts were identified by the political view of the provincial MLA. There were 48 districts with Social Credit MLAs and 25 with NDP MLAs. School districts in Vancouver and Coquitlam were omitted because they were represented by MLAs of both parties. School District 61, Greater Victoria, was designated as an NDP district, for it embraces the provincial constituencies of Victoria, Esquimalt–Port Renfrew and Oak Bay, which contained a preponderance of NDP votes.

This is how we arrived at these questions. These are not allegations; they are merely questions. You might say they are innuendos, perhaps, but they are certainly not allegations. We are asking these questions.

The average reduction for all school districts was calculated at 4 percent. The average reduction for Social Credit districts in '83-86 was calculated at 2.97 percent and the average reduction for NDP districts was calculated at 5.62 percent. That is just about twice as much for the average reduction. I am not suggesting that that is punitive. It is shocking, and it certainly deserves an explanation. I am not quite as shocked and dismayed as some people get over these matters, but nevertheless the figures speak for themselves. I have an obligation to tell the House how these figures were arrived at.

A standard statistical test shows that the reduction in Social Credit districts compared to the reduction in NDP districts could have occurred by chance slightly more than once in a hundred times. That's what it says in the statistical tables. Of the 21 districts showing increases where a district was represented by an NDP MLA, the average increase was 2.2 percent, whereas in the district represented by a Social Credit MLA it was 3.44 percent. There are some interesting figures.

Then the Social Credit districts were compared with: (a) districts by region using the grouping of B.C. School Trustees' Association analysis of school district superintendent budgets; and (b) district by level of enrolment using a grouping of the B.C. School Trustees' Association analysis of school district budgets. The regional analysis showed us that the new formula discriminates most heavily against metro Vancouver school boards, which are required to make an average budget cut of 9.78 percent for these three years. The metro Vancouver school districts account for 37 percent of provincial student enrolment. A standard statistical test shows that this distribution could have occurred by chance rather less than twice in a thousand times.

So these things haven't happened by chance, according to our figures. They were deliberate, and there is a faint whiff of pork in all of this, whether the minister likes it or not. Don't quarrel with the facts. I will give you the document. You can take it over and have your own number-crunchers work on it.

In favour of districts with enrolments of 4,000 to 10,000 which were required to cut little or no, 0.29 percent.... There are 22 districts in this grouping. This could have

[ Page 1614 ]

occurred by chance less than three times in a hundred. Finally, the level-of-enrolment analysis shows that the new formula discriminates against districts with an enrolment of 10,000 to 20,000 and very small districts of less than 1,500 enrolment. There are eight districts with enrolments of 10,000 to 20,000, and they are required to make cuts of 7.5 percent. This could have occurred by chance less than three times in a hundred. There are 20 districts with enrolments with less than 1,500, and they are required to take cuts of 6 percent in '83-86. This could have occurred by chance about twice in a hundred times.

If we are objective and impartial and accurate with our figures, we might conclude that there is a strong tendency in the formula to be in favour of districts where the local MLA is Social Credit by requiring half the cuts of NDP districts. It is administratively unsound in that it discriminates against the metro Vancouver boards with 37 percent of the provincial enrolment. It is administratively unsound in that it discriminates in favour of small or medium-sized districts by demanding significantly smaller cuts of them than the other districts are required to make and in that it discriminates against very small, less than 1,500, enrolment districts and medium-large districts by requiring them to make significantly larger cuts than other districts are required to make.

Other people who have made that observation, including Mr. Armstrong, the school trustees themselves and the BCTF, are saying that if you impose that formula it's not only going to be unfair and inequitable; in the end it's going to cost you more money, because you're going to cause costs to go up, and if you don't, you're going to have to make cuts elsewhere.

I've tried not to make any assertions that I couldn't back up with certain kinds of statistical buttressing.

There is some suggestion here that if you have larger administrative units, somehow this is going to result in substantial savings. There is a question about that in many people's minds and I have some material here that I indicated earlier I was prepared to put on the record for you. This information has to do with various reactions to restraint and recovery. The attempt here, of course, is to be sold this whole package on the basis of how well it will help us get out of our present economic doldrums and head into the heady wind of economic recovery and, later, affluence.

Canadian Industrial Relations and Personnel Developments describes a study by Sally R. Luce, entitled, "Retrenchment and Beyond: The Acid Test of Human Resource Management," commissioned by the Conference Board of Canada. In this study Ms. Luce surveyed 178 companies which had instituted restraint programs in 1982, and reported the following findings. I know the House will be fascinated to hear this. Various types of restraint programs were implemented, from the most to the least frequent, and here are some of the things that 178 companies have done, previous to July 6, 1983, in an attempt to restrain. First, and most common, they've restrained hiring and promotions; second, they introduced pay cuts or freezes, or they lowered wages; fourth, they laid people off; fifth, they reorganized their companies; sixth, they dismissed certain selected employees; seventh, they restrained training programs; eighth, they instituted early retirement schemes; ninth, they restrained merit pay for bonuses, and tenth, temporary shutdowns. Other things that were tried were work-sharing, restrained benefits, more stringent performance, compulsory vacations, permanent operation closures, increased hours of work, demotions, leaves of absence, prolonged strikes, lockouts or bargaining and profit- and loss-sharing. These were all various kinds of 20 different attempts made by certain companies to restrain their spending and thereby forge their way to their own economic recovery, if not society's.

The costs of severance payments and retirement incentives paid by many companies will not be recovered for several years. The result was that there were no new hirings during that time, which slowed general recovery.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Do you want to explain that?

MR. ROSE: Yes, I'll explain that. I'm really pleased that the minister has asked for an explanation and is not complaining that I'm abusing the time of the House, because I'd like to remind everybody that it wasn't my motion that made us sit late tonight. As a matter of fact, I think that we voted against it. Nevertheless here we are, and I think that those of us who are here, along with those in the audience, have to suffer through these things from time to time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We'd like your explanation.

MR. ROSE: I want to give you this explanation.

They say that costs of severance payments and retirement incentives paid by many companies will not be recovered for many years. So to put the old man out to pasture they had to pay up and buy up his time. They said those were certain costs, and those costs are not going to be recovered. While they are paying those costs, they can't afford to hire new people. Therefore, because of this, the general economy suffers, along with those companies. Does the minister follow that? I'll draw him a picture if he would like more information on that one.

One of the other implications that Miss Luce noted was that "mandatory staff reductions have resulted in reduced morale, leading to less staff commitment and resulting in decreased productivity." I'll go over that one again slowly. Mandatory staff reductions have resulted in reduced morale. I think that's pretty clear. People are not happy at their work. This leads to less staff commitment, resulting in decreased productivity. So that hurt the company because they didn't know who was going to be picked on next. Therefore they had a morale problem. They wanted to know who was the next one to be picked off.

[11:30]

"Voluntary severance or retirement programs have usually preserved morale but sometimes have resulted in staff needed most leaving and the staff needed least staying." Those people who probably were able to get another job were the most anxious to participate in early retirement programs and the ones who probably would have difficulty getting a job were more security conscious. Therefore it could follow that these people were among the least able and therefore, because they went into the early retirement program, the company ended up with not the strongest people on the payroll staying but sometimes the weakest. She went further to say that some employers have had to rehire the voluntary retirees on contract after paying generous incentives to have them leave. She says voluntary reductions in the force often left companies with gaps between the needs of the companies and the skills of the remaining staff. So in the attempt to restrain — and I think this has important implications, not only in the school districts but for the whole of the civil service — if

[ Page 1615 ]

certain people are going to be terminated, with or without cause, it may well be that the people the government needs the most will be the ones to be terminated. That's always a danger. That's going to be determined, I assume, by your managers. I hope it's not going to be determined merely on a political basis or a political bias.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Someone said: "Why not?" I don't know who that was but I don't think that's any kind of rationale for terminating anyone.

It says: "Voluntary reductions of the force often left companies with gaps between needs of the company and skills of the remaining staff." It isn't just the case with voluntary, but also forced reductions will do the same thing. "Mandatory staff reductions instituted by some companies during the recession of the 1970s resulted in such a decrease in productivity and lowering of profits that the companies simply refused to even consider mandatory reductions during the present downturn. The companies that had experience with these reductions in the first round of the early depressions or recessions in the seventies refused to go along with them because they couldn't afford the reductions any more." That should be a lesson for us as well.

Finally: "Companies which were able to keep the delicate balance between employee commitment, productivity and reducing staff were those which had a history of good human resource management practice prior to the recession and had the trust of their employees and a greater appreciation of the potential impact of retrenchment on their staff."

Miss Luce concludes by saying: "Retrenchment is only half the challenge for organizations in the eighties; the other half is having the right staff with the right kind of commitment to their work to make the recovery last" so that our recovery isn't just temporary but it's something that we can build on and depend on. We can break the cycle of boom and bust, which has been part and parcel of our history in Canada, or the history, if you like, of the free enterprise system in North America. It will also enable an organization to survive and take advantage of recovery when it arises.

The members of the House will be pleased to hear that I am not going to be speaking a great deal longer. I don't think that I could prevail upon the time of the House to speak a great deal longer. I know that some of you over there.... I have a few notes here.... I could give a sort of theme and variations on my speech of last night — if you missed it you missed a tour de farce. [Laughter].

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're an honest politician. I like that.

MR. ROSE: I try to be. That's why I'm sitting on this side of the House.

Nevertheless, I didn't want the minister to get all dressed up in his blue suit prepared for his rebuttal and then to have him sit up too late over it. So I don't want to keep him up too long. But I did want to talk about one other matter which I raised earlier this evening. I'm certain that all of us are concerned about the fact that there is a tendency in Bill 6 to centralize. Even the government Whip sitting over here — he's trying to get a few tips and information from one of my colleagues, but he hasn't walked the floor. Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned that one of the concerns of this bill was the tendency in the bill toward centralization, he nodded. He nodded because he wants nodding to do with me. But I don't agree with that.

Anyway, I think the House would be interested by some experiences where centralization has not led to increased efficiencies at all, but to quite the reverse — not the economics of scale, but the diseconomies of scale. One of the studies cited here was the United States federal government. Here's an example that I think fits this with reasonable congruency. This is a government attempting to centralize. The United States assumed control of the administrative affairs of the Cherokee Indian tribe at the turn of the century. Before they had done that, the tribe had an educational system that produced a Cherokee population that was 90 percent literate in its native language, and had bilingual materials to such an extent that the Oklahoma Cherokees had a higher English literacy than the white populations of either of the neighbouring states of Texas and Arkansas, according to the report of the U.S. Senate committee. But they were taken over by the federal government. "By the mid-1960s," the report goes on to state, "the literacy rate had dropped to 60 percent and the public school dropout rates were as high as 75 percent." Here's where a government has gone in to an autonomously operating school system, run by the people who were also the consumers of the service: it was taken over and centralized by the federal government and the Department of Indian Affairs. The literacy rate fell. If we want to talk about productivity, I think we could certainly do a measure on the literacy rate. The literacy rate felI and so did the length of time that the kids stayed in school. The dropout rate rose. This may be an isolated example. But certainly not the only one cited in this paper that I have here.

There was a study by McKinney and Company in Toronto. They described the common characteristics of excellent Canadian corporations. I guess they want to show us that these excellent corporations, and they name a few: Hewlett-Packard, the Royal Bank of Canada and Bata Shoes.... Now I guess it would depend upon what you use for guidelines when you describe some firm as an excellent corporation. I think it would be different for different people. But here's how they were distinguished from their less successful counterparts.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Could you relate this to Bill 6?

MR. ROSE: Mr. Minister, I can keep relating back to Bill 6, for your purposes, all the time. But I run the risk, if I keep relating back to Bill 6, of the Speaker standing up in his chair — or at least sitting up in his chair — and admonishing me for being repetitive, if not irrelevant. Now I may be irrelevant, but so far I haven't been repetitive. At least I hope I haven't been repetitive.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, no. It's very good, but I'd like you to relate it to Bill 6. I'm trying to grasp what you're saying.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm attempting to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, what we're saying is that Bill 6 centralizes. I'll speak very slowly for the minister. What we're trying to find out now is the difference between those companies — if you want, put "school boards" in brackets — which were considered successful companies and how they were different from

[ Page 1616 ]

their counterparts that were not successful. Here were some of their distinguishing features: higher profit-to-investment ratios, better employee relations and less labour strife, robustness during economic turndowns. In other words, they weren't undercapitalized, they had good employee relations, and they hung in there and didn't go bankrupt. We've just gone through the highest bankruptcy period in our recent history.

The next distinguishing feature was the upper management — that is, boards of directors or chief executive officers — focusing attention on policy and planning and evaluation of results.

Finally, and this is the crucial point, decentralization of decision-making regarding the implementation of policy and day-to-day administration to the greatest degree possible. I'll repeat that for the benefit of the minister. The better companies, the successful companies, were distinguished from their less successful counterparts by decentralization of decision-making regarding the implementation of policy and day-to-day administration to the greatest degree possible. Now this is just the reverse of what we're doing in Bill 6, Mr. Speaker. It isn't just for an ideological reason that we deplore it, although it is in some instances. We think it's not as democratic. We feel that those people who are going to be served by the system should have as large as possible a share in running it. Those people who are going to be consumers in the system should have the largest possible opportunity to have their needs met, and met fully. So we are concerned about its democratic implications, but we're concerned more here — and I raise this point now, because we're concerned that we think that decentralization is a good thing, and centralizing it in Victoria is a bad thing, and because of that we think it's a dumb thing to do, and we're opposed to the bill, because that's what it does.

I'll give some examples of decentralization. Talk about Bata Shoes and Canadian multinational policy of providing "the best footwear possible, the price affordable for the majority of people."

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: "What has this got to do with it?" the minister is saying.

"Decisions of how policy objectives are to be met are left to the various branch managers" — read school administrators. "Decisions of how to reach that policy are left with the individual school administrators" — in this case, branch manager. The minister is footloose.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's true. And fancy free.

MR. ROSE: And fancy free. I was talking about Bata Shoes. "Bata recognizes that the manager in New Delhi is better able to determine the shoe needs of the Indian man in the street than the corporate head in Toronto. However, the local manager is accountable to the corporate headquarters as a result of these local decisions and the effects of those decisions on the bottom line. An extreme counter-example of the same organizational principle is seen in the Russian experience of the late thirties. Having signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, which called for the shipment of raw materials to Germany, it was one full year after Hitler invaded Russia before the centralized Russian bureaucracy was able to respond and stop supplying the means of their own annihilation."

I think I've made the point. I think I've probably made as many points as I'm likely to make this evening. I thank the House for listening to me. I don't think I need to sum up unduly, but I would like to have permission of the House to put the following motion. I have a reasoned amendment to put forward to the Chair, and I have consulted the standing orders. Standing order 50 indicates — or it's silent on it — that I do not need a seconder for this.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'm moving a reasoned amendment. I don't think it's unreasonable to move a reasoned amendment. I don't think it's an unreasonable posture for me to take. Here is the motion, Mr. Speaker: that the motion for the second reading of Bill 6 be amended by leaving out all the words following "that," and substituting therefore the following: "It is the opinion of this House that it is contrary to the interest of democracy to give a minister of the Crown unilateral authority and powers to issue directives to previously autonomous and locally elected school trustees."

[11:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, without ruling on the actual motion itself, until I have an opportunity to examine the motion in depth, I must comment at the outset that it would appear to negate the bill before us. Nonetheless, without prejudice, I will permit debate to continue until a final decision is reached.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the reason for this amendment is to draw attention to the very significant aspect of what we consider to be the most dangerous part of this entire bill — not the fact that they have removed the sunset clause, not the fact that the government has decided to limit financing for the schools, but that the government has so centralized the power, so centralized the running of our entire school system within the ministry that we feel it to be not only dangerous but counter to the democratic process.

[Mr. Reid in the chair.]

The reasoned amendment is not an often-used device in our parliamentary system, but it is one that has been used over the years. And it's been used in order to point out a significant weakness in government policy. This government feels that that weakness is strength. We feel that that weakness is in fact weakness. They feel that it's strength for a minister or a minister representing the government as a whole to take full control of an area that otherwise has been governed by local people. They feet that that enhances education. All over the western world people have become more and more convinced that decentralization and not centralization is in fact the way to go. We are totally convinced that decentralization was originally a very significant aspect of the whole school system. But the school system has been centralized over the last eight or nine years particularly, and centralized more significantly in the last four or five years. Now this Bill 6 that we are amending the motion upon has carried it to the point where the minister calls all the shots.

[ Page 1617 ]

What are we going to call the minister as a result of his superbureaucratic position? Are we going to call him super-principal? Super-superintendent? Czar of education? Or what? This is not an unusual behaviour pattern for this government. In virtually every area this government....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: While the rabble babble, I'll just stand here and wait.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Thank you.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Are you all through?

We in the opposition find the centralization inherent in Bill 6 totally counter to the democratic process, and as such, we support the motion that was put forward.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would be very appreciative if you would not only call that member to order.... When he decides to kibitz, he should at least be kibitzing from his own seat. He fancies himself as cabinet potential, I guess, sitting in the treasury benches. God help this province if that ever happened. It's bad enough now, but for heaven's sake, it could....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: HON. member, would you please deal with the reasoned amendment?

MR. COCKE: Oh, can I deal with the reasoned amendment? Well, then, maybe we could signify that to that member across the way.

The reasoned amendment deals specifically with centralization. When we go home to our constituencies, when we talk to frustrated school board people, when we talk to trustees across the province, we find that they wonder what their place is. Trustees are elected to run the school system using their knowledge of the local needs as their base to run that school system. Their knowledge of the local needs is a result of the fact that that's where they live; they are closest to the situation itself. And for a Minister of Education, sitting in his ivory tower in Victoria, totally surrounded by bureaucrats who probably haven't been a part of the education system for years themselves.... Oh, yes, with some credentials, no question about that, but they have not been directly involved in the education process. Nor have they been elected. Nor have they the responsibility to the local people whom they serve. That's the reason for this reasoned amendment. That's the reason why we're saying that as long as the government in its "wisdom" puts forward bills such as this, that take away local incentive and local autonomy, we have to fight those bills, that proposed legislation.

I know that the Clerks and the other Speaker are presently looking it over. But let me give you a prophetic statement. Certainly they're going to find it in order. One of the reasons they're going to find it in order is the fact that they have decided not only that it is in order but also that it's something that should be considered by this whole House. I give you a further prediction. If it is in order, it will not be debated by the other side. We have been debating this bill, raising not only argument after argument, such as the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) raised, but also quotations from trustees — and in this province there are hundreds and hundreds of school trustees....

When those school trustees get together at their meetings, either at the executive level or at the convention level, they say the same thing that we're saying here in opposition: Bill 6 should not be presented in its present form. And that's why we have attempted — and I can't reflect too much on something that's gone by — to have the bill looked at for a period of months. That was rejected. We're now asking the government to reflect upon this amendment. If the government decides they don't wish to, maybe the back bench on the government side should decide that this is the amendment that they can best live with. Living within the democratic process should be the first objective of a government in western society. Living within that process should be everyone's objective. And it is not their objective when they put forward a piece of proposed legislation that takes away from school trustees virtually all of the responsibility and all of the opportunity to provide direction for the education system. This is not directed at the educational system per se — that is, teachers and students — except indirectly. Students are the most vitally affected by a system that's not working.

In another phase of this debate I commented that the whole question is one that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will officially declare from the Speaker that the reasoned amendment is in order.

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear! It's in order.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Call for 22 more speakers.

[12:00]

MR. COCKE: We're going to speak on this narrowly, to bring it to the attention of the government that what is being done in Bill 6 is something we cannot countenance, something that is, as we say in the amendment, taking away local autonomy, local responsibility, and providing the minister — that poor tired minister — with the total responsibility for running the education system, That is not the way it’s supposed to be in our society. The way the education system is supposed to be in our society is that it reflects the needs of the local community, and it cannot do so with a minister sitting here in Victoria.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

I certainly don't want to allude to the fact that the minister is becoming somewhat tired — as we all are — but I would hate to think that the decisions he might make around the school system in the next few days would necessarily be well taken or wise. I suspect that those decisions may not be well taken and wise, by virtue of the fact that the Premier has placed him in the impossible position of sitting and listening to debate on a bill since 9:00 yesterday evening. Now if that isn't somewhat heartless, I would like to know what is.

If the minister can't himself, could he in fact delegate somebody to debate this issue? Because I think this issue is the one that separates us. This issue, in terms of centralization, is one that really separates us. I suggest very strongly

[ Page 1618 ]

that the government, in centralizing, has gone in total contradiction to what they have told the people they represent. Centralization in the school system, centralization in health care, centralization in every aspect of our governmental process. In some areas you could say that because locally elected people are not available to do the job, maybe it's valid under those circumstances. But it's not valid when you're talking about the school system because the school system has elected people responsible to the electorate. When they make mistakes they are responsible to the people who elect them, and that makes them significantly more likely to produce a good system than by this centralized process that we have here in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) talks about tedious repetition. Repetitious or not, I would hope he would listen long enough for the comments to penetrate the skull of that minister in order that he can perceive the mistake being made by his colleague and his government.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The other guy didn't convince me, and you're doing a worse job.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. members.

Will the member on his feet please get to the amendment.

MR. COCKE: The amendment, Mr. Speaker, is totally involved with centralization, and that's what we oppose. We say it's in opposition to the democratic process. That being the case, we have placed before this House an amendment, and are asking this House to adopt that amendment, which will mitigate, modify, the attempts made by this government to centralize further the whole school system. The trend all over the western world is to decentralize, and yet we find ourselves in the backwater in British Columbia, going in absolute opposition to the way that has been found better in the rest of the western world. Is that good government? The member for Surrey talks about good leadership. Is that good leadership? Not really. You can't go home and tell your school trustees that you're giving good leadership when you've taken away their power and their opportunity to provide the service that they have been elected to provide. Nothing short of that.

I believe that from the outset, the bill was seen by the whole community as a very difficult one to accept. We know, for one thing, that virtually everyone involved in education has come out hard-line against the bill. What aspect other than finance have they come on hardest-line about? They have talked about the centralization that they see in this bill. They have talked about the fact that no minister should have the power to make all the decisions from his own desk in consultation with his own bureaucrats. I pity trustees in this province today. I pity them from the standpoint that they go to work to represent their communities. They have to get elected and, in getting elected, they have to take the responsibilities that are now going to be shoved down their throats by another bill that we see before us. There is the possibility of a $2,000 fine if they happen to offend the Provincial Secretary. Now they see that despite all of that, the Minister of Education really calls the shots.

This is not part of the democratic process, and not being part of the democratic process, I urge every member in this House not only to read this resolution, but to think about it; and having thought about it, I urge them to vote for it, as we will. I urge them to vote for this resolution, and I'm sure they will. And if they feel they can't vote for it, I urge them to stand up and tell the people in the province why they can't vote for it. The people at least deserve that answer. They deserve it directly from the minister, they deserve it from members of his cabinet bench, and they deserve it from members of the back bench.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge the acceptance of this motion, and support for it from the entire House. Nothing less will be in the best interests of this province.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm amazed that the minister will sit there through two amendments and not take part in this discussion about the centralization of power in the Ministry of Education.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: We're not going to be put off by that kind of chattering from across the House. I'm challenging the minister to get up. Here's the central point about this bill, brought together in a reasoned amendment, and the minister sits there. He had an opportunity to speak on the amendment to hoist the bill. Is there no defence on the part of the government to what we're saying about this legislation?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, that's nonsense. Don't be silly. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is being absolutely silly. If there was ever a bill that centralizes....Get up and defend the bill!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the implication is that I'm being silly. I certainly am not. Members opposite are being silly. I demand that he withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's not a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD: You know, they'll do anything over there except get up and defend indefensible legislation.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you talk like that, and nobody can answer you. The Minister of Forests babbles across the House. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says: "Are you taking part in this?" If there is any answer to what we're saying, let's hear it, and let's have a debate about it. Are we dealing with a government that is afraid to defend its own legislation? I know the minister may be getting tired, but this is an important matter. We're taking a turn of extremely great importance in the direction of our school systems in this province. Is the minister — he can nod his head — prepared to get up on this amendment, to get up and defend the bill, and defend it against the charge — which has been well made and documented — that the bill centralizes far too much power in the hands of the minister? He sits there and will not defend it.

[ Page 1619 ]

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, no. Then nobody can reply to you. The minister says: "I will get up and make my speech when you don't have an opportunity to reply to me." Debate and run, eh? Debate and run at the end of the debate, when nobody else can speak. If there is a refutation for what you say, refute it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's parliament.

MR. MACDONALD: That's parliament? To refuse to debate? All those people who sit across there like dummies and refuse to stand up and support their own legislation? Hah! Parliament!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, could we please have order? And would the member on his feet please return to the amendment on Bill 6.

MR. MACDONALD: This reasoned amendment pinpoints the factor of centralization of power, and asks, where are the checks and balances? If this hon. member is no longer the Minister of Education and a worse one takes his place, where are the checks and balances? What is happening to local autonomy? What is happening to the democratic process? What is happening to all the school trustees of British Columbia? What's happening to the parent-teacher associations? These are legitimate questions, and the minister will not participate in that debate. He says: "I will participate when nobody can answer me and it's too late, " and the government majority swings through and passes this bill. That's not debating.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: What's that? Defend the principle? The committee is to discuss the details of the legislation. We're not talking about that stage. We're asking whether this principle itself should be embarked upon, without discussion. People will say to me when I go back to Vancouver: "Well, you extended the length of the debate on this bill." I will reply to them and say that we've raised very valid points, that the minister has had an opportunity to stand up and defend his legislation, and he has not taken that opportunity, What kind of a fighting minister is that? Has the legislation been foisted on the minister, and he doesn't agree with it? Does he agree that this is centralizing legislation that vests far too much power in the minister and his deputy? That's the only inference we can draw. I ask the minister once again to nod his head: is he prepared to get up on this reasoned amendment and say what he thinks about the arguments that are being made?

[12:15]

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: This is the minister's bill, and I'm pointing out that we have a minister who is afraid to get up and participate in the debate about his own legislation. What are we to think.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're killing time.

MR. MACDONALD: We're not just killing time. If the minister nods his....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member on his feet please return to the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't think I've departed from it, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's attacking this minister.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I am. I'm saying that here's a minister who, on the central issues, has an opportunity to defend his legislation and he refuses to take that opportunity. That's perfectly legitimate debate. There have been long speeches and short speeches on this legislation, and they all come down to this central point as the key problem with this particular legislation: the arrogation of power in the hands of one man, the Minister of Education, and the destruction of the school boards. Is the minister prepared to say whether we're right or wrong in that argument? Is he ready to participate in the debate? If he's not, why should he be a minister of the Crown, Mr. Speaker? I'm sure that if you were a minister of the Crown you'd be up like a tiger, defending your legislation, if you had something worthwhile to say.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, standing order 43 says we should be relevant. I suggest to you, sir, that you might remind the second member for Vancouver East to be relevant to the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member. I remind the hon. member for Vancouver East to please stick to the intent of the amendment to Bill 6.

MR. MACDONALD: So there can be no mistake about it, the amendment says that this bill should not be passed in view of the fact that, in the opinion of this House, it centralizes far too much power over the education system in the hands of one man — or one woman, as the case may be. My participation in this debate is to ask the minister whether he has any defence to this particular charge. I will sum up what, in my opinion, are the centralizing features which no legislature should give consent to, and those centralizing features have been well rehearsed in this debate. They include making rubber stamps of all the school trustees in the province of British Columbia, with the power of the minister by directive to make the decisions for them from Victoria.

So I once again challenge that minister to participate in the debate on this central point. If not, he might as well hold his peace, because there is no defence. Here we are debating a bill, and the rest of the government doesn't defend on this point, the minister doesn't defend on this point. I say that the reasoned amendment should be passed, and that no free democratic legislature should consent to this kind of power in the hands of one man over the entire educational system.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister had an opportunity, in introducing the bill and during the debate on the six-month hoist, and now again he has an opportunity, as he will when we get to the final stages of debate on this bill, to tell us why we might be wrong in some of the things we're saying about Bill 6.

[ Page 1620 ]

One of the reasons that I believe it's been necessary for us to introduce a series of amendments to this motion is simply so that we can one way or the other engender some debate in this Legislature. That's what parliament is all about. It seems as if the members elected on that side of the House are not interested in carrying out the parliamentary tradition that is hundreds of years old, whereby matters of this importance are debated and do come to a vote. People in this province who want to understand why the government has embarked upon this course do not have any source of information for that....

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, going back to standing order 43, I think the debate should be relevant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the amendment, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the new member's interjection.

The amendment has several purposes. One is to demonstrate our conviction that centralization is wrong and decentralization is right, in terms of a choice that can be made by political leaders in our society. Another important element of the purpose behind the amendment is to allow the minister and his colleagues to take an opportunity, which they missed earlier, to involve themselves in this debate. There are several ways to debate an important principle such as this massive centralization, which has been created and developed in the last few years, by this government. I believe this is the primary forum for that debate, but I would accept that there are other ways to argue and discuss and debate the question of centralization versus decentralization in education, or, for that matter, in any other area.

Two education ministers ago, the current Attorney-General embarked upon a program that attempted to go out into the community to solicit views, and attempted to pass along — although he didn't do much of that — some of his views about the directions of education in this province. That process, while it wasn't that illuminating, was at least legitimate. It could have led to resolutions or conclusions that would have been brought to this Legislature for further debate and for enactment. The next Minister of Education, the current garden columnist for the Vancouver Sun on weekends, took a different approach. He had a very radical view of local government, and it came not only from his role as Minister of Education but also from his interest in municipal affairs and his role as minister in that portfolio. He advocated that some form of county system would be an appropriate way to decentralize education in this province. That was only a part of what he was saying. Almost everything about what he was saying engendered massive debate and quite a lot of disagreement, particularly from some of us, but nevertheless he did attempt to go out into the community and argue for a model of how education and, for that matter, local government should be implemented and administered in the community. He argued for that infamous county system, one that I think anyone who's particularly interested in education would not agree with, because while it has some decentralizing features — which is the purpose of our reasoned amendment — it also has the negative impact of lumping together with education all of the other local government services into one local government. We felt that that was wrong.

But at least in those cases the ministers were prepared to go out into the community and solicit opinions and present ideas as to what should happen in terms of how education is governed in this province. This minister has not done that. This minister has brought in legislation two months after the election which had no public discussion before the election, during the election or in the two months prior to July 7. There was no discussion whatsoever about the massive takeover of local authority by Victoria, no discussion whatsoever about the fact that the minister, whoever he or she may be, and the deputy minister in fact become dictators of the entire education system in this province. And having failed to have that debate in public, having failed to consult with the people most affected.... This includes the vaunted taxpayers that so many backbenchers are so proud to represent, as we are. In many cases taxpayers happen also to be parents, and in most cases also happen to be voting members of a public who can elect local school trustees. What discussions were held with them to find out what their views might be about how money could be saved, economies built into the system, and the goals of the government achieved?

None of those discussions took place, Mr. Speaker, and as a result the first and only opportunity that the public of British Columbia have to participate in any way in the debate about this massive change in direction of control is here during this debate at this time. During second reading itself, one or two back-benchers availed themselves of the opportunity to speak. I believe the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) spoke, and I believe one or two others did as well. But not many did. More often than not, the focus of their comments was an attack upon our "delay" of the legislation as opposed to a reasoned discussion about why they felt this was the most appropriate way for education to be governed in this province. So we went to the six-month hoist — another opportunity, and in that case an opportunity for the minister to take his place without closing the debate, but rather just to take his place in the ordinary course of the debate on that six-month hoist to argue with us and prove us wrong, if he could, demonstrating why he believes this particular measure is needed.

My suspicion is that the minister, in fact, is unable to do that because the bill is not his at all. The bill came out of a group of about half a dozen very senior public servants, directed by the Premier's office in conjunction with Intergovernmental Relations, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ministry of Education. That cabal of about half a dozen high-priced assistants put together a particular bill that the minister himself....

MR. R. FRASER: A point of order: relevance. Would you remind the member for North Island to speak to the amendment and not to the history?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I've listened very intently to the debate of the hon. member for North Island, and in my estimation it has not strayed too far from the intent of the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of straying, and I admit that it's possible to do. I don't intend to take my full 40 minutes. That should be an indication that I'm not delaying this unnecessarily. The position and the point of view that I'm attempting to express is one that I believe sincerely and I hold dearly. I really think that we need somehow to spark the minister's interest in debating a fundamental

[ Page 1621 ]

shift in the control of education away from the local taxpayers, away from parents, away from the local school system to the bureaucracy and the minister here in Victoria. And because that has not been debated in any way, at any place, at any time in this province, it's necessary, in my view, that it be debated here and now. It wouldn't cost the minister very much energy to get up — not to speak for long, but just to stand up and tell us why we are wrong when we believe that people know best, and people at the local level know best. Why are we wrong in taking that point of view?

[12:30]

Earlier, during the course of debates on this bill, I made the point — and the minister didn't disagree, at least not out loud — that there is nothing stopping the government from controlling the amount of money they spend on education simply by allocating a set number of dollars. They don't need this particular bill to provide themselves with the mechanisms to say there are only so many dollars. So it obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with restraint. It has no possible connection whatsoever with restraint. But it has everything to do with a desire that is demonstrated in other pieces of legislation, which I won't talk about now, to put all of the control of decision-making into the hands of the cabinet. And no matter how good, how capable that cabinet might be, it is not able physically, constitutionally, emotionally.... We had some evidence of the emotional nature of that last week in Penticton. There is no capacity on the part of the cabinet to make that full range of decisions in ministry after ministry, as complicated as they are, particularly in the Ministry of Education.

So why do it? I think they do it, Mr. Speaker. because they have become the new ideologues in this province. For many years the CCF and the NDP were accused, and I think with good reason, of being the ideologues in this province; that we were caught by our own policy and our own philosophy and we couldn't escape it, and we made decisions based on the philosophy rather than on reason. But you know, we are no longer in that position. The government has taken over that role, except the philosophy and the ideology come from the right. And the philosophy of the right is to centralize, to take everything under their own control.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It happens to be the right. It's not true, historically. It happens to be the right. Some of the most right-wing leaders in our history include people like Pinochet, Franco, Stalin — those are the right-wingers in our society — Hitler, many, many more. Certainly I'd say Stalin: he's one of the most right-wing political leaders the world has ever seen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the amendment, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't straying until they led me astray.

I'll leave that point. I've made the point. The minister understands. He's tired; he's been up a long time and he's paying for his sins of last week. I'm sure the Premier is chortling in his office at the price the minister has to pay for this.

The amendment calls for a policy of this Legislature that encourages decentralization as opposed to centralization. I've made the point before that there is no reason that I can find — relating to finance, relating to curriculum, relating to control, if that's what they want — that the minister needs this particular bill. Every corporate entity in North America understands that the most efficient way to operate is to decentralize.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not necessarily true.

MR. GABELMANN: Certainly if you have a tiny corporation, that may not be necessarily true. But when you got into the size and scale of operation of the government of British Columbia, MacMillan Bloedel, General Motors or a whole variety of companies in that scale, it is demonstrated time and time again that decentralization is more effective. It produces organizational effectiveness and efficiency, and it certainly produces cost savings.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that experience, so one of the things that I do in this Legislature is to listen to other people and take advice from where I can get it. It's one of the things that I think sets me apart from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who's not prepared, with the exception of listening to Ian Stewart, to take advice from people outside who know more than he does about a lot of things. I recognize that I don't have the ability to make those kinds of decisions, and so I do listen to other people. I listen to people who are supposedly knowledgeable, in some cases expert, in the subject. There's a Toronto management firm....

Interjections.

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

MR. GABELMANN: And the Minister of Forests doesn't have his seat.

I make no bones about where I'm getting this from. It's a BCSTA report, which every MLA in this House has an opportunity to receive in the mail, and it's dated July 19, 1983. It's a very brief paper — just two pages — on the question that we are presenting in this particular amendment: the question of decentralization versus centralization. They quote a number of sources, but in particular a consulting firm in Toronto called McKinney and Co. In this particular study they're talking about what makes companies particularly good, or, in their terms....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) please come to order.

MR. GABELMANN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your role in this. One of the things that is not understood is that if they didn't interrupt, I would be finished sooner, and that might be to their....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm thinking of that, hon. member.

[ Page 1622 ]

MR. GABELMANN: You're the only one who is, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you I am not attempting to fill up time.

This consulting firm in Toronto called McKinney and Co. describes the common characteristics of excellent Canadian corporations. They're talking about the Royal Bank, Bata Shoes, Hewlett-Packard and other such companies. There are a variety of factors involved in why these companies are excellent in their view. One of the three major components of that excellence derives from the fact that these companies have embarked upon a serious decentralization of decision-making in regard to the implementation of policy and day-today administration to the greatest degree possible. Despite the position paper put out by the Social Credit caucus, which talks about local autonomy and which makes a valiant.... I must say that whoever drafted this did an excellent job of making something out of nothing. Despite their attempt to describe where there was still some local autonomy and, in fact, some new local autonomy, there in fact isn't. The minister wouldn't disagree with that. The minister would admit that the whole purpose of this bill, in fact, is to increase the decision-making out of Victoria by his deputy, who, in fact, isn't even his deputy any more. That's another sad feature of the way government is being changed in this province. The deputy, in fact, has a higher loyalty to the Premier's office than he does to the minister himself.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: As they say in question period, it's public knowledge. It's part of government policy. Deputy ministers in this province now have their first loyalty to the Premier, not to the minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, I know that the speaker must be getting very tired, but surely he doesn't have to — nor should he be allowed to — stray so far. What are we on? Are we on the Premier's legislation, or what?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the member for North Island that we are on the amendment to Bill 6.

MR. GABELMANN: The amendment is a motion that sets a philosophical framework for the differences between us on this side and the government on the other side. I was just in the process of arguing that people who do know something about management in this country — people who do know how to operate efficient firms of a size comparable in scale to that of the minister's operation — understand that decentralization of decision-making in regard to policy and day-to-day administration to the greatest degree possible is the best way to go. So why is it...? I don't understand this. Earlier today I attempted to present what I thought was a rational presentation to the minister about some of the questions I had about the impact of centralization as opposed to the ability of local boards to make decisions. I haven't got any answers from the minister yet.

The opportunity for us to come back and engage in some dialogue is lost, because once the minister closes debate on second reading itself, we no longer have an opportunity to debate it further, and that is not the nature of debating. The minister has gone to university. He's gone to law school. He knows how a debate is structured. There's got to be some give and take.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Education please come to order. If we are to require these speakers who have taken their place in debate to speak to the amendment, hon. members, we must allow them to continue their debate without interruption.

MR. GABELMANN: The point I was attempting to make to the minister is that, yes, he can close the debate at a certain stage, but at that point we no longer have the ability to stand up and say: "But what about this? You've missed this point, and we don't quite agree about this. What about modifying your view of the other?" One of the reasons we've moved this reasoned amendment is so that the minister can involve himself in this debate. If he doesn't want to because he's been up for so many hours, there are other members on his side who presumably have some knowledge about this issue, too.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we please have order, and would the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) please come to order?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind the Minister of Forests chirping as he does, but I wish he'd do it from his own seat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member who has his place please return to the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I haven't said a word since you got there. Is something eating you? You know, you'd do a lot more good if you'd go up to North Island and plant some trees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Could we please have order. Would the member for North Island please return to the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: You're right, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

What particular purpose is served by this legislation? Is it so the minister can control the number of dollars that are spent by school districts in a global sense? Is it so he can make certain that education is uniform, with no variation, in every school district in this province, so that a community like Alert Bay or Zeballos cannot develop a different style of education to suit its particular needs, as compared to, say, school districts like those in the Gulf Islands or West Vancouver? They may have an entirely different approach, an entirely different set of needs. Is it to control curriculum? I doubt it. There are other ways of doing that, and the bill doesn't touch on that, except insofar as it allows the minister to determine how many dollars go into each box and how much can be transferred from one to the other. Is that designed to create a uniformity across this province? Is it designed to deny the right of the parents in logging camps in my riding to say that they need a particular style of education

[ Page 1623 ]

because their kids aren't going to go to university, particularly in the same number as kids from Magee or Gladstone might?

Those questions haven't even been touched upon by the minister. He tells us he's going to do it in closing. The reason we have this reasoned amendment on the floor at the moment is so that we can have some discussion about what the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) described as the central issue in this bill, and that is: where will education be administered and controlled from in this province? Will it be from the local taxpayers and the local parents, or will it be from the bureaucracy in Victoria? That's the essential debate. And that's why we have the reasoned amendment — putting that proposition forward to give us an opportunity to have a debate.

It could well be that our fears are not founded. It could well be that the government could persuade us that their motives are appropriate and proper. We wouldn't need this kind of lengthy discussion. It has not really been a debate; it has been a presentation of views from one side. What kind of Legislature is it that has presentations from one side and no response from the other on an important issue such as is contained in this amendment? The question is: who governs in this society?

[12:45]

Every modern corporation, every modern democratic society is moving in the direction of decentralization, of putting power into the hands of people at the local level, with one exception. That one exception is here in British Columbia, and it's Social Credit. Why? Is it, as I suggested earlier. simply because of an ideological passion, an inability to free themselves from their philosophical straitjacket, their desire to out-Thatcher Margaret and to out-Reagan Ronnie? Is this part of a master plan of the Premier's to be recognized as the most radical — and I use that word, I hope, correctly — political leader this continent has ever seen? Does the Minister of Education really care about this particular bill, or is it in fact part of the Premier's attempt to centralize power in this province? We haven't heard the minister's views on that particular subject.

Did the Minister of Education have much to do with the formulation of this particular legislation prior to July 7? That's a question that many people in the public ask. Some of us happen to think the Minister of Education is a decent guy and wouldn't be a party to this kind of activity. He wants to keep his job, I guess, so he goes along with it. Perhaps he doesn't recognize the reality. I'm not sure if it's the term "honourable." I'm sure it's not the money. The minister can make more money going back to practise law. He could probably sleep better at night too. So what is it that compels the government and this minister to move in this centralizing direction and not to rationalize it, not to argue for it, not to tell us why? These are questions that the public has a right to know the answer to.

I apologize for my improper English in that sentence. I was taught early never to end a sentence with a preposition, and I just did.

Nevertheless, I'm going to close with those comments and the earnest plea that the minister do participate, however briefly, in this particular debate on the reasoned amendment, which basically calls for a debate and a discussion as to the respective views between local authority and local control, or central authority and central control.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciate this opportunity to speak in the dead of night to this amendment to Bill 6. The argument put forward in the amendment, of course, is that the bill is undemocratic and that what the minister is attempting to do, in imposing his will on the school boards and in taking on the power through his ministry to change the details of budgets of local school boards, is undemocratic and unnecessarily interferes with the long-established and traditional rights of people at the local level, people who were elected by communities and parents and have the confidence and the trust of those communities and the parents who send their children to school in those communities. The minister is unnecessarily and undemocratically interfering in the right of those elected citizens with a mandate to serve those communities and those parents in the detail of education at the local level. In other debates on Bill 6 and on the amendment to hoist Bill 6 we've asked the minister to consult. We've asked the minister to go back to those people and talk to them, to find out what concerns them about this bill, to seek possible areas of compromise around the bill. If the minister's objective is restraint, it would not involve too much in the way of expenditure, neither of the minister's time nor of the government's money, to go out and consult those people who are so directly and so closely involved in public education. It would involve very little time and effort and expenditure on the part of the minister to go out and to consult those people.

If the objective, as the minister says, is restraint, you would find, Mr. Speaker.... I'm sure you realize that in the constituency of Omineca many school trustees are extremely concerned about the growing cost of education, and how that cost relates to the effectiveness of education. Many of those people, those school trustees, some of them longserving, dedicated public servants, are paid a very low stipend. You used to be involved in local government, Mr. Speaker, and I used to be a school trustee myself. We weren't paid very much for that job, but although we didn't end up debating around the clock and in the middle of the night, I think we as public servants did our best and put our best forward to serve our constituents of that time. One of the reasons why we're putting forth this amendment and debating this amendment tonight is that we feel the government has not seen fit to recognize those people at the local level as dedicated, hard-working, effective servants of their constituents, with a mandate to improve public education in the province.

As I say, it would take very little in the way of time, effort and public expenditure for the minister to go around and to consult those people, to find out how they could best change their approach to education at the local level in order to achieve the government's goal of saving money, reducing public expenditures and reducing the pressure on the taxpayer, which we all know can delay economic recovery and make the economic situation more difficult for us over a longer period of time.

So the minister has a way, but not through this bill, which takes the sledgehammer approach to the problem, and never a very effective way of dealing with the problem in any case. I can't understand why this government would take the sledgehammer approach. Perhaps it's some kind of ego thing, where they want to prove that since they got fractionally more than 50 percent of the vote in the last election, that 50 percent of the popular vote gives them all power in the province. They feel that they have a right to exercise 100 percent of the power as a result of the fact that they got 50 percent of the vote. It's

[ Page 1624 ]

never worked that way, because we're dealing with people. We're dealing with people who feel that they have valid ideas of their own, ideas that have been tested and found effective at the local level, and ideas to which the minister should at least give the respect of a hearing.

The minister hasn't done that. If the minister had given an ear to what those people at the local level were saying, then why would our phones be ringing off the wall, complaining about this bill? Why are trustees phoning us complaining about the minister's refusal to consult them on this piece of legislation? Why are they using such words as heavy-handed, dictatorial, fascist in some cases? Why are they using those words to describe this minister? If the minister had gone out to consult and to talk to those people, to find out what their ideas are, we wouldn't be hearing those words over the phone. Mr. Speaker, if the minister had gone out to consult with school trustees, to consult with people at the local level of government, the people closest to problems in education at the local level, then we wouldn't be getting the kind of mail we're getting, the kind of letters with inflammatory words: Nazi, fascist, dictators. Those kinds of words don't help in this kind of debate.

If we're seeking solutions to the problems in education, if we're seeking solutions to a problem in a system of institutions which is designed to take children in our society and make them capable of dealing with the future problems in society, the last thing that we need is a measure of uncertainty and instability and inflammatory debate around that institution. To change that institution and to make it more effective and to get more education for our dollar, what we need is a steady, regular, consultative style of approach. It does not appear to us or to people at the local level that this minister has respected the needs of that educational system for the consultative approach; the need of that system for a bit of certainty.

How would you feel, Mr. Speaker, if you started off in the first grade in elementary school, and by the time you had even finished your first year the system of allocating funds for that school had changed three or four times, you found out your teacher was being forced to take five or six additional days off in order to cut back on the school budget, you found out in fact that you might not have the same teacher you started with at the first part of the year because your teacher had to be fired for budgetary reasons, and you were put into a larger class with less individual attention to your educational problems? And just think about what happens with the uncertainty of that system over a 12-year period. Are we embarking now, with this government and with this new piece of legislation, on an era where nothing will be certain, where nothing will be predictable within the school system, where when you start in the first grade you never know what will happen in all those years between grade 1 and grade 12? What this system requires is a measure of certainty and of predictability.

I'm not saying this doesn't involve change. We all know that we live in an era where change is the order of the day. It's a little trite, I suppose. You could go back to the times of the Ionian philosophers, to people like Heraclitus, who said that "all is change," that everything in the world is in a constant state of change. Why should that not apply to education? But at least it should be a form of change that we can understand and that we can predict, in relative terms, because this is an important institution in our society, Mr. Speaker. It's the institution through which we socialize our children, through which we accustom them to becoming adults in our society, citizens and productive members of our society. Through it we accustom them to maintaining the type of government that we enjoy in this country, the type of economy that we enjoy in this country, and the type of respect for people and laws that we enjoy in this country. For that reason it's important that this institution for socializing our children be at least granted some measure of certainty and predictability.

[1:00]

I can recall, when the NDP was in government, that the people now on the government side of the House attacked us for creating what they called uncertainty around the issues of resource management — for example, in the mining industry, Mr. Speaker, as you are only too well aware. Or in the forest industry. It was even suggested that some of these people would pack up their capital and leave the country because of the uncertainty that certain pieces of legislation created. This government should realize that what applies to the mining industry, and applies to the forest industry, applies even more to education. While it is possible for an industry to leave the country, while it is possible for capital to flee the country, it's not possible for our children to flee the country. They are born here and this country has a commitment to educate them, to socialize them, to give them the opportunity to become productive, functioning citizens in the society. The reason for our concern around this bill is that we feel this bill inserts an element of uncertainty within the educational institutions, an uncertainty in the governance of education at the local level that is going to create problems ultimately for our children and their teachers, and for the system of education itself. Otherwise, if we didn't have a concern about this, we wouldn't be here in the dead of night debating this type of legislation.

It's evident to us that in drafting this legislation the government possibly had restraint in mind. But many of our speakers have taken a look at the legislation and have found that if the government had restraint in mind, then this legislation does not do what the government wants. If the government wanted restraint, all they had to do was put a ceiling on the budgets of school boards. And they do that. They put a limit on the budgets of school boards, limiting the amount of money that school boards can raise from local taxes; on the other hand, they limit the amount of money available to school districts through grants from the provincial government, which are established under a formula that is provincial government policy. So if the objective was restraint, this bill is not designed to achieve restraint. This bill interferes in the detail of local school district budgets, rather than setting a limit which would be....

[Mr. Campbell in the chair.]

They seem to be changing from first string to second string, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I should wait until the ice is cleared.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I guess it depends on your point of view. From that man's position, everything would look like first string.

Mr. Speaker, if the government's objective was restraint, then clearly all they would have to do is to put a ceiling on local school board budgets. That would achieve the objective

[ Page 1625 ]

of restraint. It would limit the amount that local school trustees would be able to spend; it would allow the local trustees to establish the detail, recognizing the differences that naturally occur within school districts spread throughout this province, from the 49th parallel way to the Yukon boundary: differences in climate, population, demographics in the school districts. These are all the things which school trustees must deal with in establishing the detail of their local budgets. Simply by establishing the ceilings, the government could accomplish the object of restraint without tying the hands of those local school trustees to deal with the differences in their school districts, which they must deal with in order to deliver the best quality of education possible within that area.

So the objective of restraint is not really what this bill is attempting to accomplish, as many speakers have mentioned in this debate. Why then does the government want to interfere in the detail of school district budgets? What is it that they fear from local school districts, from the ability and power of local trustees to move moneys around within the various categories of school budgets? What do they really fear about the authority granted long past to those local school trustees, and which they have traditionally enjoyed? They've had that authority in order to respond more effectively to the demands placed upon them by local electors, the people who gave those local trustees their democratic mandate in the first place, the people those local trustees meet with and consult with on every possible occasion. It's difficult for us here in Victoria to understand the actual level of consultation and discussion that does take place at the local government level. As I pointed out earlier in this debate, I was elected twice as a school trustee, and every one of our school board meetings was open to the public. There was no such thing as the closed doors of cabinet. The school law of the province said that all the business of a school board had to be conducted in open meetings. So the people had a right to view what was being done, what was being voted on by those trustees; they had an absolute right to see what was being done.

That's the problem with our view from Victoria, because down here we have the institution of cabinet: a political party behind closed doors, the secrecy of its meetings protected by the four walls, the secrecy of its minutes protected by law. Nobody knows who's made representations to cabinet. Nobody knows what deliberations took place in cabinet. Nobody knows what reasons have been advanced for the decisions made by cabinet, nor does cabinet have to explain those reasons to the public; cabinet is permitted by our law, a law that comes down through thousands of years from the divine right of kings, to conduct its business in secret. The local school trustees, however, are bound to respect the principles of democracy. They are a government of more recent origin. They're a creature of the provincial government. At one time schools were run by the provincial government, and school districts were established in order to provide a level of responsible authority between the ivory tower down here in Victoria and the citizens who wanted a say in how their children were going to be educated. That's why school districts were established. That's why the office of trustee was first created, and why trustees were first elected to serve those local communities and the parents whose children required an education. So their business must be conducted democratically and in open meetings.

So you will have no difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in understanding why school trustees and parents around this province are extremely concerned about the principles in this legislation, which they see as anti-democratic. That's why we have presented this amendment to Bill 6. You will clearly understand why people at the local levels see this change in the administration of school districts as being undemocratic: because it violates the whole tradition of public education in British Columbia, a tradition that says it must be democratically managed, a tradition that recognizes the demands of local citizens that it be democratically managed. Here we're saying that this government refuses to consult and to take the advice of locally elected officials, and that this government arrogates to itself the right to impose on those locally elected officials changes in the fine details of budgets — budgets designed to accommodate the differences in educational requirements at the local level. So you will have no hesitation and no problem, Mr. Speaker, in seeing the concerns of those individuals in local communities, and why they reject the anti-democratic principle in this bill.

There's another reason why we've presented this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Obstruction.

MR. SKELLY: That's one of the people who doesn't appear to have the jam to stand up in the House and debate this bill, examine the material in the bill in public, rather than shoot inane comments across the floor; somebody who really doesn't have the jam to stand up and debate in the Legislature, as he was sent by his constituents to do.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'll look forward to that member standing in his place when he has the right to do so, standing in his place uncovered and making the same speech that he's made in this House for the last 10 years — the last 10 years in my experience, because I'm sure he made the same speech for six years before that. A member who was a failure as the leader of the Liberal Party, a member that has been a failure as an author. Even in those simple biological distinctions of separating male whales from female whales, he's been a failure. But the one thing he has been successful at is in surviving at the public trough. He was born at the public trough, raised at the public trough. He's spent most of his life sucking it out of the public trough.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'd be pleased to sit in this House, or in my office, and turn the volume up and listen to that speech again, because I really enjoy it. But I look forward to seeing at least one member of the government stand up in this House and debate some of the issues that we've put forward in this House. As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) pointed out, the purpose of this House, the object of democracy, is to allow the government, which is responsible not to itself behind the closed door of cabinet, but responsible to this Legislature; and responsible, because in this legislation, this legislation that is passed with the advice and consent Of the Legislature....

[ Page 1626 ]

[1:15]

The government is obliged and responsible to listen to the debate in the Legislature. And if the government only hears debate from one side, and the public only hears debate from one side, then the information that goes out could be a little skewed. We're concerned about that.

We don't like standing up in this Legislature and speaking for up to 40 minutes per person, and in the dead of night. The clock's rolling around now. It looks like it's close to quarter after one in the morning, a time when all good men and women — yourself included, Mr. Speaker — should be in bed with visions of sugar plums dancing in yourjolly head. It doesn't make sense that the Legislature is here in the middle of the night, listening to the arguments of one side only. And the government back-benchers spend all of their time screaming "Sit down!" across the floor, or getting up under standing order 43 — and I shouldn't remind them of that — but never get up to challenge the issues that we've raised in debate.

The issue, as I've pointed out, and as is pointed out in this amendment, is the issue of democracy in this bill. If this government believes in democracy, if those back-benchers who are hollering across the floor believe in democracy, then let them stand up and show me and members on this side of the House where in this bill that principle of democracy is protected. How is that principle of democracy protected when the minister, with a telephone call, can change the detail of local school district budgets that were passed by duly elected trustees with a democratic mandate to serve the electors in that school district?

Where in this bill does this minister have the right, in accordance with democratic principles, to change, to alter the mandate of those local school trustees? We'd be pleased to hear the arguments. In fact, we might be convinced. This debate has not been prolonged because the opposition is speaking so long, but because we haven't heard any valid arguments from the other side. If those valid arguments would come across the floor, we could change our minds if some proof was offered that this bill will respect the democratic rights of school trustees, that it will respect and not interfere with the mandate of those duly elected trustees. If those members on the other side of the floor can prove that to our satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of all members of the House, then the debate's over. The bill would be passed. We wouldn't be forced to be down here arguing in the dead of night, away from our constituents, away from our loved ones, away from familiar places. Port Alberni — I miss it already.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Time really doesn't fly all that fast, you know, at this time of the morning.

I was talking about the members on the other side of the House who are so ready to interfere in debate by hollering across the floor, but never ready to stand up and present those reasoned arguments which we're thirsting for on this side, which we need. Prove your case that this bill will not interfere with those duly elected and democratically elected school trustees who have a mandate from the citizens who elect them; we're thirsting for that kind of information. The debate would be over if you could prove that to our satisfaction. That's why we're here asking the questions. We're told at our mother's knee; we're told, from the first day of elementary school, that eternal vigilance is the price of democracy; that a citizen in a democracy is obliged always to question his leaders, always to question the government, always to question the legislation. And here we are again, in the middle of the night, questioning, with no answers. And there they are, catching forty winks on the other side, while we're here working in the middle of the night.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's take the vote. We could go home.

MR. SKELLY: I'm in favour of that, Mr. Speaker. That is a bright lady over there. I think we should get to the vote; and the way to get to that vote quickly is to listen carefully to the other side of the debate. Now we've presented one side. We have asked a number of questions. We have attempted, as much as possible, to stimulate debate from the members on the other side of the House, who were elected by their constituents. We recognize that they got around 50 percent of the vote on May 5, 1983, but their constituents didn't send them down here to sit on their duffs and listen while the opposition debates, works hard, researches.

That bright lady had a great suggestion: that we should get to the vote on this issue. But I would like to hear her arguments. I would like to know if she's talked to the school trustees in her area, who have been in touch with us, Mr. Speaker, who have telephoned us, written to us, and expressed serious, deep concerns about the anti-democratic nature of Bill 6 and the anti-democratic right that the Minister of Education and his employees have arrogated to themselves in this bill — the right to phone up a school district and say: "You must change this budget item. You must change that budget item." That's not based on restraint; that's based on the minister's desire for power, a desire for power to control the very minutest detail of the budget process at the local level of education in this province. It threatens to undermine the security of that system, to undermine the certainty of that educational system.

We saw last year, in 1982, how the former Minister of Education — two Ministers of Education — time after time changed the budget process. First they said there was a 12 percent limit. That was before Trudeau advised them of 6 and 5. Then they changed the legislation. Then they limited the budgets again, so that trustees were floundering around, trying to find out what the educational policy of this government was, trying to meet the budgetary objectives of this government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There's one thing you can say about school trustees, Mr. Speaker — and you know this as well as I do because you have school trustees in your area as well — and this is the one thing we share, all share as members of the Legislature, because we have a provincewide system of education.... We all have school trustees whom we deal with on a regular basis, and who feel that they have a member of the Legislature they can come and express their concerns to about legislation and budget matters that are taking place in the Legislature.

That's one thing we all share as MLAs, as we all have school trustees in our areas, trustees who make an effort to consult with us. And all of those trustees have been contacting the opposition over the last few months, since this bill was presented in the Legislature, and expressing a deep concern about the anti-democratic nature of this legislation.

[ Page 1627 ]

That's why I, as a member representing Alberni provincial constituency, with a school district and accomplishments in the field of education second to none in the province.... We don't like to boast, we don't say we're better than the rest, but we're second to none. We've done a good job. Our trustees in Port Alberni and in School District 70 have done a tremendous job. But the one thing that they would like, since they are elected members with a mandate from the local electors, is to be consulted by the government on changes that take place in school district budgets, to be consulted by the government on changes that take place in legislation governing local school boards. The trustees in my area, and the trustees who have been phoning us from all around the province, have been saying that they have a concern that this government is undemocratic, is anti-democratic, has no respect for locally elected trustees and no respect for the principle of democracy at the local level in this province. That is a long-established principle, recognized and respected by our forefathers and by many other countries and provincial governments before this one. It's very unfortunate that this type of legislation is presented in this House at this time, when what is needed in this era of changing economic structures, of rapid change, when none of us knows what the tomorrow of tomorrow will be.... It is in this era that we need more than at any other time that process of consultation and democracy in order to make sure we have the finest education system possible in this province. So, Mr. Speaker, as you probably have gathered, I intend to vote for this amendment which challenges the anti-democratic nature of this statute.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Atlin. [Applause.]

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you. That was nice there. I've never seen that happen before.

Good morning to you, Mr. Speaker, at 1:30 a.m., Pacific daylight time. Here we are in the big capital city discussing an amendment to a motion, which, hopefully, will be voted upon very quickly this evening. Any time the Premier comes into the Legislature — which is, as you know, frequently when I am speaking — it always seems that I make my best speeches. I know, because it's 1:30 in the morning.... I notice the book that was being distributed, Up the Crow — the one with the pictures in it, I think.... Oh, The Hardy Boys. Well, that's good reading at 1:30 in the morning.

[1:30]

The amendment to the motion. I have it right here. As a matter of fact, I was going to read it out loud: "That the motion be amended by leaving out all the words following 'that' and substituting, therefore, the following: '...it is the opinion of this House that it is contrary to the interests of democracy to give a minister of the Crown unilateral authority and powers to issue directives to previously autonomous and locally elected school trustees.'" I think there are a number of key quotes in this amendment. The first one is "the interests of democracy." The second is "unilateral authority and powers to issue directives to...locally elected school trustees." You know, in the session last night — the longest continuous session in the long history of this....

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll break the record tonight.

MR. PASSARELL: I hope so. Yesterday we discussed the motion on Bill 6, which we've been discussing.... You know, it would be really nice if I sat down right now. Then we'd have to call the motion. But my colleagues would be a little upset.

There are two points I wanted to discuss with the minister as he sits, because I know that he was quite interested in the statements I made last evening with respect to Bill 6. I have a couple of suggestions in regard to this motion. The first is Dease Lake. That is something that we didn't discuss last night, but we can quickly relate it to this motion. The local school district, School District 87, has gone to the community three times in the last year and a half. It stated the need for a new school. It's in old trailers that are in place in Dease Lake. It's the only school in the Stikine that hasn't had a new school or modification. That was something I talked about yesterday.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: That easy? Well, I've heard from four members. Right now, we've got it. Look at this cooperation. Who said this place doesn't cooperate?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's the one.

AN HON. MEMBER: What else do you want, Al?

MR. PASSARELL: What else? The Premier's position — a one-for-one trade. All right? Isn't this interesting?

We've got the school in Dease Lake; it's the trailers that are in place right now.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, you just woke up. The trailers in Dease Lake are something the locally elected school trustees have talked about frequently to the community and have said they are 95 percent sure the minister is going to give them. They're just waiting for that last 5 percent. I can just see from the endorsement this evening that that 5 percent is pretty firm.

Second was the concern I had — which I failed to raise last night with you in regard to the amendment and the motion on Bill 6 — about the new school that was built in Kitsault. It's vacant right now since the company has closed down.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's what the residents want. They want that moved up from Kitsault to Dease Lake. Amax has said they're never going to reopen that mine again. We'll just put it on a flatdock and take it up to Dease and the people would be happy. It doesn't look like anything's ever going to happen in Kitsault again.

This is unbelievable. Look at that. Why is it that every time I speak the Premier gets scared....? He's gone? Why? It's happened for five years now. Even the Clerks are gone.

MR. SPEAKER: However, hon. member, the Chair is still present and would advise the member that the odd reference to the amendment is all that's required.

[ Page 1628 ]

MR. PASSARELL: I'm going to the amendment now. I'm going to read it again. Now if I can chase the other 20 out of here....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL No, they're not, sir.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment basically deals with the two themes: centralization versus decentralization....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL Did you ever find him? I wanted the Premier here because I wanted him to read that famous speech made to the Richmond Rotary association, which just continually comes back to haunt him. I know it's haunting the present minister. He has to deal with it because the Premier made the statement. I want to just go over it again for the records: "It is a matter of historical record that the great advances within public education in British Columbia have always come from either the classroom itself or from locally elected boards who saw community need and acted upon it."

MR. BARRETT: Who said that?

MR. PASSARELL The Premier, to the Richmond Rotary association.

MR. BARRETT: Don't you accuse him of being a liar. He's never said anything like that.

MR. PASSARELL Well, it's in the record.

MR. BARRETT: No! Our Bill said that?

MR. PASSARELL Yes, he did. And that's why I wanted him here. I just wanted to verify it, in case someone is going around impersonating the Premier and making these statements to the Richmond Rotary Association because this is in total contradiction to what this bill, the amendment and the motion are all about. He's not here. I wanted to ask the Premier if somebody's impersonating him but he's gone again.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, I want to protect the Premier, just in case there is somebody going around impersonating him, making these wild statements. That's not the Premier; that's the Minister of McKim...no, no, Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), with the pink shirt on tonight.

To the amendment. To the motion. To the bill. At 23 minutes to 2, Pacific daylight time, in the morning. Mr. Speaker, I told my colleagues ten minutes. I've got three minutes.... I've gone over these pages on Bill 6, I went over them on the motion, and now on the amendment. And it's getting pretty difficult to constantly reread these things into the record.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL No, no. I promised ten minutes, and I always keep my.... Two more minutes left.

Mr. Speaker, what it basically comes down to is that I will be....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: You're taking my.... You're taking it! That's the one! I think we should take a recess here to discuss this thing.

Mr. Speaker, to the amendment to the motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it backwards.

MR. PASSARELL: Backwards? No, not yet.

Just to look at Bill 6, what's been said for the record by me last night, speaking for the 40 minutes, and speaking this evening for ten minutes.... I thank you very much. It's been a slice.

MR. D'ARCY: I would be delighted, Mr. Speaker, to defer on this reasoned amendment motion to any one of those government members who — particularly the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis).... Monday afternoon at about 3 o'clock the member for North Vancouver–Seymour got up and demanded his right to speak in this House. He justified and rationalized the closure of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) because he wanted his right to speak in the House. Since that time the member for North Vancouver–Seymour — and this House has been sitting constantly, perpetually for nearly 36 hours — has been too lazy and too indolent to get up and speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I will ask the member to withdraw those remarks.

MR. D'ARCY: Everything I've said so far, or...?

MR. SPEAKER: The reference to the other hon. member.

MR. D'ARCY: Oh, that he's lazy and indolent. Yes, sorry. I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thanks. And now, hon. member, we will discuss the amendment before us. I'm sure the member has comments he wishes to make which are relevant to the debate — or he may take his place.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I'm delighted to take that instruction from you. You're absolutely correct. We are going to discuss this reasoned amendment. I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss.... The House in its wisdom did not want to consider this bill six months hence. But knowing that there are a number of reasonable members on the other side, including the minister, I have the strong feeling that he's going to want to give consideration to this reasoned amendment.

Certainly, as the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) pointed out, we on this side of the House do not want to hog debate. We want to guarantee that there is every opportunity for the members on the government side to get up and defend that embattled minister. As I mentioned, the member for Seymour asked for an opportunity to participate in the debate. He has not wanted to seize that opportunity thus far, but I'm sure he will at times in the future. Of course, the member for Point

[ Page 1629 ]

Grey a while ago.... Oh, there he is. He's here with his red tie on. He was insisting that he wanted to speak as soon as the member for Alberni finished, but his research, I suppose, wasn't done when the member for Alberni finished, and the member for Atlin had to intercede. But I know the member for Point Grey will be delighted to participate in this debate because he is a former Minister of Education. That's what we are discussing in this reasoned amendment — the matter of education, financing of education at the elementary and high school level, and the division of responsibility between the elected school boards and elected provincial authorities in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we know that this House is working very hard at establishing and hammering out detailed aspects of legislation. So far this session is one of the shortest on record. We know that the longest sessions this House has had in the last few years were in 1974 and 1975 when the Social Credit Party was in opposition. Now in opposition, we don't want to extend debate too far on many of these things. Once again, that's why it's important that everybody take their place in debate as soon as possible.

[1:45]

I want to talk about the school boards because the minister seems terribly concerned that, even though he has, and always has had, as his predecessors have had, power to set budgets, to allow for increases or establish decreases, the final power to set budgets.... In the past, once those budgets had been set, the school boards of this province, the elected trustees, those people who are mandated — I use that word because Social Credit loves to talk about mandates — to deliver education services under an act which they did not put through, under an education act that was put through by the members of this Legislature.... He's always had that power to set the budget. But now he is also demanding, and taking, through this bill, which I feel, we feel, is in many ways not a reasonable change.... That's why we have this reasoned amendment. Through this bill, he is also taking detailed power to vary individual aspects of the administration at the school board level.

We've heard a tremendous amount from the minister about the ability to pay. We've heard a great deal about which school boards are going to be efficient and which are inefficient. Nobody really knows how to measure that quotient, but certainly we have through the School Trustees Association.... Let's remember, these are not the teachers nor the people who demand money and salaries and benefits and so on. These are the people who are required to divvy up the limited amount of public resources that we have in this province at this time, in part due to world conditions, in part due to the Social Credit depression.

The school trustees indicate, and perhaps they could say it better than I, that one of the factors that affect the relative efficiency — that is, the cost per student — in different areas, which will vary, obviously, is quite clearly that prices of goods and services are going to be different, depending on where you live. Clearly in Victoria you're going to have a different cost of certain goods and services than what you might have in Cassiar or Cranbrook or Fort St. John. Certainly young growing districts will have more teachers at the bottom of the pay scale than will older, more static districts such as, say, Victoria. I think that's quite clear. In part, of course, that is due to collective bargaining contractual obligations that have evolved over a long period of time, involving trustees and teachers and a tremendous number of arbitrators, who were taken primarily from the private sector. For all I know, when he was in real life the minister might even have acted as an arbitrator. Often arbitrators are lawyers.

It's also quite true that under the provisions of the education act in the past and now, some districts are going to have to educate a large number of children who may have special learning problems. That doesn’t mean that they have learning disabilities. I think people with learning disabilities are pretty well evenly distributed throughout the school system. But clearly, in some areas, you'll have a large number of students whose second language is English, and that means that there are going to be higher costs, because in order for the school board to comply with the minister's own education act — the minister's own schools act — there's going to have to be higher costs merely so that those children are going to be functionally literate. The minister, who is holding up very well, knows that this is correct.

I would like to note on behalf of this eminently reasonable statement, which in part emanated from the school trustees, that in the past communities exercising their local autonomy have made independent decisions about the level of education for which they are willing to pay. Those independent decisions were made by the electorate, based on the philosophies and policies relative to education of the people they elected to the school boards. Perhaps it's an oversimplification, but very often on school boards there are trustees who are considered by their peers or by the press to be more spendthrift, and some who are considered to be far more penny-wise, when it comes to expenditures in education. The tide goes in and the tide goes out for school trustees, depending on the mood of the electorate come election time. We've even seen that happen right here in the capital city.

One of the things that the trustees seem to be concerned about.... They say the quality of management decisions in school can make a great deal of difference to the efficiency. They are concerned that poor management decisions will result in higher costs or poor education or both.

I don't want to go over material that has been canvassed extensively in this chamber, but a tremendous number of studies, made not by the official opposition but by professionals in the field of management.... When they've looked at centralized, authoritarian control, whether it be in a corporation, a university, government or a trade union, they have found that centralized, authoritarian control invariably leads to inefficient delivery of services at the local level. I don't believe that we can afford to be inefficient in this time of sagging economy in British Columbia. Education is a tremendously important part of the B.C. economy. It's a tremendously important part of our investment in our own future. We cannot afford to be inefficient.

The trustees use a term that, perhaps, I don't like — it could be misconstrued. They call it gross measures, which could construed in some areas as suggesting that the minister and his actions are gross. That's not really what they mean; I think it's more of a technical term. I say that not only because I believe that to be true, but because I do not want anyone in the House to think I am accusing the minister of being gross in his use of measures to enforce his will upon those who have a mandate at the local level from the electorate — the taxpayers, the property owners in their area.

The trustees go on to say:

[ Page 1630 ]

"Presumably the argument in favour of using gross measures such as pupil-teacher ratios or student cost is that they reflect differences in the quality of management decisions. Without an adjustment to take into account the four other factors, it is clear that these factors alone will not measure good management. Indeed, they may protect bad management that might exist in geographically and demographically favoured districts. The use of gross measures will also punish those communities which have chosen democratically to spend more than the average on education. The right of a community to set its own priorities is eroded."

That's what we have a concern about here, and that's what we would like to encourage the minister to reconsider. That's the reason for this reasoned amendment. I know that the minister is a strong, wilful person, but if he has been unduly influenced by his colleagues, I once again want to encourage them to stand up and support their minister, or perhaps present to this House well-researched, reasoned and logical arguments as to why this bill should not be amended as has been suggested by the opposition members here.

Further, going back to the more technical arguments here, I'd like to establish that any funding mechanism that seeks to identify and correct bad management decisions must be based on data that allows the influence of bad management to be identified. Right now those data do not exist. Perhaps the minister has every intention of putting those checks and balances in place. If so, we certainly would like to hear from him in that regard and, once again, from the support that he may have on the treasury benches and the back benches. "More than this, the mechanism must allow local communities latitude to buy a higher quality of education if that is their democratically elected decision." I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is paying attention. "Until that happens, the use of gross measures will add significant injustices to many communities without in any way helping school boards become more efficient."

It is quite clear that the trustees' associations feel quite strongly that Bill 6 as we have it before us is bound and determined to give the minister an unprecedented authority to use what the trustees have called gross measures. Even though the minister may care, even though he may try to impose efficiencies where he feels they are important.... By the way, I just want to say as an aside here — not to suggest that the present minister is in any way superior or inferior to his predecessor — that I happen to agree at least with the stated philosophy that the former member for Surrey had when he appointed a one- or two-member commission to....

I think one of them was from West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I know the member is reading the paper. We'll tolerate that, though. Even though it's technically not desirable in the House, Mr. Speaker, I can understand the need of the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) to improve his background knowledge on a number of matters. No doubt he is checking the closing averages on the Vancouver Stock Exchange and noting that once again it has set a new bottom record. While there has been a tremendous bull market in New York and Toronto and Hong Kong and Zurich, we find the Vancouver Stock Exchange scraping bottom in Social Credit British Columbia. I know he's going to get up and rationalize that situation.

But getting back to what I think was called the Sager commission, I don't know exactly what it accomplished or whether it was cut off at the knees, as the saying goes, but at least the philosophy expressed by the former member for Surrey when he was Minister of Education to check on purely administrative and management inefficiencies at the various school board levels around the province was a noble thought. I supported him on that and I told him so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a number of things which I wish to bring to the attention of the Legislature. I know that we've been told by the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) that we're going to be here for days, weeks, months and years, and I can only take him at his word, so certainly we want to get specifically into concerns that have been expressed by professionals and elected people in the education area of this province about Bill 6, which is entitled — just to bring everybody up to date — the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983.

I would like to express support along with the school trustees when they say that "the BCSTA appreciates the government's concern about increasing provincial budget deficits and accepts the need for ceilings on total school board revenues from provincial funds." This side of the House understands and accepts that as well, Mr. Speaker. I think we've made that abundantly clear. "However, the association believes that the provincial government's objectives of economic restraint can best be achieved" by some of the amendments that they suggest. I know that they have met with the minister and that he was listening very carefully and indicated to them that he would take their suggestions into consideration, and that after having taken them into consideration he rejected them. I want to give the minister every opportunity — because I know he's wide awake, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, and feeling all puffed up with the tremendous outpouring of support he's getting from his colleagues in the government benches — to reconsider. I know he's not a masochist. Northerners have other ways of enjoying themselves.

[2:00]

The trustees have concerns about Bill 6 because they see what in their view will be increased costs of administration. They feel that they're going to be facing increased legal costs. I think most of the centralized authoritarian legislation that has come before the House, of which Bill 6 is part, has been recognized by — I don't use the term unkindly, Mr. Speaker — the special-interest groups who are concerned about those certain areas.... It's they who have noted that the removal of any sort of quasi-judicial or government tribunal system, forcing everything into the courts, is going to be very inefficient. It's going to result in tremendously increased costs to either the individual who is forced into litigation in order to stake a claim on his or her rights or to the organization, if it's a public-sector thing and the appropriate taxpayer's responsibility. I think that has been fairly well established in this House, and that idea has not been countered by apologists for the government here when they make their increasingly rare attempts to support the government's legislative package.

One of the further things they say is that when you centralize in Victoria as large and diverse a function as elementary and high school education you actually have diseconomies of scale from a system that becomes too large for effective administration. Surely that is one of the things that the minister and the government would hope to avoid. Certainly the speeches they have given and the material they

[ Page 1631 ]

have put out before, during and after the election would indicate that that's the route they wish to go. We want to give the minister every opportunity to do that.

While the government has moved closer to what the trustees consider to be their objective of an equitable system of program-based funding — nothing wrong with that; zero-based funding for individual programs which both trustees and the minister agree are appropriate in that particular school or school district — it is apparent that the proposal outlined July 12, in their discussions with the minister, "does not take into account specific problems in some districts." In other words, they're saying that the minister and his proposals are simply not flexible and not appropriate to meet the needs and concerns of people in individual parts of the province.

Ever conciliatory and ever wishing to consult with the minister and his bureaucrats, trustees indicate that they look forward to working with the minister and his appointed officials to develop systems which combine cost-effectiveness with equity and flexibility. With those kinds of dedicated people out there, I'm quite sure the minister has nothing whatsoever to fear at the prospect of working with duly elected people at another level of government which, under all aspects of the area in which they work, is laid down by the provincial government, just as is all local government in B.C.

I want to talk a bit about the funding of the school system, because Bill 6, after all, is a finance act. We note here that school boards, because they are responsible to the people who elect them and who produce the money to provide for their share, share a concern about property taxes with corporations, and small businessmen, residential and farm property owners and — I don't use the term unkindly, Mr. Speaker — landlords, because landlords have to recognize property taxation as part of their costs and pass those costs on to their tenant. They note that prior to 1982 governments of British Columbia relied on revenue sources that were subject to economic cycles. I think that has been very clear to everyone in this House who has grown up in B.C. and lives here. This meant that revenues from resource taxation, corporate, small business and personal income taxes were high in good times and lower in bad times. Certainly those kinds of revenues — corporation tax, personal income tax and sales tax — are going to fall in a year like 1983, even compared with 1982, and we all know that 1982 was a disastrous year in British Columbia, with gross provincial product falling, in real terms, between 7 and 8 percent depending on which survey organization you talked to. We also know that most independent analysts are indicating that here we are, approaching the end of the third quarter of the 1983 calendar, and most people are predicting that real growth in the province is not going to exceed 2 percent this year, which means we are only going to get back, at the most optimistic forecast, one-quarter of the decline in gross provincial product which we saw in 1982. So we've got a long way to go just to get back to where we were in 1981 in this province in terms of per capita income and the general standard of living.

These are facts we're dealing with; they've not been disputed by anyone on the government side. But there's no question that property taxes are needed to operate the public school system and have increased at a more rapid rate than education costs in recent years because government contributions have been steadily declining. Once again, that has not been denied by apologists for the government. It's interesting that we have some information here that shows that education costs have been steadily shifted onto property owners. This is not a narrow sample; I'm quite happy to go back to 1970. It's interesting that 13 years ago the provincial government — and this was still under a Social Credit administration, back in 1970 — put up 42 cents on the dollar and the local taxpayer 58 cents on the dollar towards education in this province. Now — and this was even before the 1983 budget and before Bill 6; just a 1982 record — the provincial share has fallen from 42 percent to 32 percent of school costs. That, of course, means that the share that local property owners face is now nearly 68 percent of the total amount.

As has been pointed out by the owners of commercial property, particularly in the city of Vancouver and other parts of the lower mainland, and in petitions that came to City Hall in Vancouver and to the provincial government, the share of that increase, proportionally, that's been foisted onto the backs of the private property owners by a government that once claimed to be concerned about the ownership of private property.... Obviously they don't care about it any more, but at one time they really believed in the sanctity of the private property of the individual. They have hit the owners of commercial and industrial property much harder than they have hit other property tax payers, and they have hit property tax payers in general much harder than they've been prepared to put money into education out of general revenue. I don't want to repeat what has been said before, because it's already on the record, but once again we find that a government that wishes to shift financial responsibility onto local property owners — in particular, industrial and commercial property owners — but at the same time wishes to govern more and more out of Victoria, out of the privacy of the cabinet back rooms, is not the kind of government that anybody in this House wants to see functioning in such a manner in the province of British Columbia. It's not a right- or left-wing thing, Mr. Speaker. Nobody has advocated that sort of a philosophy in any public statement — not in the Social Credit Party and not in the New Democratic Party. But we all know that what politicians do is historically far more important than what they say. The minister and the cabinet and caucus he meets with — the government benches — have consistently governed more and more out of Victoria. They like big government. At the same time they have shifted political and financial responsibility arbitrarily onto the backs of local property owners. I would like to see the government reverse that trend. I would support them on that issue if they would reverse that trend.

Once again, discussing Bill 6, which is education finance — it says "interim"; I hope that even if the government insists on jamming through this bill without significant amendment it is very interim and they come to their senses — we would like to.... Mr. Speaker, I realize that some members of this House require longer to do their research than others. I know that they're just aching for the opportunity to take their place in this debate. Bill 6 has been called before, Mr. Speaker, which I'm sure you're aware of, but just in the most recent calling of Bill 6 the government members have had 36 hours, with all their support staff and all the money they spend on their global caucus budget, and every opportunity to do some research, and I know that they're just itching to get into the debate. Mr. Speaker, I know you are very tolerant of this occasionally intermittent caterwauling from the government back benches, even though those members have not seen fit to take their place in debate — but I

[ Page 1632 ]

know they will, because they are honourable members of this House and they would not come to sessions of this august body and not wish to participate.

Back to Bill 6 specifically: again, referring to finances in the most recent fiscal year that we can discuss, 1982, when the provincial government decided arbitrarily to remove the powers of school boards to tax commercial and industrial property and took that power unto itself.... That was a major issue in my constituency. I'm trying to deal in the macro instead of the micro, and I don't want to get too parochial, but.... That change in financial policy — jammed through arbitrarily, without discussion with the trustees or anyone or anyone in this chamber — of averaging industrial and commercial property throughout this province, a tremendous hardship on areas like School District 9 in Trail and to a lesser extent on School District 11 in Castlegar....

MR. SKELLY: And 7 in Port Alberni.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, that's right. It's a tremendous hardship. What it really amounted to was that funds available locally, paid by the shareholders and property owners of industry in those areas, suddenly were stripped from the local areas and sent to greater Victoria and West Vancouver and those areas of the province which do not have that kind of an industrial tax base.

[Mr. Reid in the chair.]

I think Prince George is one of those areas which saw residential property owners' taxes go up for a number of reasons, but that was a specific one that the provincial government of which he was a member at the time, although he wasn't Minister of Education, stripped — many people have said stolen — the industrial and commercial tax base from those constituency areas.... I know the minister probably deplores that action, but he is going to indulge, I know, in cabinet and caucus solidarity. I simply hope he's working behind the scenes on behalf of his constituents to lower their taxes, their cost of living and the cost of doing business in the Prince George area by restoring the opportunity for moneys which are raised locally, paid by property owners, shareholders of industry and the owners of commercial property, to be used to hold down the residential tax bill in those areas.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

We note further that the government now, as a result of this change, has the power to shore up declining income and resource base tax revenue simply by increasing commercial property taxes. That, indeed, Mr. Speaker — how delightful to see you in the chair — was one of the things....

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Madam Speaker.

MR. D'ARCY: Madam Speaker? You'll bring me to order, I'm sure, if I stray too far off Bill 6.

Because the government now has this power arbitrarily to increase industrial and commercial property taxes, unfortunately they have used that power in both 1982 and 1983, and under Bill 6 they will use that power even more.

So we have a situation where a substantial portion of education revenues are no longer attached to the reliable constant of property taxes and instead are subject to government reactions to fluctuating business cycles. Further, the cyclical nature of income tax and corporate taxes, which are levied against profit.... Madam Speaker, you perhaps wouldn't recall but between 1972 and 1975 we heard speeches in this Legislature going on morning, noon, afternoon and evening, month after month, Saturdays — the longest sessions this Legislature has ever known. This session is just a shortie, just a minor blip so far. But in those sessions the Social Credit Party, which was in opposition, having been rejected by the voters in 1972, argued that the taxes should all be levied on income and on profit — so a little bit of a historical divergence there, Madam Speaker.

Furthermore, because of the cyclical nature of these taxes levied against profit, designed to relieve financial pressure and to stimulate growth and allow businesses to go into a survival mode during economic depression.... But property taxes are not responsive to economic cycles, and increases imposed by government to counter declining revenues do place hardships on business when relief is needed the most. Anybody in this chamber who owns commercial property will know what I'm talking about; they will know that even though a property owner may go through a sharp assessment decline — perhaps as much as 20 or 30 percent in one year; the marketplace will decline that much from the high real estate values we saw in 1980-81 — instead of the property owner getting tax relief based on a decline in the real value of their property, what happens is that because the government requires arbitrarily that the local level put an even greater share of funding into education and local government, the local authorities are bound by the School Act to simply raise the mill rates.

So even when property tax assessments decline, citizens of this province — especially the owners of commercial and industrial property, which is what we're talking about here — don't get the relief that they should get and that they do get in their other taxes. Clearly when a business is breaking even or losing money they don't pay income tax. Clearly when they are forced to go into restraint and cut back on their own payroll, they can reduce their costs and become leaner and fitter and more efficient. The one area they can't cut back on, and in fact have seen their actual costs go up in the last few years in, has been property taxes. That has been purely by arbitrary actions by the Social Credit government in Victoria — not as a result of consultation with school boards or local governments, not as a result of demands or elections at the local level, but purely by arbitrary changes which the government has made. We are hoping that the minister will take this into account.

Further, we know that during....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I bring your attention, hon. member, to the light.

MR. D'ARCY: I have enjoyed participating in this debate and I'll be happy to take my seat. I know that the minister has been listening carefully and I'm looking forward with great anticipation to his eventual response to statements by myself and all of the other members of this great chamber.

MR. BARRETT: Madam Speaker, I was expecting some response from government members. I anticipate that perhaps we have shamed at least the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) to make some comments prior to the conclusion of the debate of second reading of this bill.

[ Page 1633 ]

We are dealing now with an amendment to the main motion. The amendment, of course, which has been addressed by the House, is as follows: "That the motion be amended by leaving out all the words following 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is the opinion of this House that it is contrary to the interests of democracy to give a minister of the Crown unilateral authority and powers to issue directives to previously autonomous and locally elected school trustees.'" I find it somewhat distasteful that we have to debate such an amendment at 2:20 in the morning during the minister's absence from the House, but the content of the specific amendment requires some comments, at least, by the authors of the amendment, the official opposition, in spite of the fact that the government itself chooses largely to ignore the debate and the fact that probably the debate is being ignored elsewhere.

I would hope that the minister, when he gets up to speak — or any of the government members, would name in this House the school districts whose behaviour in the past has caused the government to consider this legislation — not just general accusations, not just blanket clichés, but actually name, chapter and verse, the behaviour of school districts that they believe has been so irresponsible as to lead to this loss of local autonomy.

It would hardly be useful for a government to bring in such a bill unless there were factual instances of flagrant disregard of responsibility at the local level by a school board. It would be the responsibility of any government that claims to have the sense of commitment to the community that this government has, in protecting the community from itself, to specifically name one school district that has caused this dilemma that they intend to solve with a dictatorial bill. Having said that, I intend to go on and quote from a paper that was recently given by a right-wing economist who apparently favours the free market system, perhaps even believes in the myth of free enterprise and relates it to this government's legislation and the actions of the government specifically on this bill. Madam Speaker, the paper which I will refer to and the quotes which I will read from is a general critique of the whole legislative package, but I will confine my remarks to quotes that refer specifically to this particular amendment to this particular bill.

The paper was presented by Professor A.R. Dobell of the University of Victoria, in September 1983. The title is: "What's the B.C. Spirit? Recent Experience in the Management of Restraint." As in all good papers there is a tender quote that obviously touches the heart of the matter that the author wishes to reach in literally dozens of pages. The quote is from T.S. Eliot's Choruses from 'The Rock,' written in 1934, an appropriate year. I quote from T.S. Eliot, as Dobell has, in direct relation to this particular bill that we are debating today:

When the Stranger says: "What is the meaning of this city?
Do you huddle together because you love one another?"
What will you answer? "We all dwell together
To make money from each other"? Or "This is a community"?

I can't think of a more appropriate quote to relate directly to this particular bill and, of course, as intended by the author to the whole package.

The first quote that I intend to refer to that directly relates to this bill, certainly in general terms, is a précis by this professor, giving an analysis from his point of view of what is taking place in the province of British Columbia in terms of just a general attitude and a sense of responsibility to elected people in a democratic society. Recalling, as I did at the opening, that not one school board, not one school trustee has been named by the government as a reason for this bill, I quote from page 2:

"Precisely because there are so few controls on the use of the apparatus of state power by a cabinet with a legislative majority, the government's exercise of that power must be continually appraised, and an insistence on the government's responsibility to look beyond the mere expression of public sentiment is essential. Elected ministers owe us more than simply the packaging of popular measures. It is surely the most basic truism that responsible government includes the responsibility to ensure that the exercise of state power conforms to standards of justice and equity even when — most exactingly when — these are not popular."

Of course we are dealing with unpopular actions, but the thrust of the argument by the professor is that because you are dealing with unpopular actions there must be precise information, precise statements and exacting positions by cabinet ministers in putting forward these unpopular measures. We have not received that. Strikingly, we have not had more than a handful of government speakers on this bill, nor have we had any factual information from those speakers as to what particular school trustees or what boards they consider in the past have mismanaged their money. Are they shielding some information of criminal behaviour by school trustees? Are they aware of any malfeasance in office? Do they have just some knowledge of general neglect by school trustees? Whatever it is, they have a responsibility to tell the people of the province what school boards and what trustees have inspired this legislation.

[2:30]

Of course, no such evidence has been forthcoming; no such direct, mature, responsible participation in debate, beyond the normal frivolity of this chamber, has come from the cabinet benches. Most of the comments, essentially, have referred to the usually subnormal exchange of insults that we conspire to trade off as debate in this Legislature, both sides equally willing to express our disgust of each other as human beings, and sometimes effectively scoring a point or two, but rarely dealing with substance in a debate that obviously has affected the total community to the point that we have had massive demonstrations in this province. We have people who have taken the law into their own hands — much to be condoned, much to be condemned. By different points of view we have split the province of British Columbia with people advocating this kind of action and people condemning it. We have not had a senior cabinet minister stand in this chamber with a sense of serious responsibility and say to the chamber, and through it to the citizens of the province, why they are doing this. The particular absence in the debate of that small measure of sense and commitment has allowed a vacuum to be filled up with a lot of nonsense. That doesn't serve the parliamentary system very well, and it leaves the average citizen with a feeling that this whole process is a waste of time. Certainly, up to this point, it probably has been. But I put this question to you: what is the point of a government bringing in legislation, and saying that they're

[ Page 1634 ]

dealing with a crisis that they perceive, unless the government is willing, as Dobell says, to state publicly why they perceive the crisis to be what it is and what evidence they have to lead them to that conclusion? There hasn't been any of that. I've traded insults with the best of them; that's all that the debate has been to this point. We've had an exchange of witticisms that might delight a grade 7 student who had to write a term paper on base behaviour in parliament at 2:30 in the morning. But that doesn't excuse the fact that the government benches have not spoken out logically, forcefully, calmly and with rational approaches as to why they need this legislation. Hardly an excuse for a government that wants to be taken seriously and is asking people to make genuine sacrifices that most people are willing to make during very difficult times.

A society that is faced with rapidly changing structures is willing to cooperate. Most taxpaying citizens, most people who live in this province, don't want to rock the boat or cause any trouble. They just want to be left alone to live their own lives in a manner that they assume would be possible. That applies to education of children as well. That's why we've always allowed people in this province to have some input into how their children should be educated, rather than a centralized state dictating the nature of education through the guise of controlling a budget.

Madam Speaker, I have attempted to keep the comments that Dobell has made, and I advise the members of the House that, perhaps, for a few minutes of good reading, it would be worthwhile for all of us.... I certainly don't intend to lecture, particularly when there's hardly anybody here to lecture anyway, but I would advise that the members might find this provocative paper the basis of a better debate in this chamber.

On page 10, Dobell makes the following comment, and I find it appropriate to this amendment: "A government which continues to spend millions of dollars on roads to high-income condos in ski resorts while cutting expenditures on salmonid enhancement or reforestation is exercising a discretionary choice, not responding to limits on ability to pay."

Madam Speaker, that quote in isolation is certainly not appropriate to this particular motion but it is necessary to refer to it because it makes the point dealt with earlier by the opposition and not addressed by the government one whit: that is, there still is some room for discretionary expenditures. We are not broke. We are massively in debt, and under this government the debt has gone up in this province under this government from some $4 billion to some $12 billion in just seven years. Massive mismanagement of public funds by Social Credit. In response to that massive mismanagement, there is a simplistic attempt to assault education in British Columbia. There are choices, and those discretionary choices have to be confronted. If it is a choice between paving a road to a ski development of condos versus more money for education, where do you put the money? I have no difficulty in making that choice. Will the government tell us why they make the choice they've made?

I now turn to page 11:

"For present purposes, we may simply note that no indication is given anywhere in the restraint program as to how productivity may be recognized, measured or increased in the public service."

That applies to public education as well.

"The only definition I have been able to find in the B.C. government context is that contained in the guidelines and regulations of the compensation stabilization program" — which of course has been around for some time.

I skip quickly through the main body of further comments — they are more appropriate for other legislation and I wish my remarks to stay in order — and go to page 18. I want to say, Madam Speaker, that perhaps you and I are the only ones who are involved in this exchange of human endeavour. I'm talking, you're listening, and I don't think we're having too much impact on each other. Nevertheless, it's a duty we must both perform. I say, obviously without any earth-shaking consequences, that there has been an absence of substantive debate on this very important issue from the cabinet itself. A quote from page 18:

"The tragedy of this ill-considered restraint program is that six weeks after a series of measures shattering any prospect of a continued cooperative, consultative, participatory approach to labour-management issues, the government is hiring a local firm of consultants to teach ministers, deputies and ADMs about 'organizational downsizing.'"

Why do I read that quote? Because it's a discretionary expenditure of funds that could be applied to schools. But rather than provide an open, honest government able to deal, by way of the truth, with selling this program, it has to hire consultants. With all of the money they spend in discretionary powers, separate from school budgets, on people like Heal and his propaganda machine, they have to hire outside consultants to tell them how to sell this program, when the truth would be a better instrument.

But the truth cannot be used — I return to my basic argument — because they still have not told us what school board, what school trustee, has been so irresponsible as to cause the fashioning of this kind of legislation. Frankly, I believe Mr. Begin's opinion that this legislation has been politically inspired. There are people on the government side who, I have always believed, have been intelligent enough to present a rational and cogent argument about the purpose of any bill. But I've not heard any rational or cogent argument as to why this bill is here. Shall I leave it to the inane, cliché defences in interjections by ministers now overtaken by Morpheus? Shall I leave it to the silence of empty seats as witnesses, dramatic testimony to the fact that they really don't care about this place or the process? We won't know.

Dobell raises another point on page 21, one that directly relates to this bill. I know I'm having a moving effect on those who are hunched over the speakers in the dark comers of their offices, listening to my cogent arguments attacking their lack of responsibility. I may even wake one or two out of their much-deserved sleep as they sacrifice their bodies on this altar of all-night sittings, on behalf of the down-trodden masses of British Columbia. Such sacrifices, Madam Speaker, by such wonderful public servants are an incredible thing. If only they were made on the basis of fact, reason and the truth.

[2:45]

"A close look at the degree of centralization and heavy-handed authoritarianism reflected in the draft legislation is necessary. The concentration of discretionary power in a few hands in Victoria is not only worrisome, but calls for serious analysis of the management processes envisaged by the government or the small cadre of senior officials with whom it chooses to share its now enhanced executive powers."

[ Page 1635 ]

That particular paragraph is totally appropriate to the debate we're having tonight and it bears repeating, even though you and I are the only ones who will be within earshot of the repetition. Nonetheless, repetition, like confession, is good for the soul. For those who have a soul left, it is good to give it this kind of nourishment.

I quote again:

"A close look at the degree of centralization and heavy-handed authoritarianism reflected in the draft legislation is necessary. The concentration of discretionary power in a few hands in Victoria is not only worrisome, but calls for serious analysis of the management processes envisaged by the government or the small cadre of senior officials with whom it chooses to share its now enhanced executive powers."

The professor is being somewhat mild; as an academic he's not given to inflammatory language. But other academics understand exactly what he is saying. What are the facts? What is the evidence? What guarantees do we have that in this kind of legislation we have demonstrated there exists in British Columbia a responsible government that will deal with this? Some of the academics know very well that no such evidence exists, with the legacy of dirty tricks et al, Madam Speaker, no evidence for believing that there exists a cabinet with the independence of spirit, the will, the courage as individuals, with moral fibre of their own, to stand up to the centralized power of either bureaucrats or a Premier who demands that bureaucrats respond to him directly.

Professor Dobell says that it is worrisome. He's being mild. I say it's frightening. Cabinet ministers are being reduced to ciphers. No evidence is given to this House or to the people of British Columbia of why such legislation is necessary. In this instance, not one school board or trustee has been named as an example of irresponsibility which has led to this legislation. As a result, it is nothing more than a grab for power.

Dobell goes on.... I hope he's not fired for writing this. I know that having written this, he will never be appointed a government agent. Indeed, I don't know whether or not that was on the calendar of his career, but having severely criticized, by way of question, the actions of government, I don't think Mr. Dobell is going to become the government agent in Kelowna. So if he had that on his agenda as a career highlight, we share the knowledge that it is not likely. As a matter of fact, it is more likely that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) would be appointed to that post before Dobell, and the chances of that happening to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour are no greater than those of a snowball surviving in hell, to use a generally accepted cliché.

Nonetheless, the professor goes on to make another challenging statement related to this whole package, which of course must be related to the motion itself:

"In abstract terms, the controversy is to challenge the government's fundamental premise that the only legitimate social interaction occurs through market transactions, and the only legitimate power is the power of property. In more personal terms, the controversy arises from the disquiet created by the uncivilized exercise of autocratic power."

Those are pretty shocking, inflammatory and revolutionary words — delivered by an academic. What he's saying is that obviously the motivation is the exercise of autocratic power, based on a government whose perception is that property, above all, is the measure of a society.

Madam Speaker, I know I'm making a great impression on you and other members of this chamber with the weight of Dobell's argument. I do not have too much more to quote from his paper, but I think it's essential for those resident academics — who are rare, indeed, on the government benches — to at least address themselves to some of these comments. There are one or two members on the government side, whom I referred to as resident academics, who came from the Liberal Party, where resident academics are at a premium. Even if they are a rare species in Social Credit ranks, Liberal members are a rare, albeit endangered, species in themselves. Nonetheless, that arm of radicalism, that extending thrust of intelligent academic debate within the particularly searching and grasping back bench of the government that exchanges through its own counter to the Fabian Society, the Fraser Institute, the kind of intellectual exchanges that are known to lead through history.... As a group, that will possibly be called the Davis-McGeer group, that intellectually superior leadership given to those back-benchers, allowing them to have the font of knowledge of right-wing expressionism, learned from the school of hard knocks — i.e., a university job, in one case, and working for a Crown corporation in the other, both at the public trough, both employed through the munificence of taxpayers. You know the cliché that is unkindly thrown across the floor, that "none of you has ever worked a day in your life." That doesn't apply to those resident Liberal academics; they've worked for government agencies all their lives. And they're the first to attack the hand that feeds them. Amazing! I know, of course, that these stirring remarks are disrupting the slumbering consciences of some of those academic participants and the new thrust of the debate of Social Credit theory as expressed by this motion — that centralized authoritarian government is best, i.e., Big Brother. Of course they know best. They were elected, weren't they?

I read again from Dobell, on page 35: "The fundamental flaw in the whole reasoning process is the approach to the management of government based on the experience of small business." That's hardly the accusation to be made of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) or of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). I'm not quoting when I make the following comments. It is what is known to political scientists throughout the world as the Poujadist syndrome. To put it in a North American context, Poujadism was best exemplified by the American movement known as the Know-Nothings. The Know-Nothings, using that as a rational basis of behaviour in government, proceeded to demonstrate that Know-Nothingism was a good way to get power: say nothing, and then when you get power, demonstrate that whatever you had in mind you kept from the people anyway.

I return to the quotation: "It is a failure to appreciate that public administration involves a collective decision process whose essential feature is the resolution of conflicting interests. This process rests on acceptance of a wide variety of institutions for mediation, negotiation and reconciliation." One of those institutions, of course, is moulded by a process known as democracy. Democracy is an intelligent approach to the management of human affairs that believes people can be trusted with power that they wish to take unto themselves. A manifestation of that is in school boards. This government

[ Page 1636 ]

now deems that democracy at the school board level is cumbersome, that any attempt at, as Dobell says, "mediation, negotiation and reconciliation" is rather troublesome.

As a consequence, of course, the professor is led to a number of other statements, which I quote. I'm not given to quoting academics, but the safest time to do that, Madam Speaker, is at 2:30 in the morning, when you are guaranteed that the press gallery will never quote a word of it. Having said that, there are just a couple more quotes from Dobell. By the way, these will not make Denny Boyd, and will hardly be the subject of great discussion on any sports page — or by any jock, for that matter. Nonetheless, they are interesting comments that shall be buried in the bowels of Hansard, only to be dug up by some student who is being punished by a venal political science professor, who says, "Go back and find out who destroyed public education in B.C." Lord knows, that professor may even be spawned from this chamber — hardly likely tonight since we are bound by other duties that could not possibly give seed to the development of new life, either by design or physical ability at this particular hour. But that is an observation, Madam Speaker, that must be left.... Oh, people have left the galleries. Perhaps activity by proxy, just out of straight threat to some other activity, rather than succumbing to the blandishments of us politicians...have allowed normal human behaviour to have sway in spite of the impediment, psychologically or otherwise, of this chamber.

"...the Social Credit government's restraint program strikes at the foundations of government credibility and acceptability generally. More specifically, its restraint program as drafted has the effect of undercutting four fundamental institutions in one swipe.

"1. The collective bargaining process...."

Not appropriate, of course, to this section, so I will not read that.

"2. The tradition of a neutral career public service based on the merit principle."

Not appropriate to this, so I won't read that.

"3. The provision of tribunals to redress serious imbalances in market power and marketing knowledge."

Again not appropriate, so I won't read that.

"4. An independent legislature with power to hold the government publicly to account."

That is the key one. With the destruction of the Crown corporations committee, with the deliberate stalling at the public accounts committee, with the striking away of local autonomy in such matters as school districts, these four points come into being.

I come to my last quote from Dobell, Madam Speaker. "What must remain worrisome, however, even to those who applaud the government's efforts at downsizing...." This is the escape hatch for those who don't want to go all the way with the cement boots — those who want to cling to some mirror-gazing rationalization that they are above this crassness and this exchange of insults and lack of intellectual debate. This is the rationalizing escape route for them. One or two members on the government side who deem themselves to be above the mass, lowest common denominator of becoming a Social Credit member have a decent history — they were Liberals before they joined that rabble. But having descended to that level, they do need a rationalization, and Dobell has given them that rationalization — and some Tories, too, because for some Tories it was a descending, although for others it wasn't.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: We know how it applies. What is most worrisome is that the last Tory in this chamber who was truly a Tory was Dr. Scott Wallace, who was an eighteenth century gentleman. He was a Socred who came to his senses and said: "My God, this neurosis is a passing experience and I will be born again." And indeed, he did become a gentleperson as a born-again Tory — a rare reversal of conversion, except, of course, if one leaves the federal arena and comes provincially.... I will not say anything about that because I would be out of order.

I quote from Dobell, page 38 of a speech that is satisfactory largely to me since I'm obviously having no impact on anyone else. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to say these things. Perhaps one or two of the challenges by Dobell may strike a receptive ear of some thoughtful members on the government side. If I have woken anybody up, I apologize for that. "What must remain worrisome, however, even to those who applaud the government's efforts at downsizing, is the lack of any restraint, legislative or otherwise, on a cabinet willing to go to present lengths to centralize power in a few hands, beyond public scrutiny." Now what is it that moves a distinguished professor to write a very thoughtful 40-page statement and analysis of what the government is doing? He is man on the right wing of the political spectrum, who goes through a detailed analysis of where the government is going — and I am only applying his comments to this motion — and then rests his comments on the second to the last page, with this quote that I think, frankly, is worth repeating: "What must remain worrisome, however, even to those who applaud the government's effort at downsizing, is the lack of any restraint, legislative or otherwise, on a cabinet willing to go to present lengths to centralize power in a few hands, beyond public scrutiny." The Minister of Education is sitting there. This statement by Dobell reinforces the question to that minister: if he is philosophically truly committed to this legislation, then he must tell this chamber what trustees, what school districts, have been found wanting to the point that their actions and behaviour have led to the necessity of bringing in this kind of control outside of public scrutiny on all school districts. Is there one? I doubt it. If there are any, name them. Otherwise, I believe the minister is being compelled to bring forward this legislation purely for political purposes.

[3:00]

Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker; you have proven yourself worthy to share the silence of the Chair with this chamber in a mature fashion, in my opinion.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The question remains with the minister: name one school board or name one school trustee in whom you do not have the confidence, trust and belief that, democratically elected, they can do their job. Name one. If you can't name one, then tell us honestly why you're taking the power away from them.

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 1637 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I've done my very best to listen to everything that the opposition has said. We started sometime yesterday, as I recall, and I can truly confess that with about 15 minutes of shut-eye, which I think happened somewhere around noon today, I have listened to the comments of every member, and I think to about 15 or 20 minutes of the twenty-first member who spoke on the hoist motion. I recognize much of what they have said, and also recognize the concerns, which I believe were expressed with a great deal of sincerity. In the short time that I've been in the House, I think the debate which occurred from approximately 11 p.m. on Monday, and went over until roughly a quarter to seven on Tuesday, was probably the best debate I've had the pleasure to listen to. I confess that I did take copious notes on each member and each one of their comments has made a mark. I give full credit to them in that regard.

I have to go back, Mr. Speaker, and I won't be that long. I'm quite prepared to go on forever now, to explain and respond, but I don't think I have as much support in here as I would like.

MR. PASSARELL: Are you going to give me that school, Jack?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Just a minute here. I think I've put in my time on the government side, and I understand that according to the procedure and the rules of this House, which I understand were made by both sides, I'm bound by those rules and I have to close debate.

To the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), I listened to everybody and I don't recall throwing any barbs back at you. I recognized the sincerity with which you made your comments.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I wasn't asleep.

MR. PASSARELL: Do I get that new school, Jack?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, but I think we can get the first-aid station. I am not sure but we'll have a peek. I've only got so much money and I have to put that money throughout 75 school districts on a fair and equitable basis. All of the members have looked at the fiscal framework which I put out. I might tell you, that fiscal framework was something which could go out. Bill 6 makes reference to the ability to set a budget. If I hadn't put out the fiscal framework, many, including the official critic, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), would not have had nearly as much to say.

Let's have a look at the global budget for the province. What are we talking about? Over three years, $81 million on a budget for this year of roughly $1.9 billion. The first year it's $25 million and if you want to multiply 81, or divide it by 3, what do you get?

MR. PASSARELL: Explain that again, Jack.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Just divide 3 into 81 and you've got it; that's your average. It's 1.7 percent per year for three consecutive years. I think we can handle that, but you have to remember there are some reasons for the discrepancies between numbers which you have seen on the framework. It's because of declining....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You don't want to hear the answers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, no, Mr. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), that is not really correct at all. One thing I don't understand from the members of the opposition is when we start talking about the amount of money which comes from property taxation in British Columbia. Let's not get into the argument that it's the province's scoop — commercial, industrial and residential — that directs the mill rate. Let's not worry about that; let's just look at what those people pay. The amount they pay in property taxation in British Columbia towards the total education budget is 43.64 percent. The provincial government pays, from consolidated revenue, 51.56 percent of the total budget for the cost of education. Yet I constantly hear that the province isn't putting in its portion. The other figure we are talking about is the contribution made by the residential property owner and by the tenant through payment of rent; 8.74 percent of a total budget of approximately $1.9 billion.

I raised before something that I think is appropriate. We all remember Proposition 13 in the State of California. I don't think anybody thought that was the best move, but what happened? The taxpayers said, "We have had it, we are not going to have any more," and we saw what they did. They gave it a mandate. As a matter of fact, they reduced property taxation by 57 percent in the state and capped it. As politicians, we have got to recognize what the taxpayers are saying and try to work this thing through, and how do we do that? We have got 7 percent — $1.316 billion in the last fiscal year. That is an unaudited sum, but it is very close. This year it's $1.406 billion, roughly 7 percent. We think the taxpayers are prepared to pay that amount more.

What happened in California? One major district is now in receivership and others are on the verge. I think we as a province have a duty to preserve the fiscal integrity of a school district. I also think that restraint was a major issue. Don't tell me it wasn't an issue in the last election. I can remember the statement when we were in the riding doing our work. We remember the day when a certain member of the opposition made a comment....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Who was it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, that's water under the bridge. The fact of the matter is it was made.

The editorial that came out was very specific: "We certainly know where the government stands on this issue." The question at the end was: "Where does the opposition stand?" That was the question. We're an ordinary people, you know, in the northern interior. We made up our minds. That was the message from the electorate in my riding when they sent me back. I think perhaps that was a major issue. So with restraint I think the taxpayers gave us a message.

[3:15]

Interjections.

[ Page 1638 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can see I'm going to have some difficulties. I took all of this pain and I can see they don't want to listen now. I've enjoyed this debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: It's your guys who want to shut you up. Go ahead.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 7

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

Bill 6, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, now that we have everybody up maybe we can all just sit here....

Interjections.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, on July 8, the day after the budget was introduced in this Legislature, approximately 250,000 people got a very great shock.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Go back to the UBCM; they want to talk to you there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'm advised the member has reached 40 minutes. Are you the designated speaker?

MR. HANSON: I'm the last speaker on the hoist, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hoist? There is no designated speaker on a hoist motion.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on Bill 3.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have not?

MR. HANSON: I have not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair misunderstood. I'm sorry. The time will start from now. The hon. member will proceed.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, 250,000 families in British Columbia got a rude awakening on July 8 of this year. They found out that they no longer had any kind of job security. They found out that their jobs were at risk because Social Credit had been re-elected in this province and had introduced a budget threatening their livelihood, making it impossible for them to borrow money with confidence at the bank....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. I'll ask the time to stop. Hon. members, I realize that many members, because of the time, might want to discuss things, but they could discuss them outside the Legislative Assembly. Please give the hon. member the courtesy of either leaving the House or listening to him.

Thank you. Now the hon. member will proceed and the time will begin now.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll begin again.

On July 8, when people of this province picked up their local newspapers to see a summary of the budget and the legislative package introduced in this chamber, 250,000 people got a terrible shock. Two hundred and fifty thousand people who had employment in the public sector, not just with this provincial government but also with all sorts of provincial bodies, public sector employees throughout this province, found that the government was stripping away their seniority rights, putting their livelihood at risk, creating chaos in the economy, destroying any optimism about any immediate short-term recovery, making it impossible for people to go to their credit unions or banks and borrow money without having the local bank manager contact a personnel officer to see if that person would be unemployed in the short term.

To look at this little bill without understanding its contents, it would appear to be a rather insignificant piece of literature. It's printed at the Queen's Printer's, and on the front page in the top right-hand comer it says: "Government Bill." "First Session, Thirty-third Parliament, 32 Elizabeth

[ Page 1639 ]

II, 1983. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Bill 3. Public Sector Restraint Act. Hon. James R. Chabot, Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services."

When you open this little document, you see that under the "Interpretation" section it says that it applies to people working in the following areas:

"1. In this Act 'employee' means a person employed by a public sector employer but does not include a justice or a person employed as a justice; 'public sector employer' means (a) the government, (b) a corporation or an unincorporated board, commission, council, bureau, authority or similar body that has (i) on its board of management or board of directors a majority of members who are appointed by an act, a minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, (ii) employees appointed under the Public Service Act, (c) a municipality, including (i) a municipality, (ii) a regional district, and (iii) an improvement district, as defined in the Municipal Act, (d) a board of school trustees as defined in the School Act, (e) a university as defined in the University Act, (f) an institution as defined in the College and Institute Act, (g) a community care facility as defined in the Community Care Facility Act which receives funds from another public sector employer, (h) a hospital as defined in the Hospital Act or the Hospital Insurance Act which receives funds from another public sector employer, (i) a library board appointed under section 18 of the Library Act, (j) an employer designated in the schedule.

[3:30]

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Turning to the back page, where the schedule exists, we have "Board of Parks and Recreation under section 485 of the Vancouver Charter...."

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is reading the bill and not debating it, and this is not appropriate for debate. If the member cannot debate the bill, then he should be requested to take his place.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it is entirely in order to illustrate who the bill encompasses and who is affected by the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue with your speech, but don't read the bill.

MR. HANSON: Is the Chair telling me I cannot indicate who the bill applies to? Is that what the Clerk is saying to...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER; The Chair is saying that you can discuss the bill but not read it at length.

MR. HANSON: I'm not reading it at length, Mr. Speaker. I understand your counsel.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the principle of the bill.

MR. HANSON: I'm indicating who the bill applies to, which is fundamental to the principle, Mr. Speaker.

So this particular bill applies to employees of the Board of Parks and Recreation under section 485 of the Vancouver Charter, British Columbia Assessment Authority, B.C. Buildings Corporation, B.C. Development Corporation, British Columbia Ferry Corporation, British Columbia Housing Management Commission, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia Institute of Technology, British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, B.C. Railway Company, B.C. Steamship Company (1975) Ltd., B.C. Systems Corporation, B.C. Transit, B.C. Utilities Commission, Capital Regional Hospital District, City of Vancouver, Compensation Stabilization Commissioner, Greater Campbell River Water District, Greater Nanaimo Water District, Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District, Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Greater Vancouver Water District, Greater Water District, Insurance Corporation of B.C., Labour Relations Board, Metro Transit Operating Company, North Shore Union Board of Health....

HON. MR. McGEER: Point of order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, would you please stop me from being interrupted by that member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to standing order 43 and ask that the member be requested to take his place. Section 43 states: "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House" — which the Speaker has done — "or of the Committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in Committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

Mr. Speaker, the member is violating standing order 43 by engaging in tedious and repetitious debate. He is reading the bill. You have called his attention to the fact that he is reading the bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the member be requested to take his place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point is well taken. The Chair is not prepared to do that at this point. However, I will remind the first member for Victoria to leave the details of the bill to the committee and to talk, at this point, to the principle of the bill.

MR. HANSON: It seems entirely relevant, Mr. Speaker, to identify the employers indicated in the bill. This is an omnibus bill and encompasses all public sector employers and employees in this province. I am identifying them to this House. I'm going to be indicating....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Go back to bed.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I again call your attention to standing order 43. The public sector employers have been well canvassed in previous debate. The member is engaging in tedious and repetitious debate. He has read the bill. He has persisted in tedious and repetitious debate and I

[ Page 1640 ]

ask — indeed, I insist, Mr. Speaker — that the member take his place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again, hon. members, the Chair is not prepared to do that at this moment, However, I will again remind the first member for Victoria to speak to the principle of the bill at this point.

MR. HANSON: The principle of the bill strips away fundamental rights from public sector employees. It makes them second-class citizens in this great and beautiful province. It runs against the historic developments over the last number of years, when public sector employees have been taking their place as full working people in this province. That runs counter to Social Credit philosophy, which wants their own employees to subsidize services to the public. On January 7, 1983, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) sent a message to all employees employed by the province of British Columbia. In that message he stated:

"I am writing to you as minister responsible for the public service in regard to recent speculation concerning administrative changes in government.

"As we enter 1983 the effects of the world-wide recession on British Columbia are all too apparent, with excessively high levels of unemployment being the clearest example. Individuals are hurting, families are hurting, and because taxpayers do not have the money to send to government, provincial government finances are hurting as well.

"Although the pain of high interest rates for homeowners, consumers and small businessmen is now abating somewhat, and while we see a glimmer of hope that our international markets are on the road to recovery, the expected economic upturn is likely to be gradual and modest and extend over a number of years.

"Difficult days lie ahead, and we will need the highest degree of cooperation on the part of all British Columbians to see our way through. I have every reason to expect that the cooperation of government employees will be forthcoming in the future, as it has been so magnificently in the past.

"Based on current information, the government's five-year recovery program foresees budgetary deficits at the beginning of the period, with a commitment to pay back these deficits by the end of the period. In order to achieve this goal within the ability of the taxpayer to pay, it will be necessary to have a smaller government and a leaner public service.

"Much has already been accomplished through the restraint on government program. The timely introduction of the compensation stabilization program, for example, has enabled us to avoid the massive layoffs that are now taking place in some jurisdictions and are looming in others. As the Premier recently stated, our continued objective is to avoid such layoffs."

This is the relevant paragraph in this memorandum. Here is a memorandum that flies in the face of the bill we have before us:

"The government intends to continue with a measured and balanced program, and does not wish to take abrupt action in reducing the size of the public service. Massive layoffs are not desirable, particularly when opportunities are available to reduce the public service through attrition, through voluntary retirement, by transferring certain functions to the private sector and by retraining people when programs are cancelled. The government's objective, and my personal objective, is to avoid layoffs and minimize the disruptions to government workers and the public alike.

"We believe that this approach of sound planning is the best protection for you and your family, as we work our way out of current economic difficulties. I believe most government employees share these goals, and I would welcome your suggestions on how best we can go about reducing the size of government as smoothly as possible. In the months ahead, as the plan takes shape, we will be consulting fully with interested groups and individuals.

"Thank you for your continuing commitment to serve the people of British Columbia. With your cooperation and dedication, we will be able to protect those services which are essential to British Columbians and put in place a leaner, more productive and affordable public service."

Mr. Speaker, when you analyse this letter carefully, you find so many contradictory and misleading statements, leading the public service employees to believe that the government believed in a measured and balanced program and did not want drastic action to take place, but that they wanted to avoid massive layoffs. Implicit in it is the notion that the existing collective agreements would be honoured — the provisions of the contract under which the employees are working for the provincial government. One-third of those employees who received these letters are subject to layoff. In other words, the government could have met any ballpark figure that we have read in the press or heard from the Premier or the Provincial Secretary at any time by the existing contract language in the collective agreement.

We have to ask ourselves why the government would seek to achieve power and authority that would override all of the provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Act and the Labour Code of British Columbia. That is a very important and germane point. Clearly, it is a power grab on the part of the government to strip away any bargaining rights that public sector employees have achieved over decades of, first of all, collective begging under W.A.C. Bennett, and then under a collective bargaining process established and put in place by the New Democratic Party between 1972 and 1975. We established processes and expertise within the government service that would allow for positive, good-faith, collective bargaining to take place in the public service.

[3:45]

Also implicit in this letter is a commitment from the Provincial Secretary, who, as you know, is the main representative of the government in dealings with their own employees. Implicit was an undertaking that drastic legislative action was not forthcoming, that there would be respect given to the contracts and there would be a sense of cooperation. The Provincial Secretary indicates in the letter that there would be a consultative approach. He states: "In the months ahead as the plans take shape, we will be consulting fully with interested groups and individuals." As you know, that

[ Page 1641 ]

did not take place. The various trade unions and the bargaining agents involved were never advised or given any lead time. In fact, there are clauses in all of the collective agreements that indicate that no legislative action shall ever take place without prior notice and consultation of the affected parties.

We have to ask ourselves again what was to be achieved. Why did the government have pen put to paper to fire government employees without cause — not just the people who received this letter but the people who work for all of the agencies that I attempted to indicate to you before being interrupted so rudely by the member for Point Grey. One would think he would stand in his place in this House and be a defender of people that he particularly is aware of in terms of their working conditions — that is, the academic community of which he has been a part of for so many years. Stripping away of academic freedom is on the cutting edge of fascism, as you know. When you limit freedom of thought and freedom of expression, and when you threaten academics with loss of their livelihood because of statements they make, or because of activities they may engage in — political parties, assemblies, freedom of publication, and so on — then you are really at the cutting edge of fascism.

The other day I pointed out very briefly in the House that recently there was an American Association for the Advancement of Science award given to an Argentinian academic for his work in fighting the stripping away of job security for academics in Argentina. We can liken that to the situation here in British Columbia, where the cabinet can cherry-pick academics out of the universities who they feel are not compatible with their ideologies. They can do it in various ways because the government controls the purse-strings. The government is gradually taking away the autonomy of universities, colleges and of all educational institutions. By the proposed amendments to the bill, they will identify the people whom they feel are most undesirable, by department, by subject area, by faculty, and so on. They can achieve their ends in that manner.

Of the 250,000 employees, I believe there are in the order of 1,400 different job titles in the provincial government. Mr. Speaker, you are probably aware that everything from laundry worker, baker, truck driver, biologist, lab scientist, economist, lab scientist — not mad scientist.... We have him here in the Legislature — Gyro Gearloose and his little propeller. Do you remember the tunnel to the mainland, Mr. Speaker? That Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) proposed construction of a tunnel under the Strait of Georgia.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: It has to do with academics, Mr. Speaker. It's just a passing reference.

As the previous speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), indicated, Mr. Dobell stated that academic freedom was a mainstay of our society, a structural feature of a modern democratic society. Yet in 1983 we have a government producing legislation to take away any form of job security in the public service. Mr. Dobell said that job security, as many arbitration awards and tomes on industrial relations have indicated, is a reasonable expectation of a worker after years of service. The employee invests his or her time in their work, in exchange for which a credit, termed seniority, is deposited in a bank. This government refuses to recognize that concept, which is well established in labour relations everywhere in the western world. We have a government that wants to strip away that fundamental right and a Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, who is tenured, who feels that his colleagues who work very diligently in the universities of this province do not warrant that fundamental right of working people to seniority, a commitment on behalf of the employer that they will have employment.

The most objectionable clause of the bill in principle is the right of the 20 people who occupy the cabinet of this province to fire employees without cause, or even, with the language of the amendments, by notions of reorganization, change or budget allocation, through any kind of bureaucratese that the cabinet can come up with to justify the slash-and-burn — I think that's an appropriate term — in the public service.

The Provincial Secretary betrayed the 40,000 people directly employed by the provincial government and betrayed the 200,000 people employed by other public sector agencies under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. Can you imagine how a bus driver working for Metro Transit, B.C. Transit or Victoria Transit felt when he woke up on the morning on July 8 and found out that he could be fired by that group of 20 individuals over there? No wonder people were on that lawn out in front of this House. No wonder there were over 50,000 in Empire Stadium in Vancouver. Can you imagine how the coroners who do investigations about murders felt? They come under this too, as do the police and firefighters of this province, fired without cause by this government. Why in heaven's name would a government — 20 individuals sitting in those chairs across from me — want the authority to fire without cause firefighters, nurses, people that work in Riverview and Woodlands...? Mr. Speaker, you know all those institutions on the slopes of the Fraser just east of the Pattullo Bridge. There are hospitals in my own riding: Royal Jubilee, Helmcken Road, Victoria General, and so on. All of a sudden this cabinet has taken upon themselves, through this bill, the authority to fire without cause.

Clearly, as I indicated to you, under the provisions of collective agreements such as that of B.C. Hydro.... B.C. Hydro have been affected in terms of the downturn of the economy in terms of its revenue, and it used the clauses within its contracts to lay off according to a process that had previously been negotiated with its own employees. It laid off the most junior employees by job classification first; it then moved into other areas, but on the basis of seniority by previously negotiated work units, as is well established in common law.

In bargaining, as you know, one of the things that is negotiable between an employee, his bargaining agent and the employer is the units within which layoff and recall provisions will occur. These units are well established throughout all of the public service, so that, for example, if the budget was reduced for the Metro Transit or for the Jubilee Hospital, layoffs can occur, and have been occurring in disturbingly large numbers, Mr. Speaker, jeopardizing the quality of health care in the province. It is not just jobs we are talking about or what they call FTE's — full time equivalents — in the new budget estimates. These are real people doing a job, a day's work — or, most often, shift work, because public sector employees are shift workers.

[ Page 1642 ]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, the debate upon which the member has embarked is very interesting — I am enjoying it — but it is only in order under the debate of the principle of the bill, which is not the debate that we have embarked on now. The debate we are on now has to do with a hoist, and I am waiting to hear the reasons for the hoist. We cannot debate the principle of the bill under the hoist motion and then presume to debate it again when we return to the principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken, although the Chair will remind the members that it was in fact the Chair that suggested that the member should speak to the principle of the bill when in fact the Chair should have said the hoist, being the business at hand. Being reminded, the member will continue.

[4:00]

MR. D'ARCY: On the same point of order raised by the member for Chilliwack, Mr. Speaker, clearly the principle of the bill is involved with the motion to give the Provincial Secretary and the government members, including the member for Chilliwack in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture, an opportunity to consider the bill over the next six months in consultation with the Crown corporations and their employees and all the public sector areas. Clearly the principle of the bill and the motion to allow the government more time for consideration and consultation are directly related, Mr. Speaker. I know that is exactly what the first member for Victoria has been referring to in his eloquent remarks on this.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Further on the same point, Mr. Speaker. The member for Rossland-Trail has been in this House as long as I have. He knows that what he has just said is not right. You do not debate the same question in the same form. We debate the principle of the bill when the principle of the bill is to be debated, which is on second reading. I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to perhaps encourage the hon. member, who has a very interesting debate but one that is completely out of order.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't wish to get into a debate with the member for Chilliwack regarding the principle of the bill. Certainly the member for Chilliwack is quite free to enter into the debate on the hoist or on the main motion if he wishes, rather than simply raising frivolous and facetious points of order during the debate.

The fact is that the member for Victoria was not dealing directly and wholly with the principle of the bill. What he was dealing with were the reasons why he believes, in all sincerity, the government should have six months to reconsider the bill. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, in being strictly relevant to that idea he has raised numerous points as to why there should be a six-month reconsideration. I stand firmly beside that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will remind everyone that points of order with respect to relevance under standing order 43 have already been made. I would respectfully request the first member for Victoria to speak to the hoist.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the government to set this bill aside for six months. I'm trying to point out to the government that it was a shock to the people of this province on July 8, when they read the newspapers with their morning coffee. They read the details of this bill and found....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have sat through all of the most recent debate of the first member for Victoria, and those words just uttered were uttered previously in this debate about 20 minutes ago. I would ask that you bring that member to order, considering the merits of standing order 43.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The points are well taken.

I would also remind the member that his green light is on. Would he care to wrap up?

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would entreat the government to set this bill aside for six months and to sit down and engage in a consultative process with the people of this province. In my own riding this bill alone has impaired the economy to such an extent that the small business community is crying out for help. They're crying out for a withdrawal of this bill. They're crying out for a government that will put money in people's pockets and return the confidence of the public sector to their own buying power.

Mr. Speaker, I see my red light is on. Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members have spoken in the debate. I'm now going to call the question on the hoist.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, not all members have spoken. Some members have spoken. No members on the government side have spoken....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I have this floor. Order! Sober up, Mr. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair does not see anybody rising in their place.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I was just pointing out to the Chair that the statements....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The speech therefore being concluded, the Chair will now call question on the hoist.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct. But to leave the impression that all members have spoken is incorrect. All members who wished to speak have spoken.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Correct.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

[ Page 1643 ]

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 27

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

[4:15]

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) wants me to make introductions. I thought I would introduce the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) to the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes while we waited for the division, I had to go to the washroom; had I not, the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain might still not have returned to the House.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: That's not the B.C. spirit; that's the Education minister we've all come to love. During the debate on Bill 3 earlier this session I took the opportunity, during the motion to hoist it for six months, to make what I thought were some substantive comments concerning the bill. I did so without reference to other comments, briefs or presentations made by various people in the community, but based my comments at that time on my own observations about what Bill 3 really said.

[Mr. Reynolds in the chair.]

The fundamental point — and I'm only going to repeat it briefly and then go on to some other questions — that has not been made clear in the continuing debate both here in the Legislature and in the community concerning Bill 3 revolves around the suggestion made by some people that the bill makes public sector workers subject to the same provisions as private sector workers. In fact, of course, Bill 3, together with Bill 2, denies public sector workers many of the rights that are available to private sector workers in both organized and unorganized sectors. No unionized worker in this province is without the right to seniority or the right to recall. If this bill becomes law, public sector workers will be denied what I consider to be human rights beyond basic labour rights.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's not correct.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister says I'm not correct. The Minister of Labour has a different view; he says I'm wrong.

The fact is that every commentator, expert or person involved in labour relations agrees with my position; they do not agree with the position taken by the government.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the bill! It talks about seniority.

MR. GABELMANN: I've read the bill.

Rather than take my word for it, perhaps I should go through some of the comments that have been made by various people on both sides of the fence, both labour and management, in this province over the last few weeks and months. I think the most succinct came, in fact, from a trade unionist. I am going to start with him simply because I think he puts the whole question into proper perspective. It's Bill Clark of the Telecommunications Workers' Union. For those who don't know him, Bill Clark is a moderate and well respected trade unionist in the province.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) wants to know how much Bill Clark makes a year as a member of the executive, presumably the executive of the B.C. Federation of Labour. From personal experience, I can tell the member that he makes exactly zilch, zero, nothing whatsoever. No executive members of the B.C. Federation of Labour, except for the president and the secretary-treasurer, receive any remuneration whatsoever. He works for the Telecommunications Workers' Union and he receives a salary; what it is I don't know. You should ask him.

MR. KEMPF: That's the question I asked.

MR. GABELMANN: You asked his remuneration as an executive member.

AN HON. MEMBER: At least he works for it, not like you.

MR. GABELMANN: Five minutes into this perhaps I can get started, Mr. Speaker.

This is an interview with Rod Mickleburgh, Province labour reporter:

"According to Clark, the proposed legislation will leave public sector employees far behind the rights enjoyed by those in the private sector. As an example, he pointed to his own union's contract with the B.C. Telephone company. The TWU's agreement dictates that no employee with more than two years' experience may be laid off because of technological change, and junior workers must receive at least one year's notice.

"As far as economic layoffs are concerned, the company must justify its move before an independent third party, said Clark. 'We have a specific layoff clause, we have a right to go to arbitration over layoffs and we have the right of recall. Now if you took at the public sector, the government has already restricted the right to strike, the pay is a lot less, they have far fewer arbitration rights; and then the government

[ Page 1644 ]

gives them, under Bill 3, the worst layoff procedure I have ever seen. It is all nuts, it is all crazy.'

"He added that the TWU contract guarantees province-wide seniority will apply in the event of economic layoffs. 'In the public sector the government is proposing to wipe out any department it wants and there will be no seniority rights. Sure, they might put something about that in the regulations, but those can be changed at the whim of cabinet.' Asked about the Premier's observation that no one held rallies for laid-off workers in the private sector, Clark responded: 'What do you mean? We've had unemployment committees and unemployment action centres going on for more than a year and we have had our share of unemployed rallies. I do recall, though, that a lot of public sector workers were laid off in the past year and there haven't been any rallies for them.'"

He then goes on in other ways which don't deal directly with Bill 3.

I want to pick up on one thing that Clark mentioned in that interview which I think is really essential to this whole question, and it revolves around the claim by the government that the regulations will deal in some way fairly.... It is alleged that the regulations will deal fairly with the layoff procedures, termination procedures, recall procedures, seniority rights — all of those kinds of questions which are basic trade union rights. What guarantee, first of all, do we have, in debating such legislation, that in fact those regulations will be fair, will be appropriate and will be in line with some of the good statements that have been made on occasion by some members of the government? We have no guarantees of that, so how can we vote for legislation like this without having those kinds of provisions contained within the act itself? Even if the regulations were introduced shortly after this bill were to pass, whether second reading or third reading, what guarantees do a quarter of a million public sector workers in this province have that another cabinet — or the same cabinet, for that matter — might not amend those regulations later on and take away those rights that they might have been granted? What guarantees are there for that?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We'll get into those kinds of questions during committee, Mr. Minister.

I've just been going through my notes in preparation for making these comments this evening, and I recognize in my own notes that at least two-thirds of what I want to say really is more properly dealt with in committee, because it's a complicated, technical bill and we'll do it there. We'll get there sometime in the future. Obviously, looking at the way the list of speakers is depleting, it won't be too many months in the future.

I've quoted Bill Clark. I also want to quote some people from various perspectives. The B.C. Government Managers' Association is not your typical trade union. The people, in fact, are very high in the public service and are excluded from bargaining rights. Those people are not even in the PEA, for that matter. They are completely outside of any bargaining rights. In a letter to the Premier in early August of this year, they said:

"Dear Mr. Premier:

"The board of directors of the B.C. Government Managers' Association has directed me to write you regarding the proposed legislation affecting the public service. In view of the difficult economic situation which the province is presently experiencing, we fully endorse the goal of a more efficient and productive public service. The association must, however, express in the strongest possible terms our displeasure and resistance to the proposed legislation, in particular Bill 3, and the retrograde methods being used to accomplish this goal. While the rights being removed under the new legislation are not, for the most part, enjoyed by management employees, we are, however, concerned for the personnel whom we supervise and for the integrity of the public service to which we have committed our working life.

"The restraint methods are, in fact, contrary to creating a more efficient and productive public service."

I'll pause at this point in their letter to the Premier to say that tonight during the many hours of sitting in my chair in this Legislature, I read Mr. Dobell's paper, which was basically speech notes and was referred to earlier by the leader of the opposition. He makes very much the same kinds of points in a very non-partisan way, and I would commend to every member on the government side to spend the half hour or so that is required to read that particular paper. It's not presented by some raving left-winger or trade unionist or anyone who has any connection whatsoever with the left in any way in this province. In fact he is someone who has a conservative reputation. He makes the same point as the B.C. Government Managers' Association is making — again a group that I don't think can be perceived to be left-wing, or political at all, for that matter.

The letter goes on:

"Further, the proposed abrogation of employee rights is irrelevant to the goal of restraint and will lead only to a Pyrrhic victory, resulting in the destruction of morale and the creation of an inferior public service."

The letter goes on. I won't read the rest of it. Every member of this House will have undoubtedly received a copy of that in their mail.

[4:30]

The B.C. Health Association is a management group. This is just to give some perspective and some disparity on the quotes that I am reading into the record in the particular debate, Mr. Speaker. This is dated July 26:

"The B.C. Health Association urges the provincial government to reconsider Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act. Hospitals and community care facilities have proven that restraint can be effectively achieved through voluntary compliance and the existing funding process, without resorting to the extraordinary powers provided under the act.

"The B.C. Health Association has the following concerns:

" 1. The inclusion of hospitals and community care facilities under the proposed Public Sector Restraint Act is a step toward centralizing responsibility for their functions within government. The value of having autonomous boards as an economic and political buffer between the community and the Ministry of Health will be destroyed.

" 2. The proposed Public Sector Restraint Act will erode the responsibility and authority of the voluntary

[ Page 1645 ]

trustee. Hospital long-term care trustees find particularly offensive section 6(6) and 6(7) of the act, the proposed fine for those who contravene a directive under section 6 of the act."

That's the $2,000 fine for those people who violate a government directive.

"3. As employers, hospitals and community care facilities find that section 2(l) of the proposed act, the ability to terminate the employment of an employee without cause...."

That has since been amended, in my view, to not have much difference in its impact from the original legislation. The minister made similar comments. He said it was just wording from a bunch of lawyers. I'll quote him off the top of my head. "Lawyers have to have these certain kinds of words," he said, "and so what we did with the original words 'without cause,' are the same as these other words that I've put in" — and kind of fudged it all up, as he does so well in the corridor and in question period.

I am obviously quoting from a document that was prepared prior to the introduction of the amendments, but the point is the same. As far as I'm concerned, the interpretation of the amendments would not be exactly the same as the original wording, but almost. "The ability to terminate the employment without cause" — those are their words; mine are: with wide causes — "is unnecessary, unjust and unreasonable. During 1982 hospitals successfully reduced staff using the orderly system for termination of employees, which is contained within the existing collective agreements between the facilities and their employees."

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Oh, sure, let's do that in committee, too. You and I will have fun with this in committee, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Let's get to committee then. Let's have a real debate in committee.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll continue:

"4. Universal compensation system for senior managers of all public sector employers, as defined under section 6 of the proposed act, would be a further step toward bringing health workers into the government bureaucracy. This would result in an expansion of government services required to oversee the system, which is contrary to the intent of restraint."

Some of these same themes were touched on during debate earlier today on the education bill. They go on in much more detail, and I'll also leave that for the time being.

I'll move to the faculty associations at Douglas and Kwantlen Colleges. They deal with the amendments:

"The government's recently proposed amendments to the Public Sector Restraint Act do not change the real effects of a bill that has been widely condemned as repugnant. The government has not reinstated seniority, nor has it removed the potential for arbitrary termination of public sector employees. Legal observers and labour organizations now recognize that nothing of consequence has been changed in Bill 3 — indeed, Provincial Secretary James Chabot acknowledged as much when he emphasized to the press that the amendments do not represent substantive change in Bill 3 but simply remove wording 'that some people found offensive.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: That some people what?

MR. GABELMANN: That some people found offensive. Those were the minister's words.

I'll leave their particular statement for the time being as well.

The B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union, which is another group which will be affected by the provisions of Bill 3, prepared quite a lengthy analysis of Bill 3, and in an article for the Times-Colonist a number of points were made that I think need to be entered into the record of this debate. The letter reads as follows:

"I beg to differ with the Times-Colonist editorial of August 9, which argues that the amendments to Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act, are a critical change for the better.

"The distinction drawn between the objective of Bill 3 to reduce public sector employment by 25 percent and the means of accomplishing that objective is valid, but I stick to my view that the amendments are cosmetic.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

"On this point at least I find myself in agreement with Jim Hume, who argued on August 6 that the first member for Victoria is right, of course; the words made no difference at all to the intent of Bill 3.

"The Provincial Secretary has also been at pains...."

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to standing order 55, in order to move that the House do now proceed to Motion 5.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I will have to rule that request out of order. We are dealing with the bill, and the only motion that I would suggest the Chair could be receptive to at this time would be that debate on the particular bill be adjourned.

MR. HOWARD: I challenge that ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

[ Page 1646 ]

NAYS — 10

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

[4:45]

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, do I have to go through this initial five minutes of disruption again? Earlier I was quoting from a number of presentations made to the government by various groups who were concerned about the impact of Bill 3. Without reading them all, I want to conclude that portion of my comments by reading extracts of comments made by the president of the University of B.C. in a CBC radio interview. Dr. Pedersen, president of UBC, was asked what his main objection was to Bill 3. He said:

"Let me put whatever remarks I make into a context that says that I have an overriding concern for the development of the university system here, which is one of excellence, and I do believe that some of the proposed legislation that's in front of us could, in fact, work against that. I guess I have about four or five points that I would like to make quickly, if I may.

"First of all, it seems to me that with legislation like this, which has rather far-reaching effects as far as the university community is concerned...it might have been useful to have had some consultation."

That's understated, if anything, Mr. Speaker.

"I guess we have a Canadian tradition in government not to consult when proposed legislation comes forward, but I do think on something as important as this it would have been nice to have been advised and at least have had an opportunity to respond.

"The second comment I have, and one that is of overall concern as it relates to the education community generally, is that there appears to be much greater proclivity on the part of the government to intervene in the involvement of the respective management boards. With respect to our board of governors, it seems to me that some of the proposed legislation here...suggests that there has been some erosion of confidence in the manner in which the universities have been managed."

The CBC reporter asked Dr. Pedersen:

"But you will still have the power, will you not, to decide who stays and who goes?"

"Yes, to some extent we will have that," Dr. Pedersen replied, "but nevertheless, when you start dictating the form of the relationship you have with your employees, when you start dictating levels of salaries which will be paid and so on, it seems to me that you are really questioning the manner in which the organization has been managed in the past."

The interview goes on. I'm not going to read the whole extract. The members who want to read further, and who also want to see what the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said in the same context, can see the August 3 issue of UBC Reports. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to quote any further from the documents; rather I'm going to make some concluding arguments that I think have not been made either loudly enough or effectively enough, because it does not seem as if the government has understood.

At the beginning of this year, January 1, 1983, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) sent a message to public service workers in this province in which he stated specifically and categorically that job protection was reassured. This legislation absolutely and fundamentally flies directly in the face of that promise by the Provincial Secretary to his employees in the public service of this province. He told them, in effect, that they need not worry about their jobs, that the continuing process of downsizing the government in B.C. would happen through attrition, as it had been happening — in fact, by the way, it would probably have reached the target set by the government within the next year or so anyway, without the kind of Draconian measures we saw take place on July 7 and since, with obviously more to come. I don't think any employer has the right at the beginning of a year to say flat out to his employees, "You will have a job," and then seven months later say, "Sorry, I've changed my mind." I just don't think that is right in this kind of society. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, the bill and its implications flatly contradict the promise made by the Premier last summer at a meeting at Robson Square. A number of people were there, including the Provincial Secretary, his deputy, and John Fryer and Norm Richards from the BCGEU. This was in the final hours or the final minutes of the conclusion of the negotiations with the BCGEU and GERB. The Premier made a flat promise that no firings would occur in the public service. Reductions would occur through attrition, he said. This was a clear and a specific promise and it, too, has been broken. How can people...?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) makes the point that that was before the election. I wasn't going to say that. Everybody in this House knows that those kinds of promises were made before the election and broken after. I think we, as politicians or legislators or community leaders, should reflect somewhat on the implications of that kind of action, where we will say one thing prior to an election to gain votes and then do the opposite when the election is over. One wonders why any public service worker in this province — or, for that matter, any citizen in this province — would ever believe anything the Premier ever says, if he can make that kind of promise and then break it. For those people who have lost their jobs, probably the most significant thing in their lives is the economic security that those jobs provided. Both the Premier last summer and the Provincial Secretary in January guaranteed that their jobs would be maintained, and they were not.

A third point in this series of comments is that the bill completely contradicts the Premier's premise that wage controls were needed in the public sector, that public sector wages should be lower than private sector wages because public sector workers had job security. When we go back to the Premier's February 18, 1982 television announcement of the new wage restraint program in this province, he made it very clear that he felt he could take a different approach with public sector workers than was taken in the private sector, that

[ Page 1647 ]

he could, in fact, restrain their wages to a level below comparable ones in the private sector and could also restrain the increases to a rate less than the going rate. The justification for that was that those workers had job security. If the job security is taken away, then isn't the quid pro quo for that to also then take away the wage controls? How can he argue that he should allow both programs to be in place at the same time?

The bill does other things. It allows for the facade of trade unionism in the public sector, but it effectively eliminates real trade unionism in the public sector. Any trade unionist or person who is knowledgeable about labour will tell you that when you can't bargain seniority and job security, not to mention wages, you have no union at all in the very real sense of what a union is for. Unions primarily exist, in my experience, to provide security of employment, to provide security for seniority, for layoff and for recall, and, of course, they also provide a mechanism to negotiate wages and fringe benefits. But none of those things will be available to public sector workers as a result of Bill 3. When you add in the implications of Bill 2, you wonder why public service workers would want a union at all.

I'm going to terminate my comments at this stage. I've lost track of the time because of the earlier interruption in the proceedings. I just want to say in conclusion that, for the most part, the detailed discussions about some really important issues are going to have to take place in debate during committee stage. The principle contained in the bill has been well canvassed. We on this side think the principle is reprehensible and wrong. But during the debate in committee stage I trust that we will be able to have a serious discussion about the implications, and hopefully come to an agreement about what the implications of this legislation are. Then the House can properly decide whether or not that's what it really does want. I think....

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to raise with Your Honour.... I need to go back just a few seconds to draw it to your attention. According to the eighteenth edition of May, page 423: "Members are not to read books, newspapers or letters in their places." I noticed particularly the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) reading a thing called a newspaper. I wish you would draw that to his attention, and if he insists on abusing the rules of the House, to name him or do something.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has noticed that there has been quite a bit of this type of activity on both sides of the House over the past couple of nights. As far as I'm concerned, I have assumed that hon. members were taking advantage of the time to do a little preparation for speeches.

MR. HOWARD: Well, it says members are not to read books or newspapers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would agree. We mustn't argue with Sir Erskine, hon. members. The point is well taken.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind at all being interrupted by my colleague. I've concluded my remarks.

Finally, I want to move that the House do now adjourn.

[5:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

NAYS — 23

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

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. although I realize, Your Honour, that you can't be responsible for standing order 8, perhaps, in view of that standing order and the extremely thin attendance of the official opposition — in one division only seven members — the Speaker might draw the attention of the opposition to standing order 8. Or is it...?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. McGEER: Perhaps the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the bells are not working in the New Democratic Party caucus room. In any event, perhaps they should be reminded of standing order 8, in view of their attendance at some very important divisions.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order, Your Honour, under standing order 8 perhaps the Chair, with respect to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, should have brought that to the attention of the minister when he was away from this House day after day, in Vancouver, trying to secure his tenureship at the university.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair would remind all hon. members that the Chair really has no responsibility for bringing members into the House on divisions. Other people are charged with that responsibility. The Provincial Secretary stands on a point of order?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I'm not standing on a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I'm standing on Bill 3.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order by the Minister of Universities, there are only 23 members of the government side in the....

[ Page 1648 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I suggest that this particular point of order has been fairly well canvassed. I think the Chair gave a fairly definitive answer.

MR. LAUK: I mean no disrespect to the Chair, but the Speaker did hear out the Minister of Universities for the better part of a minute and a half, which is one of his longer speeches during this session.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest that the time of this House would be much better served if we proceeded with Bill 3.

MRS. WALLACE: It's interesting to hear the Minister of Universities making a claim that the opposition is not in attendance, when only half the cabinet were in their chairs the other day during question period — which they are required to attend.

[Mr. Michael in the chair.]

Bill 3 has certainly caught the interest of the province of British Columbia. It is probably the key piece in this whole package of regressive legislation facing not just this Legislature but also the residents of British Columbia. I think it's very evident that the government and cabinet are concerned about the type of legislation they're bringing in and about the public reaction to that legislation. We meet round the clock to try to force this through this legislature. We are called in for 24 hours a day in an attempt to sneak it through in the dark of night.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's the attempt. Certainly that is what the government would have liked to have done — no time for parliament and no time for the Legislature. They want to do it all by cabinet order and under cabinet control. That's what this legislation is really all about. It's part of a power grab; that's exactly what it's about.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the second member for Surrey has been quite rude in his remarks to this side of the House during the hon. member's speech.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. LAUK: Well, it sounded like that. I would ask the Speaker to protect the member for Cowichan-Malahat during her speech in this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Cowichan-Malahat please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, every time I stand in my place to speak, that second member for Surrey is here to heckle and interrupt in a rude and ignorant manner. I have asked other Speakers to use the rules of the House to control that member. If those interruptions continue, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to please ask that member to leave the House.

MR. REID: Throw me out of the House!

MRS. WALLACE: There has been much said about Bill 3, but I don't think it can be said often or firmly enough to continue to try and impress the minister responsible or to impress this cabinet with the reasons for the concern. I'm not sure whether they don't recognize the reasons or whether they are just so hard-nosed and determined to bring this thing into being that they are not prepared to use their God-given intelligence — if they have any — to recognize what they're doing to themselves, the province and the country. If there was ever an example of bad legislation, Bill 3 is it. It has certainly been picked up right across British Columbia....

[5:15]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Fascist legislation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We're just ignoring you, you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he a fascist?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the members please allow the member for Cowichan-Malahat to proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, there is no way that I'm going to get into a fighting match with that member for Surrey. If he's going to continue to talk from his seat, then....

MR. REID: Throw me out. I need some sleep!

MRS. WALLACE: It would be very nice if you would throw him out. It would be very nice to have some peace in this House.

MR. REID: Then you wouldn't have enough people here. I have to stay so you can speak.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think if there was ever a demonstration of the insanity of all-night sessions, what is going on right now in this Legislature is a good demonstration. People just become overtired and absolutely...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Slap-happy.

MRS. WALLACE: ...slap-happy — that's the word. Absolutely slap-happy. They don't have enough sense to go and sit in their office and keep still.

What I was about to say, and what I will continue to deal with, is the fact that this legislation has caused concern right across the country and, in fact, around the world.

It's been amazing to see the articles that have been carried in papers in eastern Canada, the responses that have come out of the United States, Britain and even out of New Zealand, relative to their concerns about this piece of legislation. This is part of a package and it's hard to isolate one from the other. But certainly Bill 3 is the key piece. It's the piece that spells out, in no uncertain terms, exactly where this government intends to go — where it intends to bring under government control the very lives of the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 1649 ]

They would have you believe that it's all big unions that are opposed to this legislation, but that certainly is not the case. At the founding conference of Operation Solidarity — which they would pass up as a trade union front movement — the key speaker was a Father Jim Roberts. He has nothing to do with the trade union movement. This is what he said:

"The public will rightly ask: 'Is this a labour protest?' 'Yes,' I answer. 'Labour in the sense of Pope John Paul's encyclical on the dignity of labour, which embarrasses union, non-union labour, private and public enterprise.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: Embraces, not embarrasses.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. It says "embarrasses" here. That's a misprint.

"Now is the moment to remember that we the people are the source of government power. We are the moral majority whose collective voice must now be heard to curb the immoral excesses of a runaway British Columbia government which is turning in violence on its very own and thereby is in the process of losing its governing mandate. 'Halt!' we cry, and especially in the name of the poorest of our society, the most vulnerable, the visible minorities, the handicapped, the elderly, young workers entering the labour market. We appeal, in the words of Marjorie Nichols, for 'the moral equivalent of a general strike.' We mean to prove to you, Premier Bennett, and to you, Mr. Hugh Curtis, that contrary to your claim, you do not have the majority of British Columbians behind you in approval of what you are doing.

"Let us contemplate the fate of the oppressed, not only in the Third World and the totalitarian warmongering countries, but also of the citizens of British Columbia who are being robbed of fundamental freedoms. I contend that when Bishop Remi de Roo, chairman of the bishops' social action commission which produced the ethical reflections on Canada's economic crisis, attested that the root causes of social sin leading to violence in Latin America were to be found here also in Canada, he was not, as some may have suspected, exaggerating. Aroused public protests now mounting among us over the budget's denigration of basic rights proves he was and is prophetically right in his analysis.

"For all of these faiths, then, I say: study the budget and its accompanying legislation in the light of your religious and ethical differences. Heed the cries of the poorest among us, and gather together in a moral crusade of epic dimensions forming the largest and most widely representative and most effective coalition that British Columbia's history has ever known. In this way we shall assist not at the death of a society, so long in the building through the efforts of generations of citizens, but at the renewal — yes, the rebirth — of a healthier society which for the first time will be validly composed of all minority groups, cultures and religions who are now in the ecumenical process of finding a common social voice.

"I conclude with a paraphrase of the famed Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller, who, with a worldwide voice of conscience challenging for solidarity at the rise of Nazism in Hitler's Germany...."

It's a well-known quote, Mr. Speaker, but it bears repeating over and over.

"At the beginning of the repression in British Columbia" — and he's paraphrasing — "government agents came for the human rights workers. I did not speak up because I was not a human rights worker. Then they came for the visible minorities, the teachers and the handicapped, and I did not speak up...."

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're paraphrasing.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, out of his seat, says that I'm paraphrasing. I am quoting from Father Jim Roberts as he paraphrased in his speech.

MR. REID: Did he say that? He would never say that.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. This is what he said.

MR. REID: He wouldn't dare say that.

MRS. WALLACE: This is his speech. He says:

"I conclude with a paraphrase of the famed Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller, who, with a worldwide voice of conscience challenging for solidarity at the rise of Nazism in Hitler's Germany...." This is all in quotes from Father Jim Roberts. "At the beginning of the repression in British Columbia, government agents came for the human rights workers. I did not speak up because I was not a human rights worker. Then they came for the visible minorities, the teachers and the handicapped, and I did not speak up because I was not one of them. Then they came for the physicians, the renters, the trade unionists, and I did not speak up because I was not one of them. Then they came for me. By that time there was no one to speak for anyone."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this House is not operating in the orderly and democratic fashion that it should be. I think one of the reasons, and I point this out to the House here present, is because of an outstanding motion of censure that has not been dealt with on the Speaker of this chamber, and I would ask leave that the House do now proceed to motion 24, so that.... Under that standing order, I move that the House do now proceed to motion 24. Let's clear the air and get down to the business of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave to be granted?

MR. LAUK: Asking leave? I just said to move the motion to do that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's not in order to move a motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I'll have to move the motion out of order. I thought you were asking for leave.

[ Page 1650 ]

MR. LAUK: On what grounds? Can we not have the motion put and voted on now?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I'm ruling the motion out of order.

MR. HOWARD: I challenge the ruling.

[5:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 9

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

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which relates to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), I wonder why the minister didn't rise on a point of order under standing order 8 with respect to the Premier of the province, who is absent and obviously sleeping while his troops are up all night here. What a shameful way for the first minister to operate.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Have you been drinking, Jim?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) seeks the floor.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 20 a member may be asked to withdraw from the House if he is in gross disorder of the rules of the House, and I think there have been a couple of motions put that really have been in abuse of the House rules. I would ask the Speaker to take that into consideration.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the hon. member for Prince George South does not realize that as Deputy Speaker of the House, for him to rise on such a point of order is a grave departure from the usual performance of a Deputy Speaker of this chamber. It's like the Speaker standing up and raising a point of order. If you want to advise one of your colleagues to stand up, that's fine, but it's totally out of keeping for the Deputy Speaker of this House to be making such a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Not necessarily.

MR. LAUK: Not necessarily, but in this case it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. On the matter of standing order 20, clearly, when a matter has already been discussed and the same performance is repeated, it is in fact a gross breach of the rules of the House. I would advise hon. members that to repeat a matter that has already been discussed and determined is in fact showing contempt for the House. I would caution that such action can hardly be regarded as other than a breach of the rules of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances the observation by the Deputy Speaker would be well worth noting to the House, but it is hardly normal for the House to be sitting at 5:30 in the morning and not have motions for adjournment to allow the Premier to come into the House. Even the Premier can't get here at 5:30 in the morning. If this isn't a time for that kind of motion....

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I'm on my feet, Mr. Member, and I have not lost the floor.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll tell you what we'll do.

Interjections.

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

Firstly, when the Chair calls for order, it is normal for members who are speaking to take their place and at least hear what the Chair has to say regarding the matter the Chair has requested order upon. I'm sure the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) recognizes that issue.

The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I did have the floor when another member — completely out of order — stood up and started yelling, and I'm glad that the Chair brought that to the member's attention.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: I have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. There is one point of order on the floor already. Another member cannot interrupt a point of order that is already being heard. However, the Chair would ask at this time that the point of order be....

[ Page 1651 ]

MR. BARRETT: Under rule 20 I would point out that under normal circumstances, that indeed would be one that the House should address. It is 5:30 in the morning, the Premier and the leader of the government cannot make it to the House. Why should there not be motions of adjournment?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would expect some silence when I have the floor.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will advise the Leader of the Opposition that it is clearly stated in May that it is most irregular for a member to bring the attendance or non-attendance of a member to the attention of the House; it is out of order. Therefore the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition is not a valid point.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MRS. WALLACE: On Bill 3, I was dealing with the sort of world-wide coverage that this government is receiving relative to the legislation they are bringing in. It certainly doesn't make me happy or proud to be a British Columbian when I see the kind of coverage that is taking place relative to what is going on in British Columbia.

The Toronto Star has carried a whole series of articles on the cutbacks. They have even designed their own specific logo to go with the B.C. cutbacks. That certainly doesn't inspire confidence if you are wanting to stimulate the economy and inspire investor confidence. It's not good to have these kinds of articles running in a paper like the Toronto Star — articles that quote people like Gary Begin, who ran as a Socred candidate, saying: "If I had any inkling they were going to do this, do away with local government, I would certainly never have run for Bill Bennett," a bitter Begin says. "I never heard so much as a peep about all this. I am very embarrassed." If that doesn't indicate the fact that the government does not really have a mandate to carry out this kind of legislation....

That statement from a Socred candidate, more than any other one thing, proves the contention of the opposition and the contention of the group of people that have banded together to speak out against this regressive legislation in a public sort of way. That statement pinpoints it and really indicates to me, and I think to British Columbians generally, and should indicate to the government, that they don't really have a mandate to carry out the legislation that they are proposing. Certainly if a person who was running as a government candidate in the election on May 5 did not know that they were proposing the kind of legislation that they are proposing, did not have an inkling that this was what was coming down the pipe, surely to goodness that government, in spite of its blinder vision, should be able to recognize that they don't have a mandate to take the steps that they are proposing to take.

Surely they should recognize that the opposition, in continuing to point this out here in the Legislature, is really attempting to help them regain credibility in trying to encourage them to take some steps to amend their program, to withdraw these bills and try again. Obviously they have failed in bringing in the kind of legislation that is acceptable, that was even talked about during the campaign. To say that they have a mandate to do this is certainly very incredulous. It doesn't relate at all.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

[5:45]

For the first time we have seen the academics at the universities as one of the groups who have joined in this protest. We haven't seen that before. We have seen doctors.... I have quoted from the Anglican Church, the United Church, the Catholic Church.... The leaders of the religious community, and not just the Christian community, all the religious community — they are all involved in this protest. You try to pass it off as big trade unions, and that's not the case. Sure, the trade unions are involved. They have a responsibility to speak out for the workers that they represent. But there are a great many other groups involved, and the entire country is concerned. The federal government gave a grant to support a group to fight the human rights legislation.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) suggests that I might as well stop because all the government is asleep. It doesn't really matter whether they're asleep or awake; they don't listen anyway. They don't understand. They're not prepared to listen. They are determined to push this thing through, this kind of midnight madness: early-morning legislation. They are determined to push it through, determined to go their own way. I don't understand why they're presiding over not only their own destruction but also the destruction of human rights, the destruction of a society, of a way of life that we have built over many years, with many sacrifices.

Many stories have been told in this legislature during the course of this debate. I guess we all think back to our own personal history and about how our forebears were involved in winning some of the rights we now enjoy. My own family was a farm family on the Prairies. They were involved in the cooperative movement, trying to get a bit of control over the price of their grain product. They were involved in the formation of organizations like the Alberta Wheat Pool and the United Farmers of Alberta — many years ago, before they had any control at all over the product they grew. That cooperative movement on the Prairies, the valid side, is still alive and well, and is part and parcel of our society. My husband's family was involved in the mining industry in B.C. at the time of the Extension strike and lockout, when the militia was called in. That non-union group were dying because of explosions in the mine, unsafe conditions. Men and women were jointly concerned, vitally concerned, about the terrible loss of life, the terrible conditions, the unsafe conditions. And because they banded together to try to....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for....

MRS. WALLACE: Mackenzie.

[ Page 1652 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member sits down I will recognize the other member. The member for Mackenzie, yes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I think it's appropriate to address members in the proper way, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate the courtesy myself. On my point of order, under standing order 8, could you advise me, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is still absent from this House because he's gallivanting around Europe at taxpayers' expense? Standing order 8 is quite clear: all members are obliged to attend the service of this House. And the Premier has not been here for several votes. Is he sleeping?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have been present in this House for the last few minutes and have heard a number of rulings with respect to that standing order. You've also heard that to rise continually on that point of order is in itself an abuse of the process. I suggest that you remember the rulings we've already heard on this matter. Your point of order is out of order.

MRS. WALLACE: I was talking about the history of my family, the very difficult times they experienced during the early mining days because of lack of any organization or any support, and about the effort that went into forming that first union; the fact that the militia was called in to try to stop that union from being formed. People went to jail. My predecessor, Sam Guthrie, who held this seat in the Legislature for many years, was jailed at that time, along with my brother-in-law, my husband's oldest brother, who, because he was very young and had not been very closely involved, was not charged; he was simply told not to go back to Nanaimo. At that point he left and went to Australia and never was able to return to his family. He died in Australia. Those are the kinds of sacrifices that went into the formation of the trade union movement and into the building of the fibre of our society as we recognize it today, where we have hard-earned rights and privileges.

We must be very cautious about how we tamper with those rights and privileges. I know that the members over there think this particular bill doesn't tamper with those rights and privileges, but it does, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the gradual building of a society where there are checks and balances. We have built up legislation to ensure that those checks and balances are in place, and we have developed a method of agreeing on how our working conditions will be dealt with, what our rates of pay will be, how our terminations will be handled. It's mutually agreed to, and we have signed agreements that set out things about how people will be terminated and dealt with. This bill negates that very process.

This bill is timed to become effective at the date that this particular agreement expires. We have seen.... I don't dare call them firings, because I'm told they're not fired; they're terminated, they're pink-slipped. I don't know what's in the terminology. Many people around this province are still on the payroll until October 31, but they were told they can no longer return to their jobs. In the first place, that, in the name of restraint, seems mighty strange; but to move in this direction without legislative authority — and you don't have it yet; you don't have it until this bill is passed — is certainly not very democratic. We have our procedures in place, but with one stroke of the pen this bill is going to move us back to an era that many citizens worked very hard to move away from.

This bill has certainly caused concern, not just for groups but for individuals. I'm sure every MLA has received sheaves of letters from groups. They include the British Columbia Association of Social Workers, which has spent a lot of time, effort and concern building up a network of concern and interest, trying to assist people less fortunate in our society. They have tried to encourage government to work with them with supportive measures to continue that work, and what has happened? They're being slashed, cut back, removed. The government talks about people as though they were robots — full-time equivalents, FTEs. These are people, real people.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. Would it be in order to bring to the House's attention — and possibly someone would bring it to the attention of the people of British Columbia, particularly those in the Solidarity movement — that the member for Cowichan-Malahat, in debating the all-famous Bill 3, is the only one of the opposition members in the House? They've abandoned her, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that somehow we get that message to them.

Oh, Sleazy is back. It's all right, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, clearly, as long as there is a quorum in the House it is irrelevant how few or how many members of either side of the House are in attendance. As such, your point of order unfortunately has no merit.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I am offended by that member's reference to my colleague by the name "Sleazy" and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. KEMPF: If that offends the member, Mr. Speaker, certainly I would withdraw. I would let the people of British Columbia decide on whether in fact that is a good name for the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take it that you withdrew that comment, hon. member. I thank you for doing that.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I want to thank my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat for raising that matter. I would not have bothered getting myself as far down in the gutter as the member for Omineca to ask him to withdraw.

MR. KEMPF: I can't get as far down as you are, my friend. Nobody can.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. There is no need for further sparring. We'll allow the hon. member to finish off her very few moments remaining.

[6:00]

MRS. WALLACE: How many moments do I have?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe you have six minutes left. Sorry, five minutes.

MRS. WALLACE: I really think I should have some extra time for all the interruptions I've had today.

[ Page 1653 ]

MR. KEMPF: I think you should have some support from your own members.

MRS. WALLACE: That member apparently is so insecure that he doesn't feel he can get along without a lot of backup from his colleagues. I feel secure enough that I can get along without my colleagues here. I don't need them around to support me. It's the government I'm trying to convince, not my colleagues. They know where it's at.

AN HON. MEMBER: Solidarity is sure going to dump you people pretty soon, and rightly so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we could continue with Bill 3.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the Health Sciences Association of B.C.: "Rights being wiped out." This is their assessment of Bill 3. Mayor Ken Douglas of Lake Cowichan, in a letter to the Premier:

"At the last meeting of the council your government's proposed Bill 3 was discussed at some length. The council is not particularly pleased about the proposed Public Sector Restraint Act and is particularly displeased about the $2,000 fine Section in it."

The students' union:

"In summary, the unilateral and retroactive actions taken by the B.C. government in the name of restraint have the unfortunate effect of depriving that segment of our society, specifically single parents and unemployed students, who are in the greatest need for funds in order to complete their post-secondary training."

B.C. Health Association:

"Concerns to ministers and MLAs on the Public Sector Restraint Act."

British Columbia Association of Social Workers — I've mentioned them before.

A letter from a teacher:

"We urge you to return the school jurisdiction back to the locally elected body and funding back to the pre-restraint levels. We are indeed jeopardizing our most valuable resource. We borrow for the development of our natural resources. Aren't children one of our natural resources?"

A letter from a woman in Victoria to the Premier and Social Credit MLAs. It's a long letter and my time is limited, so I'll read only the last paragraph:

"I urge you to consider who you must serve, if you are to continue as a democratic party in government. I urge you to withdraw the budget and legislation and introduce a budget and legislation that will enhance the social order and encourage economic recovery in British Columbia. Barring that, I would respectfully suggest that you consider seeking employment in the private sector and allow people who have a concern for delivering social services to form the government in the province."

A letter from a Vancouver address — again I won't read it all:

"The Social Credit Party was elected by the people of British Columbia to restrain government spending. Under the terms of the budget government spending is increased in spite of layoffs."

That was the first paragraph. The final paragraph:

"Misrepresentation occurs in all areas of human endeavour. It is the magnitude of the Social Credit Party's misrepresentation that is reprehensible. By not presenting its platform to the people, it has gained office by trickery. We cannot afford to allow this misrepresentation and loss of our rights. The budget and accompanying legislation should be withdrawn. A new budget and new legislation should be drafted in keeping with the ideals of fairness and democracy that, as a civilization, we have worked so hard to develop."

Another letter from Duncan, in my home constituency. He encloses a letter that he sent to the federal government. What he's asking in his letter is basically as follows:

"In it I solicit federal help to combat these repressive laws. I know that as a member of the opposition you will do anything you possible can in the Legislature."

The letters just go on and on, Mr. Speaker.

Another one from my own constituency — Shawnigan Lake. This is addressed to the Premier, with a copy to me:

"You and your ministers continually refer to fairness and sensitivity. In carrying out your mandate of restraint, you and your ministers appear surprised at the reaction of the public. Surely a government as well-versed as yours in political strategies and expedience expected this and you have contingency plans. I cannot believe that you can do such a poor job of public relations, and I cannot believe that you and your ministers would willingly attack basic guaranteed freedoms of a democratic society. Please come to your senses or resign."

Those are the kind of letters, Mr. Speaker, one after the other. Here's an open letter to all members....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your time under the standing orders has elapsed.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the House do now adjourn.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Malahat was not in possession of the floor when she attempted to move the motion. Her time had expired; she was no longer in possession of the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I was still in possession of the floor.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You were not. Your time had expired.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the red light had come on, indicating that your time had expired. I was very cautious to warn you of the fact that it was going to be imminently coming on. Since the red light had come on, you

[ Page 1654 ]

had ceased your place on the floor and were not in a position to make such a motion.

MRS. WALLACE: Is that your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is my ruling.

MRS. WALLACE: I challenge that ruling.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 9

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

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, did I hear the name of the Premier called out as having voted? He's not here.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, the name was not called.

MR. HOWARD: You mean he is absent?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, did I hear the name of Art Kube called, because I don't believe he has a seat in the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: With all due respect, hon. members, neither point of order is valid.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think the name the Minister of Forests heard was that of Hitler.

[6:15]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I've waited a long time to tell this government, through you, what a rotten, draconian piece of legislation this is. It was beyond my wildest dreams that I would begin as a designated speaker on this bill at a quarter past 6 in the morning. But when you see what this bill is going to do to 250,000 families, a little fatigue and a couple of days without steep fall into insignificance.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

In my own riding there are a large number of government employees who work very hard and faithfully for the people of this province, and to see how they are suffering, and how the small business community in the economy is suffering as a result of this government's actions, is really a sickening sight to behold. This bill shook people in this province to the very roots. They awakened on July 8 to read the reports of the budget and the legislative package to see what this government had in mind for the people of this province.

The key clause of Bill 3, which is section 21, gives the government the right to dismiss 250,000 public sector employees "without cause." Amendments have been introduced on the order paper, but I maintain to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House, that they really constitute exactly the same thing as without cause. At the whim of the Social Credit cabinet they can devise all sorts of legalese and bureaucratic language to accomplish the "without cause, without due process" firing that is contained in the original bill which is before us, and which I am debating in principle.

The government tells us that this provision is necessary in order to accomplish their objective of decreasing the size and complexity of the public sector. Even if we were to accept that objective, which we do not, the bill as it stands could not be supported by us or by any citizen who upholds fundamental democratic values. The bill violates the concept of due process and allows for totally arbitrary action on the part of the government. Even with the provisions for change, even the....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it an accepted practice or permissible for members to read speeches in the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To read your speech in the House is to break the rule, as written by Sir Erskine May, and I would advise the first member for Victoria that that is out of order.

MR. HANSON: I'm not reading a speech, I'm speaking to some speech notes, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you can see that very clearly.

The bill violates due process and allows for arbitrary action on the part of the government. We know that. The public knows that. The 25,000 people who stood in front of this Legislature know that. The 50,000 people who went to Empire Stadium some time ago know exactly what it is. The people across this province understand exactly what this government has done.

The bill effectively says that the rule of law stops at the gates of the public sector; that public employees are less than second-class citizens, and have no rights in law against unjust dismissal and termination. Throughout history, the Social Credit governments of this province have never, ever agreed that public sector workers should have the same rights as private sector workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: We want them to have the same rights.

MR. HANSON: Not at all, Mr. Member.

[ Page 1655 ]

Mr. Speaker, when this bill passes, and it surely will pass, because the government is using its legislative muscle to ramrod this bill through this House....

AN HON. MEMBER: Ramrod! After two months?

MR. HANSON: No, Mr. Speaker. They didn't have the courage or the guts to call it for over a month, and now, by means of the legislation-by-exhaustion mode, they are attempting to get this bill through.

We know that the whole world is watching this British Columbia government. They are watching a government that is trying to lurch to the far right, in some sort of comic book approach to economics. They don't have any understanding of market realities, of confidence in the marketplace; no understanding of making British Columbia a secure and confident place for money to be invested or for the citizens to live in comfort and confidence about their own livelihood.

The bill provides that the criteria for dismissal are to be established by regulation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that we do not appear to have a quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. member, it would appear that we now have a quorum, Would you please continue.

MR. HANSON: When you deny workers the right of due process you are creating a great injustice. It is a crime against working people. This bill provides that the criteria for dismissal are to be established by regulation, and that these criteria are to be binding upon all public sector employers. This provision, of course, violates the traditional autonomy of institutions within the public sector and leaves us open to tremendous abuse on the part of the government.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, this is an omnibus bill that encompasses all public sector employers and all those employed by those employers: municipalities, school districts, hospitals, police forces, fire-hall firefighters working for municipalities, coroners, auditors, economists, Crown corporations, all local government, Workers' Compensation Board, Glendale Lodge, North Shore Union Board of Health. The list in the schedule at the back of the bill takes up half a page. There must be 25 or 30 different public agencies.

The interpretation section of the bill lists colleges, universities, hospitals, libraries and so on. These 250,000 families that are shattered by insecurity, their livelihood now at risk, have only one focus of blame, and that is this government. For example, academic freedom in the schools, colleges and universities is effectively abolished. To give another example, independent boards and commissions, such as the Agricultural Land Commission and the Utilities Commission, are now made subject to political direction. The Agricultural Land Commission was established by the New Democratic Party government as an agency to ensure that future generations would have a food supply, to ensure that our precious farmland would be preserved; now the hiring and firing are strictly under the direction of regulations to be established by this cabinet. The Utilities Commission is now subject to political direction in violation of their independence, and independence is fundamental in importance in securing the right to a fair hearing on the part of the applicants to those commissions.

In this bill, this government is asking the Legislature to give a blank cheque to fire employees at will; to cherry-pick throughout the public service of this province on the basis of their politics, for any reasons whatsoever. The regulations, the amendments proposed — which are just legalese and bureaucratese, a way of achieving the same end — call for justification for firings on the basis of budgetary matters, on the basis of organizational changes, on the basis of cuts in programs, and so on. The due process should apply to the worker. All of the objectives of this government, as stated publicly, could have been achieved under the existing collective agreements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. HANSON: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. For example, the bargaining unit in the public service under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the collective agreement in place, the master agreement: approximately one-third of those employees are subject to layoff.

AN HON. MEMBER: To hell with the auxiliaries. That's what you are saying.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. HANSON: Thank you for protecting me, Mr. Speaker.

Under the collective agreement there are layoff and recall provisions that were negotiated in good faith by both parties. This government, in its steel-fisted draconian Stalinist legislation, has decided to override those collective agreements. If those cabinet ministers would take the time to read the bill, they would see that the provisions of the bill call for the overriding of the provisions of the Labour Code and of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. When you understand that the government could, according to reverse order of seniority, lay off all employees with less than three years' service; that they could lay off auxiliary employees to satisfy the number they talked about, and the union....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Fire the auxiliaries. Fire the women.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Provincial Secretary please come to order.

MR. HANSON: Rather than satisfy the negotiated good-faith contract provisions, they chose to introduce a bill that strips away and nullifies the provisions of those contracts. Those unions knew what they were negotiating. A government service has many functions that fluctuate in terms of their manpower demand. Liquor stores, for example, are busy at Christmastime and in the summertime. The pattern has been that larger numbers of auxiliaries are taken on at Christmastime and in the summertime: then they are laid off in the off-season. It's a well-established pattern. But Bill 3 overrides that and says to the public sector worker: "You do not have the right to due process. You do not have the right to the protection of the collective agreement that was signed by your bargaining agent and by the Government Employee Relations Bureau" — and so on.

[ Page 1656 ]

[6:30]

Why would they want to do that? Fundamentally the answer is this: they don't believe that public sector workers should have collective bargaining. That is essentially it. They resented it when it came in under the NDP. W.A.C. Bennett did everything in his power to ensure there weren't collective bargaining rights for public sector workers. He operated in a noblesse oblige fashion: he would call for a retirement dinner at one time of the year; he would issue gold watches to government employees with 35 or 40 years' service; he would announce what benefits would be increased for the coming year, at this particular tea. That's what you'd call collective begging. That is a well-known....

AN. HON. MEMBER: Just read your speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The first member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. HANSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate you running interference against those authors of draconian legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know that copious notes are allowed in debate in this House, but the reading of speeches is not allowed. I wonder whether the Speaker might make a ruling on that member reading his speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member. I would remind all hon. members that according to Sir Erskine May the reading of speeches in this Legislature is not allowed, and I would point that out to the member now on his feet.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware, as I have already indicated to you, that I am speaking to notes; I am not reading directly from notes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just quit turning the pages then.

MR. HANSON: Those cabinet ministers are going to have to live with this legislation. We have to ask ourselves why the government would want this kind of legislation. Not only do they not respect their own employees, not only do they not respect those working in the public interest, but they feel that collective bargaining rights are something that public sector workers should not be entitled to. Over the last number of years, as I am sure you are aware, throughout North America there has been an emergence and strengthening of the rights of public sector employees. In fact, the largest growing sector of unionized workers in North America is in the public sector. As you know, the industrial sector has been in decline, which has created problems for dictatorial governments who wanted to direct in a more dictatorial fashion the way in which work is conducted in the public service.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: And give equal opportunities for women and others — that's really tough under your kind of legislation.

MR. HANSON: You've done nothing for women in your term of government. You can lay off according to the reverse order of seniority, as the various unions have asked, but this government does not heed that advice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Cowichan-Malahat on a point of order.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if you would be good enough to make a ruling. I notice that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) is apparently tuned into something other than the speech in the House. Is this permissible? Are these electronic devices allowed in the legislative chamber?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I know of no rule in the standing orders of this House that prohibits that sort of thing. That's not a point of order.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, another point of order. I would call your attention to a lack of quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A quorum has been called for.

Hon. members, I believe we how have a quorum. Would the first member for Victoria please continue.

MR. HANSON: Our argument is that the principle of seniority should apply in the public sector as it applies everywhere in the private sector. This is what the government has contempt for. They have contempt for the concept that public sector workers should have the principle of seniority applied to their working conditions.

It is provided in every private sector collective agreement: the IWA, the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada, the steel workers — all private sector agreements, well documented.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

Why did the government not make provision for early retirement, as they could have done, and as could perhaps have been negotiated with public sector unions? Instead, they want arbitrary powers, because they want to govern by fear. Social Credit wants to govern by fear. They want the public and the people employed by the provincial government to be fearful. They don't want confidence and cooperation; they want to govern British Columbia by fear. They are accomplishing that. They are destabilizing our economy.

Respect for collective agreements is what we believe in on this side of the House. On that side of the House they have contempt for collective agreements, for the rule of law, for due process. All of the provisions necessary to accomplish whatever they were attempting to accomplish exist within the existing collective agreements, but because they are contemptuous of due process....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd ask all hon. members to come to order, please.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We saw several rounds of firings take place, even before the bill passed the Legislature. In what areas have they fired

[ Page 1657 ]

employees? In what areas have they terminated people effective October 31? They fired them in areas that provide advocacy and rights for those least able to defend themselves. They fired the human rights officers, they fired the consumer complaints officers, they fired....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria has the floor, and I would ask all hon. members to come to order. The Provincial Secretary will come to order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He's running away again, Mr. Speaker. I think he should be made to stay in this House while his bill is being discussed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member for Mackenzie come to order and have a little respect for the member who's on his feet.

MR. HOWARD:. I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The chief architect of the bill — the Provincial Secretary — who is now in charge of it has just left the chamber. I don't see how the House can proceed to debate and discuss the content of the bill when the person who is in charge of it has disappeared.

I wonder if Your Honour would declare a short recess until we can find the Provincial Secretary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not the Speaker's responsibility to ensure that members are in the House. The member for Victoria was the only member in the House a few minutes ago while he was on his feet. He still has the floor, and I would ask him to continue, please.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, are you ruling that you cannot declare a recess?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have asked the member for Victoria to continue in the debate.

MR. HOWARD: What I'm seeking to discover, Mr. Speaker, is in regard to the point of order I raised, which was that the Provincial Secretary has absented himself from the House deliberately just now, in order not to be able to take part in what.... Oh, here he comes again. The Provincial Secretary has just come back. We're perfectly all right. I wish he would take his seat though.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member for Skeena please take his seat and allow the member for Victoria to resume debate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: This is the speech that Mika wrote.

[6:45]

MR. HOWARD: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) continues to interrupt. He's continually making points, I assume, that he would normally make in debate. He has not taken the opportunity in any of the earlier proceedings in this debate to say a word. He hasn't spoken on it. Yet he continues to chatter and interrupt. I think you should specifically call the Minister of Labour to order. Either he desists in this persistent interruption or you should ask him to leave.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have only now discovered the NDP policy, which is to lay off auxiliaries and lay off women in the public service. I would be very happy to take my place in debate now, having suddenly understood the policy of the NDP. If the member will take his place, then I would be happy to take part in debate on that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Minister of Labour please come to order and allow the member for Victoria to resume his position in debate.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I find the remarks of the Minister of Labour offensive, and I'd ask you to withdraw them. He is casting aspersions on a group of people; he is making erroneous, distorted allegations and he should not be permitted to do that. I'd suggest that the Chair call him to order for that and ask him to withdraw those allegations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I didn't hear any offensive comments, Mr. Member. If you would like to say what offensive comments were made, I would gladly rule on that.

MR. HOWARD: You're ruling that there were no offensive comments?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'm saying that I didn't hear any offensive comments.

MR. HOWARD: I did. Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the Minister of Labour intend any wrongdoing to the members of the opposition?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker. I'd be very happy to find out from the hon. member which comments he found offensive and which group I was to have maligned, if it was that I.... If it is because I find it offensive that the NDP would first fire women and auxiliaries....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Minister of Labour to resume his seat, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Then I would withdraw any statements that I made that the NDP policy should not be to fire women. If that's offensive, then I'll withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's all cleared up. Will the member for Victoria please take his place.

MR. HOWARD: You're just distorting the truth, Bob, that's all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member for Skeena please come to order.

[ Page 1658 ]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, B.C. Hydro, as an example — the collective agreement that is in place in that instance: there have been over 1,000 layoffs at B.C. Hydro. They were all laid off according to the collective agreement. The specified criterion is seniority.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the bill. You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. HANSON: But again, that minister, who wants to chirp and chime in....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary will have ample time, in closing off debate, to clear up any misunderstandings.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member appears to be misleading the House, because he isn't taking into consideration the fact that the bill has an exemption order contained within it. He apparently hasn't read the act, and I wish he wouldn't attempt to mislead the House with his false information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary will have ample time to clean up.... I would ask all hon. members, please, to maintain some order in the House and the member for Victoria to resume debate.

MR. HOWARD: The Provincial Secretary raised a point of order. What is the Chair going to do about that point of order? Is it a point of order or isn't it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member for Victoria please resume debate.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary just raised a point of order. The Chair has not ruled whether it is a point of order or it isn't a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have told the Provincial Secretary that there will be ample time in closing debate to clean up any misunderstandings regarding the bill. I have also asked the member for Victoria to resume debate.

MR. HOWARD: Then on the point of order you are saying that the Provincial Secretary was out of order — that what he has raised was not a point of order?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just sit down and stop trying to hold up the deliberations.

MR. HOWARD: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary stood up and interrupted the debate of my colleague from Victoria, and raised a point of order with the Chair. The Chair, I assume, from what the Deputy Speaker has just said, has ruled that the Provincial Secretary did not have a point of order. Either he did or he didn't have one. It was either a valid or an invalid point of order that he raised.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena can assume what he wants. I have said to the Provincial Secretary that he will have ample time to clean up any misunderstanding regarding the bill in closing debate. I have also asked the member for Victoria to resume his position in debate, and I would remind the member for Skeena of standing order 20.

MR. HOWARD: I would challenge your ruling then, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Secretary will have ample time later on.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There's been no ruling.

MR. HOWARD: There's no ruling? Then I challenge your ruling that there's no ruling. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Victoria please resume debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, you suggested that the Provincial Secretary would have ample time to clear up certain misrepresentations that he feels may be being made over here.

I would respectfully point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Secretary has had six weeks to bring before the public of this province and this Legislature the regulations that he promised would be before this House six weeks ago, and he has not done that. He has not kept his word. He has not told the truth. Where are those regulations? That's what I want to know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member for Mackenzie taking over the position in debate of the member for Victoria?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would assume that you are.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You assume too much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then I would ask the member for Victoria to resume his position in debate or lose it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What about my point of order? Where are those regulations? You promised six weeks ago to bring those regulations in.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't mislead the House.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the thing that the government doesn't understand....

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the Provincial Secretary has just now said: "Don't mislead the House." That's an accusation of the member for Mackenzie, and I would ask that the Provincial Secretary withdraw that allegation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary made a statement, and if he meant any wrongdoing I would ask him to withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I made no reference to the member for Mackenzie. Again, the member for Skeena is wrong, as he usually is.

[ Page 1659 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary will take his place, and the member for Victoria will resume his position in debate.

MR. HOWARD: Don't mislead the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't hold up the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena and the Provincial Secretary will maintain order in the House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Where are those regulations? Six weeks ago you promised to have them in here.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't hold up the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member for Mackenzie and the Provincial Secretary come to order please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to indicate to the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the people whom they have fired, and their approach to public service.... There are people there. They are not FTEs; they're not full-time equivalents. Those are flesh-and-blood human beings, with families and concerns.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary has once again left this House. He is the architect of this particular bill, and I would ask you to declare a recess until the Provincial Secretary returns. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, he is now here. That's good to see. 

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) is in the House, and I find that offensive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was not a valid point of order.

MR. HANSON: I would like to point out to the government, Mr. Speaker, that the people they have fired without legislative authority are flesh-and-blood individuals. I want to tell the House about some of the positions that have been terminated, and I think all members will understand the human tragedy behind these statistics.

In Human Resources at 100 Mile House, there is a child care counsellor 2, a regular employee, with two and a half years' service; she is 26 years of age. She was going to move out of the province and heard of the termination on the news first, if you can imagine that — fired by an employer through the media. She felt this was no fault of her district supervisor, as she thinks she made every effort possible to call her before the news. She has a dependent brother, and she's lost her employment after two and a half years' service.

There's another person at 100 Mile House: child care counsellor 2, a regular employee covered under the collective agreement, with four and a half years' service, 56 years of age. She was on vacation in England at the time. Can you imagine what sort of a surprise that was, to be terminated on your vacation without any notice?

There were four firings in Human Resources at 100 Mile House, which is in the Cariboo area. In Quesnel Human Resources, a family support worker, a regular employee with three years and seven months of service.... This particular person is 51 years of age, and she had just mortgaged her home with high payments so that it could be paid off in three years, as she was planning to take early retirement. She now feels that no one would hire a 51-year-old woman in that area, with her skills. Her husband does work; she doesn't have any children at home. But it will be extremely difficult to get by financially,

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: They laugh on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. They laugh about firings, and that's why we on this side of this House know that there's another agenda. There are reasons why they want to strike down the collective agreements; why they want this enormous power to take away the rights and security of public sector workers, even their own employees.

In the East Kootenays, farmworkers 1 received termination notices on July 18, 1983, through the mail. This particular individual had 17 years' seniority. We've heard a lot of cackling on the other side about auxiliaries, but listen to what they're saying here about seniority: people with 17 years' devoted service to the public being treated in this fashion is an absolute disgrace. This particular farmworker is 57 years of age. He is supporting a wife. He'll have to try and find another job. He has a small parcel of land.

Agricultural officer 3....

MR. BLENCOE: How many more to fire?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Step outside and I'll tell you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the second member for Victoria and the Provincial Secretary please come to order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, one area that would be very important to maintain in the provincial government would be agricultural officers. Clearly they would be supporting the preservation of fanning and being of assistance to the farming community, the ranching community, by offering the best technical and specialized advice so that that particular sector of our economy would flourish.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, the Provincial Secretary, who is the architect of this particular piece of legislation, is clearly trying to abuse the privileges of this House by going in and out of the House. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask that he make up his mind to stay in the House, one way or the other; that he have the guts to stay in this House and face the legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the second member for Victoria please come to order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Provincial Secretary please take his place.

MR. HANSON: So, Mr. Speaker. we have an agricultural officer 3, with 13 years' seniority, fired out of the blue.

MR. BARNES: Are you presiding over the proceedings, Mr. Speaker? I understood you to request that the Provincial Secretary take his seat. He seems to be ignoring you. I was

[ Page 1660 ]

wondering if you could clarify who's conducting the proceedings.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HANSON: Here's another case, Mr. Speaker. It's a clerk 6, with seven years' service — fired. He spent three years at the University of Victoria at the request of his employer. That particular study was at considerable personal expense, money and time to this individual seeking upgrading and getting a diploma in public sector management. With the public service being carved up and sacrificed the way it is the diploma is completely useless and the three years wasted.

[7:00]

Here's a clerk 4, a single parent, the sole support of three children — fired. We have a rentalsman's officer here, a person in their mid-fifties.... The provincial government is a major employer, Mr. Speaker, in small communities. Every public sector worker fired in the area is a loss of capital from the local small business economy. This factor does not seem to have been properly considered in the drastic action surrounding these firings.

I realize that these are just thumb-nail sketches, but I think that behind the thumb-nail sketch you get a sense of the personal variety, the way the people received notice, their tenure, the length of time that they'd worked with the government and what their personal circumstances are.

A human rights officer got a knock on the door while opening his birthday gifts — I think this may be the one we read about in the paper, the one the Labour minister (Hon. Mr. McClelland) knows so much about — and was told to hand over keys, car and credit cards; he was permitted to clean the personal effects from his office under the watchful eye of a government agent. That person felt that he was being treated like a criminal. That person was a human rights officer who represented the people of this province in the administration of the Human Rights Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will remind the member that he's probably referring to another bill.

MR. HANSON: No, Mr. Speaker, the firing....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On two points of order, Mr. Speaker: first of all, we are entering into debate on bills probably which are on the order paper; secondly, certainly the member for Victoria is entering into an area which is probably best canvassed in estimates; and thirdly, again, I know that the member is hampered without them, but there is a rule in this House that you don't read speeches. Rather, you perhaps speak from notes but certainly do not read speeches. For the last hour or so that member has been reading his speech, and I would invite a ruling from the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are three points of order. The hon. member is anticipating other legislation. That covers the first and second points of order. With respect to the third point of order, and the reading of speeches, I understand that the member is referring to technical data, which can be referred to in notes; however, just the technical data. The member will proceed, in order, but will not anticipate other legislation.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I am addressing, for clarification to the Chair, is that the primary principle of Bill 3 is firing public sector workers. That is the principle and objective of the bill. What I am doing is indicating to the House that the government has dehumanized and depersonalized their information with respect to public sector employees, in terms of wanting to call them full-time equivalents. I'm trying to put a human face on these numbers that we've read about in the newspaper that were caused by that minister and his cabinet, in precipitating this human distress that has been rippling across British Columbia since July 7 because of the mass firings that have been taking place — and clearly more firings are to come. So if I indicate that a person is a human rights officer and fired, it is only related to the fact that this is an omnibus bill that covers firings in all public sector areas; it is just an example of the kind of thing that will be rampant when this bill passes. I just want to give you some sense of the flavour....

There's an administrative officer 3 who I am aware of with nine years' service — fired. An office assistant 2 in the mid-fifties, the prime of life; a person who would be anticipating a career in the public service for the rest of their working life perhaps — fired. Now that person....

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary is once again absent from this House. He is the architect of this disgusting piece of legislation. I would ask you to declare a recess until the architect of this legislation is in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I submit that it's not.

MR. HOWARD: Well, then I challenge that ruling, that it's not a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: Then I challenge that ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What ruling?

MR. HOWARD: The ruling that the member for Victoria did not have a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 24

[ Page 1661 ]

NAYS — 9

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

[7:15]

MR. SPEAKER: There are two members standing on a point of order. I will recognize the second member for Victoria, who was standing first.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, I draw your attention to section 8 of the standing orders. The Premier once again is absent from the vote....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has repeatedly ruled that standing order 8, when applied in such a case is not a matter to be discussed in the House.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to raise refers to an earlier point of order raised by the AWOL Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, relating to absences. I wonder whether the Chair is prepared to make a ruling on that now, or would the Chair rather wait until Dr. McGeer comes back again, if he ever does come back?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, perhaps we might be obliged to hold a recess while the NDP holds their leadership convention. I see that all the leadership candidates are away.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Kootenay seeks the floor.

MR. SEGARTY: Over the past couple of hours there have been numerous points of order and deliberate abuse of the rules of the House. I wonder if Mr. Speaker will be willing to make a ruling on standing order 19 and 20 at the next possible abuse of these rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Members are familiar with the rules of the House. Notwithstanding the hour of the day, it is nonetheless incumbent on us to follow the rules of the House. I would commend those rules to all members, and I would also advise that abuse of such rules on either side of the House can be dealt with under either of the two standing orders to which the member for Kootenay referred.

The first member for Victoria continues.

MR. HANSON: I have been indicating to the government that the prime reason for this legislation is to poison industrial relations in this province. To poison relations between public sector employees and their employers is the main function and raison d'etre of this piece of legislation.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister will come to order.

MR. HANSON: I would like to point out to that minister that the International Labour Organization conventions, of which Canada is a signatory, contain many provisions which are wiped out by this bill. The International Labour Organization, which, as you know, is based in Geneva, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1969. It was established under the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and continued in 1946 as the first specialized organization of the United Nations. The function of that body was to foster and promote sound labour management relationships in the western world, under the United Nations, primarily.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: It includes management, Mr. Speaker — absolutely. That is what we advocate: a cooperative approach between management and employees. But what they have here is a bill that will pit one worker against another worker. The ILO has several major functions, including international labour standards, to serve as guidelines for national authorities in putting these policies into action. The member states, including Canada, have ratified some guidelines and conventions. I mention that, Mr. Speaker, because again this bill which strips away rights and due process from working people is in violation of ILO conventions, to which Canada is a signatory. That is a source of shame to us on this side of the House. I'm going to go through them all, Mr. Speaker. You're going to learn a lot by the time I'm finished.

From the way this government is headed. I wouldn't be surprised at motions of censure from the ILO against the government of British Columbia. What a source of shame for all of us. That's coming. Can you imagine what a source of shame it would be for us as citizens of this province to have motions of censure from the ILO at the United Nations? It's already a source of considerable shame to me and my colleagues and to all fair-minded citizens in the province that employee and employer organizations around the world are issuing resolutions against this government's actions. We've had resolutions from employee groups in Japan, from teachers' organizations and others in Europe.... We are an international oddity. We are going in the opposite direction in a world that is becoming smaller and smaller over time, as the information and communications revolution takes over, at a time when we understand how small and fragile our planet is and how we have to work together in sound labour-management relationships to sustain our life-sustaining resources of productive land, clean water and clean air, which are all public services. The public service here in British Columbia are people who promote wildlife habitat, pollution control, the preservation of farmland and rational management approaches in our resource sector, and also in the areas of compassionate delivery of services and assistance to our citizens.

This government chose to embark upon a draconian mode of action, and has introduced Bill 3, the Public Service Restraint Act. Before that bill was passed in this Legislature, the government commenced firing British Columbians. They were caught totally unaware in a post-July 7 firing, which is still creating ripples of havoc throughout our economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many more?

[ Page 1662 ]

MR. HANSON: There are thousands more to come, I believe. They've indicated that already.

I want to point out that under article 5 of the recommendations list of the ILO is a series of invalid reasons for termination of an employee. It has been discussed at the United Nations. Invalid reasons for termination of an employee include union membership and participation in union activities. As all members and all citizens know, some top ranking union officials in the public service unions have already been terminated. Where some of those particular individuals were terminated, the program continued in some instances. There doesn't appear to be any reason, other than the fact of their union activity. I believe the Labour Relations Board is presently sitting, deliberating on those cases. If the Labour Relations Board were to rule against the government, I think it would be of considerable embarrassment to the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is also indicating that his argument might be offending sub judice.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Board is not a court.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sub judice deals with any other forum.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will heed your guidance.

The thing that very much concerns us is that accompanying Bill 3 appears to be the cutting edge of changes in the private sector labour-management relations too. Some time ago we saw a leaked document; I believe it was about the 34th draft. If Bill 3 and Bill 2 had been passed — as your right-wing advisers had suggested to you that it could pass — I think we would have already seen in printed form, on Queen's Printer letterhead, the kinds of actions against the private sector trade unions that we see presently against the public sector unions. I think the minister knows exactly what I'm saying — Mr. Stewart and others who drafted your legislation.

What we are seeing is warfare against working people in this province. It was a declaration of war from a misinterpreted mandate of May 5. May 5 was a mandate for restraint, and the government has misinterpreted that mandate as a licence to wage warfare on its own citizens, under some goofy Chicago school of economics, 1930s style, post-Salvador-Allende approaches to economics. Of course, the economists that this government holds as icons are the same people who overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile in the early seventies.

May I point out the International Labour Organization, because I think it's important that all British Columbians understand that the action here is in an international context; that we are out of step with the western world in our approach to labour and management relationships. Our economy is suffering because this package of bills — Bill 3 in particular, but also the accompanying bills — is destabilizing our economy. You don't have to take my word for it; all you have to do is walk down Government or Douglas Streets in Victoria, go into small shops and ask the local merchants how the budget has affected the economy of this city. It is somewhat magnified here — and I don't pretend to deny that — because of the preponderance of public sector and administrative employees in the capital, but that same effect is occurring in Vancouver.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to take a short recess under standing order 6, as we don't have a quorum in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We do. That's not a point of order.

[7:30]

MR. HANSON: I want to point out to the House other aspects of the ILO recommendations that indicate invalid reasons for termination, which this government under Bill 3 seems to want to ignore. Clearly, if the cabinet can fire according to their own arbitrary regulations and guidelines in terms of bureaucratese for defining organizational changes, budgetary criteria and so on, it leaves the opportunities wide open for firing employees according to all manner of invalid criteria such as race, colour, sex, marital status, religion, political opinion, national extraction and so on. How are we to know? What appeal is there?

In modern-day labour relations, the concepts of mediation, conciliation and so on are predominant, but what we have in this bill, and in various others, is a gradual shifting of the forum for any dispute into the courts. The courts really no longer have a role to play in modern economic decisions, and labour relations, of course, are economic decisions. Compromise and reconciliation are the hallmarks of modern labour relationships. Here we have noted that the criteria for dismissal referred to in Bill 3 have been specified in only the loosest terms, and that we have the potential to see totally arbitrary dismissals. Even if we accept some part of government's case for reduction in the number of public sector employees, there should be safeguards to protect basic human rights. Such safeguards are simply not present in the bill, contrary to the most recent recommendation of the ILO, and for that reason alone the bill cannot be supported.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read you another article in the ILO draft recommendations that provides that a dismissed employee should have the right to a hearing, and a right to appeal against dismissal. These provisions are nothing more than elementary natural justice, and we find no provision in Bill 3 to safeguard the right to a hearing in the normal arbitration process.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you've read Franz Kafka's The Trial, but that is the kind of underpinning we see in this bill. We see that the firings can occur, and the employee terminated doesn't have to be provided any good and sufficient grounds or reasons for that termination. And there is no real appeal procedure. They call it a judicial review, but the burden of proof appears to rest on the employee to prove that they were a good and loyal, competent, dedicated employee, rather than having the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate just cause for termination. That is an elementary principle of common law and clearly defined specifically in all collective agreements, in arbitral law as well.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: In answer to that minister, I don't want to see employees having to go to the courts to get their jobs back. I want to see a labour relations board; I want to see grievance procedures in place to handle....

[ Page 1663 ]

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I will give you lots of recommendations. Withdraw the bill for a start. Comply with the provisions of the collective agreements, make sure that all avenues of grievance procedure through to the Labour Relations Board are maintained, pull the rest of the bill, and we will be quite happy on this side of the House.

I know the member for Surrey understands the implications here: that we can see the possibility and the likelihood, certainly under this government.... Even directed, its managers would fire on the basis of grounds that are contrary to the provisions of the ILO. People could be fired....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Those are individuals, Mr. Speaker. It is not just a matter of firing people; it is cutting out the services provided by those individuals, which are desperately needed in the community. The heartlessness with which those firings have taken place clearly illustrates our point on this side of the House that this government has another political objective in mind. It is not a matter of simply cutting back on the number of public employees but of cutting back on advocacy roles and essential social services to people who need them most.

What I'm saying is that the safeguards are simply not in the bill, and the public would be best served if the government withdrew the bill entirely. When workers are terminated.... There is a process that takes place in government if a person is to be terminated. And it does happen quite frequently, Mr. Speaker. When you have an employer that employs 40,000 or so employees, clearly there will be terminations. The process is laid out under Government Employee Relations Bureau guidelines, which indicate there is a way for management to document and attempt to communicate to an employee the way in which his performance is rated inadequate, how the employee can improve, perhaps some training supported by the employer. There could be personal problems. Sometimes people have difficulties at work as a result of a personal problem: marriage breakdown, alcoholism, various other kinds of things that can have an effect on a worker's performance. To fire out of the blue without the proper process, which is laid down by GERB and supported by the Labour Relations Board and the ILO as an arm of the United Nations and so on, is clearly regressive. It is an approach that must have a political motive rather than any motive to save money for the taxpayer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighteen million dollars of the taxpayers' money for government propaganda.

MR. HANSON: I hope the minister is listening because I am making a very serious point with him: that if there is an abuse in the application of Bill 3.... We see managers firing on grounds of personal dislike, for example, which I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, is a Kafkaesque situation that a person could find themselves in. The employee will have no right to an appeal under the collective agreement and the arbitration process. The only avenue then is some kind of judicial review, which seems to be totally inadequate. It appears totally incomprehensible that a lack of elementary safeguards such as these could be justified.

Article 13 in the ILO — this is the June 1982 version — is that an employee should have the right to a notice prior to dismissal. Clearly that's an international standard; we didn't see any of that happen when the firings were taking place throughout the public service very recently. Notice was in the form of a little note saying: "Thank you very much for your service. You are no longer required." Whether you had 17 years' service, 12 years' service and so on didn't really matter. That is what seems to have taken place here.

A career cannot be summarized in four months' pay at home. People working in the public sector in all areas....

I'm not talking just about the government. I'm talking about local government, Crown corporations and so on.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Oh, you'll read it on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

We have a government that is really regressive. There's an appropriate word, "atavistic, " which means harkening back to an earlier time when people were at some primeval state. Force, I guess, would be the operative word, and not modern day rational 1983 thinking is the mode.

Article 13 in the ILO provides notice as a modern standard. What is the situation here in B.C.? People were fired.... What I'm saying is that they received improper notice.

I heard a speaker from a Scandinavian country talking about industrial relations, and a person here in British Columbia mentioned firings of public sector workers. This particular individual, who was on the employer's side, said: "We approach it a bit differently. We say that if an employee's work performance is not adequate...."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the member for Victoria is quoting from a statement, apparently a statement from the International Labour Organization. I would assume that the Speaker would ask the member to table that statement, especially the part which indicates how much notice should be given under the ILO regulations.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order........

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment. Before the Chair recognizes the next member who wishes to speak, the minister speaks again.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Further on that point of order, the member has been reading extensively from some kind of a document. I think it's the practice in this House that those documents be tabled with the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sir Erskine May states that when a minister recites from an official document it must be tabled; however, that does not apply in this case. If members wish to make their notes available to all members, they can give an undertaking to do so.

With respect to the member reading, that point of order is well taken. Beauchesne states that the member shall not read unless he is referring to technical data. In an earlier ruling, the Chair ruled that the member was referring to technical data, as numbers and percentages were referred to. However, that is not the case here. I'll ask the member to speak extemporaneously and refer to his notes from time to time.

[ Page 1664 ]

[7:45]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am distressed — and perhaps seek guidance from the Chair — that the Minister of Labour of this great province of British Columbia is not familiar with the workings and documents of the ILO, and is now asking for that information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm sorry, I thought it was.

MR. HANSON: I'm pointing out to the House that this bill does not comply with the International Labour Organization's standards on how an employer should properly treat employees. In the public service, with all its variety, there are a number of very specialized functions in public administration. One of the things about being in the public service, whether it's working for B.C. Hydro or, say, the B.C., Systems Corporation.... A person could be a programmer or systems analyst, and take many courses specializing in application with respect to government's specific needs, career upgrading and so on. As the firings occur, with or without four months' notice, what we see is a person's career path truncated.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if it's not in standing orders, then it certainly can be found in precedent, that every once in a while a doctor should be called to check and see whether these people are really sleeping or have expired.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

MR. HANSON: Article 16, which I commend to the minister.... I'm sure he has an extensive library in which to do some research; he has enough hacks and flacks working for him, and big, fancy expense accounts. I'm talking about political hacks, the kind that have big dinners and so on, and go to Broadway shows.

The ILO provision, in article 16, provides that workers' representatives should be consulted before terminations due to economic conditions, and that all relevant information, including the number of employees to be laid off and the period over which terminations are to be carried out, the reasons for termination and so on, should be given to the representatives of workers affected.

If you were to take any collective agreement presently in force in the public sector, you would find clauses which indicate that prior notice must be given prior to any legislative changes affecting the bargaining unit.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: "Notice was given." Was that consultation? I don't think there was much consultation. In fact, probably very little notice, if any, was given to any of the bargaining units affected, and that's why we hear the massive outcry, which is very legitimate and well-grounded. All of these organizations may turn out to have legitimate grievances against the government to the Labour Relations Board. That's going to be very embarrassing. It's going to take the form of individuals filing grievances for wrongful dismissal.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: They'll clean up? I think that comment was extremely.... I think that registered on the minister too. The member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) let the cat out of the bag on that one: that the days of the Labour Relations Board in this province are numbered, in terms of its present structure; that we're going to have a political appointee as chairman, one who can be removed at any time. I think we saw that in the draft of changes — the 34th, 39th, 41st, whatever — that came out of your office: you know, the one that Mr. Stewart and his people did uptown. Why didn't you involve GERB?

MS. BROWN: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, there are quite a few, including the fact that I think the hon. member now speaking was referring to something not contained in this bill. But I will first recognize the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) refer to the opposition as having stolen some papers. I'd like him to withdraw that statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a fair point.

If the hon. member has inferred any dishonourable motive to other members of the House, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I did not impute any motive.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We'll alternate here. The hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure if I refreshed the memory of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who has just returned to the House after her all-night sleep, she'd be aware of what the member for Surrey was referring to — which has been confirmed by the member for Vancouver Centre — that he had stolen some files and he had them in his basement in Vancouver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I clearly heard a withdrawal from the second member for Surrey. Did the second member for Surrey withdraw any improper motive?

MR. REID: Any improper motive, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's withdrawn. Thank you.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard the member say that we had stolen something. He says he's withdrawing any inference. I want him to withdraw the term that we "stole."

MR. REID: Check the basement.

[ Page 1665 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The inference has been withdrawn, hon. members.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The second member for Surrey is continuing with the same attack by saying: "Check the basement." He is, by inference, indicating that the New Democratic Party stole documents. I would ask him to withdraw or leave this chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just to settle this once and for all, will the hon. second member for Surrey please rise and state that he withdraws any improper motive attributed to another hon. member or members of this House.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, for the second time I stand and withdraw any improper motive implied.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The point is well taken and well considered. The hon. first member for Victoria....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member continues.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that the Provincial Secretary referred to files and alleged that I had stolen certain files. That is a complete and utter falsehood which would be....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's fine. I'll ask the hon. Provincial Secretary, if he has imputed any improper motive, to withdraw it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that when that member left office...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. We just....

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...as the minister, he took the files from the Ministry of Economic Development, as it was known then.

MR. LAUK: You're lying.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not suggesting he stole them but he took them out of the office and stored them in his basement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I will ask the Provincial Secretary to rise, take his place in the debate, or take his place and...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Debate? Thank you very much. I'm ready to go.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...withdraw any imputation about improper motive to another hon. member. Will the hon. Provincial Secretary please withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I can't take away the common knowledge that exists in the province of British Columbia....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. Just a simple withdrawal will be fine.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I simply withdraw then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. LAUK: Before the minister withdraws from the House it should also be pointed out that he has made false statements.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: I ask him to get up now and withdraw the false statements he has made in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister gave the House a withdrawal and that is sufficient.

MR. LAUK: No, he alleged that I took files belonging to the ministry....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But then he withdrew that statement.

MR. LAUK: He did not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no allegation against another hon. member, in the Chair's opinion.

MR. LAUK: Well, he just better watch his step.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria continues in the debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member for Vancouver Centre makes certain allegations and suggests that I lied in this House. I find that offensive, coming from that member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The Chair did not hear any such imputations.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the word wasn't "lie," but that I had uttered a falsehood, or words to that effect. He said that I made false statements. I resent....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, he said I made false statements. I want you to know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The situation has been resolved. hon. member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It hasn't been resolved to my satisfaction, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre was asked to withdraw any allegations, and he did.

[ Page 1666 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: When?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just now. So there we are. Any statements have been withdrawn, so I think we are quite in order.

I recognize the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring to your attention that the Provincial Secretary continues to abuse the rules of this House. He should be thrown out herewith!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. I think we can resolve the whole situation by simply recognizing the hon. first member for Victoria on the debate.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, continuing on the breaches of the ILO recommendations that this government has made to international standards in labour relations, article 15 of the ILO provides that employees should have the right to a severance package, but all we find in Bill 3 is that the cabinet is stating that the government "may" pay compensation, not "shall." They may pay compensation. This bill is in violation of a fundamental principle of natural justice and international standards.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's not true!

MR. HANSON: It's right in the bill. Compensation....

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

Speaking on the principle of the bill, but referring to a specific clause, Mr. Speaker, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations he considers necessary or advisable for providing for compensation for employees whose employment is terminated under section 2(l), or under any other circumstances, without cause. The main word is "may," not "shall." So there again under Article 15 of the International Labour Organization standards, the arm of the United Nations, here we have in this Shangri-La of British Columbia a government which misled the public to the extent on May 5 that they indicated that they would cooperate and work closely with government employees — all public sector employees in the province — and in actual fact they brought in a bill which contains one section here which is one of the many offensive sections I've been dealing with which deals with the violation of the ILO standards that an employee should have the right to a severance package. Here in the language of the bill it is just "may."

In Article 16, as I pointed out, due notice to the employee representatives was not made, and I think that for that minister to indicate in any way that proper notice or provisions of the collective agreements had been met in notifying the bargaining agents that legislative change was coming is not correct. Again the government was in violation of international standards on that matter.

[8:00]

Finally, Articles 17 and 18 of the draft ILO recommendations provide that the employer should seek to find alternative employment for displaced workers and assist in the task through retraining or other means. We've seen small consulting companies hired. One company in particular is hired to make recommendations to the government on how to fire, and at the same time its sister agency has a contract to attempt to counsel the employees who have been terminated, and whose livelihoods are now at risk and whose mortgage payments on basic subsistence are at risk. Now we have the travesty of a consultant company hired to make recommendations on firing and at the same time to hold the hands of the people who are fired. They don't need that, Mr. Speaker; they need jobs, retraining, due process and justice. They need a government and an employer who treats them with respect — respect for the rule of common law and the sanctity of contract, which this government does not have. That is clear and the whole world knows it.

In 1983 the ILO Joint Committee on the Public Service recommended that "security of employment should be a fundamental principle in the employment of local, regional and provincial public employees," and that "no dismissal of established employees should occur unless there is a valid reason." That particular ILO recommendation is really the nub of this bill, and again illustrates how this particular government is in violation of ILO standards.

It is recognized by the United Nations and the ILO that people who work for government, at all levels, are particularly vulnerable, because in no other instance does the employer write the laws. That makes employment in the public sector particularly dicey. Recognition was therefore embodied in the ILO recommendations that because local, regional, provincial and federal employees could be subject to the vagaries of political whims or shifts in their employer, who having the authority to write the laws which could affect the term of their employment, and that with the stroke of a pen an employer, in this case the provincial government, is doing to all junior levels of government.... With a stroke of a pen they are denying basic, fundamental rights in a society. Being recognized by the ILO, this was included in their 1983 recommendations. I'll read it once more, Mr. Speaker: "The security of employment should be a fundamental principle in the employment of local, regional and provincial public employees, and no dismissal of established employees should occur unless there is a valid reason."

So I think, Mr. Speaker, that particular recommendation to the member, to the affiliates and to the signatory countries is one that this government should pay heed to. I think no better illustration exists on abuses by elected officials over their employees than exists here in our own province of British Columbia under Bill 3.

No province in Canada has legislation on the books comparable to this bill. In France local government employees can only be dismissed for reasons of economy and they are given priority in finding employment in other areas of government. We are a long way from that notion in this bill. We don't even grant our own citizens who are employees of local government and provincial government rights of due process. Clearly the travesty of firings by political whim and the notion and hint and motive of patronage as the modus operandi of government.... People will be hired and promoted not on the basis of merit or their objective criteria of experience, education, length of service and some other more subjective characteristics in terms of the government's need for specific market value of particular skills and experience, but here we have a government that is embarking upon...

[ Page 1667 ]

MR. COCKE: Tozerization.

MR. HANSON: ...a Tozerization process. I think that's very apt, colleague. What we are having is the Tozerizing of the public service of British Columbia. A good case in point, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that career public service positions that for years and years have been clearly career positions, such as government agent — a job that a person who wanted a career in public administration would aspire to as the shining crown of a public service career; the kind of job for a person of the stature of Mr. Lawrie Wallace, and there are many many others — are fast becoming an extinct breed. As this government continues in power year after year, that idea of a non-partisan career public service where people are there because of their skills, their dedication to the public service and to providing good quality sevices to their own community is fast leaving it in the sense that the government wants to appoint its friends to keep positions. The appointment of Tony Tozer in the Kelowna government agent job was clearly a violation of tradition, decency and fairness. What that decision did.... There were cute, political responses by the Minister of Finance and the Premier when they were questioned about this matter, such as, "Oh, boy, I can hardly wait to find more positions and we'll plug them up with our friends. Thank you for bringing vacancies to my attention. We'll be looking at an overhaul of the government agents' system so that we'll no longer have that career role for people to aspire to but rather it will be filled by our pals." The shocking, scandalous and frightening thing....

HON. MR. CHABOT: You've got the wrong act.

MR. HANSON: I'm talking about the public service, Mr. Speaker.

The shocking and frightening thing is that these particular positions have a role in the electoral process, which is a fundamental aspect of this bill. We have firings not based on just cause and any due process for hearings and so on but rather we have public service which will have people charged with the electoral process. They'll oversee the voters' list in regions of the province. That frightens me very much, and it frightens any person who has thought of it and understands the implications. To have a political appointee overseeing the electoral process, particularly people who are close....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not necessarily the registrar of voters, because....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Victoria has the floor. Would the Provincial Secretary please come to order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I brought to the attention of the House and the public the job description for government agents, and it clearly includes the government agent to be in charge of the voters' list and to oversee....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not necessarily so.

MR. HANSON: You may say "not necessarily so," but it frightens us to think that Social Credit would be in charge of that kind of apparatus. I would rather have a career government agent in charge of the electoral process in the region than Tony Tozer, believe me, Mr. Speaker. Wouldn't you?

I've indicated that in France they have a different notion of how local government employees are treated and the process for dismissal. I might just note that officials in German states and local governments have strong security of employment, as do career public employees. I don't want anyone in this House or in the public at large to feel that public sector employees cannot be terminated. I think everyone understands they can be terminated; it's just that there is a process in place. There are manuals and guidelines on how it's done. There are hearings, there is a grievance procedure and time limits, and various kinds of fines and penalties for capricious and wrongful dismissal. Our concern is that that particular process is going out the window in British Columbia.

In virtually every democratic jurisdiction one can name, dismissal of public employees can only be for just cause, and rightly so. Where layoffs are forced by fiscal circumstances, the rules for seniority provisions apply, and the rules for the government to conclude severance arrangements which provide for relocation and retraining. Changes occur in our economy, and any progressive state or jurisdiction understands that sometimes even skills themselves become redundant, so therefore you don't need a widget-maker anymore. What you need to do is provide a livelihood for that widget-maker, and he can then take courses, study on his own time and invest his own commitment and dedication to upgrading his skills.

There is an obligation on behalf of any progressive and sensible employer that training and retraining is very much a part of the modern world. Just because something becomes less important, you don't take that person and throw them on the scrap heap. That's not the way people should be treated. That is the Dark Ages in terms of labour-management relations.

Only in B.C. do we find legislation which provides for mass firings without just cause, without right to compensation, without....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. HANSON: Well, it says "may." You see, we don't trust the government. It doesn't say "shall." In response to that minister, who says: "Not true," read the bill. Read Bill 4. It says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council "may" make regulations subject to compensation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're talking about firing without cause.

MR. HANSON: Section 4 of this bill. Yes. that's right.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 43, concerning the conduct of the Provincial Secretary, who persists in irrelevant and tedious repetition, either of his own heckling or of the arguments being used by the member in debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Provincial Secretary is not on his feet, and I have called him to order on several occasions. That is not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: I would appreciate it if you would continue to do so, because he is deliberately heckling the member who is trying to give a speech in this House.

[ Page 1668 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that member who just rose on a point of order is twisting and turning the rules of this House to such a degree that I've never experienced before.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a point of order either.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm speaking about that particular standing order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Can't a member raise a point of order here, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that the standing orders don't read the way she's saying they do, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Never before have I experienced such deliberate twisting.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

[8:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As all hon. members are aware, it is breaking the rules of this House to stand on a frivolous point of order, and I would remind all members of that.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MS. BROWN: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to bring to your attention the list of unparliamentary words published by Mr. Speaker Schroeder, which very clearly includes the word "twist."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm very aware of the list.

MS. BROWN: That Provincial Secretary accused me of "twist," and I'd like him to withdraw that word, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What have you got against Chubby Checker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, as I understand it, you found a particular word uttered by the Provincial Secretary to be offensive.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker Schroeder ruled that "twist" was unparliamentary, and went on to say, if I may quote from a letter written by Mr. Speaker Schroeder....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I would ask the Provincial Secretary....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Certainly if that woman over there is offended by my statement, I'll withdraw it without categorizing...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...my withdrawal. I'd like you to press on with the boring speech from the member for Victoria.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Would the first member for Victoria please continue on Bill 3.

MR. HANSON: In virtually every democratic jurisdiction firings in the public service occur only with cause. Here we have a situation where the cabinet has taken unto itself to contrive the cause that will fit the cloth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's false!

MR. HANSON: It's not false at all.

Where layoffs are forced by fiscal circumstances, the rule of seniority provisions and severance arrangements apply in relocation and retraining. Government members have gone around the province attempting to mislead the public by indicating that somehow the private sector collective agreements do not have seniority provisions. That is absolute and total nonsense. Of course they do. What this government wants to do is make public employees substandard, second-class citizens, to work in a climate of fear of their employer subject to the vagaries of the political whim of whatever change may take place at the political level. That is not the way to conduct in a modern society.

We know of examples even in Canada. In the Maritimes there are examples of fairly substantial changes taking place in the public service when the government changes. I don't think that's any surprise. Many members on parliamentary exchanges have indicated that that is the case. It is not the tradition in recent years in British Columbia; I think it probably was when people such as Mr. Gaglardi and others were in office, because hirings were done at political levels in many instances in the Highways department. That was wrong, and it was changed when the New Democratic Party came to power and the Public Service Commission guidelines were established on recruitment and hiring. Selection was made on the basis of merit, and that's the way it should be done, not by politics. Only in B.C. do we find legislation which provides for mass firings without just cause and without right to compensation, without opportunities for alternative employment being made available. This is a scandal. This is why we're opposing it. That's why we're opposing it at 8:20 a.m. There are many things that many of us would prefer to do under other circumstances. But when there is an attack mounted on the workers in this province least able to protect themselves, then we must oppose it whenever it comes. Whether it's 8 o'clock in the morning, 9 o'clock at night, on Saturdays or whenever, we must speak out in opposition to this horrendous legislation.

We are hoping that the Provincial Secretary will heed our comments and overtures to him, and will withdraw the bill and restore confidence and security and a sense of relief to the 250,000 families in this province who are directly affected, and to the rest in the province who are indirectly impacted by

[ Page 1669 ]

these laws. As I indicated to you — and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are aware that the small merchants in this community are not receiving benefit of any kind of investor confidence in the sense that a person can borrow to improve their home, to upgrade a physical plant, to buy durable goods, to buy services, to have vacations, to spend money — all extra disposable income. Most people don't have much. But they certainly don't get any comfort from this bill, because it discourages all public sector employees from spending money, which has a multiplier effect through the economy because of those small building-trades workers, who don't get the jobs making an addition on a house, doing a small project around a person's home, installing some appliance or doing all the kinds of things that make this economy run.

Clearly, it is a bad bill in terms of employer-employee relationships. It is an extremely bad bill in terms of the impact on the economy. The legislation is so draconian that it makes public sector workers in B.C. who are in organized trade unions inferior in terms of legal protection to private sector workers who do not enjoy the rights and benefits of a collective agreement. There are aspects, Mr. Speaker, of this bill which provide even less protection than that for a person who would be unorganized. The federal Labour Code and other protection can be available to people who are not covered by a collective agreement under the provincial Labour Code.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Well, there are standards. Even the standards of this other bill, which I am not going to name.... The employment standards bill reduces the quality of the work environment and the protection for workers. I don't know who drafted that, but I'm not going to spend too much time on it.

Unorganized private sector workers fall under the jurisdiction of the Labour Code of Canada. Most unorganized workers have protection from unjust dismissal only through common law. The protection afforded here is minimal, for under common law an employee can be dismissed without cause upon proper and reasonable notice, or payment of wages or salary in lieu of notice. We on this side of the House find this bill unconscionable, because it places organized public sector workers in the same position as unorganized private sector workers. What we should really be doing in our society, Mr. Speaker, is upgrading the protection of workers of all categories and seeing that only through upgrading in this area can we achieve the kind of society that we want to achieve in British Columbia and in Canada.

So why are we downgrading minimal legal rights in the first place? Rights in common law have their origin in law pertaining to the relationship between master and servant; that's a long-standing concept in labour relations. It really does enshrine the notion of management rights. All collective agreements have a provision which states very clearly that.... Generally the language reads that everything not negotiated in contract language residually rests in management rights. Management does need to have the right to direct employment in many, many areas, but that doesn't mean that they have to run roughshod over people. There is a lot of room for improvement; in fact, in this province there is enormous room for improvement in the consultative process between workers working in the public sector and their employers.

You know, Mr. Speaker, if the Provincial Secretary would....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary shouldn't refer to a colleague as an "old cop." I would wish him to withdraw that statement, on behalf of my colleague.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, he is an old cop and you know it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm not so sure that the phrase "old cop" would be unparliamentary, but I saw no reaction from the member to which that phrase was directed. I would suggest that that is not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: I think it's on the list, actually.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a new one, Rosemary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, before the first member for Victoria continues, I would suggest, from my experience in this House, that tempered language will always result in tempered responses. I would ask that all hon. members keep that in mind.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, further to your ruling and in support of it, I would like again to refer to this list of Mr. Speaker Schroeder. If the Provincial Secretary had said "senile cop, that would have been out of order, but "old" is okay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I'm fully aware of and familiar with the list of unparliamentary language that is laid down for this House.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, if the Provincial Secretary had said "the white-haired cop," I would have known to whom he was directing it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. Would the first member for Victoria please proceed on Bill 3.

[8:30]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to get the government to understand the concept of wrongful dismissal and of dismissal without cause, because even with these proposed amendments it is our contention that it is still unjust dismissal or wrongful dismissal. There is a history....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the bill. It makes provision for regulations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind all members that only one member has a place in debate at one time in this House.

MR. HANSON: To illustrate my point, I would like to mention some aspects of a very well-known paper called "The Parameters of William Scott." It is regarding unjust dismissal of an employee covered by a collective agreement. This is a hallmark paper because it outlines the proper grievance and arbitration procedure to follow due process. All workers covered under collective agreements are entitled to due process so that they are not capriciously terminated for

[ Page 1670 ]

invalid reasons. These provisions must be followed in collective agreements. Where layoffs occur, they should be on the basis of seniority. That is, there is a specified process provided for in the collective agreement.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The key point is that Bill 3 places organized public sector workers in a far worse position than their private sector counterparts. This arbitration decision in "The Parameters of William Scott," I think, is worth taking a few minutes with to illustrate this for you. It's an article on the legal concept of "dismissal with cause," which is fundamental and essential to the principle of the bill, as interpreted in B.C.

The protection accorded by the Labour Code in this respect is largely overridden by Bill 3. Arbitration boards have been directed by the Labour Relations Board to apply the approach taken in the Wm. Scott and Company Ltd. and Canadian Food and Allied Workers, Local P-162(No. 46-76), (1977). This is an arbitration ruling by the board that is the model that the Labour Relations Board now uses for the kinds of principles that I've previously outlined. This Canadian Labour Relations Board ruling is so important it's hereafter called "William Scott" when reviewing discharge grievances in the province of British Columbia. I'm not sure, but I would assume that this particular ruling by the Labour Relations Board in 1977 would be the ruling that is presently being used to measure dismissals of the government employees who have filed wrongful dismissal applications to the Labour Relations Board that are presently being heard by that board. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe so.

"...a similar approach must be taken to determine whether there is just cause for some other form of discipline and whether that discipline is not excessive and ought to be replaced by some other just and equitable measure. This paper will only be examining discharge cases and not cases involving other forms of discipline."

I want to read to you a paragraph from this William Scott judgment decision which commences with an examination of section 93(1) of the Code, which states:

"Every collective agreement shall contain a provision governing the dismissal or discipline of an employee bound by the agreement, and that provision or other provision shall require that the employer have a just and reasonable cause for the dismissal or discipline of an employee, but nothing in this section shall prohibit the parties to a collective agreement from including therein a different provision for employment of certain employees on a probationary basis."

As you know, Mr. Speaker, often an employer will want to retain employees for a probationary period that is generally, I believe, under six months. That allows for a different standard of protection for those employees because it offers the employer an extra opportunity to terminate the service of that employee if the employee's performance is not satisfactory. Notwithstanding that portion of that paragraph, it does state that "every collective agreement shall contain a provision governing the dismissal or discipline of an employee bound by the agreement, and that provision or other provision shall require that the employer have a just and reasonable cause for the dismissal and discipline of an employee," and so on. That's fundamental to Bill 3, Mr. Speaker, because what we are seeing in this bill is that even though a group of politicians, be they elected MLAs forming a cabinet, are entitled to make laws and have them vetted and debated and passed in a recognized process through this House, it does recognize that there must be protection for employees employed by politicians. When your employer writes the laws, as I pointed out to the other Speaker.... I'm not being repetitive; I'm just making the point again that there is a special condition that exists in the employment of public sector employees because their employers make the laws. Therefore, at the stroke of a pen, they can alter the rights of those employees.

For example, with the stroke of a pen the government could alter the Public Service Labour Relations Act, as it has done, the Public Service Act, the Public Service Commission Act, the Government Employee Relations Bureau and so on. Therefore it is understood by the United Nations, through the ILO, that public sector employees must have some protection. The protection given by this judgment in the labour relations board award of William Scott is that it demands that every collective agreement shall contain provisions for termination with just cause and various provisions for grievance procedures and due process, which are absent in Bill 3, or if there is an inkling of them they are seriously inadequate. We can't put our trust in the government to handle that responsibility and that authority without providing adequate safeguards to the employees. I think that's very straightforward and a very reasonable comment. We are making a very constructive approach to the government that they should not continue on their present course but should simply adhere to the judgment in the William Scott case.

It says: "When an arbitrator is required to review the dismissal or discipline taken by the employer, section 98 of the Code confers statutory authority on the arbitrator to fully examine the action taken by the employer."

But now that will exist only in the private sector because Bill 3 alters this so that the public sector worker is not afforded the same protection and benefit of that clause. Section 92(3) of the Code requires that arbitrators come to grips with "the 'real substance' and 'respective merits' of the matters in dispute. In the context of discharge grievances, this means that an arbitrator must make a series of judgments."

Before I continue on that I just want to point out one of the beauties of a Labour Relations Board and why it was a model. A great deal of recognition must go to the Minister of Labour and his cabinet colleagues at the time who established the Labour Code in British Columbia. The structure of the Labour Relations Board was to move disputes out of the courts and into a non-judicial body that would look at the real substance and merits of it in a non-courtroom environment, and with different rules of evidence and ways of dealing with testimony. The idea, which I think was a real beauty — to use a Bob and Doug description — is to get at the nub of the matter and not get hung up with a lot of lawyers in the handling of a matter which could have been a misunderstanding between an employee and a supervisor. Maybe an employee was dead wrong. In other words, the resolution of the dispute would be handled in a way that was the best for both parties. It was a balanced approach; it wasn't weighted. It gave the best balance for both employer and employee. That's why section 92(3) of the Code required that arbitrators come to grips with the "real substance and respective merits" of the matters in dispute.

[ Page 1671 ]

"In the context of discharge grievances, this means that an arbitrator must make a series of judgments. First, the arbitrator must determine whether the employee gave just and reasonable cause for some form of discipline by the employer." That's a fundamental principle. "As the board noted in the William Scott case, the concept of 'just and reasonable cause' in the context of the collective bargaining relationship between employers and trade unions is markedly distinct from the concept of 'cause' in the context of the 'master-servant' relationship at common law."

That notion of just and reasonable cause related to collective bargaining relationships between employers and trade unions is fundamental. In Bill 3 that is not addressed, and is, in fact, eliminated. What we have happening is a reversion to conditions that existed prior to the modern progressive labour relations established by the New Democratic Party.

To continue with on the William Scott judgment, which is a landmark judgment:

"Persons outside the ambit of the collective agreement regime regulated by the Code may be dismissed at will by their employers. Where the dismissal is without cause the employer is required to give the employee reasonable notice or compensation in lieu of notice. In contrast, an employee covered by a collective agreement enjoys a form of tenure — a legal expectation of continued employment — as long as he or she does not act in such a way as to justify discharge by the employer."

As the board stated in the William Scott case: "On that foundation, the collective agreement erects a number of significant benefits:" — and I think this is important, Mr. Speaker — "seniority claim to jobs in case of layoff or promotion...."

This is something that the government wants to dismiss out of hand. They keep talking about seniority as being a part of this package when clearly it is not. "Seniority claim to jobs in case of layoff or promotion." So if there has to be layoffs, it should be based on seniority. "Service-based entitlement to extended vacation or sick leave" — in other words, the longer an employee contributes his life to an employer, the more entitlements to vacation and sick leave should be. Credits should be accumulated into a pension plan funded by the employer.

"The point is that the right to continued employment is normally a much firmer and more valuable legal claim under a collective agreement than under the common law individual contract of employment. As a result, discharge of an employee under collective bargaining law, especially of one who has worked under it for some time under the agreement, is a qualitatively more serious and detrimental event than it would be under the common law."

We see there that this ruling is laying out a framework that is being undercut in the public sector by Bill 3 as a basic principle.

[8:45]

"Consistent with this aspect of the legal regime of collective bargaining, section 93(l) of the Code requires that every collective agreement contain a provision that the employer shall have 'just and reasonable cause' for the dismissal of an employee." Would you construe just and reasonable cause in Bill 3 to mean that the cabinet sits around and decides that an entire program in a certain area with a number of employees should be cut?

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I hear the minister say: "Sounds fair to me." That is indicative of the philosophy of this government. That is what this bill is all about.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you want to pile them up like cordwood in the back room if there's no program? What's the matter with you?

MR. HANSON: No, you don't pile them up, Mr. Minister, like cordwood in the back room.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Fire all the women first.

MR. HANSON: Don't be so silly. Go back to the Broadway show. Go and hire another....

MS. BROWN: That's what you're doing. You're firing all the women.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's what he wants to do, fire all the auxiliaries, and 80 percent of them are women.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have created a quorum situation. I therefore call quorum.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair's attention having been drawn to the quorum situation, I will now attempt to determine if in fact a quorum does exist.

Hon. members, quorum consists of ten members including the Chair. A close observation will indicate that the quorum does in fact exist.

MR. HANSON: Continuing with this landmark William Scott arbitration award, which is the pattern of conduct for employers and employees, it states that every collective agreement shall contain a provision that the employer shall have just and reasonable cause for the dismissal of an employee. Just and reasonable cause, I would maintain — and our side of the House would maintain, as would all fair-minded people — is that the whim of a political body, such as the cabinet of a provincial government, determining that they no longer want, say, a fish enhancement program, does not mean that is just and reasonable cause for firing all the biologists, or half a dozen, or eight or ten, who are working there who have invested their lives or their careers in this public service. There are many areas where a biologist can work in government. They can work in air quality, on wildlife management, on protecting the Vancouver Island marmot, which the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has indicated he's very interested in. That's just a light remark.

What I'm saying is that that doesn't constitute just and reasonable cause for the dismissal of an employee. I think the Labour Relations Board may make the determination that the firings that have taken place, even with this legislation, do not constitute just and reasonable cause. "When a dismissal is grieved, the arbitrator must make a judgment from the evidence about whether the alleged misconduct was such that it gave the employer 'just and reasonable cause....'" The

[ Page 1672 ]

provincial government will, I think, be put to the test on that matter. Where an award is shown not to reflect such a judgment, it is reviewable under section 108(l)(b) of the Code:

"It is not legally correct for an arbitrator in a discharge case to assume that the common law definition of 'cause' remains unchanged under the Code subject only to the possibility that an arbitrator might exercise an ill-defined discretion to rescue an employee from the 'normal' legal consequences of discharge and substitute a lesser penalty on 'equitable' grounds. An arbitrator who approaches a discharge grievance with that reluctant state of mind simply is not proceeding in accordance with the principle of the Labour Code."

Now what section 98 is saying, Mr. Speaker, was a response by the Legislature to the problems of discharge and discipline, which recognize not only the serious impact that discipline, particularly discharge, can have on an individual employee, but also the need to provide adequate jurisdiction for the review of discharge decisions by arbitrators. The history of the development of jurisprudence in this area suffered a setback in Port Arthur Shipbuilding (1968), 68 CLLC 14, 136 at 587, where the Supreme Court of Canada stated: "The task of the arbitration board in this case was to determine whether it was proper cause. The findings of facts actually made and the only finding of fact that the board could possibly make established that there was proper cause." The struggle in arbitral law, I guess, is that it's a matter between cause and just and reasonable cause. The Labour Relations Board of British Columbia has adopted the approach that it's on the basis of just and reasonable cause. The board, however, did not limit its task. It assumed the function of management. In this case it determined not whether there had been proper cause, but whether a company, having proper cause, should have exercised the power of dismissal. The board set the judgment of management and found in favour of suspension.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the list of terminations that have occurred in the public service, and I look at this William Scott decision, which has been the pattern for the Labour Relations Board in its direction to collective bargaining and what the collective bargaining contracts must contain and the processes that must be there to protect employees to ensure that just and reasonable cause is a part of the process — rather, is enshrined in the agreement — and that the burden of proof be on the employer, clearly when we look at these dismissals and terminations, we see a very sorry example of the undermining of collective bargaining and the rights of public sector employees in relation to other workers and in violation of the ILO standards and conventions and of all modern-day progressive labour-management relationships.

I'd like to just go through a couple of items here that indicate people that were fired from the public service recently. I'm not alluding to other bills, but I'm using these to illustrate the kinds of actions that we will see taking place with increased frequency after Bill 3 has passed, if we cannot impress upon the government to withdraw the legislation. In Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, two regular employees were fired. A Burnaby human rights officer, one auxiliary research officer, one auxiliary employee, a clerk-steno 3, with one and a half years regular service.... This particular individual is married — and I say "is" because these are living people out in the community who have lost their jobs as a result of this government's actions. The husband's UIC has run out and they have a dependent son. I would assume that those people are probably on social assistance. People find it very difficult to make the transition to going on to social assistance. I always instruct people who contact me who are distraught about going onto social assistance that it is their right; that they are entitled to do so; that the stigma that surrounds that particular support is wrong; that when we have callous and uncaring governments that don't do proper economic planning and don't concern themselves with the proper well-being of employees and we have systems where there are holes in the safety net, clearly people should get their social assistance and not feel degraded in any way, should not feel that that is somehow demeaning to them.

So this is an example of a person who has lost her position. She was a regular employee but was under the time in the collective agreement which would afford her some protection, providing she was doing her job properly, and she was let go.

Here's a case of another auxiliary office assistant in the Human Rights Commission in Burnaby. Also in the Human Rights Commission in Burnaby were eight regular administrative officers. An administrative officer is a very well-trained person, with a supervisory, almost management, function. To a person who has perhaps worked their way up through various clerical levels — applying for promotion and getting promoted on the basis of merit and so on, and then achieving an administrative officer position, which is very difficult for someone of lower-level clerk rank — it comes as a great surprise to find themselves terminated after being a regular employee. That means that they did occupy an established position of government, one which is regarded as part of the regular complement. The termination comes as a terrible shock.

[9:00]

Mr. Speaker, some of those people would clearly be on unemployment insurance, but some of them could even be heading toward social assistance if they don't find other employment. Where is the other employment? The government is simply not creating employment. They have little buzz sentences that they trot out about the private sector being the engine of the economy, without affording any kind of economic plan or having any recognition that we are in a mixed economy where the public and private sector can work in tandem to generate employment and stabilize the economy.

Another officer was terminated in the Burnaby Labour ministry. This particular person had three and a half years regular employment, and that would be over and above the three years that that employee would require to have any modicum of job security in the public service. That person is a single parent with a teenage daughter, and to our side of the House is not an FTE but a real person who has been betrayed and shocked, whose livelihood has been totally demolished by the provincial government employer, who promised in a letter in January, over the signature of the Provincial Secretary, that no such drastic action would take place, and that people would be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner, and that no action would be taken to disrupt their lives, to threaten their mortgage payments or to generally undercut their ability to provide for themselves and their families.

[Mr. Reid in the chair.]

[ Page 1673 ]

One administrative officer was an auxiliary, and subject to layoff according to seniority. This particular auxiliary could have been employed by the provincial government for 5, 10 or 15 years, but still be an auxiliary, having invested a substantial portion of their working life to the employer, and at the same time be treated in such a shabby, unjustified way by this government.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Your position is to get rid of the auxiliaries.

MR. HANSON: I did not say that. That member is not correct.

I am stating over and over again that you should respect the sanctity of contract. You should follow the provisions of the collective agreement.

This particular administrative officer to whom I am referring is an auxiliary and supports a husband and a son. I don't know what the situation there is. It's very likely, as many members in this House know, that the members on the government side make big bones about the fact that a public sector worker may still be employed. But that public sector employee may be supporting a laid-off private sector person and their family in the forest industry or the mining industry, or in some other industry. What they've done by this bill and by these firings is come in with a machete and chop the legs off the sole supporter of that family. That is a real travesty.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: I'm talking on behalf of justice and fairness and the Labour Code of this province, and I'm speaking on behalf of the people who require the services. The people I referred to were working for the human rights branch. They were serving the public very well. They were understaffed, carrying out work in a very dedicated way, and to hear those frivolous remarks from that side of the House is really sad. To say anything more just encourages it. It is just sad that they hold those views in 1984, when they really.... I think they think they're some kind of medieval warlords or custodians of some kind of medieval fiefdom. We've had those firings in the human rights branch and behind every one of those figures — I've just given you a thumbnail sketch — is a tragic tale. And it's still there. The scars are there; they are wide open. People are trying to put their lives back together. When you don't have a paycheque in this society you have big trouble, and the way people are treated when all of a sudden they lose their income is really very sad. I have people calling me — and I'm not exaggerating — who are distraught that they have to go on social assistance. They feel it; it hurts their pride. But I tell them that it is their entitlement and that they are one of many thousands of good British Columbians who are treated badly by the policies and the programs and the lack of respect that this government has for its own citizens; that they shouldn't feel sad or distraught at all, but take that assistance and do what they can with it — stretch it as far as they can and so on.

In Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond, Transportation and Highways branch, two motor vehicle inspectors, regular employees, were fired. In Vancouver, Provincial Secretary recreational consultants....

AN HON. MEMBER: We hired one of those back today on a contract. Is that okay?

MR. HANSON: You did? Hired him back on a contract. In Nelson, a recreational consultant terminated. In Cranbrook, the Ministry of Labour, a human rights officer, just one year's regular. Consumer and Corporate Affairs, an administrative officer, two years regular. An office assistant, four years regular. Administrative officer, nine years regular. Here's one — I referred to it on the hoist but I'm sure you will allow me to refer to it again, because it is a key case.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order....

MR. HANSON: All right, I won't even refer to it.

Agricultural officer, 11 years regular. You work 11 years for the provincial government as an agricultural officer: you've done your job properly, you've been promoted and so on, and to be terminated by this provincial government is extremely upsetting. We see here that some people have been offered clean-up jobs in Vancouver until 1984. On the cut-off line, an office assistant, one year regular, single parent, two children, no job offers in sight. Someone here who was fortunate — offered a Kamloops relocation. Here's one who was handling a very important case in the human rights branch, a single parent. Kamloops, Ministry of Labour, married with one child, wife works part time. Two years regular, single parent, two teen-age children and can't get by on UIC. If you're a single parent and you have two teen-age children.... I don't know if any of the cabinet have looked at the cost of clothing. I know just to suit young children — pre-teens — out with the regular things, like sneakers and jeans and T-shirts and blouses and the odd dress, you're talking money. If a person is on unemployment insurance after being fired by the provincial government, that's a fantastic shock. Clearly, these people aren't full-time equivalents, they are human beings. They have four-chambered hearts like the rest of us. They care about British Columbia. They wanted to do a job for this province. This government moved in on them in the most violent way. They wreaked violence and havoc right on their own family. I think a government that would embark upon that course of action with their own employees, trying to win political epaulets; trying to ingratiate themselves to the people who least understand what's at stake, what's involved; trying to find that little margin of slippage in the polls, giving all the money to these big polling companies: trying to find that little margin of percentage point or two that makes the difference in the provincial elections; trying to push a little nerve there; trying to touch on those people a sense that somehow people who work in the public sector, whether they're putting out fires, whether they're police officers, biologists, or forest workers, are somehow less worthy, are parasites, are people that must be cut out of the system.... A government that fosters that approach is really sick. It's a sickness. I can't see it having any redeeming features and characteristics.

I'm going to set these job descriptions aside for a few minutes and go back to the William Scott case, which sets the pattern which all arbitrated awards and contracts must adhere to, to ensure that there is some standard of protection for employees. Clearly, Bill 3 will make public workers — whether they work for B.C. Hydro, B.C. Systems Corporation or a municipality, whether they teach, work for the school board, whether they work in a hospital or a water district — substandard and provides less protection and benefit under law because Bill 3 overrides the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act and makes them less

[ Page 1674 ]

protected than even unorganized workers in the private sector. This is a travesty in 1984.

On page 13 of the William Scott test case, which is applied when reviewing discipline resulting in discharge — and I'm sure that that is going to be looked at in all cases of government workers that have been wrongfully terminated by this horrendous right-wing government.... I think it's a very important paragraph, and I want to read it into the record for you:

"On page 13 of Wm. Scott, the test which is to be applied when reviewing discipline resulting in discharge is set out. 'Instead, the arbitrator should pose three distinct questions in the typical discharge grievances. First, has the employee given just and reasonable cause for some form of discipline by the employer? If so, was the employer's decision to dismiss the employee an excessive response in all the circumstances of the case?'"

Certainly the acid test would be that this provincial government has responded excessively in terminating those 1,500 or however many people who have been fired already in the public service. So the arbitrator would undoubtedly rule that the employer's decision to dismiss the employee was an excessive response in all the circumstances of the case.

[9:15]

"Finally, if the arbitrator does consider this charge excessive, what alternative measures should be substituted as just and equitable?"

That particular paragraph refers only to people who have given their employer cause to be in some way disciplined or terminated. It isn't even referring to people that are sitting at their desk on a Monday morning and get a pink slip saying: "Thank you for your 15 years' service, Bill. We will keep you on the payroll until October 31. We'll probably deduct whatever pay you get during this time against any compensation that the cabinet may or may not decide upon, and then you will just be terminated." So this clause was for employees who may have given the employer some cause for some discipline, whether it be minor or major, or so on. But what the arbitrator is outlining is three distinct questions in the typical discharge grievance. First, has the employee given just and reasonable cause for some action on behalf of the employer? If so, was the employer's decision to dismiss the employee excessive? And, if it was, what alternative measures should be substituted as just and equitable?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. We should have a recess. The minister isn't here to listen to the persuasive arguments that are being raised by my colleague. I would ask for a recess at this juncture, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The recess is refused.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. COCKE: I challenge that ruling.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a ruling.

MR. COCKE: He said it was a ruling. I challenge that ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No ruling — just no recess.

MR. COCKE: No ruling? Mr. Speaker, is no recess your decision?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I'm not calling a recess.

MR. COCKE: You're not calling a recess? And that's your ruling, Mr. Speaker? Is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm asking the debate to continue.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have the right to ask: is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not ruling; I'm just telling you I'm not calling a recess as the Speaker.

MR. COCKE: That is a ruling, then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not calling a recess.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: He's got to make a ruling.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He certainly does. Mr. Speaker, if you have said there is no recess, then it's a ruling. It's not a fact, it's a ruling. Is that a ruling, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not calling a recess. The Speaker is not calling a recess. Would the debate please continue.

MR. HANSON: This is an incredible House.

"If one party appeals the arbitration award to the board under section 108, and is able to show, in the words of the award, a failure of the arbitrator to make obligatory separate judgments concerning the three questions in Wm. Scott, the board will set the award aside and place the parties back in a pre-arbitration position."

That's important, Mr. Speaker, because it indicates that in labour law, in the William Scott case, the way the Labour Relations Board has come to the ruling, the question on dismissal must be divided into three parts. An important part under this bill is the question: is the termination of government employees, under this bill, an excessive response to the circumstance?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds calls a point of order.

MS. BROWN: My point of order is that I'm wondering whether, on an issue as important as this, that affects the lives of so many people, the minister responsible should not be in the House, at least to hear what the opposition has to say about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Madam Member, that's not a point of order. That's a decision of the....

[ Page 1675 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I'd just like to assure the members opposite that the minister is only out for a very short time. I'm taking notes for him and listening very carefully to the member for Victoria.

MR. COCKE: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's contempt of the House that the minister is away from this debate. I asked for a recess previously, and he's had all sorts of time to get back in here. It is contempt of the House for the minister not to be sitting in on this debate.

MR. REYNOLDS: A point of order. I find it rather strange that the member for New Westminster can be calling it contempt of the House when his own party left this chamber a little while ago to create a lack of a quorum in here to disrupt proceedings. And they've been doing this on points of order so their member can sit down. The member who's speaking can adjourn debate of the House and sit down like any other member does when they're speaking.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, is that member...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What's your point of order?

MS. BROWN: My point of order is that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound is imputing an improper motive to the opposition members, and he should be forced to withdraw. Is he accusing us of collusion, as happened here a couple of days ago, in terms of depriving the Leader of the Opposition of the right to speak? Is that what he's doing?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, were you imputing any ill motive?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I see the member for Burnaby has already picked out who the Leader of the Opposition is going to be. I was not imputing any improper motive; I was just stating a fact.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria will proceed with the debate.

MS. BROWN: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. He has not withdrawn his accusation that the opposition members involved themselves in a motive that was imputed, or whatever the term is. He's imputing a motive to the opposition, and he has to withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound indicate whether he imputed any motive in his remarks?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I was not impugning anyone. I didn't understand what the member was saying. She was garbling her words, and I just couldn't understand her. If she'd repeat it again, I'd appreciate it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the second member for Victoria please take his place in debate.

MR. HANSON: So, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of the bill, I'm pointing out that in the William Scott case, which is the main ruling that governs the Labour Relations Board in wrongful dismissal cases — in termination cases — there are three fundamental questions that must be addressed by any arbitrator. Has the employee given any reasonable cause to be terminated? Is the action of the government, in terminating the employee, excessive? Of course, our argument would be that it is. If it is, what is the appropriate remedy for the resolution of the dispute?

If this government had any regard for the sanctity of contract, any respect for public sector employees, any notion of International Labour Organization standards, any idea of fair play, any notion of a good, stable economic environment to be created by good, harmonious labour relations in this province, they would pull back Bill 3 and they would sit down and talk to the various interest groups in our community: the Employers' Council, the various labour unions involved, with all of the groups that could help create a less combative, more cooperative approach to problem-solving in the depths of this depression that we are finding ourselves in. I'm trying to point out that with some care and some thought given to the William Scott case, as an example, they could see that they are pursuing a course which is unfair, which does not hold up. The only way that they could possibly achieve it would be by bringing in draconian legislation. which discriminates against one class of worker but not against other classes of workers.

Under the constitution, the Charter of Rights — I'll be getting to that at a later date — it is our contention that....

[9:30]

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I don't think that minister heard our comments during the election campaign, which were about a more cooperative approach to problem-solving.

Let's look at continuing with this William Scott arbitration award. The first question is what they call the triggering action. On page 13 of the William Scott case, reference is made to the first question to be answered. "Normally the first question involves a factual dispute requiring a judgment from the evidence about whether the employee actually engaged in the conduct which triggered the discharge." This is why the lawyers included "without cause" in this bill, because in any arbitration "the first question involves a factual dispute requiring a judgment from the evidence about whether the employee actually engaged in the conduct which triggered the discharge." Now clearly a human rights branch employee, a consumer and complaints officer, a rentalsman employee, a child care counsellor, a family support worker or whatever the person's function.... There was no triggering action. The triggering action was the fact that they worked for the government. That was the triggering action for the firing.

The question is whether or not the employer has justified that there be some form of discipline, and when you terminate people and cut off their employment, that's discipline, no matter how you cut it — whether it's without cause or whether you've got amendments there that say that the cabinet can monkey around with the language a little bit to try and contrive some reason why a person should be terminated because they feel a program is no longer required. So the question is that when you terminate somebody and it's discipline, you've got to ask yourself whether or not the employer has justified that there is some form of discipline warranted for the triggering action of the employee.

"What would happen, for example" — this is right in the William Scott case, and I commend it to all

[ Page 1676 ]

of the cabinet to read, for their edification — "if the employee, in a moment of rage, insulted a supervisor, and the arbitrator held that this act of insubordination was warranted by the provocation of the supervisor? Would this cause the arbitrator to then conclude that since there is no just and reasonable cause, or some form of discipline because of the triggering event, that therefore he was prevented from looking at other circumstances in addition to the triggering event? If it was established that there was justification for the triggering event — for example, the abusive response given to a supervisor was deemed to be shop talk and not warranting any discipline — would the arbitrator then be precluded from examining the past history of insubordination and poor work attitude which had been documented against the employee?"

Do you see what I mean, Mr. Speaker? What we have before us is arbitration awards that set a pattern. What we have in Bill 3 is law that strips away a process of investigation that comes into play when a person is disciplined and not satisfied that they've had adequate recourse or that they've had their say. Here we've had firings in the provincial government, and the triggering action for the discipline was the fact that they were employed by the provincial government — no more and no less. It wasn't because they were late and had been warned; that it had been documented and they had been suspended for a day, and maybe kept it up and then were suspended for three days, and finally were told: "There are a number of instances on your file, Jim. You're not doing your job; you're going to be terminated. You have access to the grievance procedure, and we'll let the arbitration process take its place." It would normally work something along those lines.

But here we've got employees who go to work, who aren't late, who do their job, who pay attention and who are dedicated to the public service, and the triggering action of the discipline is the fact that they are all employed by the government. That's it. It's incredible, and the whole world is watching. The whole world knows it's unfair. The whole world knows that there are services to be provided in the public sector that warrant maintaining good, competent people who work diligently for the public service in all aspects, wherever it is — and the back of the bill indicates all of the different....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've just taken the time to find out what the Provincial Secretary, whose responsibility it is to pilot this bill through the House, is doing at the moment. I suggested that he was in contempt of the House, and he is. He's on television outside instead of being in here doing his....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. member, what's the point of order?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that under standing order 9, "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order," and you cannot preserve order and decorum unless that minister is in his place in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As a matter of order, would the member please proceed to debate.

MR. COCKE: Is that a point of order or not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a point of order.

MR. COCKE: Do you so rule?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a ruling. I'm telling you....

MR. COCKE: Is it or isn't it a point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To maintain decorum within the chambers, I'm asking the member please to return to debate.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking this: is that or is it not a point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a point of order. I'm asking that the debate continue.

MR. COCKE: Do you so rule?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. You're not speaking on a point of order, Mr. Member. Would you please take your seat.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you please address the point of order.

MS. BROWN: My point of order is that any government minister need not be on the floor of the House when the bill which they are responsible....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, that's not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Is that a ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, would you explain to me why it's not a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because it's not. What's the point?

MS. BROWN: My point is that any minister of the government can refuse to be in the chamber when a bill is being piloted through. Now if it's not a point of order, tell me why it's not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is in the House at the moment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, will you please tell me why it wasn't a point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, would you please address the point of order. What is the point?

MS. BROWN: My point of order is that any minister of the government who is responsible for a bill can take off and leave this chamber, and deal with television debates or whatever while the bill is being debated, and that shows contempt of the House.

[ Page 1677 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: That is contempt of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not contempt of the House.

MS. BROWN: Is that a ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a ruling and it's not contempt of the House.

MS. BROWN: Well, you'll have to explain to me, Mr. Speaker, why it is not contempt of the House.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a point of order that you've raised. Would you find the standing order in the book, and I'll listen to you. Unfortunately I can't find it. The standing order making reference to a member being absent from the House is not in the book.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I think what the member is bringing....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What's your point of order?

MR. LEA: Standing order 8.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Allow me the courtesy, hon. member, of referring to standing order 8. Hon. members, if I can address the question which was put by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), attendance in the House, as you are well aware, has been raised on many occasions. The Speaker accepts that attendance in the House to attend to the business of the House is at the discretion of the member. This has been a long evening, and I'm sorry that the point was not raised by either side up to this point in the morning. The member in question is now in attendance, so would....

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying to get this clear in my mind. You're ruling....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not ruling.

MR. LEA: Just hold on, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not ruling. You're not going to trap me into that. I am telling you that I'm trying to maintain decorum in the House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm raising a point of order and I wish you would do me the courtesy of listening to me. I'm not speaking on someone else's point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm listening. What is your point of order, please?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this: for the minister to leave the House, when it's the minister's bill that's under debate, seems to me to apply to standing order 8 of our own House rules. The rule says: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I, as the Speaker, interject?

MR. LEA: Can I finish my point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, because you've raised the point. Let me address the point.

MR. LEA: But I want to explain why I think it applies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It doesn't apply, hon. member, because....

MR. LEA: Oh, that's your ruling — it does not apply?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It does not apply....

MR. LEA: Okay, then I challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm going to give you an explanation of why it does not apply.

MR. LEA: You've made a ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm going to give you an explanation.

MR. LEA: You won't let me give one, Mr. Speaker.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: First of all, I'm not making a ruling. I'm explaining to you that as I see this House sitting in the last evening, if the point was raised.... On numerous occasions the House had barely a quorum, and there were members absent from both sides of the House. In order to conduct the business of the day, I'm telling you that a precedent has been established in the past. Members not being in attendance in the House is not a point to be raised as a point of order.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I find your history lesson interesting, but the fact is that I asked for standing order 8 to be applied and you said it does not apply, and you made such a ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I did not say it was a ruling.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, you cannot get around it by giving a ruling and then saving it isn’t a ruling. The fact of the matter....

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the House will be brought back to order, and the second member for Victoria will take his place in debate.

[ Page 1678 ]

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, standing order 8 applies equally to all members of the House; it doesn't apply to a specific individual in the House. That member who raised the issue has been in bed all night while this House has been sitting. I've been listening to the member who had the floor — who is absent from this House right now, which is an absolute disgrace — for over three hours tonight, reading his speech tediously, and I think that when a minister has sat here for that length of time he should have the right to go to the bathroom.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get into the debate on the second reading of the bill. I notice that the member who had the floor has now left the chamber, so I'd like to take my place in support of this bill.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I recognized the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) on a point of order. He noticed that the member had left the chamber. He determined that....

MR. COCKE: Come on, Mr. Speaker!

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As a point of clarification, I recognized the Minister of Labour on a point of order. The Minister of Labour took the floor and in the absence of the member in debate determined that he was able to enter the debate.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you allow me the courtesy as the Speaker of the moment to address the question.

The Minister of Labour, who then had the floor, indicated that he wanted to enter the debate. I observed other members in the process of standing. I was about to recognize them. Unfortunately, the decorum of the chamber at the time did not allow anything to happen at the process of the Speaker. So if you will allow it, we will now go back to the Minister of Labour, who has the floor on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, with respect to what you've just said, I actually rose to my feet because the member who had been speaking had left the chamber. I assumed that he had finished his debate and I wished to enter the debate because I want to take part in this debate as well.

On the point of order, I would ask that you — perhaps not at this particular time, but in the fullness of this day's activities — bring back a report to this Legislative Assembly on the propriety of a member, who is in the middle of debate, leaving the House to do a television interview and then losing his chance to continue the debate in this House, which is what that member was doing in the hall a moment ago. He left the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that's unprecedented in the history of this Legislature.

[9:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm going to make a ruling. All the points of order that have been raised are pursuant to section 8. Since section 8 is not a decision on the Speaker to rule, I therefore will call the debate back on the floor.

The Minister of Labour has the floor on a point of order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I may be a junior Speaker, but I'll tell you that within an hour I'm going to be the most profound one up here. This is the ruling. The decision has been made and we will now proceed to the debate. The first member for Victoria has the floor.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) just accused this member of lying. I would ask her to please withdraw that.

MS. BROWN: Sure, I withdraw.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member was having a television interview. Therefore he should lose his place.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Minister of Labour on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't want to belabour this too much, Mr. Speaker, but I think there's an important principle here. I've been in this House now since 1972. I can recall no other occasion when a member who had the floor in debate left the chamber and left his place in the middle of debate without having given up that opportunity to continue the debate in the Legislature, without adjourning the debate, without having a recess, without having any orderly interruption in the business of the House. I'm perfectly willing to let the member go on reading his speech, as he has been doing for the last four and a half or five hours, but I would respectfully ask that the Speaker take under advisement the unusual occurrence of a member in the middle of debate leaving his place, leaving the chamber in order to do a television interview in the Speaker's corridor, and consider whether that person should have the right to continue debate, or whether the next procession of speakers should occur. I know that you couldn't answer that question immediately —

[ Page 1679 ]

and I wouldn't want to prejudice any decision that you might make — but I would ask that you take it under advisement.

MS. BROWN: Further to that point of order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: First, I'll address the point of order. There were so many people standing and shaking their hands, heads and everything at the same time that I did not observe the action, except the member leaving the House and returning. I don't know what the purpose of leaving was. I recognize the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, I'd like to read standing order 37:

"When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who rose first in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen 'be now heard' or 'do now speak,' which motion shall be forthwith put without debate."

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you put that motion forthwith that the Minister of Labour can speak in this House because you did recognize him to speak in this debate. I would suggest that that standing order says "without debate." The motion has to be put forthwith.

MS. BROWN: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of clarification by the Speaker on the request of the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound on a point of order, section 37 does refer to two members in debate, and inasmuch as we had only member in debate and on a point of order, the request is denied.

MS. BROWN: Further to the point of order raised by the Minister of Labour and your deliberations, Mr. Speaker, when he said that never before in the history of this House has a member left the House in the middle of debate, I would like you, when thinking about that point of order, also to take into account that I myself stood on the floor of this House for 13 hours, during which time I left the House a number of times to use the bathroom, which is what the member did, and on his way from the bathroom the television cameras caught him coming out of the bathroom. When you are considering the point of order made by the Minister of Labour I would like you to take into account that I left the floor of the House on a number of occasions during debate to use the bathroom, as this member did. Maybe government members don't use the bathroom, Mr. Speaker, but opposition members do.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At least you're keeping me awake. I've been up all night.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Further to the point of order, and without getting into the personal habits and whether or not we perform those personal habits on TV or not, there are ways in which long debates can take place in this House and ways in which you can leave at various periods during those debates, but there are orderly ways in which to do that. It's generally a recess or an adjournment for a certain period of time, which is the way it's always happened in this House. Again, I say that it's unprecedented that a member would leave this chamber in the middle of his debate without an adjournment, without a recess, without the permission of the House in one way or another, whether it's by leave or any other way, but there was no leave, no adjournment or recess, and I contend, Mr. Speaker, that that member has lost his place in this debate. I would ask that you take that under careful advisement.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, in order better to enable you to make your decision. Mr. Speaker. I'd like to read to you standing order 36, which reads: "Every member desiring to speak is to rise in his place uncovered and address himself to Mr. Speaker." That member was not in his place at that time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take the request under advisement and will discuss it with the legal counsel. I will report back as the Speaker of the House, and I will call the second member of Victoria to enter back into debate.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, the points of order that were raised were raised after you had made your ruling. I don't know what there is to take under advisement. You made your ruling. There can be no further question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not make a ruling. I am being asked by members in this House to consider whether the member leaving the House under debate, for whatever purpose, loses his place in debate. I am not able to determine that at this moment because there were so many people trying to create havoc within this chamber. As a junior Speaker trying to keep control, I did not observe why that member had left his place. I shall determine that, with some assistance, and report back to this chamber.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order. I believe you did make a ruling in the sense that you offered.... I heard you distinctly say that you did so rule, and you recognized the second member for Victoria. It seems to me that you have come to a particular conclusion. As far as it's concerned with standing order 37....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: What are you shouting me down for? You let the Minister of Labour go on and on unimpeded. Mr. Speaker, I won't stand for that kind of harassment from the claque across the hall.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Address the point of order, please.

MR. ROSE: Well, I think I should be allowed to put it, Mr. Speaker, and not be howled down, and I don't intend to be.

Now, Mr. Speaker, rule 37 distinctly permits the Speaker to recognize someone for the purpose of speaking, but not to achieve a speaking role, as the Minister of Labour was attempting to do, while rising on a point of order. If you rise on a point of order, you don't seek the floor for debate at all. You seek the floor for a point of order. So I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker....

[ Page 1680 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm glad you came all the way from Ottawa to give us that, because I said that earlier and you weren't listening. You've said exactly what I said, so would you please take your place and we'll call the second member for Victoria in debate.

MR. ROSE: Well, no. Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, you said that you ruled that way and I congratulate you for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I didn't use the word "rule."

MR. ROSE: Well, you said you made a ruling, and now you're backing off. Are you making a ruling or aren't you? This is a lot of nonsense.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was taking advice from the Clerk that section 37 did not refer to the discussion at the moment. The member in debate was not in the chamber at the time. It takes two members in debate to recognize one member. It was not during debate at which that member was not here. We recognized the member on a point of order. He then determined that the other member who was in debate was not in the chamber, and he proceeded then to determine that it was his prerogative to take the floor. We're going to get back to the business of the day, and the business of the day that we're presently at is the first member for Victoria on Bill 3.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about in this debate is the fact that the government is deliberately trying to create, and will create with the passage of Bill 3, havoc in the labour industrial relations in this province. Clearly they will. They want to pit public sector worker against private sector worker. They want to strip rights from employees in the public sector. The government does not have the sanctity....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: I rise on standing order 43. I have listened to this member in debate for several hours now, and the last two paragraphs that he has uttered have been uttered in that debate since 5 o'clock at least a half dozen times. I would ask that under standing order 43 you call that member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. I'm sure the hon. member can relate new remarks to his address and not persist in irrelevance or tedious repetition.

On the same point of order, the Chair recognizes the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Speaker, but this is a new point of order.

Under what standing order do we provide food in the chamber, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Food?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds on a point of order.

MS. BROWN: The precedent was set when the Minister of Finance, in reading the budget, always has apple juice on his desk. That's when the precedent was set. Every time he reads the budget he has.... We think it's apple juice.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point of order, under what standing order do we equate apple juice with food?

MS. BROWN: What food is he talking about?

AN. HON. MEMBER: What's going on?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you're oxymoronic, all of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All members will come to order.

Hon. members, the normal tradition in the House is that water is provided at all the members' desks. But given the circumstances of a very long day, perhaps other juices or whatever might be permitted. I think the assembly understands the particular circumstances of today's sitting, and I guess if the habit is not really flaunted, then the Chair will not accept that point of order.

The first member for Victoria will continue on debate.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the government puts up such opposition at this time, because this bill is cutting at the heart of British Columbia. It is tearing away at the heart of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the William Scott case and I'm pointing out that the only cause for dismissal that an arbitrator would be able to find in the three separate and distinct aspects of a termination or a discipline grievance would be that government employees were employed by the provincial government.

[10:00]

Mr. Speaker, in the second and third questions regarding the circumstances of the case, the second question states that the arbitrator must inquire as to whether or not the dismissal of an employee is an excessive response in "all the circumstances of the case." In any arbitration award or ruling on the wrongful dismissal of government employees, I'm sure that that arbitrator or board would have to conclude that the response of the government in firing employees was excessive in "all of the circumstances of the case."

"The question now appears to be: what exactly is meant to be encompassed within 'the circumstances of the case'" ? On page 13 of the William Scott decision, "reference is made to five specific questions to be examined in order to examine whether the misconduct of the employee is serious enough to justify the heavy penalty of discharge." I point out to this House that they don't couch "layoff" and "termination" in language surrounded with bureaucratic flannel; they refer to it as the heavy penalty of discharge. When a person's livelihood is taken from them, it is a heavy penalty indeed.

"However, usually it is in connection with the second question — is a misconduct of the employee

[ Page 1681 ]

serious enough to justify the heavy penalty of discharge? — that the arbitrator's evaluation of management's decision must be especially searching:

" 1. How serious is the immediate offence of the employee which precipitated the discharge?"

Well, they worked for the government. That's all there is.

"2. Was the employee's conduct premeditated or repetitive; or instead, was it momentary — an emotional aberration, perhaps provoked by someone else, for example, in a fight between two employees?" No, they were sitting there quietly doing the work — human rights workers, rentalsman staff, Consumer and Corporate Affairs people, people that work with children at risk, family support workers, and so on. There was no conflict, so why were they discharged?

"Does the employee have a record of long service with the employer in which he proved an able worker and enjoys a relatively free disciplinary history?" I think, in probably almost all cases, yes.

"Has the employer attempted earlier, more moderate forms of corrective discipline on this employee which did not prove successful in solving the problem: for example, a persistent lateness or absenteeism?"

All those 1,500 or more people that were fired by the provincial government in anticipation of the passage of this bill do not meet any of these criteria. Therefore they must be wrongfully dismissed.

The fifth question: "Is the discharge of this individual employee in accordance with the consistent policies of the employer, or does it appear to single out this person for arbitrary and harsh treatment?" That is an issue which seems to arise particularly in the case of discipline in wildcat strikes. In the fourth one, there is no case history on these people that shows that they deserve to be discharged. There isn't any kind of escalating behaviour that gives a good, reasonable and just reason for discipline.

Is the discharge of this individual employee in accordance with the consistent policy of the employer? Certainly not, because the public sector manuals of the Government Employee Relations Bureau, the Public Service Commission, the management of Hydro, B.C. Systems Corporation, B.C. Building Corporation and all these other public sector employers — Provincial Capital Commission, Pacific National Exhibition, and so on.... Clearly, they all have well established procedures by which the discipline of an employee would have to be well founded and according to well established labour and common law and arbitration law, but the individuals have been discharged from their service with the government for one reason only, which is not a good and reasonable cause, and that is that they were employees of the government. Simple as that.

Do the circumstances only refer to these specific questions? I would presume that these questions are merely a guide to the circumstances which an arbitrator may want to examine. The question remains whether the case must clearly refer only to all the circumstances of the offence that the employee has committed, and which are referred to in the letter of termination. We would have to look at the letters of termination to see what justification the government gave to terminate the employees. If an employee is terminated for insubordination and poor work attitude, as was the case in the B.C. Central Credit Union award, one could presume that the offence in question is insubordination and poor work attitude. But do we have this in this case? I ask you in all fairness. We don't have any cases of insubordination. We don't have cases of poor work record. All we have is a government vindictive against its own employees and employers, employees of other public sector.... It states in the William Scott case that in every discharge case the work performance of the employee becomes an issue, even if it never was an issue between the parties. You see, that's another aspect. The termination has taken place, subject to October 31 — 1,500 people have been discharged. The Labour Relations Board, following this case, which they will always follow, says that the work record of the employee is an issue, even if it was never an issue between the parties. No matter what they do with the bill and any amendments, the protection is there for an employee with a good work record — to sue for wrongful dismissal and to be reinstated with massive compensation. And who's going to pay it? The taxpayers that these people so dearly hold to their breast, meanwhile having exorbitant expense accounts and vouchers, padded with big meals and fancy accommodations.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ask Barrett about his $1,000 limousine in London, England.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order, and the member will relate his remarks to the bill.

MR. HANSON: "If so, then in every discharge case the work performance of the employee becomes an issue, even if it was never an issue between the parties or relied upon as an offence justifying the discharge. Then, no matter for what reason the employee was terminated, his overall work performance for that employer becomes a relevant factor." You can see how the Labour Relations Board is going to have a field day with wrongful dismissals — 1,500 wrongful dismissals — on which the taxpayers are going to have to clean up and pay a compensation award because of their incompetence in dealing with their employees. Clearly the collective agreements already contain provisions for the kind of actions that they wanted to carry out in reducing the size of the public service, But they didn't have any respect for the sanctity of contract. Therefore we are in this pickle; the public of this province is in a pickle, and these people are dragging us along.

I want to indicate to that minister that there are a couple more points in this William Scott award that I want to have him cognizant of.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's got nothing to do with this act.

MR. HANSON: It covers discharge of employees. It covers the question of wrongful dismissals without just and reasonable cause. Inadequate performance, which has been regarded as a separate cause for terminations, may now become part of any discharge arbitration. The answer to this question may be found in understanding what was meant by questions 2 and 3 in William Scott:

"The point of that overall inquiry is that arbitrators no longer assume that certain conduct taken in the abstract, even quite serious employee offences, are automatically legal cause for discharge. That attitude may be seen in such cases as Phillips Cables, Toronto East General Hospital, Gelco Food Products, and so on. Instead, it is the statutory responsibility of the arbitrator, having found just cause for some employer action, to probe beneath the surface of the immediate

[ Page 1682 ]

events and reach a broad judgment about whether this employee...."

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, these case histories which the first member for Victoria is making reference to have really nothing to do with the legislation which we are debating at this time. The legislation and its amendments really deal with the question of dismissals and terminations through a judicial review system, which the member suggests that I change. I'm prepared to give that consideration. It has nothing to do with the arbitration mechanism and the case histories that he's giving here. So I wish the member would get back to the legislation and not give us any case histories of dismissals and compensation for dismissal, because essentially they have nothing to do with this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken. Second reading, of course, must relate to the principle of the bill that's before us at this time. If there is serious objection as to the relevancy of this, then the Chair must take it under consideration. The member must address his remarks to the principle of the bill or discontinue his speech.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, while you are contemplating that question, I would ask you to also consider that the fundamental principle of this bill is the termination of employment of public sector employees in all public sector occupations. What I am presenting to that minister is absolutely germane to the case. Through all normal courses of events, arbitrations and so on, when they review dismissal cases, as they are presently reviewing them in Vancouver at the Labour Relations Board, these are the kinds of questions that those bodies are looking at. They will be making a judgment on these matters. And they are asking themselves these questions:

1. Did the employee provoke the discharge?

2. Was there excessive response by the government in responding in this fashion?

3. If so, what is the appropriate measure and redress in that matter?

It's entirely on the principle of the bill. I would ask you to allow me to educate that minister about issues that he should have contemplated before he took the public of this province down a course that could very well end up costing the taxpayer of this province a phenomenal amount of money.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: The judicial review takes place after the termination and discharge occurs, and then the redress is sought through that process. These are the things that arbitral law will be looking at in judicial review. It'll be looking at the questions to see if just and reasonable cause was in effect, and what the appropriate response of the government should have been.

[10:15]

These are aspects that I'm sure the government didn't take heed of, you see, Mr. Speaker, because they sought guidance from a small cadre of right-wing ideologues. They may have been lawyers, they may have been right-wing economists and so on, but they gave guidance to that minister when that minister should have sought guidance from the Government Employee Relations Bureau and the Public Service Commission. I was absolutely astonished, to listen to that minister being interviewed on television by a Times-Colonist reporter, who asked him who had counselled the government on the drafting of Bill 3, and whether he had gone to the Government Employee Relations Bureau and the Public Service Commission — had they played a role in any way in the drafting of the bill. They had not.

The taxpayers of this province pay for 79 employees at GERB, and the estimates in this House for that are something in the order of $4 million. So here we have a body of experts in the public service, technical experts on collective bargaining in the public service who were not asked by that minister, and that minister is responsible for those agencies of government. He did not go to Mr. Davison, Mr. Mochrie, Mr. Penny and all these other people who know a great deal more than that little minister. Why? Because he had other political motives, because he was afraid that they would have counselled him, the way I'm counselling him today, that the process by which he wanted to achieve a particular goal was fraught with hazards and would ultimately not achieve the end, and would ultimately result in an onerous burden on the taxpayers of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. HANSON: It's quite true, and it's clear that if he had gone to GERB and to the Public Service Commission....

Of course, GERB — just to remind the minister — was a creature of the Social Credit government. They created GERB. And in many respects it was a good way to go — to have the negotiation and administration of contracts and so on under one agency, have the recruitment and selection, in an impartial way, over with the Public Service Commission.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: That minister says that he's going to sit at the bargaining table, when we've got a situation in which the industrial relations of the province are already being destabilized by that minister, and he's going to do us the favour of sitting at the bargaining table and being the chief spokesman, opening his mouth and letting his stomach rumble. What does he know? We all know that Treasury Board ultimately has an awfully big say in the overall package that will be costed out in the collective agreement. We know that. Everybody knows that. That's the same under any government. And the political people will have a say. But what we have happening is that the competence in doing the day-to-day negotiating and understanding the complexities of these kinds of negotiations, and how they relate to the overall economy, how they relate to other provinces and other agencies and so on, is done by GERB, and that should be continued. To have a politician sitting there sniping, barking, biting and inflaming the situation is highly inappropriate. What's going to happen is that the taxpayers are going to suffer. The taxpayers are going to end up paying the tab for introducing that level of incompetence right at the bargaining table. We should keep that level of incompetence well shut back where it belongs in Social Credit, and that's with the Treasury Board.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

Referring to a quote here in the William Scott award, it says:

[ Page 1683 ]

"It has been my constant view that the common law rules of master and servant, in respect of adding the reasons for discharge which were not acted upon when the discharge was made, do not apply to the collective agreement disputes on discharge which are governed by the standard of just cause and which envisaged reinstatement of a person found to be unjustly dismissed."

So the bottom line.... The language that everybody understands is that people have been dismissed wrongly. They've been dismissed without just and reasonable cause. We have a bill before the House which wants to give awesome power to the Social Credit cabinet to slash and burn through all public agencies, to play a dictatorial role, to foist onto public sector employers a few functions such as handing out the pink slips and doing the firing and so on; but any other decisions with respect to compensation and so on are going to be made entirely by themselves.

I hope that these few brief remarks on the William Scott case will give the minister food for thought. What the arbitration process, through the Labour Relations Board, has tried to do is set up a process by which it would enshrine.... So that the wheel didn't have to be reinvented every time there was a discharge or a wrongful dismissal, or there was a grievance that was unresolved at lower levels, it hit upon a level that could interpret it according to a broad body of judgments, ideas and notions about fair and equitable treatment that had been somehow built up over a long period of time. For example, it says here in this William Scott case: "The words used to describe this standard, 'just and reasonable cause' rather than 'just cause' or 'proper cause,' were chosen...." The language of the Labour Relations Board in these matters is not "just cause." It is "just and reasonable cause." They were chosen "in order to free the arbitrator of the constraints imposed by years of judicial decisions interpreting the traditional standard."

What I've been outlining in my remarks this morning is that there is a well-recognized and agreed-upon process by which workers can be disciplined and discharged. There are different words for that — "terminated" and so on — but that exists as a part of our social fabric. It's part of the equity capital of the working people of this province, in the way that business is conducted, to determine that a dismissal or discipline is excessive in all circumstances of the case and substitute such other measures as appears just and equitable. What we're saying is that there's a process by which these kinds of activities take place between employers and their employees. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you've ever been terminated in a job. I don't know whether you've been sacked. You may have been a student and at some time didn't pile the apples up right, threw a paper through somebody's window or made a mistake.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was probably an excellent worker.

MR. HANSON: He probably was an excellent worker. But, you know, all of the people that have been fired are excellent workers, and they weren't fired because of their work performance.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Why were they fired?

MR. HANSON: They were fired by the government because the government wants the unbridled right to slash and burn. They want autocratic rights. They want unbridled management rights to strip away these agreed-upon processes and procedures which are a part of our social fabric. I know that the government has difficulty understanding that some of these notions of fairness — due process, justice.... It's very difficult to get through that impervious cranium that seems to be extra thick in that front bench on the other side of this House. There are backbenchers there that want to move up. They desperately want to move up, but most of them don't understand that they are relegated to being little thumpers in the back bench forever. The best opportunity for some of those backbenchers to succeed into the cabinet....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: That's your entitlement as a free member in this House. We won't leave you in the washroom.

The best chance for your success in the next provincial election would be to go to the Provincial Secretary, that little minister from Athalmer, Canal Flats, Windermere — that little area. It's a very beautiful area, I might add. I like it very much. Some good people are going to run against you next time down there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You've been saying that for 20 years,

MR. HANSON: I'm just going to talk to Richard Brodeur a little more and we'll see what he can do.

I think the best thing those back benchers could do to encourage a long and comfortable career in this House — to sit right up somewhere in this corner, with whatever party — would be to impress upon that minister the importance of withdrawing this bill and taking a different course based on cooperation, understanding and respect for workers, whether they work in the private sector or the public sector. Look at the real difficult circumstances of the unorganized workers and the conditions that they face.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Look at the difficulties of the taxpayers who are paying the bills.

[10:30]

MR. HANSON: Well, I'm arguing that the taxpayer would be better served in the long run by the kinds of procedures I'm talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you have some experience in labour-management relations and I know that you're generally on the management side, and I don't agree with the way you handled yourself in your earlier life in that role.

Let's just accept in this House that when a person is fired, that is discipline. The government side may not agree that when a person is fired it is discipline, but it certainly is. It is one of the most shocking and traumatic disciplines that a person can experience.

Let me take a very mild form of discipline, like a verbal warning, which would be way down on the bottom of the scale. Listen to this. This is standard arbitral law, the kind of thing that we'll be examining in this package. It says: "in ruling on the introduction of verbal warnings in support of disciplinary action before an arbitrator, I am mindful as

[ Page 1684 ]

follows: (1) if it is accepted that the purpose of discipline is corrective and not punitive."

In arbitral law, it must be demonstrated that a verbal warning is corrective and not punitive. What would firing be? If there's no element of corrective, how were those 1,500 people given an opportunity to alter their behaviour? They didn't need to alter their behaviour, because they were doing good jobs, but were the 1,500 people given an opportunity to make any kind of corrective action on their work performance? That's not the case at all in this bill. It is just cold-blooded licence to kill people's livelihoods. That's what it is. The mandate on May 5 has been wrongly interpreted as a licence to kill people's livelihoods. Two hundred and fifty thousand families in this province are living at risk in terms of their own employment, and the public that was receiving important, valuable and vital services and benefits from that employment are left abandoned. Where did the cuts come? The poorest. The weakest. Those unable to protect themselves. Socreds have always been very good at trying to pound their own employees because they can't fight back. They have an oath of office. They can't go on television. Did you see that little courageous woman in the interior of this province who had the courage to make an offhand remark about this package, and here....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Offhand? It was a vicious attack.

MR. HANSON: A vicious attack? They're afraid of clerks. They have to go around calling them names. The former Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), before she was demoted, had to go around attacking little clerks. What kind of demeanour is that — calling people "bonkers," "unstable," "unable to cope with their jobs," etc.? What kind of behaviour is that from the demoted Deputy Premier? Goodness me.

It is acknowledged in arbitration that discipline is a basic part of management. There's no doubt about that. Management maintains that right. They just want an unbridled right to kill people's livelihoods at will, without any accountability, proper hearing or due process. This is totally unacceptable to us. We must oppose it strongly.

Here is an interesting thing, because this covers the aspect of people applying for reinstatement. If it's proven that a person is wrongfully dismissed.... The words in the case studies are very clear. It says: "Reinstatement must be complete or not at all. There is no partial reinstatement. Under the collective agreement, I therefore have no alternative but to order the grievor restored with full seniority and compensation as of October 25, 1976." I don't know how long it will take the Labour Relations Board to hear those 1,500 cases, but the taxpayer may be paying the retroactive salary....

HON. MR. CHABOT: It won't be hearing them.

MR. HANSON: The Labour Relations Board won't be hearing them? Why is that, Mr. Minster? That was a very important and germane comment made by that minister. He indicated to this House that the Labour Relations Board will not be hearing any of those cases. Why would that be? The right and process exist for any employee to take a matter through the grievance procedure and to the Labour Relations Board. What he is saying is that the Labour Relations Board will no longer exist. In his press statement in the House today, he indicated that the Labour Relations Board will be dismantled.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not saying that.

MR. HANSON: What are you saying?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll tell you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister has food in his mouth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I have not!

MR. HANSON: No, just a very large tongue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to some of the basic themes I'm trying to express to the government about the rights that exist for working people in other jurisdictions. I pointed out the situation in France. Officials in German states and local governments have security of employment, as do career public servants in state and local administrations in the United States. They can be terminated if they're incompetent, obviously, but there are processes by which that could be established. If a person is remiss or is not performing his duties adequately.... In virtually every democratic jurisdiction one can name, dismissal of public employees can only be for just and reasonable cause, and where layoffs were forced by fiscal circumstances, the rule is for seniority provisions to apply and for the government to conclude severance arrangements which provide for relocation and retraining.

Only in B.C. do we find a situation where the government has so little confidence in themselves to administer their own duties as employers that they must enshrine, in legislation, the stripping away of rights and due process for people in the public service. This is a scandal, Mr. Speaker. It is a scandalous state of affairs which is simply not acceptable in the province of British Columbia, where the great majority of citizens respect due process and elementary justice. The people in this province aren't confident that over time they'll come to.... Even those that supported and voted for this government, because for one reason or another they did not support our programs or understand what our objectives were and how they would benefit from them.... That is our duty: to alter or change that over time. Many of those people who were fired voted for this government. Voting behaviour is a very complicated science. I don't pretend to understand it other than that the main factor in voting is how your parents vote. That's still the most dominant influence in voting behaviour.

Many people do understand and do respect due process, and they want justice and fairness; not heavy-handedness. The polls which were run recently in the province indicated very clearly that the vast majority of the populace, whether they be New Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Social Credit or others, do understand that money is not readily available in a depression. At the same time they don't like the fact that the government is using this as an opportunity to cut away at the basic fabric or our society and strip rights — longstanding and long-earned rights which, once gone, sometimes take decades to re-establish — from the citizens of this province. This government is attempting, through Bill 3 and their other legislation, to build a unitary party state as part of their pension plan as a way of ensuring that no matter how incompetent they are in economic matters, no matter how callous they are in social matters....

[ Page 1685 ]

MS. BROWN: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, sitting in the gallery are two visitors from the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. I wonder if the House would join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today Mr. Joe Patterson and members of his executive from the Victoria Fire-Fighters' Union, who are here to meet with some of their local MLAs. They are local firefighters that do an excellent job in this city. I hope the House will bid them welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria continues on debate on Bill 3.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the fact that my colleague introduced firefighters is a good case in point because firefighters come under this legislation. A lot of people know that firefighters do an important job and that it's a risky and dangerous job and so on, but it goes far beyond that. Did you know that firefighters have among the highest incidence of heart disease of any occupational group? Why would that be? There are a couple of reasons.

[10:45]

I'm relating to the bill, because they're covered under the bill. Firefighters have a high incidence of cardiovascular myocardial infarction because of stress, but also because they are often in situations where they are surrounded by gases. If they get a breath of a certain toxic gas it can damage their lungs by burning the insides and, as their lungs are damaged, it puts a greater load on their heart. I think the people of this province don't realize that one of the things — to just show you how callous this government is.... They moved to amend Schedule B of the Workers' Compensation Board regulations. They tried to make a case that a firefighter — say a firefighter of 15 or 20 years — who constantly has to mark right off the starting block into a high risk, stressful situation from a dead start, which is a shock to the system, into toxic gases and so on.... They tried to change the schedule of compensation for firefighters who suffered heart attacks — because there's so many of them — to state that a firefighter did not qualify for compensation unless his heart attack occurred within 48 hours of the last fire. Can you imagine that? That is the kind of behaviour we get from this government with respect to working people such as firefighters, who do an incredible job.

Mr. Speaker, there is not adequate testing of equipment that firefighters use. I'm talking about the quality of the job performed and the action taken by the government against such public sector workers as firefighters. It's a very good example. They often do not have adequate equipment to deal with the heavy workload that they experience in a fire — say, carrying someone through a building.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the hon. member will assist the House momentarily and show how, in fact, this matter does impact on Bill 3.

MR. HANSON: I want to first illustrate the situation and then ask why this kind of legislation should be directed at people who do such a job and impair their health for the life and safety of others. That's the question.

The breathing equipment that they have can't handle the workload and that, in turn, can damage their heart and lungs and so on. So I thought that was a very opportune time to just mention that people who are covered by the bill will be hurt by the bill.

There's another aspect of the bill which allows the cabinet to call for personnel-related information with respect to what they call senior managers. A senior manager, according to the schedule.... We don't know how that would be defined. It could be a fire chief. It could be a fire chief or an inspector in the police force. Why should the cabinet have that information? That's another aspect of the principle of the bill: the general invasion of privacy. Centralizing, and the invasion of privacy that a manager in the public service will experience by having his confidential personnel matters pulled by the cabinet with respect to compensation and job-related matters.... Everyone knows that personnel files — as you would know, Mr. Speaker, having been a management negotiator — contain all manner of things. They contain medical records, often records of a personal nature with respect to a difficulty that a person has experienced. They may have had counselling, therapy; it may be legal matters, and so on. We don't think politicians should be able to call on the personnel files of people working for the police force, or for fire departments or hospitals.

I'm saying that only in B.C. do we find legislation which provides for mass firings without just cause, without right to compensation and without opportunities for alternative employment being made available. We say that's a scandal. This legislation is termed "draconian." It will make public sector workers in B.C. who are organized in trade unions inferior, in terms of legal protection, to private sector workers who do not enjoy the rights and benefits of a collective agreement. This is true at least for unorganized private sector workers who fall under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code. People who perform services conducted under the Labour Code and under the Public Service Labour Relations Act will not be considered as having the same status as people under the Canada Labour Code, the unorganized workers. We can't say enough to the government to indicate how disruptive and devastating it's going to be in the long term for the way services are delivered in our community, the way people relate to one another and the way work situations are structured.

Rights under common law have their origin in law pertaining to the relationship between master and servant. I point that out to illustrate the fact that the management rights of the provincial government have never been threatened by any union. Mr. Speaker, I think you understand this. There are many people around who say: "Oh, a union is too strong," or "A union is too big." But you know, as a lawyer and as a person who has worked actively in industrial relations, that the employer always has the last say. Employers always have sufficient management rights to conduct their activities. It's a matter of whether they do it with vindictiveness, in a way that

[ Page 1686 ]

impairs good, harmonious work relations, or conduct themselves in a way that in the long term is a burden on the taxpayer. These things come back to haunt the community. There's no such thing as an industrial dispute which benefits anybody. I think you'd agree with that. The solution is really to attempt to achieve, through mediation and conciliation procedures, a resolution to disputes that can't be dealt with adequately in the courts.

The limitations of protection under the common law have been recognized by Nova Scotia, whose Legislature passed, in 1972, a labour standards code which provides that an employee with more than ten years of service shall not be discharged without just cause. Unfortunately, this protection for unorganized private sector workers has not been extended to other provinces. That's under labour standards. That's unorganized. The federal government has, however, legislated to protect unorganized workers against unjust dismissal through the Canada Labour Code. This applies to unorganized workers who come under federal jurisdiction. As you know, the more fractious and fragmented the legislation surrounding those workers, the more precarious and difficult the industrial relations get.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, standing order 25 gives on page 7 the business of the House, and for Wednesday it says it's private members' day; yet we are debating a government bill. I'd like Mr. Speaker to rule whether today is Tuesday or Wednesday.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are presently continuing the sitting that is in fact part of Tuesday, and until that sitting adjourns, hon. members we are still in the Tuesday sitting — mind you, a very lengthily extended Tuesday sitting. I would expect that should an adjournment be forthcoming we will, pursuant to the standing orders of this House, move into our Wednesday sitting at approximately 2:00 this afternoon. That might well be somewhat confusing since we are already in Wednesday by the clock, but by the rules of this House, and by sittings, I think that's quite clear.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, is that then the ruling, that today is Tuesday?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may have some order from both sides of the House, hon. members, I'd be pleased to clarify for this hon. member that pursuant to his request, I explained the interpretation of one of our standing orders. I did not make a ruling, because a ruling was not necessary.

Does the member for Nelson-Creston wish the floor again on the same point of order?

MR. NICOLSON: No, partly under standing order 1: "In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House;" and standing order 9: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case," I would request then that Mr. Speaker state the standing order or authority — that is, Sir Erskine May or other parliamentary authorities — that would apply in this case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, I'm having a great deal of difficulty hearing a valid point of order from your comments. As I thought I had made crystal clear moments before, I have explained an interpretation of our standing orders based upon extensive precedent in this House. Your reference to standing order 1 obviously does not take precedence over this House's precedents.

[11:00]

MR. NICOLSON: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it says: "In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think very simply, without getting caught in the obvious potential conundrum here, you have asked the Chair to explain a standing order, and all that is required to explain that standing order is an explanation and reiteration of the well-established practice in this House: that is, when you have an extended sitting, it is just that — an extended sitting. Quite frankly, it's irrelevant that it has gone past last midnight. We're now into another day, but there is no need, or for that matter no applicability, of any other standing order.

MR. NICOLSON: That I might have this clear, Mr. Speaker, this is Tuesday, then, and we're operating under the rules for Monday and Tuesday as stated in standing order 5.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member. We are presently in an extended sitting of that sitting that commenced yesterday, Tuesday.

The hon. Minister of Forests — on the same point of order?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to take my place in this debate. I see that the member opposite has taken his seat.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, I'm truly amazed at the statement that you just made relative to my colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). You did not quote a reference. Are you making that decision under standing order 9, which says that "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order"?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you challenging the Chair?

MRS. WALLACE: I'm asking. You did not quote a reference. Is that the standing order that you're making that statement under?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thought I made that fairly clear, hon. member. What I was doing was explaining to the House an interpretation of an existing standing order based upon the well-established practice of this House.

MRS. WALLACE: Based on what order, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's well-established practice. It's not only the standing orders, but the practice that has evolved through the interpretation of those standing orders.

[ Page 1687 ]

MRS. WALLACE: I don't understand that. You'll have to quote some kind of....

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, is the Speaker suggesting that the established practice in this House is that Wednesdays shall always be Tuesday? Is that what the Speaker is telling us?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair considers that question to be totally out of order. The Chair would now like to recognize the hon. first member for Victoria to continue debate on Bill 3.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Nelson-Creston brought to the Chair's attention that today is Wednesday, which means that it's a private member's day. However, we find ourselves debating a government bill. Will the Speaker explain to me why it is that on Wednesday, a private member's day, we are debating a government bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sure I saw you sitting here as I explained, I believe, twice already the circumstances that have brought us into the interesting conflict of the calendar time being Wednesday and our sitting time being an extension of yesterday, Tuesday. I believe I made that very clear, and I don't think there's any necessity for further explanation on that point.

MS. BROWN: So you're ruling that this is Tuesday.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not ruling anything other than explaining to you the very clear, unequivocal interpretation of our standing orders.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, you stated in your ruling: "...this well-established practice of the House." Could you tell me when, in the last well-established practice, the House went from Tuesday to Wednesday?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may just once again clarify for all hon. members, I have not made a ruling; I have explained or interpreted further for the members. I'm not aware of the last time that the occurrence would have brought about a Wednesday being in fact a Tuesday, because I don't have in my hands the list of every time our sittings have become elongated. I'm sure that those of you who have been in the House for a number of sessions may well have that knowledge at hand. If I thought it was instrumental in carrying on the debate in this House, I would ask the Clerks to obtain it, but I do not believe that it is instrumental or in any way of assistance to the debate before this House. So I would like to get back once again to debate on the matter before us, Bill 3. But before we get there, we have, I see, another point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: The point of order is that the Chair has not ruled whether today is Tuesday or Wednesday. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that today is definitely Wednesday, and that at the stroke of midnight last night, Bill 3 became a dropped order. All orders must be disposed of during that day, and bills not properly disposed of by the end of the sitting, which would have been the end of Tuesday, would become dropped orders. So Bill 3 is now a dropped order. We are here. We could proceed with private bills. We could proceed with an adjournment. I suppose the House Leader could adjourn the House, and we could figure out what is going on here. I submit that Bill 3 is now a dropped order and has been since midnight last night.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is an extremely novel suggestion you're putting forth at this moment. If you have some authority, I'd be pleased to entertain and consider it. But unless you have some authority, I think it's appropriate for us to move on to Bill 3.

MS. BROWN: Standing order 3 says: "If at the hour at 6 o'clock p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed upon for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m. and the House will continue until 11 o'clock p.m., unless otherwise ordered." We've not been otherwise ordered anything.

MR. SEGARTY: How do you know?' You weren't here.

MS. BROWN: Oh, yes, I was here, and we have not been otherwise ordered to do anything.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, perhaps some detail may have been lost because of the long sittings. The order was that we return to the chamber as of 8 p.m. last evening, and that sitting has yet to be interrupted by an adjournment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that explanation. I think that is a very clear answer to the question put forth by the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, I would like to challenge your ruling that you have not made a ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That probably doesn't require my comment, but it's obviously not in order. I believe that we have heard enough on this issue. and the Chair is now, without further input, going to move to continue debate on Bill 3, and recognizes the hon. first member for Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it's on the same point of order, hon. member, I advise you that it is not going to be entertained. I have heard enough discussion on that item.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Clearly the attempt by the hon. member is tantamount to abuse of the rules of this House. Persistent actions in that regard, of course, can bring about the other provisions of the standing orders. I think it would behoove all of us to get on with the business before this House. Hopefully for the final time, I will now call upon the hon. first member for Victoria to continue debate on Bill 3.

MR. HANSON: Bill 3 makes public sector workers legally inferior to workers in the private sector. It challenges their basic rights. I would expect that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms there will be tests that will serve the public of British Columbia badly, in that there will be extensive costs. Because the legislation is so ill-founded and ill-conceived, the people of the province, as always, will have to

[ Page 1688 ]

pick up the tab. The government was never given the mandate in the May 5 election to bring in anything like Bill 3. They weren't given a mandate to bring in any of the package other than the most minor in terms of restraint. But here, when we're having the label "restraint" used to justify the stripping away of rights, clearly the public was caught off guard.

The public is suffering. The public is asking for a recall. We don't have recall in our system. The public is getting a political science education like they've never had in the past, and never in my life have I heard so many questions with respect to recall. When the public makes a mistake, as it sometimes can do.... If the government misleads the voters, as they did on May 5, in the order and magnitude of that deception....

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, many people are asking themselves, right in their souls, how this could happen that we could now have a government with a five-year term that is so ill-suited to the real economic and social needs of this province.

[1: 15]

Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act, cuts right into the heart of our economy, destabilizes our economy. It makes people fearful and, of course, Mr. Speaker, a government that has embarked upon this course with this package has clearly demonstrated to everyone that the main political weapon in their quiver is fear. They want to develop it. They want to use it to their advantage, and I have contempt for that approach to public affairs and public administration in this province. We have to ask ourselves: where does it end? That is the frightening part. What comes next, after Bill 3, Bill 27 and the other bills? What comes next, in the next four and five years, is what's really frightening and staggering to contemplate.

Some may have believed this government when they said the public sector workers had special privilege, even though most public sector workers are subject to layoff. But surely next to nobody would have listened to the government if they had said: "We're going to strip public sector workers of the rights held by unorganized private sector workers." Do you think that this government, this first minister, would have had the courage to go throughout British Columbia, as part of the election platform, as a major plank in the platform, and tell people that he would strip away the rights of public sector employees in British Columbia? He knows what kind of political suicide that would have been. So instead they used deception.

Every time it was revealed that there was a program set to be dismantled, or a bit of legislation to increase fees in health areas, or any suggestion that the government may take serious action against the working people of the province, the government denied it on television — you know, the old giggle-snort interview that the first minister is so good at, that incredible flashed grimace and smile that is such a trademark of deception. The people of this province would not have voted for Social Credit if he had come clean with them. There's no doubt about that.

The public and the province support the concepts and principles of fairness and equity, whether private or public. I think Mr. Dobell, in public administration at the University of Victoria, has argued that the distinction between private and public is one that is missed and confused very much in the mind of the Social Credit cabinet. They don't seem to understand, as he points out, that there is a difference; that the differences between salmonid enhancement programs and someone working in a sawmill are not that great; that those are productive endeavours, and whether there is a material reward manifested at the end of each day, in terms of something in the till, is not the issue. The issue is the general wellbeing of the province of British Columbia, and the people working in the public sector have demonstrated over and over again their dedication, their commitment and their integrity in delivering services and providing experience and technical skills to benefit both the economy and the social dimensions of our community life.

But clearly the government is on a course of wanting to alter totally the British Columbia that we know and the kind of community and society that we've come to understand. All of us, certainly in our party, see many changes that we want to make in British Columbia, and we're willing to work towards them in a democratic fashion. We don't believe in the arbitrariness. We don't believe in moving British Columbia back into some kind of feudal state, where feudal warlords make arbitrary determinations about the quality of our life and the way we are going to relate to one another as fellow citizens.

Clearly the government does not read or is not sensitive to that feeling that is in the community. They would prefer to state it in a question form on a poll, to couch loaded words in a question about restraint — do you feel that government in some way impedes the progress of decisions and so on — and try to load the questions in their favour to achieve a political objective. The political objective is to make a banana republic of British Columbia, where the resources, our heritage and our legacy, are up for grabs. That is what this fight is about. It's not about restraint or public employees. It's about getting rid of any kind of protection or rational planning or management, for the public benefit, of the vast treasures that exist in our province and that could be harnessed and developed for all of us and for succeeding generations.

That is a part of the principle of this bill: that when you downgrade environmental protection, and when you can guarantee it to some large offshore corporations....

When these cabinet ministers fan out across the world, where will they go? Chile? Argentina? I don't know where they're going to go, but they're going to go everywhere — at the taxpayers' expense — to sell British Columbia as a place where environmental controls don't get in the way, a place where you don't have any kind of partnership or relationship with government that ensures the public interest is well served, ensures that resources are developed in a rational way to the benefit of succeeding generations. What we'll have instead is this large fan-out of government employees selling the fact that all obstacles to rip and tear, slash and burn are going to be eradicated, and British Columbia is for sale.

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, that very famous comment attributed to the Premier when there was a suggestion of a takeover of a major resource company in British Columbia? He interrupted a very pleasurable and leisurely vacation to come and talk to press in his casual outfit, indicating to them that British Columbia was not for sale. We know British Columbia's for sale. We know our resources are not going to be protected properly, because many of the resource-based skills and capacities within the public service, nonpartisan, career-oriented public employees whose first obligation in their daily work lives is to ensure that they operate as a

[ Page 1689 ]

mediator between this omnivorous, multinational, transnational marketplace which has its own accountability to its shareholders and not to the people of the province necessarily, nor to the kinds of quality of life criteria that we want to see maintained in this province and made available to our children and their children....

So, Mr. Speaker, there are many implications in Bill 3 that go well beyond just the notion of terminating workers without cause, without due process, and the other ancillary provisions: stripping away confidentiality, putting into cabinet various kinds of powers and authorities to make regulations any Thursday morning, of any cabinet meeting, which could totally alter the face of British Columbia.

That's why we are opposing it, Mr. Speaker. That's why we are trying to bring the government to its senses. It's very difficult, but we don't believe it's impossible; as social democratic members, we believe people are capable of learning. We believe human beings are capable of understanding. We have this enormous and wonderful piece of equipment, for want of a better word, in our heads — a wonderful computer which is the product of many, many great events that I don't want to go into now, but surely they would be understood by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. Even in our ability to solve problems, to learn, we are cultural beings. We're capable of learning, capable of love, capable of understanding and respect. We're also capable of horrible, negative things, but those are surmountable. Why are those negative things in attitudes and approaches to people so concentrated in that government side, in their philosophy and their approach to doing business with the community that elects them and that they should be serving? We don't give up on them; we are mindful that it is possible.

I'm often perplexed by some of the attitudes on that side of the House, because I see members who espouse certain kinds of religious philosophies but seem to disconnect them from the actions on which they impale the public of British Columbia, the policies that hurt people. A little Christian compassion and some of the major positive values of our community could go a long way toward solving some of the problems that we see so apparent around us.

I want to move from my basic theme of outlining the ill-conceived Bill 3: how its principles fundamentally alter the way we relate to one another as a community, how it will transform British Columbia, how it will play into the hands of a partisan and patronage-ridden government administration, which of course no citizen wants, but all of the structural features are there. I want to talk about a few of the people this bill applies to, and how the principle of the bill will affect them, in a very deleterious way, in the way they do their business.

I want to outline for the members, who may not be aware that.... Let's take, for example, the firefighter again. I want to go through some of their duties for a government that doesn't seem to have a sense of appreciation of the complexity and enormity of the responsibilities assumed by public sector employees at various levels. They don't seem to have the respect for it, and that is why we see developed and disgorged into this House a bill such as Bill 3. Take, for example, a fire chief. I think many people have not had the opportunity to understand what a fire chief does, what the duties and branch responsibilities are. I think it's important to understand the diversity and complexity in the public service, as this bill will apply to them.

The Victoria Fire Department, duties of the deputy fire chief: "The deputy fire chief is appointed deputy executive officer of the fire chief, and shall coordinate efficient functioning and routine of the administration branch." This is the Victoria Fire Department, and this will be dealt with by this bill.

[11:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty in understanding the relevancy of what the member is saying. The job classification of a particular public sector position is not I think relevant whatsoever to the debate of this bill, the principle of Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act. I think the member is becoming quite irrelevant. He has raised before the House a series of court cases which have no relationship whatsoever to this legislation. So I would hope, Mr. Speaker. that you impress upon that member that he's to discuss the principle of Bill 3, and not to bring in some tedious items which have no relationship to this bill. It's quite obvious to me he's attempting to spin his wheels and waste as much time as possible, but if he's going to waste time and spin his wheels, at least he should be relevant.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker. on that same point of order, the minister had it within his power not to include municipal workers and others in Bill 3, but he did so; and having done so, this member is providing the utmost of relevancy. The minister knows that, Mr. Speaker, and what the minister did is to raise a fallacious point of order. I wish he would sit there and listen to the criticism of this bill, because it's a very serious criticism being offered by my colleague, the member for Victoria.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't know if it's deliberate on the part of the member for New Westminster to avoid the point that I've raised. I'm saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that there's no relevancy as far as his outlining the job classifications of everybody who works in the public sector of British Columbia. It has no bearing whatsoever on this legislation. If he wants to waste time, he can waste the time of the House with relevancy, not with the job classifications of people in the public sector.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order, the bill requires this member to do what he's doing. It absolutely requires that all the people who are affected by this legislation, and their responsibilities, are properly identified. And that's precisely what this....

MR. MITCHELL: On the same point of order. Mr. Speaker, I was literally shocked when I heard the Provincial Secretary say that it was not involved.... If he will read section 6(3)(c) of this bill, it says that the minister or any one of the cabinet can call in the confidential records of any public service employee. What he was outlining was that one of the public service employees is the deputy chief, and the Provincial Secretary knows that he can get the confidential records of that person, and he knows that's part of the bill, because he claims to be the author of it. And it is completely in order and this speaker should not be interrupted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise under standing order 43, and I would like to state it:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee,

[ Page 1690 ]

to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in Committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Provincial Secretary has drawn the Speaker's attention to the tedious and repetitious debate. The decision, of course, Mr. Speaker, is yours — to determine whether or not you bring the member to order. But this side of the House has listened to that member go on and on all night long. It is tedious and repetitious and we bring that to your attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, if you'll take your seats for just a moment, please.... The Chair appreciates the assistance that it receives from all hon. members. But I would suggest that the Chair has had all the assistance that it requires on this particular point at this particular time. Everyone in this House is very well aware of the requirement under the standing orders for relevancy in debate. This has been a long session that we've been through, which started yesterday, and I suppose that a certain bit of leniency has come into this. So perhaps at this time, rather than calling anyone to any particular order, or naming any names, if we could proceed with the debate on Bill 3 and try very hard to remember at all times this requirement under the standing orders of this House for relevancy in debate....

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to standing order 43, and to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MS. BROWN: This is a new point of order. The fact that the hon. Provincial Secretary has persisted since this member started his debate in irrelevant, tedious and repetitious attacks...

HON. MR. CHABOT: You were in bed. You weren't even here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MS. BROWN: ...on that member, and I would ask you to bring that Provincial Secretary to order or else throw him out of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: He is irrelevant, he is tedious and repetitious, and he is attacking the first member for Victoria.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's enough, thank you. The hon. first member for Victoria will please continue debating Bill 3.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the objective I'm attempting to achieve here is to point out to the minister that he might not even be aware of the fact that the firefighters and the police come under the legislation. Judging from his remarks, he apparently does not understand that fact. That cabinet, as pointed out by my colleague from Esquimalt, has the authority to draw on personnel-related material about a senior manager — for example, a police chief or fire chief — for their own information. As is pointed out in the interpretation section of this bill, all employees of a municipality are covered. I am pointing out to the minister that it is of great value to understand who the bill applies to, hoping that as he understands that fact....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the exemption clause.

MR. HANSON: Hon. Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record the duties and branch responsibilities of the fire chief of Victoria. He has responsibilities for the application of fire prevention regulations, and related codes and bylaws, investigation of fires which appear to be of suspicious origin.... Let's just take, for example.... This is hypothetical. I'm not making any charges. One of the key duties of the fire chief of Victoria is to investigate fires which appear to be of suspicious origin. Say there was a politician who was an arsonist — as well as being a social arsonist — who actually committed arson. Maybe the person was sick. One of the duties of the fire chief is to investigate fires of a suspicious origin. The politician has the authority to investigate the fire chief. Who wins? I think the politician would win. The politician would be in charge, and that is what frightens us — that clause about the cabinet having the authority to draw on personnel-related material, to draw files on senior managers, notwithstanding any enactment of confidentiality or contract. So if we had a member of this House who, for one reason or another — medical or some other forensic reason — was an arsonist, and we had the fire chief hot on his trail, we could have a sticky wicket. That's hypothetical. But do you remember, Mr. Speaker, seeing the ads in the newspaper taken out by the police, saying: "How could we investigate a politician when the politician has the right to take the kind of action against us, under Bill 3, that could interfere in the conduct of our duty"? It could be retributive.

I know the Provincial Secretary gets upset when I try to point out what his bill is going to do to people, but, in terms of repetition, I want you to know very clearly the course that I have been following. I have been following the general theme of our objections to the principle of the bill. Various Labour Code arbitration processes which indicate how people should be fired, and how people are fired, and how arbitrators will turn decisions around that are done on an invalid or improper basis.... I've included, in a non-repetitive way, statements indicating the kinds of jobs that have been terminated, the kinds of circumstances that the people who occupied those jobs had — whether they had dependent children, whether they had spouses on UIC, whether they had other circumstances which could encourage the cabinet minister responsible for this bill to alter course, to have some humanity, to have some sense, to gain some sense of the magnitude of the destruction that he's creating in the public service and in the work environment of our community.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The duties and responsibilities of fire chiefs are very detailed, very complex, and I don't think a cabinet minister should have the right under this bill to call for their personnel files, to take punitive action against them or to find out whether they've had therapy, whether their medical records are up to snuff, whether their personal situations.... This cabinet has no right to be in the personnel files of this

[ Page 1691 ]

province. Mr. Speaker, would you want these cabinet ministers to be able to go through your personal file? Think about it. I can think of people there that I wouldn't want within 90 miles of any personnel files, because it leaves open opportunities for malice, and we know that this government is good when it comes to the category of malice.

There's been a great deal said by this government trying to pit the private sector employee against the public sector employee. In a very calculating way, the government has tried to convey to the unemployed forest industry worker that somehow other people have a cushy number and that they should be punished. They try to create a climate of vindictiveness, rather than working cooperatively to do things in the private sector that would stimulate the growth potential in the private sector.

[11:45]

Mr. Speaker, many communities on Vancouver Island, as elsewhere throughout the north and so on, don't have the benefit of some mix — for example, a well-established tourism industry which can help cushion a little, or a well-established small business community, which can also help to cushion the blows of the depression. Many communities are single-company towns, which have been such a plague to our environment, such a plague on our history. We've had reliance on primary production or primary processing, or the primary extractive use of a resource such as timber or coal or a mineral, which doesn't have any value-added component to it. So there's no spin-off to create other linkages in the community to create other jobs that could support and buffer a community during a depression. Every person in this House, whether on this floor or in the galleries, can count on their fingers and toes communities that have lived and died on the basis of a single resource. The government, in Bill 3 — and this is part of the principle of Bill 3 — is trying to take advantage of the insecurity and hardship of private sector workers, the difficulties and hardships that they've experienced — perhaps the loss of a mortgaged home. The banks are quick to retrieve capital assets, leaving people without anything.

So there are private sector workers who, over the last few years, have experienced the boom and bust series of cycles in a community, depending on market conditions and so on, layoffs and recall, layoffs and recall; but never a long-term one year, two year. The person is therefore not able to sustain and put their own financial commitments in a secure place so they can ride out that downturn, and what's happened is that very proud.... British Columbia working people are very proud. They don't want to be on social assistance, they don't want to be on unemployment insurance, and when they are, they feel uncertain and insecure. The government has tried, with very sophisticated communications and information techniques, to scapegoat one sector of our economy, the sector that is not working, against public sector employees, who are trying their best to buoy up the economy and sustain the services that are so essential to our community. I think that is cowardly. It is childish. It's longstanding as a practice by Social Credit. It's the old divide and conquer. This government never has played by the Marquis of Queensberry rules. By nature they are cheaters. They are the kind of people....

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, they cheat in election campaigns. They don't tell the public....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we've sunk to some pretty low depths in the debate from the other side of the House, but that's going a bit too far. That member knows better, or should; he's been in this House long enough. I find his remarks extremely offensive, and I'm sure that all members on this side of the House do as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, an hon. member has brought to the Chair's.... First, the Chair must apologize that it was engaged in other discussions at the time and did not hear the specific remarks. Nonetheless, hon. members, the fact that one member stands in his place and has taken offence to a remark does not entitle members to stand up and debate the issue. At this time I will ask the member for Victoria if he would withdraw remarks which another hon. member has found to be offensive.

MR. HANSON: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for his cooperation.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to get your opinion on the last point of order that was raised. Is it your opinion that someone can ask for an apology and get it, or a withdrawal, even though there may not have been, except in the offended person's mind, an offence?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair indicated at the outset that because it was engaged in discussion and it did not hear the remark. The Chair was therefore unable to judge the merit of the remark itself. However, an hon. member requested that a remark be withdrawn, which remark the hon. member found to be offensive. Since the Chair did not hear the remark itself, the Chair took upon itself the request and asked the member if the member would withdraw the remark. The member agreed to withdraw the remark and, hon. members, that concludes that specific matter. The difference in this case, hon. member, is that the Chair did not hear the specific remarks, but that would not prevent a member from asking.

MR. LEA: There's just something I want to get clear on the point, Mr. Speaker. In other words, it doesn't have to be something that's offensive in a parliamentary way: it can be just personally offensive to you. Is that it?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, every member in the House is obliged to follow parliamentary rules. Again. the Chair at the outset observed that the Chair did not hear the specific remarks and, in that case, was unable to make a judgement on whether the remarks were unparliamentary or not.

MR. LEA: So I could call someone a really honest person, which might offend that particular person. Then I'd have to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly, at this time the member is engaged on a manner of debate. The member is well aware of the rules of withdrawal in the House.

MR. LEA: Yes, that's why I'm raising this.

[ Page 1692 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair may ask for a withdrawal, may insist upon a withdrawal if the member's remarks are in fact unparliamentary.

MR. LEA: Right. But if they're not?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, hon. member, was not in a position to make that decision because it did not hear the specific remarks.

MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly the point.

MR. SPEAKER: Please, hon. member. The fact, in this particular instance, that the member had the courtesy to withdraw remarks which another hon. member found to be offensive in itself closes the issue. At this time the member is engaged upon a manner of debate and I conclude the matter at this time.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, the point of order that I'm raising is the question of a member asking a withdrawal of another member for being offensive, in the opinion of the member asking for the withdrawal. What I'm trying to establish, Mr. Speaker, is whether it's just a matter of opinion, or whether you actually have to be unparliamentary before there's a withdrawal. I don't think it can be left up to every individual member to decide what's going to be offensive in the Legislature; it has to be what Mr. Speaker says is offensive according to the rules. I just want to make it clear that in this case Mr. Speaker said he did not hear what was said so he had no way of knowing whether it was offensive or not, according to the parliamentary rules. I was just wondering why, if you had no idea, you asked to have it withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair asked the member if the member would withdraw, based on the assumption as well that the Chair did not hear the remarks. Clearly, hon. member, what may be offensive to one member may not be offensive to another member, and in each instance a case is drawn on its own merits. In this case, two hon. members have discussed the matter, have agreed to the proper terms of withdrawal, and the matter was concluded in a most parliamentary method. It was an exemplary method to handle such ways.

The member for Victoria continues.

MR. HANSON: I was just thinking of the analogy of an election as a sports contest, because all the vernacular is the same — you know, you're running, you win. A number of the words are very athletic and sportsmanlike and so on. When a government doesn't tell the people of the province, during that contest — contest is another word — that is a bit like cheating. It's a bit like having pine tar all the way up your bat. It's a bit like stepping over the jumping line when you're a long-jumper, or taking anabolic steroids when you're a shot-putter....

MS. BROWN: Or spitting in your hand.

MR. HANSON: Or spitting in your where? Hand. Spitting in your hand and throwing the ball. A spitball.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my remarks I've been trying to intersperse the specific duties of some of the people who have been fired and people who are going to be fired. In this case, they're motor vehicle inspectors. I want to talk about them. I know there's another bill before the House that hasn't been called yet, and I'm not going to be speaking to that bill. I'm focusing on the firing that is occurring under Bill 3 with respect to motor vehicle inspector, mechanical 1. I'd be happy to table this information later on, and I'll make a copy for the minister. This is an outline, in basic form, of the kinds of things that a motor vehicle inspector was obliged to do in serving the public.

" 1. Meet and greet customers in a cordial and cheerful manner. Accurately and legibly print the information from the motor vehicle licence on the inspection report form."

Some of it seems very rudimentary, but you'll see as it gets better that it's very important.

"Compare the serial number on the motor vehicle licence with the serial number on the vehicle. Where there is a difference, complete the serial number reporting form legibly and accurately."

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I have some difficulty with job descriptions having any relevance to this legislation.

MR. COCKE: Job description, when the entire life of the worker is going to be affected by the minister and his Bill 3, has to be most relevant. The utmost relevancy is being given out here in this House. If the minister would listen, maybe he would prepare some changes to Bill 3.

MS. BROWN: On the same point of order raised by the Provincial Secretary, what the first member for Victoria is trying to do is prove that a full-time equivalent is not a figment of one's imagination, but is actually a living, breathing human being.

MR. SPEAKER: That remark in itself is not one that can be contemplated in arriving at a decision on this.

[12:00]

MR. ROSE: My contribution to the point of order which we are considering at the moment is this. In terms of relevance, the business of working conditions and bargaining for working conditions has been a long and difficult fight in many contracts, and central to those working conditions is the matter of a job description, what a worker is expected to do when he's on the job. Clause 7 of the federal Public Service Staff Relations Act puts the job description entirely in the hands of the employer. We disagree with that, and we fought it all along. I think it's this point that the hon. member is trying to bring forward in this debate. If Bill 3 proceeds, seniority, bargaining rights, job description and all those attendant matters go out the window.

MR. SPEAKER: It would appear to the Chair that if we were to allow a thorough discussion of each and every aspect of the jobs contained under Bill 3, we would soon engage upon a debate that would have little relevance to the principle of the bill. While the member speaking may canvass the job description to some degree, I'm sure the member would agree that it would be inappropriate to continue with them ad infinitum, one particular segment after another. It would be the responsibility of the Chair to bring that to the member's attention. I'm sure, in thinking the matter over, the member would agree, and I commend those remarks to the member and invite him to continue in that vein.

[ Page 1693 ]

MR. HANSON: I don't have the vocal chords nor the stamina to go through all the job descriptions of the people affected under this public sector restraint bill. But I think it is important to bring a bit of reality and humanity to the cabinet, in the sense that they understand exactly what these people do. They work at a very lofty elevation. Testament to that is this bill, which hurts these people very much. I want to outline very clearly just a couple of examples. I can't canvass all 1,400, with all the different levels. I couldn't possibly do it, but I think it's important to do the odd one so that people will get a sense of what the person did and what kind of responsibility it was — as it applies to Bill 3. I will demonstrate that to you as I continue my remarks.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, I believe that an earlier Speaker, acting on your behalf, ruled that today was Tuesday. Under the standing orders for Tuesday, I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to the clock.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, our standing orders and resolutions provide for normal times of adjournment and noon on Wednesday is not recognized.

MR. MITCHELL: It has already been ruled by a previous Speaker that today is Tuesday.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the sitting we are now engaged in is a continuation of last night's, which has not been interrupted by an adjournment. It is not a Wednesday sitting. The Wednesday sitting commences at 2:00.

MR. MITCHELL: In spite of the House Leader's statement, we have had a ruling by an acting Speaker that today is an extension of Tuesday. Twelve noon is the time of adjournment on Tuesday under our standing orders. I bring that to your attention, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will advise hon. members that the actual motion of June 23 reads: "...that on each Tuesday and Thursday of this session there shall be two distinct sittings, one from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. and one from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; and on each Monday and Wednesday one sitting from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. On each Friday one sitting from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m., unless otherwise ordered." Hon. members, clearly the Tuesday session may continue up until 2 this afternoon, Wednesday, at which time the Wednesday session will begin, which is only reasonable because that's the way it's spelled out right here. This is really a continuation of the Tuesday sitting, notwithstanding the fact that it is Wednesday, and I apologize for any confusion that....

MR. NICOLSON: If then, in fact, today is Tuesday, and I was absent from the House yesterday, would I actually be present today? Four times a year we have to make out a declaration indicating whether or not we've been absent from the House. So if I were absent.... Or, Mr. Speaker, should I not show up for this afternoon's sitting, would I be absent today or tomorrow, as the case may be?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Who knows? Who cares?

MR. NICOLSON: I'm dead serious.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, regarding the technicality that was brought forward by the member, standing orders clearly say "on each day," and that would take that matter into consideration.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House Leader on the government side move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the House for humanity's sake. Mr. Speaker, failing that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: He intended to, and the member for Point Grey, the Minister of Science (Hon. Mr. McGeer), came in here, used his weight, and suggested that they not do that in order to hurt my friend — and he's a doctor.

MR. SPEAKER: We can not ask one member to do something else....

MR. LEA: I find it offensive that that member would be called a doctor. Could he withdraw that? It's just personal. I feel it's offensive.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member for Victoria looks in excellent shape to me — far better shape than the member for New Westminster, who was in bed last night.

MR. LEA: Will he be getting a bill for that, Pat?

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

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that the Provincial Secretary understand what a motor vehicle inspector does, because he can be fired under this piece of legislation, I just want to give one example in this instance and sprinkle another couple along the way later on. But I think it's important, so:

"...to check the signals, stop- and tail-lamp operation and broken, cracked and missing lenses. Inspect reflectors and clearance lamps for colour and proper location. Check licence plate lamp on rear for illumination of licence plate, with no white light showing to the rear. Check windshield wipers for operation, sweep-arm tension and blade condition. Check operation of vehicle horn for audibility and control. Check operation of left front window from fully closed to fully open to fully closed without excessive force. Inspect vehicle doors for operation. Inspect bumpers, fenders and body condition. Inspect mudflaps. Direct traffic into the appropriate inspection lane — when to enter the building, which lane to use in the building. Check vehicle headlamps for correct operation tolerance. When outside tolerance, aim headlamps to comply with published headlamp aim standards. Check all lamps for correct wiring. Check auxiliary lamp aim and inspect for proper mounting — right side up and with the approved headlamp in the designed socket. Physically inspect all lamps in excess of 32 candlepower and ascertain if they are approved for use in the province of British Columbia.... "

This person does quite a lot, and this is not all.

"...to check all vehicles for missing bumpers, fenders or body area. Interpret the results of scuff-

[ Page 1694 ]

testing equipment and relate results to inspection report card punch detail. Discuss with the customer, where necessary, the difficulties experienced with the front end of the customer's vehicle" — having the front end adequately tightened and working is, of course, a very important thing for safety — "why it may change, and suggest several corrections that may be required to bring the vehicle's front steering to a safe condition. Check mechanically the front end, if excessive rejects indicate a loss of calibration of scuff gauges. Direct the vehicle into the hoist area in a safe manner so the vehicle may be hoisted with safety. Direct customers to leave vehicles in neutral gear with no brakes on, engine running; to step from vehicle with all passengers alighting, all animals removed from vehicle — any articles that may be broken must be removed and all passengers and animals must proceed to building exit and wait for vehicle, No vehicle is to be inspected if damage may occur. Hoist dogs must be safe and in lifting position prior to hoisting. Inspect all parts and undercarriage to motor vehicle inspection standards. Inspect frame for rusting out, floor for rusting out and holes. Wheels must be rotated to check wheel bearing looseness or bearing chips. Check vehicle steering for worn parts, loose connecting parts and steering restrictions. Inspect fuel and exhaust systems for loose, leaking and miscellaneous parts; tire tread depth; studded tires to meet regulations; mismatched bias and radial ply tires; connections or hoses leaking; brake fluid; worn, cracked or frayed brake hoses. Inspect seats and seatbelts as required. Check visibility in mirrors. Drive vehicle onto brake inspection pads...."

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House Leader for the NDP, I would ask leave that the member be given a short recess — he's been on his feet for six hours — in order to at least be able to go to the bathroom and back again. I think that that would at least be some sign of decency.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no manner in which the Chair can ask one member on behalf of another member...to have another member do something in that particular way.

MR. COCKE: I asked leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Even so, it would be difficult to put the question. We would be in the very awkward position of having to accept a motion in that regard at this time, which it is not possible for the Chair to accept.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that the Provincial Secretary and the government understand that this is just picked at random. I didn't pick this one out for any particular purpose. You don't want job descriptions. You don't want to know who these people are.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I made the point some time ago that the business of job descriptions and the slow reading of these long-winded job descriptions has nothing to do with this legislation. There's no relevancy whatsoever. And I'd like you to remind the member speaking that he's attempting to spin his wheels and waste time on tedious matters that have no relevance to this legislation.

[12:15]

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the Provincial Secretary has a great deal of validity. As explained earlier to the member, the in-depth, detailed perusal of a job description.... The Chair would have great difficulty relating that particular description to the principle of the bill, which is what we must be discussing at this time. I would ask the member to bear that in mind. There is a great deal of latitude for discussing the principle of the bill. The member can have all that latitude, but he must relate to the principle of the bill. Insofar as a detailed job description, the Chair would concur — as I'm sure the member would agree — that it is difficult to relate that specifically to the principle.

MR. HANSON: I did indicate to you that I did not intend to read ad nauseam all the job descriptions in the public sector, but I wanted to bring them from the abstract to the reality level so that the minister would understand the kind of detailed work that a person holding this position of motor vehicle inspector 1, who comes under Bill 3 and is subject to firing under Bill 3 — the kind of job they did.... I think that's relevant and important. I'm not going to get overly tedious about that particular part of it.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: He didn't even know that the firefighters came under Bill 3.

What I talked about before I started discussing that particular public sector job description, for which the government wants to create contempt in the minds of other people who have lost their employment.... They want to focus contempt on public employees. The provincial library is full of criticism and comments that Social Credit cabinet ministers attempt to use to political advantage, talking about deadwood and so on. I'm saying that that particular individual who performed that function in all its detail performed a real service to this province in keeping vehicles safe on the highway; of course I'm not going to allude to the other bill, which takes away the motor vehicle testing, as it's already folded. But I think it's important to know what they've done. I'm not going to press the case that much, because there are other aspects of this horrendous legislation that are worthy of comment.

I want to talk for a moment about a private sector collective agreement — the IWA's. Let's take article 2 of section 2 of the collective agreement now in force, which says: "The company shall have the right to select its employees and to discipline or discharge them for proper cause." It doesn't indicate that there is a lack of seniority provisions. It shows that in the private sector there are processes and procedures that are well accepted and adopted: that people are hired, selected, disciplined or discharged according to well-established processes. You don't make them up in a cabinet room on a Thursday morning if you're feeling particularly vindictive. You don't subject employees and their careers and livelihoods to that kind of vagary. You enshrine it in accepted common law and due process, and also in well-accepted fair play. That's really what it is, rules of fair play. A clause like this is to be found in every private and public sector collective agreement, for dismissal without cause is prohibited by the

[ Page 1695 ]

Labour Code, which provides that a dismissal with cause provision shall be included in every collective agreement.

The minister was on his feet objecting to the kind of references I was making to the William Scott report, and here it is clear that every collective agreement, whether it is the private or public sector, is obliged to have that language for protecting people, so that they're not subjected to a government that, with a stroke of the pen, strips away rights and treats people on the basis of invalid reasons and concepts. That is well accepted, but the government doesn't understand it. That's why they're pressing on. We used to have legislation by exhaustion; now we have legislation by exhaustion and starvation. These are different ways of trying to achieve their ends, but you reap as you sow. Someone at some point will sense what your course of action entails.

Let us examine what rights this government is taking away from public sector workers, rights which are enjoyed by all organized workers in the province of British Columbia: protection against dismissal without cause, which gives rise to many other significant benefits; a seniority-based claim to jobs in case of layoffs. There are many people who are very much more knowledgeable about industrial relations than I am who say that a worker's work is an investment in the workplace. In other words, as a person works for a firm or for government or for an agency, the time of their life that they spend working is an investment that that person is making. It's like an equity. It's like a mortgage. As you make your mortgage payments, so much goes on the interest — most of it goes on the interest — and a little bit goes on the principle. In the workplace, the time that a worker works and the conduct of his work are an investment in the equity of that workplace.

How does it manifest itself, Mr. Speaker? It manifests itself in the concept of seniority. The government have been picking and firing people — some are auxiliaries; some have 17 years seniority, some five years, some two years — all over the map. There's no sort of sense of the investment of an agricultural worker, a lab technician, a biologist, a probation officer or any of the things that government employment involves — jail guards and so on — or that a person who does a job has an investment in that particular job and workplace, and that is manifested in seniority. Yet this government says: "So what? Let's get the young legs. Let's bring in the non-union young legs, particularly on contract. Let's not credit our people who have given those years of their lives to doing a good job for the public, and let's not recognize that notion at all." That's why we have no regulations, no real detail on the whole question of seniority.

Virtually all collective agreements establish a grievance and arbitration procedure to deal with the issue of dismissal, and a series of arbitrator's decisions have established clear rights which will no longer exist for public employees. Mr. Speaker, when an employer and an employee bargaining agent sit down at a negotiating table, one of the things that's in a collective agreement is that if either party has an objection to the performance or the behaviour of the other, there's a process that can be initiated which will ultimately resolve that dispute. It's called a grievance procedure. It's very simple and very good, because it has various escalating series of.... First of all, an attempt is made, with proper procedures, to establish a reconciliation of the dispute on the local level. The supervisor calls the employee in. Often they have the right to have a third party present. It could be another employee or the union representative or whatever. They sit down and they say: "Okay, the employer has a problem with this employee. Here it is." The case is stated and they try to resolve it. If it's not resolved, it goes to a higher level of dispute resolution, usually involving a higher level of supervisor.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: We're talking about your dearly loved judicial process for the resolving of disputes. I want to see a mediation process in place which deals with the kinds of processes that are already there in the contracts.

There are various levels on which the dispute can be resolved. Finally, if it can't be resolved at the higher levels, then it can go outside of the employer-employee structure to an independent third party. It could be a mediator; it could be the Labour Relations Board. That's good, eh? We don't want things going to court. But the way you've got this thing structured, these clear rights won't exist in the same form for public sector workers.

I canvassed this very briefly before, but I just want to remind the minister that an arbitrator — and you must have thought of this and dismissed it right away when you were doing your firings.... There are three aspects of a dismissal that must be considered. and will be considered, by an arbitrator. Did the employee give cause for being discharged? Was the reaction of the employer unreasonable and unjust? If so, then perhaps there is some other redress, or other things should be done. So you must have thought of it and dismissed it, and now that's your peril, because.... Not your peril, but the public at large is going to have to assume the damage that you are going to incur. Arbitrators have looked at a wide range of questions to determine if dismissal was just or unjust. Again, that's fundamental in the bill. It's right in the typed copy, and it was an area of the bill that created a great deal of controversy. You just reworded it in other language and structured it in a way that you felt would be more palatable. But clearly it’s not more palatable and is creating many problems.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I want due process. I don't want the burden placed on an employee to have to find a lot of dough to go to the courts, because workers don't have a lot of dough at the moment. A lot of people are being terminated. They can't afford it like you can, being wealthy, with all those BCRIC shares that you have. The average worker doesn't have large lots of BCRIC shares, 40,000, 50,000 and 60,000 lots of BCRIC shares that they can chop into to support a legal case of judicial review.

So what I'm arguing for are just the provisions that are in the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act; and the Labour Relations Board, the way it's going, is just working fine. Why do you have to monkey with the system and turn it upside-down, making everybody unhappy, creating a lot of costs for the taxpayer, and stripping a lot of protection and benefits from ordinary people who can't afford to go to the bank and borrow money to go to a lawyer?

So what alternative measure should be substituted as just and equitable? If the arbitrator does not rule on the basis of these principles, an appeal from the arbitrator's decision to the Labour Relations Board can be successfully pursued.

[ Page 1696 ]

Arbitrators have looked at a wide range of questions to determine if dismissal was just or unjust. It must be determined if the offence was great enough to justify imposition of a penalty, let alone dismissal; whether the employee's behaviour was premeditated or repetitive; whether the employee's record was one of long and able service, or one involving successive infractions or discipline. The reason I raise this is that you've given no attention in your mass firings to the work records of the people. What you're doing is you're firing people who don't by any stretch of the imagination deserve to be fired at all. They deserve fairness. They deserve their day in a proper grievance procedure, not in court cases.

[12:30]

Some employees don't have good work records. They have a whole series of infractions and so on, and it escalates and ultimately involves discharge and termination. Probably oftentimes there should be retraining. There may be a personal problem. Maybe there should be counselling. It could be a drinking problem. You don't know what there could be. And that's another whole area....

HON. MR. CHABOT: It looks like you have one — all those glasses around you.

MR. HANSON: No, I'm losing weight as I'm standing here, Mr. Speaker. I'm getting a little dry, a little dehydrated.

Interjections.

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

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm endeavouring to make it as varied, as interesting and as educational for that minister as I possibly can. If his thick frontal lobe is impervious to new ideas, new ways of viewing British Columbia, ways that don't involve confrontation and hurting people, then I don't know what I can say to that minister.

I would maintain that the province hasn't saved any money from terminating those people. The province has suffered in areas that require those services, like human rights protection and the rentalsman's protection, which served landlords and owners of apartment buildings just as well as it served tenants. It was a balanced approach. All of these structures that were put into place during the NDP period of government were to try and facilitate some kind of reasonable mediation process; everything isn't black and white in this life. One person could be a little bit right, the other person could be a little bit right, and maybe in the middle there could be a reconciliation and they could both be happily working together for many years before it flared up again or something.

Isn't that a better approach than taking a machete and chopping away at people when they're not even looking? That hurts. It hurts when you take away people's paycheques during a depression. It's not just my opinion; it's being censured all over the world. Anywhere that people are fair-minded and aware of what's going on in British Columbia, they are clearly opposed to the kind of action that this government is taking.

MR. COCKE: I rise under standing order 9, which clearly says that "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum." I'm talking in terms of decorum. I believe that the House at the present time is not enjoying decorum under the circumstances. I ask for your ruling with respect to that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Under standing order 9, it would be difficult at this stage for the Chair to realize that either the order or the decorum is not appropriate. The House is orderly. The members are attired properly. Hon. member, the Chair would find it most difficult to in any way find that standing order 9 is breached at this time.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, my feeling on this particular standing order is that the House is not in order when a particular person, by virtue of a government decision, is being put through the kind of inhuman situation that that person is. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, my interpretation would be that that is part of order and part of decorum.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the opinion of the Chair would be that while the member may feel aggrieved for another member, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to stretch standing order 9 to include that particular aspect. There may be some other avenue under another standing order, but under standing order 9 the Chair is of the opinion that there is no breach at this time.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, would you rule that there is no breach?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, clearly there is no ruling necessary in this case. The standing orders have not been breached, and we must continue with the business of the day.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to canvass some of the comments that have occurred in the media with respect to this bill. I'm in a bit of a quandary in seeking the guidance of the Speaker, because this particular editorial that I have is Wednesday, September 21, 1983, so perhaps it should be called Tuesday, September 21, because apparently it is still Tuesday.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's a Times-Colonist editorial, and it says: "Why This House is so Divided," and it is important to read it into the record:

"The Legislature is in chaos. The opposition leader is thrown out and the House sits throughout the night. What's going on? Who's to blame?

"A brief review to help explain the latest ugliness: Social Credit argues that it is the duly elected government, that the New Democrats have gone beyond legitimate opposition and have brought the legislative process to a grinding halt by filibustering. The NDP argues that it is operating within the rules and that it is blocking legislation because the government has no mandate to support its policies."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't see any provision in this bill or in our standing orders that would allow the member to reflect upon the House. We are in second reading of a bill, and if the member will be relevant to that bill the parliament will be well served.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I am indicating to the government through you the attitude and observations of the

[ Page 1697 ]

major newspaper in this area with respect to the legislative package, and I'm coming to Bill 3. It's included in the editorial itself. So I would just like you to bear with me and I'll get to the Bill 3 portion, which I can assure you is specifically related to the principle of Bill 3. I think the Times-Colonist has indicated a point of view and a perspective that is worthy of mentioning and reading into the record.

"The NDP argues that it is operating within the rules and that it is blocking legislation because the government has no mandate to support its policies" — including Bill 3. "The NDP believes that what the Socreds propose doing is so wrong that it warrants filibustering until public pressure forces the government to reconsider."

I don't mind admitting, Mr. Speaker, that that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. HANSON: I am speaking to the bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker and I know you must be aware of this — it has been a long-established practice in this House, certainly in my eleven and a half years in this chamber, that every member of the House has been allowed to refer to newspaper articles, editorials and columns as part of their presentation in this House. We have all done that many....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken. Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: And, Mr. Speaker, I might remind you — and I know that you're very much aware of this — that before Hansard it was the only means that members had of referring to, in a lot of cases, the research material that we could produce as evidence in this chamber. So I think that the member is quite in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order by the hon. member is well taken with respect to matters that relate to a bill, but we must speak to the bill itself and not to other procedures, nor use newspapers to bring material that would not be relevant to the bill.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the editorial staff of the Times-Colonist have made a very thoughtful evaluation of Bill 3 in this editorial, and they are trying to identify the various forces at play here and trying to focus on them. If you'll bear with me, I'd like to go through it.

"Both arguments are valid but, on balance, we believe the government has more to answer for in this situation because the moral argument of the NDP is weightier" — we appreciate that — "the Bennett government does not have an honest mandate for some of its legislation."

Those are not my words, Mr. Speaker, they are those of the editorial staff of the Times-Colonist.

"The Premier deliberately chose to be evasive during his election campaign. Certainly he promised restraint" — and I think this is the theme of my speech throughout, Mr. Speaker, which you will know, because you've been paying attention to the general thrust of my argument — "but his government then introduced profound changes unrelated to restraint, policies that could have lost the election had they been revealed beforehand. That was politically crafty; it was also deceitful."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will have to be withdrawn. Even though it's a newspaper comment, it has still been uttered in the House with respect to another member.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I find that unparliamentary because it's a reference to another hon. member of this House. One cannot use the device of a newspaper to bring into the chamber an unparliamentary reflection on another member. If the member would simple withdraw, we could continue.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there are rules that are even older than the rules which we use in this House, and those rules say that when you are quoting a person, you have to quote that person verbatim. You cannot take licence with a quote. I know that this House has been in existence for over a hundred years, but there was a world here before this House came into existence, and those rules were laid down then. You don't dare quote someone and change the words of the person you’re quoting, whether it's parliamentary or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I cannot accept that point of order. I will remind all hon. members that it could be very much a two-edged sword if we in fact brought newspaper articles into the House and simply read them, trying through that device to make unparliamentary references to members of this House. If the first member for Victoria will simply withdraw that reference to another hon. member, the Legislature will be well served.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker. this is a very dangerous precedent which is being set here. What you are ruling is that anyone can stand on the floor of this House and put words into the mouth of someone else.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's what the Speaker is saying. In other words, if, for example, you are reading a statement made by the Governor-General or by the Premier, or anyone else, you can change the words, based on your ruling. You are saying that you can change those words to make them more parliamentary for the floor of this Legislature. That is not only dishonest, it's illegal. You can't do that. You cannot change a quote. If a person has said something and you are repeating that quote, you have a moral and legal obligation to be as accurate as possible in terms of that quote. With all due respect, Your Honour — and I have the most profound respect for Your Honour — to bring down a ruling which says that one can change the words of another person in this House goes totally counter to everything that we know and accept in a democracy. So I would urge the Speaker, as gently as possible, to reconsider that ruling. That is a very dangerous ruling.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to look at Sir Erskine May's nineteenth edition at page 430, where it says, about halfway down the page: "A member is not allowed to use unparliamentary

[ Page 1698 ]

words by the device of putting them in someone else's mouth."

[12:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's the basis of the Chair's ruling, hon. member, and I'm sure that if all hon. members think it through they will realize that if we were in fact to allow someone to quote from a newspaper article, a magazine or a novel, one could bring the most unparliamentary expressions to this House and use that device. The Chair is simply asking the member not to use the reference to another hon. member in this House. He cannot be allowed to use it simply because it is quoted in a newspaper.

I think the point has been well canvassed, and I will now ask the hon. first member for Victoria to withdraw the reference to another hon. member. The member will withdraw the statement now.

MS. BROWN: A point of order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I will not accept another point of order until the member....

MS. BROWN: I'm challenging that ruling, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no ruling.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am asking the hon. first member for Victoria to withdraw the reference to another hon. member or withdraw from the House. A simple withdrawal will satisfy the parliament.

MR. HANSON: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: I now rise with my point of order. Mr. Speaker, the quotation by the ex-Speaker of the House mentioned putting words into another person's mouth. That is not what this member is doing. This member is not trying to say something by saying it was said by the Speaker, the ex-Speaker, the future Speaker or any other potential Speakers. A statement was made and a quote is what that member is using. It is illegal to misquote a person. He cannot stand on the floor of this House and say that the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), or wherever, said what the hon. member did not say. I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that that ruling is older than this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, parliamentary language is well known. What constitutes parliamentary and unparliamentary language is known to all members of this House. The device of reading from a newspaper does not, in fact, excuse an unparliamentary term or reference.

The first member for Victoria has withdrawn and the Chair is satisfied with that. I cannot accept....

MS. BROWN: I'm satisfied with that too. What I am not satisfied with, Mr. Speaker, and what I'm raising a point of order on is that the Speaker is ruling that it is now permissible for anyone to stand on the floor of this House and change the words of a person they're quoting. I am saying that that is a dangerous precedent and should not be something that the Speaker would condone. I know you don't like the word "rule" so you're offering the suggestion; you're making a statement or whatever. What I am suggesting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank you for your opinion. There is really no further issue. The Chair has been satisfied, parliament has been satisfied, and the hon. first member for Victoria may continue.

MS. BROWN: But, Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied. I'm suggesting to you that to now give this member or any member of this House the licence to stand on the floor of this House and change the words of someone they are quoting is anarchy. That's what it is. For your own safety and protection, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to reconsider your position on this issue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the hon. member and all hon. members would be far more offended if a member were allowed to stand in this House and quote unparliamentary sayings. I'm sure the member can think that one through.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, further to my point of order, are you suggesting — and I'm not using the word "ruling" now because I realize that a caucus decision has been made that there are not to be any rulings — that it is now permissible for any member of this House to stand on his or her feet and directly change the words of any quotation? In other words, I can stand here and say, as said by the hon. Speaker, that whatever goes, goes? Is that what you are suggesting?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sir Erskine May advises us that we would have to change an unparliamentary expression; we would not be allowed to quote it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I feel offended by the debate that's taking place between the Chair and that particular member. It's quite obvious that she has made her point. She's not willing to accept the point of view being expressed by the Chair. Apparently she has to have the last word. I feel that we're wasting a lot of time by a debate on points of order from that member. She's made her point. We understand her point and we don't want to hear from her forever more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will now ask the hon. first member for Victoria to please continue.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by that member are unparliamentary based on the recommended lists by former Speaker Schroeder of what can and cannot be said. I would ask him to withdraw his comment that he does not want to hear from me forever more because that is tantamount to saying, "Shut up," which is not accepted according to this list.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You get the point.

MS. BROWN: You can't say one way what you can't say another way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria continues.

MR. HANSON: Picking up from where I left off — and I will omit that language, for what reason I don't know — the government is correct, but also vulnerable, when it argues that the NDP has virtually shut down the system with its filibustering.

[ Page 1699 ]

"Premier Bennett did not call the House into session for eight months before the election in May. In the depths of the recession, he shut down the system even more thoroughly. And when he did go to the people, he did not present a budget first, which is the most straightforward and appropriate kind of election platform."

Mr. Speaker, this is an outstanding editorial.

"To move from the general to the particular, the centrepiece of Bennett's 'restraint' legislation is Bill 3" — so this is pertinent to my present discussion, Mr. Speaker — "the Public Sector Restraint Act. Its reintroduction for debate after a five-week absence triggered Monday's breakdown. Three weeks ago, Provincial Secretary James Chabot promised that the government would introduce the regulations which would show how this act is to be implemented, how the size of government will be reduced, how tenure and restraint will be applied. Chabot indicated they would be revealed by last week. With the regulations still unannounced, the government is moving towards closure, an arbitrary end to debate, before all the elements to be debated are known. That is not fair.

"So much for recent history. More important is what happens next. What is badly needed now is some kind of respite from this frenzy, an opportunity for all members to get away for a few days, to reflect on what has happened and what can be done to repair the damage."

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Obviously they don't understand what that editorial says, which is that they didn't call the House; they didn't introduce a budget before the campaign; they didn't call the bill for five weeks; they decided, in a fit of madness, that their package was slipping through their fingers and that they had to start playing hardball right away, before the rest of the public got the message. That is why we have this fiasco. That is why we are sitting here at five minutes to one on a Tuesday or a Wednesday, or whatever day it happens to be.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to canvass the views of various spokespeople in the community. I know this government doesn't like to hear the comments of Bishop de Roo, but I think Bishop de Roo is right on the mark in his analysis of the government's package and its impact on people. In a column on Tuesday, August 16, he referred to the restraint program as "evil." And this is a front-page story, not an editorial. It's right on the bill; he was talking about the bill:

"The Social Credit government's restraint package hurts people and contains a structural disorder that is evil, Remi de Roo, Roman Catholic Bishop of Victoria, said Monday. 'I’m sure the government never set out to create an evil program,'" — that was gracious of him to tag that in — "de Roo said in an interview. 'But they don't realize their narrow conservative approach, now obsolete in the light of economic history, is creating suffering. There is a disorder built into the structure of the government's program that is evil. The evil lies in the fact of people being hurt.’ De Roo said no one argues with the need for fiscal restraint..."

We've said that many times on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, but you don't listen to us. I'm wondering whether you'll listen to the Catholic bishop.

"...but it is wrong a 'to erode the social consensus and the safety net we have built up for the less powerful elements in society.'"

Clearly. Mr. Speaker, that's right on Bill 3.

"He said representatives from a wide range of religious groups — Christian, Jewish and other faiths — have spoken out against the July 7 legislative package. The legislation favours the rich and powerful and 'evades the government's responsibility to the common well-being of society. The legislation causes suffering. Very definitely you can see it. Right here in downtown Victoria the soup kitchen in the cathedral is jammed with hungry people.'"

Isn't it terrible, Mr. Speaker? I'm editorializing now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He's been corrected on that statement.

MR. HANSON: There are soup kitchens with very long lines, there are people in need of food supplies, yet the provincial government tries to make cheap political points by attacking the federal government for giving money for unemployment action centres providing food for people who can't afford food. Can you imagine what a cheap political point that is to attack it; to be so insecure. when you've got a five year mandate, that you have to attack the federal government for giving money to poor people and the unemployed because there happened to be a leaflet on Solidarity or something, on the table? I'm right on the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill hurts people. It's a fear bill.

To continue, Bishop de Roo said the government "should start talking to religious leaders and grassroots community groups opposing the legislation."

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've sat here all morning and all through the night, and the Provincial Secretary continues getting up and interrupting with across-the-floor debate. I think he should sit here like the rest of us and be very quiet. If he wants to rise on a proper point of order, he should rise properly and not to continue to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

[1:00]

MR. HANSON: He said: "The government should start talking to religious leaders and grassroots community groups opposing the legislation." We have said that countless times in this House: please meet with the concerns out in the community. That is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of being smart, being a modern-day politician, to listen to people. If you have embarked upon a course that is wrong, change and correct it. Why head off into the night dragging the whole province behind you over a ravine and down into a crevasse, into a boiling soup of green, bubbly liquid. Why not sit down in a...?

"The measures, among other things. abolish rent controls, wipe out the $50-a-month allowance for single parents" and so on. He is talking about the firings and the dismantling of all the social infrastructure that is so relied upon by people, particularly in a depression. Of all times to

[ Page 1700 ]

cut programs to the poor, during a depression.... The government's timing is terrible. If it was an affluent society and money was in abundance through private agencies, and the private sector....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, in keeping with the wish of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), who arrived late this morning and who wasn't here too much last night.... I am going to raise the point formally, rather than through an interjection across the floor, and that is that the member is reading a newspaper article now that bears no relationship whatsoever to the principle of this bill. He is talking about food banks, soup kitchens and other matters, but he is not talking specifically about this bill, and I wish he would deal with this issue specifically.

Oh, I see, the Minister of Defence wants to get up before I finish my point. Mr. Speaker, the bishop is talking about legislation, but not this legislation per se.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, what the member, I think, is pointing out — and what makes it absolutely germane to the bill under discussion — is that part of the principle of the bill is that it will have effects. One of the effects it will have is to make more people unemployed and to even create a bigger class of poor people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is now entering into debate, which I think will be well handled by the member who has....

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I am doing nothing more than answering the point of order raised by the hon. Provincial Secretary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order has been taken, and now the Chair recognizes the hon. first member for Victoria, who, I am sure, will relate his remarks to the Public Sector Restraint Act, Bill 3.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, I would ask the Provincial Secretary if he would withdraw the remark that I haven't been here all night. I have been in the precincts all night, except when I left at 6:30 to meet a group of unemployed in Langford, and I have been back since. I have been in this House or in the precincts all night, and I ask the Provincial Secretary to withdraw that very personal remark about the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, if I am in error I certainly stand corrected. But the member missed several votes. There were several votes in the night and I don't know where he was. I thought he was out of the House, but he must have been in bed in some corner of this chamber.

MR. COCKE: The point of order that was made is being addressed by this member. He is talking in terms of the fact that that minister, through this legislation, is laying off people; they do wind up in soup kitchens, etc.

I notice, however, that the government — 31 of them — are out having dinner while this poor human being is here in the House being subjected to this torture — absolutely indecent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members are now entering into debate on the bill. If they wish to do that they may, but not under the guise of rising on a point of order.

MR. HANSON: Would I be in order if I discussed a memorandum on Provincial Secretary letterhead, signed by the minister, to all the government employees? Would that be on the mark? Would that be on the bill?

HON. MR. CHABOT: You've already read that one.

MR. HANSON: On the hoist. You've probably forgotten.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You've read it today.

MR. HANSON: Oh, well, I won't read it then, if you're going to get upset about it. I'll just talk about it.

Allan Fotheringham has an article called "Mini-Wac Flogs a Simplistic Dream," and he talks about the simple-minded approach to economics of this government, particularly the first minister. The first minister has clearly had a lot of people like Michael Walker and other right-wing Chicago-school-type economists blowing in his ear over the last few years, telling him that he can be Mr. Big in the Pacific Northwest. It really is a silly notion because what he is doing is.... I'm going to read this and we'll see how we do. Clearly I'm trying to be right on the mark on Bill 3.

"The New York Times man, hunkered down in Victoria, phones to confirm the rumours that a revolution is taking place behind the Tweed Curtain. The heavy journalists of the western world are rushing to the only provincial capital in Canada that is separated from its population base by water. As wise mothers used to advise their daughters: never go to a party on a boat — one's inhibitions are abandoned. It's why the funny principality of Victoria, floating off in the isolation of Vancouver Island, always seems so remote and susceptible to radical ideas. That's why the NYT man is here.

"Premier Bill Bennett's revolutionary plan to slash the swivel servants of his jurisdiction by 25 percent by next June has excited the foreheads of news editors across the continent. We all know there are layabouts and ne'er-do-wells impacted in the government wallpaper, especially in a resource-based province where laid-off woodworkers resent the tenured security of paper-shufflers in Victoria. The heavy thinkers of journalism have rushed here to witness this breakthrough in Canadian political thinking. Mini-Wac supposedly is going to astound Canada with his version of southern California philosophy. He spends his spare time on the tennis courts of Palm Springs. The Bennett dream is a northern version of Proposition 13, the California referendum that was to order politicians not to raise taxes."

Mr. Speaker, the Premier seems unable to synthesize the real needs of the province into a legislative program — particularly with Bill 3 — to understand what kind of legislative program would benefit this province. Bill 3 is that simplistic Proposition 13 notion that you slash away at services, you slash away at local government and somehow you end up with some kind of Shangri-La for the investment community. It doesn't work that way. I don't know if you've been to California recently or if you've read much about California,

[ Page 1701 ]

but there are people living in the state parks on a permanent basis; there are shanty towns all over the state of California and there are people living in tents, in slab parks and so on. It's the same kind of approach as Bill 3 — cutting back basic services. You cut back on the staff of the mental institutions. People are wandering the streets who should be having care. The children are being neglected. To attempt to impose that system, which is not functioning properly in California as an approach to financing the needs of the state, on British Columbia has got to be about the most simple-minded set of Ouija-board economics we've ever heard of.

We oppose Bill 3 because it is the Big Brother approach to government. It makes the claim that the cabinet will determine.... Mr. Speaker, could I just try to create a cartoon in your mind about what this bill really is? It's some kind of an octopus that exists here in the cabinet chamber with tentacles that extend to all aspects of government in the province in terms of the kinds of services provided, the hiring of those people and the conditions under which those people will be employed and work. It is an alien concept. It is not the consensus notion that the Financial Times called for. Now the Financial Times would be a paper that the Social Credit government would want to appeal to. That is a paper in which the Bay Street investors would be reading about developments in British Columbia and about how the government is doing in creating a stable investment climate where there is predictability, where the labour force is somewhat contented, where it is possible to work on a negotiated basis for a piece of the resource action or the manufacturing action, or lever their way into doing some kind of value-added endeavour in the economy. But we don't see that at all.

"Consensus, Not Combat" is this editorial. This relates to Bill 3, Mr. Speaker. It says: "Politics seem to be getting more strident and harsh in Canada." For an investor that would be something that would be cause for concern, because the mark of a good politician or a political party that reads the mood of the community is that the mood of the community is not for confrontation but for cooperation and joint venturing — an understanding that we're in a tough spot and we've got to get together if we're going to get out of it. No one side of the equation has all the answers.

"The best recent example was the British Columbia budget. Fresh from its trouncing of the New Democrats in the provincial election, the Bennett government brought in one of the most stringent budgets ever seen in that polarized province. But Ottawa has also set that sort of tone in its unilateral moves against Newfoundland and Quebec on oil drilling and fisheries, and last week's federal cabinet meeting in Meach Lake near Ottawa seemed to do it as well.

"The British Columbia government, like those of other provinces, needs to get its deficit down, but a 16.6 increase in the retail sales tax" — you know, Mr. Speaker, I hadn't actually set pen to paper on what that increase was; I thought it was about 14 percent, but it's 16.6 percent — "may not be precisely what the doctor ordered to promote economic recovery."

And to take on the bureaucracy, in the sense of the unilateral action, is medicine the doctor certainly didn't order. Nobody asked for it. It wasn't part of the prescription in the last provincial election. Why are we seeing it being pounded into the social fabric of this province now?

I think it's relevant to talk about some of the community newspapers around the province, and I'm sure that you're aware of the Arrowsmith Star. With respect to Bill 3, there's a bit of a preamble and then it says: "Civil servants are going to have their ranks reduced, thus increasing this province's already abysmal unemployment rate." I think the provincial government had the simplistic idea that as they cut people from the provincial government they would automatically, somehow, have investment capital to go and rent unoccupied space in some mall in a community, buy a lot of stock, and then start selling it to people on the street who have lots of money in their pockets. Of course, that's totally ridiculous.

"We realize cuts have to be made somewhere, but it's the little guy that's being hit the hardest." This is a recurring theme all the way through all of the editorials: why, in a province with this strength and wealth and so on, is it the little person who has to be hit the hardest? As a part of the principle of Bill 3.... It's not just the firing of those workers in that fashion; it's also the services being taken away from the people who need them most. This is what we can't seem to get through to that government at all. I wonder whether it's because they've always.... There's a preponderance of wealthy people in the Social Credit government. We know people who have never.... Some of them may have worked hard, but they've never gone without....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Well, maybe. But you're not in the cabinet; you're just a thumper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw, please. I find that term unparliamentary.

MR. HANSON: I'll withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed, and to the bill.

[11:15]

MR. HANSON: The Arrowsmith Star says:

"There are a hell of a lot of little guys in this province who put in an honest day's work for a day's pay and still find it hard to make ends meet. They're the ones who are going to find it even tougher. It's a bitter pill to swallow. especially when the Premier's relatives get government postings at inflated salaries. Could it be, Bill, that your election victory has gone to your head" — that's a question, Mr. Speaker, in this editorial — "that you have misinterpreted the mandate given you in the May 5 election?"

We have been saying that over and over again through the course of the debate on various bills.

"We're afraid that might be so. Pre-election feeling, as we understood it, Mr. Bennett, was for a government that would hold the line on spending. We don't believe that mandate allowed you to kick the people of the province in the shins. Your government's budget is an exceptionally tough one. We have to wonder if it will be an effective one, since you are forcing the people of this province to tighten their belts so much they risk cutting off their circulation."

That's an editorial written in good, lay language; it's very descriptive. It talks about Bill 3 and the budget package, and it asks the rhetorical question: why would a government attack the poorest and the weakest, and why would it embark upon measures that tighten the belts so much they cut off the

[ Page 1702 ]

circulation of the economy? I think that's an excellent analogy and very descriptive of the kind of condition we find ourselves in here on Tuesday or Wednesday or whatever day it is today.

Trail. I'm not very familiar with Trail and, in fact, I've never visited Trail. I do know that Trail is a smelter town. I believe it was the largest smelter in the world, although I don't know whether it still is. There you have private sector employment on a very large scale, and an editorial that states: "The main message of the budget, in Curtis's words...."

"Government has grown too large, and to this end hundreds of thousands of civil servants, teachers, municipal and regional district employees, college professors and others face dismissal when current contracts expire. Attrition will eliminate 6,800 civil service jobs in the next year. Curtis is at pains to remind us that government is getting too large. He is not so adept at remembering that all but four years of that growth have taken place while his party was in office. Yet while such favoured government officials as Doug Heal are rewarded with annual salary increases of $10,000, he takes aim at the people who make the bureaucracy function."

Again, right on Bill 3.

"Getting rid of civil servants is a politically clean task, unless you happen to be a government MLA from Victoria. There are none. The object of trimming waste from government is laudable, but the Premier and his cabinet appear oblivious to the results of their approach. Putting a quarter million people on notice of possible job termination is not going to do much to increase productivity, which is going to counter some of the savings from the slashing."

Mr. Speaker, this editorial — and I'm going to go on, because there's a bit more to read — indicates that it's false economics to put a quarter of a million people on notice for possible job termination. It doesn't increase productivity; it doesn't increase confidence in the community. It smacks of that malice and vindictiveness that is the hallmark of this budget package. Bill 3 is certainly a central feature and a mainstay of that package.

He goes on to talk about sales tax, hospital user fees and so on, but to make sure I'm in order and not talking on another bill, I'm going to confine my remarks to Bill 3. There are specific implications in Bill 3 that are much broader than simply the termination of government workers, and it has a massive impact on the economy.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the NDP does not hold the Kamloops seat in this Legislature, yet Kamloops editorials are kicking the daylights out of the government's budget and Bill 3.

"We were warned, but still, the latest offering of the B.C. Spirit, courtesy of Thursday's budget, has a bitter taste. The provincial government, in its effort to promote recovery through restraint, has given too few people too much restraint for too little recovery."

That's a very interesting, and a good, turn of phrase.

"With a $1.6 billion deficit, the Socreds had some tough decisions to make. Some of the budget measures, while tough to swallow, can be defended and even applauded as necessary. Many British Columbians are living relatively high off the hog and can afford to tighten their belts somewhat to contribute towards extracting the government from its precarious financial position."

Banks, just to name one that comes to mind, are enterprises which have done extremely well during the recession and depression. Their contribution, plowing some of those enormous profits back into job creation and so on, has certainly never occurred.

The Kamloops Sentinel goes on to say:

"The Premier was wrong in believing voters were calling for a wholesale reweaving of the social economic fabric which binds the province. Take the civil servant, for example. Productivity now will be the watchword. No job is secure. What worker is going to be productive when he or she doesn't know if their position is important enough to be kept when the union contract expires? So instead of spending, tens of thousands of civil servants will be socking money into the bank just in case the government deems their jobs disposable. Savings tucked away in bank accounts does nothing to stimulate the economy. That money doesn't buy goods and services, which in turn create jobs. Bennett is walking a tightrope. While attempting to put a lid on government spending, he is running the risk of stalling the recovery."

Again, Mr. Speaker, we've said that Bill 3 is a stall of the economy. It puts it into a power dive. Any signs that we had earlier on regarding a recovery are not being seen now. Extracting that amount of disposable capital from the economy by saying to 250,000 families, "You'd better put the money in a sock because you're not going to be able to have the security of knowing how long your employment is going to last...." That is a massive extraction of possible capital out of the economy, and clearly it has hurt us very badly.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). He knows full well that we have a rule in this House that you don't sit reading a newspaper out in the open. I would ask that that member read the standing orders — this little red book.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, if that member would read that rule carefully, he would find that it's permissible to read a newspaper in this House if you're doing so in order to prepare for a speech.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on that same point, it's demonstrable that this government and its supporters have not been speaking on anything in this House for the last 48 hours. Is the member anticipating something a year or two from now? Are we to put up with this behaviour as a result of this myth that he's trying to create? Two-story Jack!

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's incumbent upon every member of this House to be prepared to give a speech at any time, and that's what I'm doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we're well aware of the rules about reading newspapers in the House, for pleasure or in preparing for a speech.

MR. HANSON: There is an editorial in the Province that I think is significant, and it's about Bill 3. It talks about academic freedom, and I think I should read that into the

[ Page 1703 ]

record. We haven't seen the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

"The provincial government must make it crystal clear that it is not weakening the universities' exclusive power to control the hiring and firing of academics. Any equivocation will hurt, if it hasn't already, the ability of B.C.'s three universities to recruit and retain top-notch researchers and teachers nationally and internationally."

Mr. Speaker, that's a significant point. As many people know, the rate of participation of our young people in university is one of the lowest in the country. At a time when we should be having our....

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that jovial minister, who is also missing his lunch fortuitously — but at least he can go out in the hall and roam around and do whatever he likes — had the temerity to call across the floor that this particular member is the House flunkey. I ask him to withdraw that remark.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In response to the member's....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. hon. member, When a member raises a point of order, I am not going to allow debate to take place on that matter. The member for New Westminster has found the remark to be offensive. The Chair will ask the hon. minister if, in the parliamentary traditions of this House, he would withdraw the remark which he made across the floor, and which, in the opinion of the Chair, is a derogatory remark.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member is mistaken. He said I called the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) a flunkey, but it was him I called an opposition flunkey. If finds that offensive, I guess I'll withdraw it. I'll find some other terminology.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, but we cannot allow debate to take place on matters such as have been raised by the member for New Westminster.

[1:30]

MR. HANSON: Continuing on the editorial with respect to the status of academics and their future, any contemporary society that has political interference in its academic life is in serious jeopardy of becoming a fascist state. As I stated once earlier, "The American Association for the Advancement of Science gave an award to an Argentinian academic who had fought the firing without cause of academics in Argentina. That is a common strategy when you want to stifle creative thought and intellectual pursuit. I would have thought that the member of this House who should have been on his feet defending the age-old tradition of protection for university faculty to speak freely on all subjects, without fear of firing by a political master, would have been on his feet; but he wasn't, and isn't. In fact, I don't know what that member thinks. He attacks government employees, and yet he is a government employee himself He attacks tenure and he's tenured himself. I know he wanted to be the president of the University of British Columbia, and that failed. Maybe there is a bitterness there that has affected the way he perceives universities at large.

"University autonomy should not depend on the whimsy of the minister of the day or on cabinet regulation. Bill 3 should explicitly exclude academic employees of universities."

Again, when you apply the Gaglardi test to Bill 3.... It is a frightening thought: the university community totally controlled by Mr. Gaglardi. And I'm not taking his name in vain; I'm just trying to illustrate it using him because of his prominence as a Social Credit political figure and a person who had very clear ideas about university life. I once read a statement attributed to the Premier, that he was very proud he had never been inside a university. I don't think there should be a lot of snobbery surrounding the opportunity to get post-secondary education and so on, but when the first minister of this provincial government has the attitude that he is proud of having never been in university, that's what you call working-class snobbery. It indicates a narrowness of mind and viewpoint that doesn't serve the province well at all. Clearly, the technological revolution means that we need competent people working in areas such as are presently working under Bill 3. We need good engineers, good technicians and scientists, people who can, in a very free manner, investigate opportunities and be critical of government expenditure in areas that are capital sink-holes and hold no promise in terms of investment for the future of our province.

Back to this editorial:

"University autonomy should not depend on the whimsy of the minister of the day or on cabinet regulation. Bill 3 should explicitly exclude academic employees of universities. The present Universities minister, Pat McGeer, says tenure, the system by which scholars who have won their academic spurs receive job security, is no longer needed to protect freedom of inquiry."

Mr. Speaker, reporters from the United States have come to sit in the gallery. Mr. Joel Connelly from the Seattle PI was particularly interested in this particular aspect of Bill 3. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Washington state has many large and very excellent universities. colleges and institutes, and the academic community in Washington state is looking at this bill and wondering what has happened, whether some kind of acid rain or something has been drifting north, some kind of effect that has influenced politicians in British Columbia to take action against the academic and intellectual community. That is one of the reasons, he advised me, that he had come to Victoria — because of the great interest among faculty.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The speaker has now been on his feet for over seven hours and I believe it would be reasonable and fair, in terms of decorum and understanding for the situation, to allow a small recess to enable the first member for Victoria....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. That is not a point of order and cannot be used to interrupt debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Then, Mr. Speaker, I would make a request of your position to allow the first member for Victoria to take a five-minute recess to allow him to....

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure that if the member is patient, all that is ordered in the universe will unfold as it should.

[ Page 1704 ]

MR. HANSON: Security of tenure for faculty at universities: I think the term "tenure" has resulted in a lot of confusion in the public press. Tenure really doesn't apply to government workers, bus drivers, firefighters, police officers. There is layoff and recall according to seniority provisions and so on, but tenure is a concept that applies to universities.

There is a concern in the Province editorial that top-flight specialists, PhD.... And let's not make any bones about it, people who specialize and get doctoral degrees or postdoctoral degrees are really treasures in a society. I know there is a lot of contempt in the popular approach of Social Credit to characterize them as eggheads and know-nothings, living on the public purse, and that is not true at all. PhDs in science, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, forestry, all these disciplines, make contributions to science that better everyone in society, and they could be harnessed. In British Columbia, because of 30 years of Social Credit, our PhD's are living in the Slocan Valley growing buckwheat and driving cabs. There is a resource that could have been harnessed. No ideas of reforestation, of properly managing our marine resources, and all of the other important areas that are so desperately....

We are in a vacuum. We have spent much of taxpayers' money training people in higher education and now don't provide opportunities for them to fulfil their tasks, to make a contribution that they desperately want to make. I have never yet met a PhD who didn't want a job, or didn't want to work in his area of interest. I think anybody who works for seven, eight, nine, ten or twelve years to become an expert in a specialized field wants to work in that field and make a contribution; but this government does not provide the environment that will attract them to British Columbia, attract them to come to a climate that appreciates scholarly activities — not just abstract scholarly activities, but things of direct benefit that could create jobs.

Something that holds great promise in British Columbia is the whole area of making food from wood products. A lot of people don't understand that there is milk protein in leaves. If you can extract the lignin — which is the horrible tasting part of leaves, if you have ever eaten any, Mr. Speaker — it makes a wonderful food protein. We have an abundance of forests and we don't harvest that at all. We don't have the food technology to maximize our potential in that area. There are all sorts of scientific endeavours that we could be benefiting from, but we are not creating a climate that academics of topnotch calibre would be happy to come to. We don't have to give them a lot more money. British Columbia is a wonderful place to live; they would love to come here anyway and live in Vancouver, Victoria, go to Simon Fraser. Someone to run for us in Point Grey would be nice, someone really good. We will match cerebral lobes with the present occupant of that seat over there.

I am not trying to be redundant and repetitive. I am just saying that when you have a provision in Bill 3 that takes away any kind of security from an academic, why would the academic come to British Columbia? If they can be attracted to any state of the United States, to European universities, Australia, New Zealand and so on, why would they come to a place that just wants to slap them around and treat them like second-class citizens? They don't have to deal with that; they can go elsewhere. And, Mr. Speaker, it is the society at large that will suffer.

Let's just hone in on medical research. We want the best possible medical research in the world. We want good quality health care for our citizens, and we don't get it from this government. We certainly want all the infrastructure and the institutions in place, so that when we form the government at some time in the future we could proceed to be one of the bright spots, one of the beacons, in the whole world, doing research for the benefit of all human beings on this tiny planet. There are many diseases that could be rectified and corrected if there was a willingness to provide the research environment to attract topnotch academics to come and work without being harassed by a simple-minded government that thinks it's smart not to have ever walked inside a university and that has contempt for people who have spent a good part of their lives trying to achieve excellence in a particular area. I have no specific regard for that attitude, which of course is exemplified here in Bill 3. And the inane comments of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).... The editorial says B.C. universities would become third-rate places "if politicians or other powerful persons could force firings of those they didn't like. Of course, tenure does shield some academic deadwood...."

You know, we hear this word "deadwood," but when you ask them to name names, boy, they sure run, because they would probably be slapped with some kind of lawsuit or slander case or something like that. They always try to justify getting awesome powers in order to get rid of deadwood, and as hard as I look, I have trouble finding a lot of deadwood. What I find instead are a lot of really good people, really good British Columbians who want to work for B.C., do a job, and they are offended by a government that doesn't appreciate them and tries to make political points. Every time they slip in the polls a bit they issue some statement slamming public sector employees. The chief rival on the right-wing side of this province, Mr. Vander Zalm, was a particular master at it. I think it's gutless. When a politician tries to win political epaulettes and points by pounding people who can't defend themselves, I think it lacks courage, and I think everyone in the community really looks down on a politician who does that.

[1:45]

"The university presidents and faculty association leaders who have criticized Bill 3 do not say universities should be spared while others suffer in tough financial times. They do insist, rightly, that universities must be left alone to cut programs and academic jobs themselves."

In other words, that age-old tradition that....

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:46 p.m.