[ Page 1705 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

B.C. Transit fare increases. Mr. Macdonald –– 1705

Removal of rent controls. Mr. Blencoe –– 1706

Northeast coal. Mr. Lea –– 1706

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

Mr. Hanson –– 1707

On the amendment

Mr. Passarell –– 1709

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1714

Mr. Skelly –– 1719

Mr. Macdonald –– 1724

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 1728

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1983

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. — REYNOLDS: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, is a lawyer from Vancouver, Mr. Paul Bowes, with the firm of Worrall, Scott and Page. I would like the House to make him welcome.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Miss Linda Carlson who is actually a constituent of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), but who is a volunteer and very hard worker for the people of British Columbia and the New Democratic Party. Would the House join me in making her welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the House today Canada's best known and loved band leader, a past president of the Vancouver Gyro club, a hardworking citizen dedicated to the betterment of British Columbia, an outstanding British Columbian and a great Canadian: Mr. Dal Richards, "Mr. Vancouver."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is a rare occasion when the government and the opposition can be in tune, and only a superb bandmaster could accomplish that. May I extend my welcome to the ageless Dal Richards.

MRS. DAILLY: In the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are five visitors from Burnaby North: June Tratch, Jim Forgaard, Ike Finlayson and Colleen and Frank Vipond. I wish the House would join me in welcoming them.

MR. PELTON: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, from the beautiful municipality of Maple Ridge, is a very good friend of mine, Mr. Sandy Macdougall. Sandy is presently an alderman in that municipality and has served the people there for many years. He tells me today that he is about to throw his hat into the ring in his fight to take over the mayor's job in the municipality this coming November. I would ask the House not only to welcome him, but to wish him the best of luck in November.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have several introductions I'd like to make. The first four are: Warren Huxley, director of the Alma Mater Society of the University of Victoria; Stephen Leary, chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students, Pacific region; Mike McNeill, fieldworker, Canadian Federation of Students, Pacific region; and Brian Stevenson, president of the AMS of the University of Victoria. I would like the House to welcome those representatives.

The other introduction I'd like to make is of old friends of mine who are now resident in the constituency of Nanaimo, Doug and Betty Cronk.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to introduce one of the hardworking volunteers in the Victoria MLAs' community office, Mr. Robert Arnold. Would the House make him welcome.

MS. SANFORD: In the galleries today is Randall Potts, a former researcher for the NDP caucus in Ottawa who has returned to British Columbia to attend the University of Victoria. I'd like the House to give him a warm welcome.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to add my word of welcome to Doug and Betty Cronk from my constituency. In addition, I'd like the House to welcome Alderman Dick Winkelman, who has been in the gallery off and on. I don't see him at the moment, but he was there this morning. I think he's learned a lot about the activities of the House since he's been here. I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. NICOLSON: It's indeed with pleasure that I would ask the House to welcome a couple of people from my riding: Maria Potochnik, who was a graduate in 1978 of the Friends' school in Argenta, and Donna Sassaman, also from Argenta and a former school trustee in School District 86.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to add my words of welcome to those of the member for Nanaimo for both of the guests he introduced, Doug Cronk and Dick Winkelman, both of whom I knew very well during the days when I was connected with B.C. Hydro. I would like to join in welcoming them here.

MS. BROWN: Andrew Pedder, a Rhodes scholar and brilliant lawyer, is floating around the precincts somewhere; maybe the House could bid him welcome — also, an old friend in the gallery. Robin Garry.

Oral Questions

B.C. TRANSIT FARE INCREASES

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Human Resources. B.C. Transit fare increases averaging 25 percent on the buses October 1 in eight cities; Hon. Premier making the statement that although the restraint under the Crown corporation fare increases act was to be repealed, fare increases by Crown corporations would not happen. Has the minister decided to get in touch with B.C. Transit and tell them to curtail those increases in view of the Premier's statement that the Crown corporations would not be allowed to raise their rates, as they are doing in B.C. Transit?

[2:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. MACDONALD: Let me just ask this supplementary, and then perhaps one more. What is the cost then that the minister has had under consideration for the past three or four weeks for this ridiculous painting of the buses by B.C. Transit to the U.S.A. and SCP colours of red, white and blue? What is the cost, why is that program continuing, and has the minister decided to cut it so that B.C. Transit will not have to raise fares?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member did not mention that they are also the colours of the Union Jack, and many other combinations we could rely on.

The reference to the painting of the buses, which is a maintenance program undertaken by all of those who have the responsibility for keeping vehicles on the road, whether it be the private sector in the trucking industry or the public sector in the transit business.... That goes on apace and has no reference whatsoever to nor does it in any way derive

[ Page 1706 ]

from the fare structure. It is part of the ongoing maintenance which all transit companies throughout North America undertake, and this in no way is unusual.

However, the member has a question which I took as notice which is separate, indeed, from the first one he has asked today, and I will be very pleased to bring that information back to the House when all of the specific information is made available to me.

MR. MACDONALD: Another supplementary question. Has the minister decided to review the cutback to B.C. Transit that's set out in vote 51? In view of the spiralling public costs, with higher fares, reduced numbers of riders, lower revenues, more cars on the road, more exhaust fumes, more accidents, more roads to be built, and the imposition of hardship upon low-income people who ride the buses, has the minister decided to review the severe cut in the subsidy to B.C. Transit which is contained in vote 51 ?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Frankly, I think implicit in the question is a criticism, if you like, of those who are charged with the responsibility not only for a very effective and well-run transit system throughout this province, but one in which they do keep within their budget and deliver a service that probably isn't given anywhere else on this continent. I would suggest that the budget which is made available is being very well administered by the board of directors to whom we give that responsibility. It is not within their jurisdiction to overexpend the budget and they will not be doing so; but they will, as they have always done, deliver top-rate service. Where there are routes that are not viable, they will, as they did even in the affluent years of our province's history, be addressing them, and will replace them with routes which are more viable.

The House must understand that this transportation business is ever-changing, just as our needs in many areas are changing. It is all driven by the marketplace and we will be having changes. I am sure the member knows that.

MR. MacDONALD: Another short supplementary. I was not criticizing B.C. Transit; it is the government that has reduced the subsidy to B.C. Transit, down from $91 million to $78 million. Has the government decided to review that so that these fare increases will not be imposed on people?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The government has already reviewed it. In the budget for this year B.C. Transit, no less than any other area of government, is cutting its cloth to suit its capabilities. The reference is to minimal increases, which still makes the fare that is being charged in the marketplace a very reasonable one for the service given. I think the member would have to agree that it is reasonable when one compares it with rates all over this nation, and even the continent.

REMOVAL OF RENT CONTROLS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet). The September 1983 issue of Housing Quarterly, published by the minister's ministry, indicates, and I quote: "The immediate effect of removing rent control will be upward pressure on rents." Has the minister decided to bring this information to the attention of his cabinet colleagues?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe that information has been well publicized. What has not been well publicized are the good things in the report, and there are many of them.

MR. BLENCOE: This same report informs us that the current vacancy rate is only temporary and that by June of next year renters will again be competing for scarce apartments and be facing increased rents. In light of the information in this report, has the minister decided to recommend that the order abolishing rent controls be rescinded?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If the member wishes to quote, he could go on and finish the quotation, which says: "...which in turn will result in an uptrend in the building of rental units."

MR. BLENCOE: Isn't that interesting; the report is quite clear that your policies are not going to create increased housing. A supplementary question. In view of this shocking revelation, will the minister not admit that government policies will cause skyrocketing rents in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEA: A question to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is in charge of northeast coal. I know the Premier, as head of government, is very familiar with the northeast coal project.

Japanese buyers have approached Quintette and Bullmoose in the northeast coalfields with the thought that they would like to negotiate either new tonnages, new prices or a combination of prices and tonnages downward. If the tonnages go down, it means the taxpayers of the province have to pick up the extra costs, because there is a $3 surcharge on each tonne to pay off the public debt to build the rail line. If the prices go down, then the companies are in the position of having to pick up the pieces in that area. I would like to ask the Premier what the government has decided the proper formula would be, as the taxpayers have a big stake in this. Would it be just from tonnage, just from prices, or would it be a combination? If so, what would the combination of price and tonnage be?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question on notice for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

MR. LEA: A different question to the same minister. A report brought out by B.C. Hydro says that by 1985 we will have markets for only 60 percent of the coal we produce — that's from a Crown corporation of the government. Has the Premier's office, or has government, examined this document and projection by B.C. Hydro? If so, do you have an opinion as to its accuracy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I haven't examined that document, but my recent discussions with General Park from Pohang Iron and Steel in Korea and with officials from NKK, which negotiates on behalf of all companies in the Japanese steel industry, make me far more optimistic that that.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, we'd all like to be optimistic because it's to the benefit of the people of the province that northeast coal is a success. If it isn't, it's going to cost taxpayers money. I'm asking the Premier if he has taken any

[ Page 1707 ]

initiative whatsoever, as the head of government, to look at this project and to make some decisions surrounding what's best for the taxpayer. Or is the Premier saying that he has not examined this in any way? If that's the case, fine. We'll wait until the minister comes back.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert really reinforces the need for what the government is doing: that is, not only holding talks with existing markets but having an aggressive offshore marketing program for investment in markets by all ministers in the government. At the present time, the minister for whom I took the question as notice, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, Don Phillips, is travelling in Europe. One of the areas will be to develop additional coal markets in those countries. He is also visiting — for the first time, of course — the Eastern Bloc, Yugoslavia, to seek market opportunities there.

As part of the government's international marketing strategy, and recognizing that two-thirds of British Columbia's economy comes from exports.... If it wasn't for our ability to produce and compete internationally, our economy would be one-third the size of what it is now, and we would be hard-pressed as a people to have any services at all, let alone to provide the type of employment opportunity that we want for our people. We will be having very high-powered, specific delegations of ministers in all areas, not only those to do with resources but also with secondary manufacturers and increased tourism on a planned basis, seeking markets and investment around the world. Later this week the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) will be embarking on a major mission to Korea, where we have an opportunity, for the first time, to expand our tourist business.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you how this relates: Korea is one of the new markets we have for coal....

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I think I've been fairly lenient with the Premier. He's gone to a topic that I didn't ask him about and I think that's against the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: While open-ended questions have a tendency to elicit open-ended responses, nonetheless, hon. members, when responding it is incumbent upon the member responding to at least contain the remarks somewhere within the confines of the question that has been asked.

I would ask the Premier to conclude his remarks.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If I could conclude my remarks, it was from a major mission that I led to Korea two years ago that we got the coal contracts from Pohang Iron and Steel and made contact with Korea Electric. Korea has now lifted the embargo on travel of their people to be international tourists. That's why it's timely, in conjunction with that, that the Minister of Tourism take the earliest opportunity to take advantage of that market, and that's why the Hon. Claude Richmond will be making that trip.

[2:30]

MR. LEA: We're actually pleased that the government is going out trying to sell coal; it's to all of our benefit. But at the same time, we also understand the bit of franticness that's going on because the original figures and markets for northeast coal obviously aren't there. We're concerned, and we hope these new markets come.

I'd like to ask the Premier if he could tell the House whether, to his knowledge. there has been an approach, either to government or to the coal interests in northeast coal, by NKK to negotiate either tonnage or prices downward.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker. I just recently met with the officials of NKK and that subject ~.k as not brought up to me. I cannot say whether they're negotiating to increase their tonnage from British Columbia — from the southeast, the northeast and other coal-producing areas — or not, or whether their forecasts for steel production, at a time when steel production capacity is at its lowest ebb in years in which they have been maintaining shipments.... I'm not sure what their forecasts on the ten-year basis are, but I do know that British Columbia would intend to take full advantage of an increased percentage share of coal and other resources. not only in our traditional markets, but in the markets of the world, in which British Columbia has made a very favourable impression.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill 3 impairs British Columbia's opportunities to recover in the economic climate that presently obtains in this province. Bill 3 undermines the confidence of the working people of British Columbia, in that their government has turned on them as the reason for the misfortune that befalls our economy. There are many analysts, both here and abroad, who indicate that the course of the government's present legislative package, the direction in which the government is taking us, leads nowhere but to conflict and instability and to a lack of confidence among our own citizens.

I want to cite a couple of observations that are made by various reviewers and analysts. One of them is the B.C. Public Interest Research Group, which states that the drastic budgetary measures of the Social Credit government in Victoria are currently impairing the economy of the province and that the notion that somehow the ordinary people of the province are responsible for our predicament is false. I have a report from New York which states very clearly that when governments proceed on a course, which is often very popular initially, to lay off public sector employees as some kind of cost-saving or efficiency measure, it is false economy, and, in actual fact, the public is ill-served.

I would like to read the abstract from this report, which states:

"In a number of instances the state has chosen to reduce its workforce through layoffs. Doing so has resulted in immediate apparent savings, but also, to some degree, in costly side-effects which have not been fully counted and are thus not fully heeded in a state's decision making. These include the costs of

[ Page 1708 ]

insecurity-induced quitting of valuable employees, the lower productivity which accompanies layoff anxiety and unemployment compensation chargebacks for the large number of people that find themselves on other sources of income such as social insurance and unemployment insurance. These costs are not equated into the cost formula when right-wing governments embark upon what they perceive to be a popular political move to ingratiate themselves to the electorate.... Planned attrition programs represent one way of eliminating many of the costs of these side benefits while maintaining most of the savings of layoffs. The study explored the hypothesis that the attrition strategy can be more cost-effective than the layoff strategy."

Mr. Speaker, it was clear from the Provincial Secretary's letter to his own employees in January of this year that attrition was the desirable mode by which he was suggesting cost savings be made in government and that as people retired or left government for whatever reason, they not.... Mr. Speaker, the letter indicated that because of the natural outflow of various types of workers leaving the public service, attrition would be the desirable mode of reducing any numbers during this recession period. That view was held by all of the bargaining agents for all of the 250,000 workers affected by this bill. Clearly if a person retires or leaves the public service for their own reasons and leaves that position vacant and it is not necessary to refill it for one reason or another, that is the desirable course rather than wholesale terminations for people whose livelihoods depend on that revenue to maintain body and soul, to keep their families together, to look after the needs of their own immediate kin.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What happened? Why did the government abandon that course? Was it a strategy that they were aware of right from the beginning, or did they embark upon a course shortly thereafter and the whole letter and correspondence with their own staff was a contrivance to try and facilitate the prospect of an election which we knew was coming in the fall or in the spring? The government was clearly hedging their bets by telling the 50,000 employees scattered throughout this province in all manner of public services and also other public sector trade unions that they had nothing to fear from a Social Credit government; rather, they should have confidence in the government's willingness to cooperate with them in ensuring that no abrupt, disruptive haemorrhaging of the economy was to take place — nothing that would impair what appeared to be at that time the incipient steps of a recovery based on timber sales and other activity south of the border.

The government employees of this province have been betrayed. As I pointed out earlier, we are in an international observatory in the sense that governments in Europe, Japan and in the United States are looking at British Columbia and disclaiming the approaches embarked upon by the Premier of this province and his cabinet. Clearly the opportunities for doing something constructive and positive rather than something that damages the economy and will, if not corrected and withdrawn, wreak havoc on this economy and will be with us in terms of negative aspects throughout our social and economic fabric for years and years to come if the government is not convinced of the growing opinion outside of this Legislature that the government is on a course that doesn't have the confidence of the people that elected this cabinet....

The New York study indicates that mass layoffs are bad economics. They do not stimulate the economy; they create more uncertainty and a climate of fear. What we have been saying through the course of our deliberations and our opposition to this bill is that the government, if it were prepared to do the mature, adult thing and recognize that the right-wing advisers who have been advising and have had the ear of government over the last while have charted a course which is alien to the government we have come to understand in Canada, the people of the province would clearly breathe a sigh of relief and would commend the government for their wisdom and courage in stopping in mid-course and making the decision that they have been ill-advised and should be taking a different course. I say that in the hope that they will do it, but every indication — in their behaviour this session to ramrod the package of bills that hurt the elderly, the poor and the least able in our society to protect themselves — is that the government seems committed and confident, because of these advisers, that they're on a course that will be of some benefit to all of us.

We have editorials in newspapers which have headlines that we have never seen in the history of British Columbia, such as: "Why All of This Bloodshed?" "Consensus Not Combat." "Labour's Taste of British Columbia." "Budget Hurts The Little Guy." "Help in the Budget is Minimal." "Budget Wrong Recovery Route." These editorials come from areas of the province that are not at present represented by New Democratic Party members. They are areas that oftentimes have expressed views of the rugged, individualistic, non-cooperative and non-consensual approach to public policy. They feel that an individual must stand on his own two feet and that the government's responsibility is not to all citizens to ensure that the poorest of society are protected. Yet these editors, for some reason, have come to understand that the government has embarked upon a course that is not in the best interests of our beautiful province.

[2:45]

In places such as Kamloops, Quesnel, Telkwa and Armstrong and throughout the central interior of the province — the traditional power base of the Social Credit Party for some years — newspapers have clearly denounced Bill 3 as a bill which serves no useful purpose. There is now an understanding and astuteness in all of these areas that Bill 3 is some kind of vindictive response of the government to cut away any opposition to this government and to use the public sector employees — who cannot speak out against the government — as scapegoats who are solely responsible for our present predicament.

Over and over in the study in New York state the researchers indicate how initially desirable, politically, is the notion of cutting back on government — all the buzzwords we hear in this Legislature, cutting back on services and red tape, all the things we have come to hear so frequently from Social Credit over the last few years. But in the final analysis they indicate a lack of understanding of the public service and its importance in our mixed economy and as an agency of management of resources which plays an advocacy role protecting the public against market forces that would, at the earliest opportunity, take advantage of situations that ought not to be taken advantage of.

[ Page 1709 ]

I pointed out that the government has attempted to divide the working people of the province into essentially two categories, although there is a third very large category of working people whom the government has designs on, to limit their particular bargaining position in society; they are the unorganized people in the workforce. The government has attempted to divide those who work for public sector employers, painting them as not productive and not wealth-generating, and painting those in the private sector as the engines of recovery and the kind of employment that is desirable. Clearly, that is an incredibly simplistic and silly approach. With fantastic accolades to the working people in both the private- and public-sector organized workforces. they have refused to accept to any major extent the government's argument and now have joined together with community organizations throughout this province to attempt to explain the course that this government is taking us on, the dismantling of the British Columbia we know and understand into some kind of society that harks back to early times. It is some kind of simplistic, classics-comic notion of economics. and the public is beginning to understand it in a major way. That is why this incredible opposition to Bill 3.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd just like to introduce a constituent of both the first and second members for Victoria, Mrs. Sue Douglas, and her young son Allan. I hope the House will make her welcome this afternoon.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, over the last few days I have been speaking on the serious issues of Bill 3 and other bills. My colleagues and I have been registering our opposition to the course this government is taking us on. I want to say to the 250,000 families in British Columbia who have pinned their hopes on us that we will continue to fight to the best of our ability to oppose this bill. The road that we are on with this budget package is a long road. The resolve of the members on this side is to defend the legitimate rights of the people of this province. The fundamental challenge to democratic rights that is occurring in this province is unprecedented. We will continue to fight and oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have been talking to the government through you for ten hours. I am now going to move a motion, and I would ask that you accept this motion on a reasoned amendment. My motion is that the motion be amended by leaving out all of the words following "that" and substituting therefore the following: "it is the opinion of this House that every consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose measures which would encourage practices of political patronage through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will allow debate to proceed before making any determination on the amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker. at times when we come down to this Legislature and there are a lot of games that go on, a lot of things that happen in public life....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I'd like to know what he's speaking on. Is he speaking on the amendment that's just been put forward here? You have accepted the amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I haven't said anything yet, but I'm prepared to let the member....

HON. MR. CHABOT: We shouldn't allow debate to take place until such time as we determine whether the amendment is in order or not.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It is traditional to allow debate on an amendment until such time as the Chair can rule on the amendment. That has been a tradition and courtesy of this House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Has that been a tradition in this House? I'm not familiar with it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the records will show it has been done this week already. The member for Atlin will continue, and the Chair will arrive at a decision shortly.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. A wise decision.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We don't know whether the amendment is in order or not, yet debate is taking place on it. That's simply ridiculous.

MR. PASSARELL: Ridiculous is what I've seen in this House in the last few days by the government. Mr. Speaker, I try to be a reasonable man around this place, and when I see the Provincial Secretary trying to shove this stuff down the throats of the people of British Columbia, I get a little concerned. We've been going in this House for two days — nights, mornings, right straight through. Why? Because this is a dictatorial government. If you stand up in this House — if you go out in the hallways and try to make some statements around this — it's shoved down your throat.

I have never been so embarrassed in all my life. Standing here and trying to be reasonable and talking with people across this floor and trying to show some kind of compassion here, and what do we see? This Bill 3. We see this kind of junk being pushed down our throats. And what happens? The government members don't even stand in their place even to defend themselves. You stand in your place....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Wasting time.

MR. PASSARELL: Wasting time! If I've ever seen a waste of time, Madam Member, it's this bill right here in front of us talking about thousands of people who you people are trying to dump because of this restraint bill. And you talk about a waste of time. Don't people matter to you — their livelihood, their jobs, their concerns, their families? What do you think this bill is going to do, Madam Member for Surrey?

[ Page 1710 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: What about the taxpayers?

MR. PASSARELL: That's something I'd like to talk about, Mr. Speaker: the taxpayers. You people have been going around saying it costs $80,000 or $100,000 a day to keep this place open.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, not knowing whether or not you've approved the amendment, I guess the hon. member is continuing, but I think it would be proper if he addressed the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good point. The member, I'm sure, can address the amendment on Bill 3, always bearing in mind that temperance and moderation are a parliamentary courtesy.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm a poor old country boy and I try to be moderate, Mr. Speaker. But when we see this government going out and playing a charade of telling people that we're holding up all legislation and costing the taxpayers in this province $80,000 or $100,000 or whatever figure comes into their head at that specific time — what about the poor people in this place that they've kept going here for days? The people in the library, the people down in the legislative dining room, the security guards...

MS. SANFORD: The Hansard people.

MR. PASSARELL: ...the Hansard people. They cost extra money. And it's not us; it's you people who are doing this — you and your leader. If you want to save money, withdraw this bill. That's probably the best cost-saving measure in this province. Withdraw this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MR. PASSARELL: It even would be better, Mr. Speaker, for this government to resign. But we know that that's a little too unbelievable.

That is something that gets in my craw, when I hear this government talking on how much extra money it's costing. You bring in this Public Sector Restraint Act, Bill 3. Do you know what the cost is going to be to the province, to society, when you start going around canning people just because you don't care for what they look like or what their political beliefs are? What are these people supposed to do?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on welfare.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, yes, that's right: go on welfare. Then where's the cost, Mr. Speaker? What we're finding in this province today is a welfare state being developed by this Social Credit government. Is that called free enterprise? I doubt it.

[3:00]

You have a majority, and I doubt if there is anybody in this province who does not understand that you had an election on May 5. They gave you a confidence. They gave you a majority.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: A lot of things I'm saying, Mr. Member for Omineca, have been right. But you have been given the right, through an election.... The people have put their faith in your government, but they did not give you a mandate for Bill 3. There was no mention of this prior to the election. You ran on restraint, and I doubt if there's any political party in this country that is opposed to restraint.

MS. SANFORD: They're there under false pretences.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, I'd have to agree with that statement.

In the recent amendment the word "justice" was mentioned. I doubt if there's any hon. member in this House who does not understand what justice is about. In our early childhood we learned about a "fair shake" and a "straight deal." I sit here at times and get a little upset with the innuendoes and comments that go across this floor about our previous occupations. It's a joke to some people in this House that certain members were automobile dealers. I find nothing funny about that. When you're in the business world, Mr. Speaker, one thing that you have to do is have fair practices and give our consumer a fair shake, regardless of what your occupation is.

There is nothing fair about this bill. When it was first presented, this government, through its ill-conceived legislation, stated that they could fire people without cause. What type of legislation is that? I have never heard of any similar legislation being enacted in North America or any democracy. Without cause — because they don't like your political beliefs, the colour of your hair or your sex they can fire you.

After the initial furor, what happened about this bill? It went very deep in society to the people who are concerned about this. It broke apart political labels. People were definitely concerned about this bill and its implications. Without cause! Then we heard this hoopla story about the amendments that were going to come in. Has anybody here seen those amendments? Where are the regulations which were supposed to bring this bill more into line with the democracy we grew up to respect?

AN HON. MEMBER: The amendments are right here on the order paper.

MR. PASSARELL: Where are the regulations which were promised, Mr. Minister?

I know the difference when I see someone trying to pull the blinders over the horse. You're trying to deflect a little from the public outcry that is coming about your bill. Once people really start to see that Bill 3 doesn't save anybody any money.... It just gives you some kind of draconian measures to can people in the public service when you want to.

MS. SANFORD: And destroy families in the process.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Will you shut up.

MR. PASSARELL: I would like the member to withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests made an unparliamentary remark. I will ask the minister to withdraw the remark.

[ Page 1711 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The remark which was made to another hon. member.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to hear the member speaking and the other member kept nattering so I asked her to shut up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Okay, I'll withdraw. Keep jabbering then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The remark has been withdrawn, and perhaps if the hon. member for Comox does not interject, then we can maintain orderly debate and hear the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL: Getting back to the amendment which was presented before that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to indicate that with this bill the government has gone to the very basic roots of what we in this country have grown to respect, and that's justice.

As a teacher before being anointed to this honourable Legislature in two elections....

AN HON. MEMBER: You were elected, not anointed.

MR. PASSARELL: Lucky? I've been lucky, and you people are lucky right now that more and more people across this province aren't finding out what your real measures are all about. Dictatorial! Sitting here all night trying to jam this stuff down our throats, and then saying it's costing the taxpayers $80,000 a day. You are the people who are imposing this upon them. What about the poor Hansard people who have to sit here for 24 hours a day, or the people in the library or the good ladies down in the restaurant? You forget about those people, just like this bill is trying to forget about certain people in this province who grew up to respect justice, grew up to respect a government because of the authority, regardless of whether it was NDP or Liberal or Conservative or Social Credit. But I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, this bill is starting to worry people out there. They are becoming very afraid of what this government is trying to do.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is this your leadership speech?

MR. PASSARELL: No, my leadership speech will be left to an appropriate time. This isn't an appropriate time for jokes, Mr. Provincial Secretary. You're talking about people's livelihoods with this bill.

MS. SANFORD: It's callous, and the Speaker is laughing. He doesn't care.

MR. PASSARELL: It is callous but, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this to laugh about. There are times that we have legislation in front of us that we can kibob with each other and throw things across the floor. This isn't something to be funny about. It's serious.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're the funny one.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Provincial Secretary is the funny one. Go stand and look in a mirror, if you can, after bringing this kind of legislation forward to people.

This bill imposes itself upon not just one group of people in the province, one sector of workers; it goes right across and deals with thousands and thousands of people in this province. I'm sure the government has some fairy-tale type of thinking that we're going to put one speaker up and he or she is going to pretend that there are bad parts and there are good parts and we're going to have an initial debate of 40 minutes and then boom, we're going to have a vote on it and then you can implement it. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the government really realizes and understands the depth and the powers that this bill entitles you to have. What's next? We're talking in this bill, intituled Public Sector Restraint Act, about termination of employees....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I really am not concerned how many speakers the official opposition puts up in regard to this amendment. However many they do put up, I wish they would speak to the amendment and not to the bill. We've been on the bill for several hours. We took care of that just very recently and we're now on an amendment. I have yet to find that the member on his feet is speaking to that amendment.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The subamendment, in terms of a reasoned amendment, has been thoroughly researched. The focus is on the justice of the bill and the member has been focusing on the word "justice" throughout his debate. I don't think meaningless interjections serve any useful purpose.

MR. PASSARELL: As the public record will show to my hon. friend from Omineca, I have used the word "justice" from the amendment numerously in the last 15 minutes.

MR. KEMPF: That's the only connection you've used.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be able to please that member today with this. Frankly, I don't give...but on to the amendment.

One of the analyses of why this amendment was brought forward for Bill 3, Mr. Speaker, is that some of the implications of this bill have been looked upon by not just residents in this province.... Sometimes I think we can coop ourselves up into this rock of the island where the capital is located and forget what the people outside — the residents and the citizens are thinking about. This bill has travelled off this rock, out of this province, across the mountains and across the continent; it has international implications when it comes to labour standards. It also deals with constitutional and human rights. We have seen this government attempt to erode human rights in this province. We're seeing the denial of natural justice — centralization of government through this bill — erosion of autonomy in the public sector belief. There have been many barbs thrown across into the media that the New Democratic Party takes its orders from big unions. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing further from the truth when it comes to taking orders. What we're dealing with in this bill are residents who work in this province, who pay taxes to keep this government able to half afford some of the projects that they're going through with. They come back and say: "Hey, give us a fair shake. What is this about firing

[ Page 1712 ]

us without just cause and putting us on some computer list in Richmond to see what our political persuasions are?" Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day.

MS. SANFORD: All three back-benchers who are here are asleep. That's how much they care.

MR. PASSARELL: No, they're not asleep. They're paying attention. If they're not paying attention, they're probably embarrassed and ashamed of this government that they're part of, bringing in such a bill as Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has allowed the government almost a blank cheque, to dismiss, if they want, 250,000 public employees in this province without advance specification of the criteria. There are no safeguards in this legislation. I see in front of me, in the bill itself, that there are no safeguards. What one has to do, Mr. Speaker, is read this bill in conjunction with the elimination of the human rights branch. I know I'm straying from the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I'll take your wisdom on that.

One of the aspects of this government's legislation, on the particular amendment that we're talking about, is that it gives power to the government to reassign, reclassify and relocate any public service employee. Now I don't believe that when you get into the public service it's a job for life. But if you're doing a damn good job, then there's no reason why you should be canned. To talk about relocating any public sector employee in this province because you're not pleased with somebody who's working in Dease Lake, and they just happen to belong to a political party that opposes you....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: We can't do that, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), outside the province. I think the two of us have a simpler belief in some of the people we'd like to go up to talk to.

But to relocate any public service employee because they just might, in the discretion of the individual who's making that decision, belong to another political party or have long hair or a beard.... Because of something that whoever is making this decision doesn't like about the individual — they've just bought a new home, or reinvested in a car — boom, they're relocated.

[3:15]

Another aspect of this bill is that it guts what we're talking about in the amendment — justice. I think that's an important word. It was put into what was brought across your desk 20 minutes ago, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that we grew up respecting, particularly we who have worked, is a collective agreement. Now we find out that terminations may be done when the government pleases.

I know the Provincial Secretary had brought in some further information on this bill because of the public outcry about dismissal without cause. They brought in some mumbo-jumbo legal terminology. In a sense, you just can't do it without cause now; you can just can, if you want to, 250,000 people in this province because there's no more money left for that specific job in that area. So if you wanted to get rid of public sector workers in the far north, in the Highways department, you just say: "There's no more money in that specific area for this year."

The amendment to the motion, Mr. Speaker, should be read into the record again: "It is the opinion of this House that every consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose measures which would encourage practices of political patronage through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees." Now I don't think that any of us who have been elected believe in political patronage. I think we're all honourable members in this House. Mr. Speaker, the reason this motion has to be brought forward by the opposition is that there is political patronage going on in this province. It's something that every member of this Legislature should be ashamed of: giving friends jobs even if they have no qualifications for those jobs, circumventing certain regulations when it comes to government employees and government agents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. PASSARELL: You know what I'm talking about, Mr. Member for Omineca.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tozer.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. Tozer.

There were certain specific regulations set up on that job description that that man did not have the qualifications for.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, come on! "Tell me why this person was killed." "He got a bullet through the head." "Well, give me another reason why he died." Come on, you know what I'm talking about, Mr. Member from Omineca. It's one of the worst affairs in this province when it comes to political patronage. I can just see CBC running with it one day: "The Tozer Affair."

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, Mr. Member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis), hopefully we'll be discussing that one day, if it comes true. Humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose measures which would encourage practices of political patronage, as the amendment says, in this province. We have made reference to the Tozer affair. I don't understand why the man was there, except if he was just related.... But I know that's straying, Mr. Speaker. It's been difficult and I will get back on to the amendment to the motion.

Another aspect I would like to cover is a position paper put out by the British Columbia Health Association in regard to Bill 3 and why the amendment in front of us is needed, when we talk about the words "justice" and "humanity." I just paraphrase, reading some of the executive's summary on the front page here. 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 this act. You already have the powers to implement much of what you want to do with Bill 3. You can do it already; you don't need it. It's more paperwork, and if there's anything I think many members of this House understand, it's that paperwork is expensive regardless of who's doing it. The more paper you put out, the more money it eventually costs. You have the

[ Page 1713 ]

regulations already. It's not as if you need to bring in Bill 3, because there are no regulations to cover some of the principles you want to deal with.

I'll refer to another news release from the hon. Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services dated August 4, 1983.

Would you please sit down? I think you think better off your feet.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll do my heckling from my chair then.

MR. PASSARELL: It says:

"Provincial Secretary James Chabot removed the 'without cause' language from the government's restraint legislation and said the basic objective of reducing the size and cost to government can be achieved by applying the same standards used in the private sector. 'We are applying major private sector principles concerning layoff and termination practice in both the spirit and the intent of Bill 3,' Chabot said after introducing amendments to the Legislature."

That's kind of airy-fairy, using the "major private sector principles concerning layoff and termination." Usually in a collective agreement, which most of the private sector has to deal with, you have certain rules and regulations that are specified. There is certain human rights legislation — it used to be provincial but now it's covered by the federal Charter of Rights — in which we do not need this legislation to start going around and saying: "Well, we were going to terminate people without cause, but we saw the public outcry on this so now what we're going to do is bring in major private sector principles." What kind of principles are you talking about? Are these the principles that Michael Walker in the Fraser Institute believes are principles?

But where are the regulations to go along with this press release? This was August 4, 1983, and the minister talked about the regulations. The bill came in back in June when this House started to sit.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're wrong.

MR. PASSARELL: When did it come in. then?

HON. MR. CHABOT: July.

MR. PASSARELL: July 7, 1983, the black day in the history of British Columbia. The day of the budget.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Black day?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a racist remark, isn't it?

MR. PASSARELL: Well, I guess that answers it. You'd know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We're getting a little unparliamentary here, hon. members. To the amendment, please.

MR. PASSARELL: Some of the amendments to the bill itself have been termed totally cosmetic, and change in no way, shape or form the thrust and the intent of this reactionary legislation that the Social Credit government is bringing down in Bill 3. While the objectionable "without just cause" has been removed, the criteria — and this is important — for dismissal set out in the amendments are so broad as to amount to the same thing. Through this legislation, collective agreements in the public sector are rendered null and void, just as surely by the amendments as they were in the original bill.

It should be noted that Bill 3 still overrides something that was basic to justice in this province, and that's called the Labour Code.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I doubt if I'm reading everything, Mr. Member. But I guess you would be jealous of me. Through you, Mr. Speaker, seeing your performance as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I guess you would be jealous. I take that as a compliment, looking at what you've done. Talk about reading — why don't you get up and start attacking anybody in this province who can read? Are you jealous because people can read? There are people up here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't shout at me.

MR. PASSARELL: What are you talking about, shout at you? I'm shouting through the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the bill. The minister will come to order, please.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: The only thing I'm good for — that's good. Let's put that in Hansard right now: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says, "The only thing that you're good for...."

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not debating the bill anyway.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, but I love it. I understand, and I'll let the inane statements come from the minister.

Back to the amendment.

The amendments to the Public Sector Restraint Act, Bill 3, and why we've been discussing this since Monday....
It's now Wednesday, 3:25 p.m. PDT, and we're continuing. We find in the bill itself.... We're still waiting for the regulations to come from the minister to clarify what the intent is of this Government. We see that "dismissed without cause" has been changed but it is still too wide open, too wide ranging. We see further that for a variety of wide-ranging reasons a public sector employee still may be terminated "in accordance with a regulation." The important thing is that regardless of what the minister brought in, the act stills overrules the Labour Code and — something that's been very important — the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which provides that a "collective agreement shall contain a clause allowing for dismissal only for just or proper cause." Just and proper.

Back to the word in the motion: justice, What type of justice do you have when you allow the termination of an employee without just cause or for proper cause? The reasons for dismissal now specified in this bill include lack of funds, as I mentioned earlier. The government, in its wisdom, if it

[ Page 1714 ]

feels that.... A job, an employee, a single mother working in the public sector employment can be terminated now for lack of funds. That's supposed to be a catch-all phrase now, to dismiss public sector workers: "We just don't have the funds anymore." Another stipulation now is changes in the organizational structure, making management units larger. If it's in the school, it's disregarding school boards and their local incentives for the education of children, and as was pointed out in the throne speech, incorporates smaller school districts into a larger management unit. If this bill is passed, we can almost look at the aspect of change in the organizational structure: "We're making a school board larger," or "We're making the highway department region larger."

Discontinuation of programs and services, and reductions in the level of service — that's another stipulation in this bill. So the government can take it a step further and say: "Okay, ladies and gentlemen in our public sector, we see that the programs you're working under now, such as the Human Rights Commission, are no longer needed; you're no longer needed and your job is no longer there." Services to seniors, for instance: "That's not needed any longer so your job is not there." Reduction in the levels of service: "We can't go out and plough the highways every night in winter, or once every two days, because there's a reduction in the levels of service, so we're going to let the snow sit on the highway for an extra week. If you've got a 4 by 4 and you can get through, fine; if you can't, stay at home. We've got to reduce the levels of service."

The crux of Bill 3, that public sector employees are allowed to be dismissed notwithstanding provisions in the collective agreement, to this date still remains.

[3:30]

I certainly hope to have an opportunity to talk further on this matter, since I've basically dealt with only five pieces of the information in my vast file here. In conclusion, as we know, we're all honourable members in this House....

MR. DAVIS: Some more than others.

MR. PASSARELL: Not some more than others. We're all honourable, Mr. Member. We're all equal. That's the beautiful thing about justice.

We're all honourable members in this House, but I'm proud today to be able to stand in my place to debate a piece of legislation that I would have thought would have been thrown away, dismissed, and shown in historical context as something that came out well before I was born in the 1930s, and that happened in a country in Europe in which a dictator brought in very similar legislation. Historical records show what happened. I'm fortunate and proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party opposing this dictatorial, totalitarian legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Rossland-Trail.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, can I interfere just a moment, on a point of order. I raised this issue before, and I don't want to appear to be harassing the Chair or anything like that, but I just question the amendment. We've already had one speaker spend 40 minutes on it, and I'm wondering whether the Speaker now has a decision on whether this amendment is in order or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not yet, hon. member, so I will allow the debate to proceed.

MR. D'ARCY: Five-yard penalty for rushing the kicker.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: The Chair is my protector. I'm trying to protect the Chair from the aggressive and abrasive tactics of the member for Columbia River.

First of all, before we go into this excellent reasoned amendment on Bill 3, I want to welcome all the members of the House and everyone in the gallery to Wednesday. We in the chamber declared that as of 2 o'clock it had suddenly become Wednesday and was no longer Tuesday. Only people who have been elected to this chamber could understand how we could do that. I'm sure the general public, which no doubt looks on this operation here as somewhat less than rational a great deal of the time, would wonder how we could do that. But we did, in any event.

There are few government members interested in this centerpiece legislation that the member for Columbia River brought in on July 7 and has not seen fit to call before this House most of the time since then. We know, though, that one of the government members, the one from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), the other day demanded the right to be heard, and has been rarely seen and never heard since that time. We know that those government members, who are being paid to do a job for their constituents, are all out there around the precincts researching, prepared to come in here and defend this legislation, Bill 3, which is the centrepiece of the government's legislative program.

The opposition, as you're all aware, did have a request to the government that was supported largely editorially, I might point out, by the free press. Not only the major papers but many of the smaller ones throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia supported the notion that while many of them supported the general thrust of restraint — and indeed we on this side of the House support the general thrust of restraint, and such critics of the government program as Bishop De Roo have been at great pains to say that they believe in restraint.... We recognize that we are in difficult economic times nationally, and particularly in British Columbia due to the economic and fiscal mismanagement of Social Credit, and that we are going to have restraint. The limitations of the formerly taken for granted spending power are simply going to be with us for some time.

In any event, having had the government not listen to us in that regard — that they draw back, have a second look and reintroduce the legislation six months hence, after they have consulted with various non-partisan people in the community.... I recognize that they may be unwilling to speak with that part of the taxpaying electorate which they perceive does not agree with them, but I'm sure that they could find some non-partisan people and maybe even some of their friends out there who'd be willing to help them. Having rejected that notion of the six-month pause in Bill 3, I see no reason why the government can't accept this very understanding and sensitive amendment to the motion.

The amendment says, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker — I'm sure you have a copy of it — that "it is the opinion of this House that every consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose measures which would encourage practices of political patronage through

[ Page 1715 ]

powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees." Because the government was so late in bringing in a budget and a legislative package, of which this is one, this year, already the government has de facto had to accept some parts of this amendment — and, indeed, some parts of the reasoned amendment. Of course, part of that is that they didn't even wish to have this bill discussed for a period of three, four or five weeks. I note, for instance, that the offices of the rentalsman, which were to close on October 1, and its employees to be fired as a result of Bill 3, are going to be staying open until October 31. I know that one of the people who may be interested in that is the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), because I believe that does come under his purview. He, of course, while ultimately saving $3 million or $4 million in expenditure due to that closure, is quite happy to take that same $3 million or $4 million and expend it on marketing and expansion of liquor stores. Even though sales are dropping, he's happier to promote the sales of alcohol than he is to keep the offices of the rentalsman in British Columbia.

In any event, returning to the specific amendment, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to hear the member for Boundary-Similkameen or the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) get up in this House and justify the spending of $4 million on the expansion of marketing and sales facilities for liquor in the province of British Columbia when they're cutting out the Human Rights Commission, the rentalsman and consumer services, and are taking money away from child care workers. I hope they get up and defend themselves.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the comments concerning expenditures of money by the liquor distribution branch are irrelevant to this debate, because they do not involve the taxpayers' money.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I would prefer that the member be apprised of the fact, since he was absent, that we are not on the main motion. We're on a substantive motion, and the wording of the substantive motion, which is still in order, is that "humanity, justice and policy demands," which makes the member's comments totally in order. Mr. Speaker, I think you should call the minister to order and stop those unnecessary interruptions by a member who is a member of the cabinet and should know better.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I would advise that the discussion of expenditures by the liquor distribution branch do not involve taxpayers' money. I am aware of the fact that we are on an amendment, and the Leader of the Opposition's comments are irrelevant, as are those of the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy).

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, for the minister's information, his ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs deals with liquor distribution, which is a Crown revenue producer. If he doesn't know that, then what's he doing as a cabinet minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're a silly little man.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw, please. I find that offensive. Would the minister please withdraw the remark.

MR. BARRETT: Shame! Petty little personal comments....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to withdraw "silly little man."

MR. D'ARCY: Certainly it was not my intention to create a brouhaha over these references. Clearly. Mr. Speaker, the amendment in itself is relevant to the references I have made.

The minister knows full well that liquor distribution is not a Crown corporation, that revenue from liquor sales do go into general revenue and that it is a discretionary decision on his part as to how those funds are spent. I want to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not referring to normal maintenance. I'm referring to expansion of sales facilities and promotion of sales. Not only are sales of liquor dropping in this province, by his own admission, but I'm not aware of any demand out there by the general public for larger, more modern and new liquor stores.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the ruling of the Chair is that the amendment is in order.

[3:45]

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've had the opportunity of looking at the amendment. Some of the language contained therein just doesn't hold true to what the legislation and the amendments proposed for the legislation really suggest. The amendment talks about "arbitrary dismissal of public employees." I suggest that the legislation does not make provisions for arbitrary dismissal of public employees. The legislation makes for reasoned termination of public employees. The only circumstances under which a public sector employer may consider dismissal is where there "(i) is insufficient work, or (ii) ...insufficient current operating funds budgeted, to maintain current levels of employment, (b) makes a change in the organizational structure of the employer, (c) discontinues a program, activity or service of the employer, or (d) reduces the level of an activity or service of the employer...." I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that's a reasoned cause for downsizing the public service. It's not an arbitrary dismissal, as outlined in this amendment and....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The ruling of the Chair has been that the motion, which is in fact a reasoned amendment, which, by itself, falls into a separate category, is in order for debate now. Hon. member, while members may take umbrage at the actual words contained in the amendment, that is not sufficient reason to debate the issue at this time. It is a reasoned amendment, and as such falls within a separate category.

[ Page 1716 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm not attempting to debate the issue at this time, Mr. Speaker. I'm just questioning the word "arbitrary," and how you came to that conclusion. I want to tell you that you flabbergast me today with having come to that conclusion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, debate continues on the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to have given the member for Columbia River some opportunity to exercise himself and become exercised. We know that the session has probably been rather boring.

I want to refer briefly to a previous ruling of yours: that is, that interruptions are not added to a member's time. While I understand how you could come to that conclusion, I hope Mr. Speaker recognizes that I have been interrupted savagely by the member for Boundary-Similkameen and the member for Columbia River, and even my friend from Vancouver East has indulged in this. I'm hoping that some consideration could be made at the end of my 40 minutes because I do have a number of things that I'm concerned about.

In any event, the member said that he took umbrage at some things in the amendment, and I support his feeling on that. The point of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is that we on this side of the House take umbrage at the wording in the legislation, and that's why we moved the amendment.

I know that you recognize that we're partisan on this side of the House, but I simply want to make a brief reference here to an organization which is one of the major press chains in this country. I don't think it is partisan; I've never heard it accused of that before. It is interesting that this morning in the Times-Colonist, which is a daily published in this city, they state that "the Bennett government does not have an honest mandate for some of its legislation." They are referring specifically to Bill 3. We've heard a great deal from the government about how they have a mandate and therefore can do whatever they want; even though 51 percent of the people voted against them, they feel they can do whatever they want. This morning the free press is saying that in their opinion the government does not have an honest mandate for some of its legislation. In support of this statement, this is why we want to give the government a chance to reconsider some of the aspects.

Referring to the Premier specifically, they state that he "deliberately chose to be evasive during his election campaign. Certainly he promised restraint" — I would agree with that — "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." They are referring specifically to the Public Sector Restraint Act, which is Bill 3.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I am being intimidated by some of my colleagues, who are not even in their seats.

MR. SKELLY: Without cause.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes. Bad enough having to face the frivolous points of order from across the way, without people on my own side of the House.... Mr. Speaker, I hope the government members are paying attention to this. I know that they haven't had the time so far in the last 72 hours or however long the House has been sitting to participate in some of these vital debates, but I hope that they are getting ready to participate so that they can show their constituents that they were right in sending them here to Victoria to conduct public business.

Regarding the urgency that we have here — the government clearly feels that there is an urgency to get Bill 3 passed, and that is why this House has been working lengthy hours; we are certainly happy to participate in that kind of scheduling — it is funny, the newspaper indicted, that "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." Once again we find a free expression of opinion suggesting that this legislation and the budget were not an appropriate kind of election platform, but were brought in after the event.

Referring specifically to part of the bill — and I see that the Provincial Secretary has left the House, but I know that he's probably listening on his repeater somewhere....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Possibly, yes. Perhaps he has run to the bathroom.

But referring specifically to Bill 3, "three weeks ago the Provincial Secretary promised" — and I want to emphasize that word — "that the government would introduce the regulations" — and they are an integral part of this legislation — "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." The Provincial Secretary "indicated that they would be revealed by last week. With the regulations still unannounced, the government is moving towards closure...." I'm not sure that's true; I wouldn't accuse the government of moving in that direction, but the newspaper does.

The concern is that we could get a situation where this bill is passed before all the elements of the bill are known, simply because the regulations have not been tabled. I know, as you do, that even after regulations are submitted they can be varied at any time in a cabinet back room, so regulations which were promised and put forward today could be changed arbitrarily a week from now. That, of course, is one of the weaknesses of the bill and one of the things that we on this side of the House would very much like to see the government alter. We would like to see the government be far more specific in how it intends to go about its stated program. While all this is happening, the world is watching us. They know we need restraint. But while all this is happening, B.C. is different. Perhaps we were always different, but we're certainly more different right now. It's clear from what's happening on the Vancouver Stock Exchange that the investment community does not have the confidence in B.C. that they have in the Toronto exchange, the Canadian economy in general or the North American economy, as shown through the New York exchange. It's clear that they do not have confidence, and this refers both to British Columbia and outside of the province.

[ Page 1717 ]

We certainly know that while job creation is a problem, and economic activity....

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you please describe for us the scope of debate on a reasoned amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, on any amendment the scope of debate is limited to the intent of the motion, and the principle of the motion in this format is the same as it is in every other matter which is discussed: that is, hon. members, that we must relate to the principle of the amendment. By just perusing the amendment we can see that the principle, while having some scope, certainly does not allow for unlimited debate. I would commend that particularly to the member currently addressing the House: there is a limit to the breadth of debate that can take place. It must relate to the amendment. I'm sure the member has taken that to heart and will continue in that vein.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: May I ask for one further clarification. Does that mean that we can canvass again the principle of the bill, as debated during second reading and on the hoist?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, again, it is contrary to the spirit of the House to recanvass matters that have already been discussed in the House. While some reference may be made to previous debate in passing, certainly for the debate at this time to take the exact form as previous debate would not be in order. I'm sure all members are aware of that and will guide their remarks accordingly.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The points made are perfectly valid, and I recognize the spirit and the intent of Mr. Speaker in making those suggestions. I want, though, to assure you and the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) that I have not, in the last two or three months, let alone in the last few hours, perused any Blues or Hansard publications of matters which have been covered in this debate, so any similarity to previous debate which the member for Chilliwack may find in some of the points raised here is, I want to assure him, purely coincidental.

In any event, I will move away from the economic considerations. I think the points have been made. But clearly this is a restraint bill — that's what its title says — and the justification given for that in those speeches — there have been a few — given by government apologists has been that they feel there isn't enough money and they're concerned about the ability to pay. That's a direct reference to the B.C. economy.

So getting back specifically to strict relevancy, if that's possible, the concern that I have is that I know that people connected with or from the trade union movement in this province have made the point loud and clear that one of the things they don't like about Bill 3 is that it simply cuts across negotiated agreements that were made in good faith. I'm not going to belabour that point, because I think that the trade union movement has made that point clear.

What I am concerned about in this bill, though, is that it makes public sector employees.... I think we have to be very specific here, because most of the discussion has involved provincial government employees; I think we have to reiterate here that provincial government employees are only 16 percent of the people covered by this legislation. That is the full scope, to use the term of the member for Chilliwack, of the legislation: all the employees of Crown corporations such as B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro and B.C. Ferries, and all of the employees of municipal government and hospitals are covered by this legislation. What concerns me, apart from the issue of the collective agreements, an issue which I think has not been properly canvassed, if it has been canvassed at all, is that this legislation makes those employees — 250,000 strong, 84 percent of them outside of the immediate jurisdiction of the provincial government — have even less rights with their employers than a non-unionized employee has under common law.

I want to emphasize that common law is a creation of, in some cases, centuries of precedents in courts. It has nothing to do with authorities such as those established by this Legislature or any other parliament in the British system, present or past, in any other area. Common law has established in civil court that employees have certain rights. This legislation, Bill 3 — this is why the amendment refers to such qualities as justice, humanity and reason — takes a quarter of a million people and their families and gives them fewer rights and privileges than a non-union employee would have under common law in British Columbia today. I think that point has to be made and made again. If the intent and major function of Bill 3 was in fact to remove any real or imagined special privilege that public sector employees may have had — I'm not sure they ever had any, but the government feels that they had — I'm quite sure that the government would not be running into this strident opposition both within and outside the chamber. Such a furor is being raised because we're dealing with a large number of' people who are being placed below the level of common law.

[4:00]

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

Referring to definite parts of the bill, it’s interesting that one of the many non-partisan people who have made comment, both critical and in some cases complimentary to certain aspects of this bill.... One of the points made is that one can conclude that the government’s expression of public service downsizing as a component of this bill's program is tragically flawed by a classic failure: that is, that the government, impatient for results, gets into a mindset of unwillingness to invest in the deliberate process of building trust in an open, consultative undertaking.

It has been noted that statistically a great part of the downsizing of government, which was talked about by the minister in supporting the bill and talked about in the budget, has already been completed through the normal processes of attrition and layoff powers that were already available to the member for Columbia River and to the Crown corporations. B.C. Hydro in particular has laid off over a thousand employees. They already had these powers. We know that in the normal course of events the government could have achieved its stated intent of reducing the number of employees of' Crown corporations and the various government ministries without the authoritarian measures that the minister feels he needs in Bill 3.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm going to be delighted to hear the minister speak at some point on his own behalf on this bill. He's talking a lot from his chair. I know he's not lazy, so he's

[ Page 1718 ]

going to get up and defend this bill, and I also know that he's actively encouraging his colleagues to get up and support him. While many of them have qualms about the bill, they personally think the minister is a very fine fellow, and I know they're going to come in here and back him up to the hilt.

In any event, I would like to exhort or entreat the minister once more to consider this consultative undertaking with the people affected by this legislation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's underway.

MR. D'ARCY: They don't seem to think so, Mr. Minister. I would like to see him involve people, the electorate, the government's own constituency out there. Many people out there are not nearly as partisan as many of us in this chamber. Even though they may not like what the government's doing, they're prepared to accept the reality of the 49 percent of the public who supported the government and work with them, at least until the next election.

Getting into more detail on the bill as to why the opposition feels that this amendment.... It's a fairly docile one, Mr. Speaker; it's a gentle amendment. It doesn't gut the bill in any way, though some of us would like that to happen. We realize that the rule of law and order has to prevail.

Getting down to the bill in particular, we conclude that the deregulation and wage-restraint components of the program threaten fundamental features of the social structure and community institutions and, likewise, destroy trust and credibility. That is the major problem in the province today: the lack of trust and credibility between the general public, including the investment public, the business sector and the government. Many people out there who philosophically agree with what the government is attempting to do have no confidence in the business and administrative ability of the government, in the imagination of the government, to implement its own recommendations. That's a concern I have, because that lack of trust has spread beyond the borders of this province and is reflected in the abysmal state of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and of retail sales in this province today.

Mr. Speaker, another aspect of the bill which we are very concerned about, and one that we hope the government will see fit to apply this amendment to, is that it is clear that the bill, if passed as it is, will have consequences which include not only problems for the practice of public administration, but which also threaten to erode the longer-term productive capacity of the community. We heard, especially back last year, the Premier and other members of the government constantly talking about the need for greater productivity, not only in the public service but in the community at large — in the private sector, the need to sharpen our pencils a bit and perhaps spend a little less time enjoying ourselves and a little more time in productive pursuits. I think most of the public, perhaps all of the public, supported him on that, and I support him on that notion. In fact, there are over 100,000 people in this province today who would love to be able to get out and work every day, and who are not able to do so due to the state of the economy.

One of the reasons we oppose this bill and hope the government considers this amendment is that we do not want to see anything happen which is going to threaten the productive capacity of the community out there. Without public administration at the local level, the institutional level, the provincial level and the Crown corporate level, without public institutions where morale is up and people care and believe in the operation that they're working with, whether ICBC, B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro, whatever it is, it's quite clear that the public is not going to be served by these major corporations.

Further, if the bill and the program it is part of had been thought out at all.... I think that is one of the major flaws: that the minister did not. Perhaps he applied all of the thought to it that he was capable of, but it's quite clear that more thought was needed. More thought is needed, even though it's been on the order paper of this House for three months now — three months and a week. It's quite clear that the minister could use some assistance here. I don't want to be seen as attacking another member of the House, but I do believe that some.... Perhaps you should hire an MBA.

If the program were thought out at all, those unfortunate results can only be understood as part of a move first to centralize authoritarian power in an overwhelmingly dominant executive, of which the minister is a member. We can go on to speculate that the only hopeful signs in all of this are first that that the government really has put all the weight of its restraint program on the search for greater productivity, which in the end can only be accomplished through cooperative consultative processes, even though they haven't shown that they're going to do that. They keep saying that's desirable, but they have not done that and haven't told anybody how they're going to do that. It's one of the best kept secrets of the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

Let's remember that the large employers of this province, as represented by the Employers' Council.... I might emphasize that the large employers are in the main — let's admit it — multinational corporations. I wish they were B.C.- based investor-owned companies but, unfortunately, they're multinationals. We must recognize that fact of life — which, by the way, underscores my earlier point that the lack of confidence and trust in the government's ability extends far beyond the borders of the province, which is giving us major economic problems right now. It is not just the Employers' Council, but the labour movement, and this includes even those parts of the labour movement that are not part of the Solidarity organization, such as the teamsters. Even that good Liberal, Senator Ed, has called for serious consultations in good faith.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My old friend.

MR. D'ARCY: Your old friend.

We want to make the point that no legislation, least of all this piece, has yet been passed. The government has been operating as though the legislation has all been passed, even though there could be amendments; this chamber could decide that various pieces could be changed. The minister may bring in very moderate regulations tomorrow; he may bring in very draconian regulations, or regulations which he alters a week from now. I would like, and am able, to take the minister on good faith. If he would bring in regulations and let this chamber and people outside examine them, perhaps that consultation could then take place. It concerns me, though, that if the minister is applying the same level of thought to producing the regulations as he did to the legislation, we could have a great many more problems when those regulations come in. I know the minister is a young man and he's growing intellectually every day, and I know he's going to do better.

[ Page 1719 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have reached your time limit.

MR. D'ARCY: I will take that instruction, Mr. Speaker, but I will just note that there were considerable interruptions, not just from the government side but even from my own side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time of debate has elapsed. The member for Alberni — on the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you for that admonition, Mr. Speaker, and I will confine myself to this amendment. I don't know if you have a copy, but it is worth repeating what it says: "that the motion be amended by leaving out all of the words following 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is the opinion of this House that every consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose measures which would encourage practices of political patronage through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees'."

[4:15]

It's a very wide-ranging amendment, Mr. Speaker. It deals directly with the impact of this bill — and not simply on the public service of British Columbia, the employees of government and agencies of government. We sometimes forget that this bill applies much more broadly than simply to the public employees of the province of British Columbia; it applies to a whole range of public bodies throughout the province, including Parks and Recreation under the Vancouver Charter, the Assessment Authority, Buildings Corporation, Development Corporation, Greater Vancouver Water District, Nanaimo Water District. I give just a few examples, skipping over some because the minister is getting impatient and would like to see the bill passed sometime during the next 48 hours, possibly. The Insurance Corporation, Pacific National Exhibition, B.C. School Trustees' Association. This legislation doesn't apply simply to the people who work directly for the province, but to public bodies, municipalities, school boards, universities, colleges — all employees who are defined by this government as public sector employees all over the province.

It's wide-ranging legislation, and it's something we should carefully consider. We should give it a great deal of debate before passing it, and the debate should be heard from all sides of the House, not simply this side. It's clear that the opposition has been speaking on this bill and the amendment for many, many hours over the past few months. The government has even accused us of filibustering, if you can believe that, Mr. Speaker. They've suggested that it costs — $80,000 a day for us to hold up this legislation, but in order to encourage consideration of this legislation outside and inside the House, and to give members on the government side an opportunity to examine it and to prepare their debate in response to the material we're putting forward, it's important that we create as much time as we can and create as wide-ranging a debate as we can around this legislation so that the interests of the people of the province are protected.

I think the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) did a fine job over the last evening, right up to 1:30 today. A tremendous job by one single member trying to prevent the passage of this legislation which threatens....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't disagree with you, but that has nothing to do with your debate on this amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Absolutely it relates to this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because this amendment is another way in which we are creating time and opportunities for debate for the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. hon. member. I'd ask that you get back to debate on the reasoned amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I am absolutely directing my comments, Mr. Speaker, to the topic of this amendment. I should have a right to do so without interference.

What I'm saying is that we've been presenting amendments such as this; we’ve been presenting hoist amendments. We've been debating at great length and using the opportunities given to us in the standing orders of this House, in the rules that govern debate, and where those standing orders as a result of what the Socreds did several years ago in insisting that there be unlimited debate for certain speakers....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the estimates only.

MR. SKELLY: No. If that uninformed minister would read the standing orders, he would find that there is unlimited debate for certain speakers on motions and on bills in this Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I would ask that you get back to debate on the amendment. I would also ask that the minister not kibitz across the floor from his seat.

MR. SKELLY: There's a rule against kibitzing in this House, Mr. Minister. With your experience you should be aware of that.

We've been criticized for delaying this legislation, and for the cost of delaying this legislation. But delay is necessary for adequate discussion and consideration.

Mr. Speaker, you can recall in your lifetime the British Expeditionary Force in northern Europe, in the early forties, that held up the invasion of western Europe by the forces of Germany at the time controlled by the fascist government. Those men held up the progress of that fascist government and their intent to sweep Europe into the darkness of fascist rule. They held them up; they delayed and stopped them by using delaying tactics. They held them up for months. It was only at the beaches of Dunkirk that they were successful.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I've been listening very intently to your debate and I have much difficulty relating it to the amendment before us. I'm going to ask once again, please, hon. member, if you would return to the intent of the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: These are just introductory remarks for Mr. Speaker’s guidance, to give him an understanding of the direction the opposition is entering upon in order to clarify why we're debating this legislation and the manner in which we're debating legislation. We are trying to do the same kind of holding action as that heroic British Expeditionary Force in northern Europe. It was costly. Nobody ever complained at

[ Page 1720 ]

that time, if it cost $80,000, $1 million or $10 million a day, that that delaying action wasn't worth it in order to keep that type of fascist government from taking control of northern Europe and western Europe. It was worth it. Fifty years later....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I'll ask you once more, and once more only....

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please let me continue.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll give the member time to state his point of order, but he'll do it after I'm finished.

Once again, hon. member, I would ask that you return to the amendment before us in regard to that which you are debating.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, these remarks are directly related...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: ...to the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll read the amendment for the member and for all hon. members, so that we're not in doubt as to what it is we are debating here this afternoon. The rules are clear regarding reasoned amendments. You must be relevant to the amendment before us. The amendment reads: "It is the opinion of this house that every consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that this legislature oppose measures which would encourage practices of political patronage through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees." I would ask all hon. members, including the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), to stick to the intent of the motion being debated.

On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the power of the Chair is not unlimited; the power of the Chair must come under the standing orders and conventions and rules of this chamber. It is not for the Chair to make an arbitrary decision about what is in order. Simply by the Speaker interrupting a speaker and saying, "I don't see where it's relevant," does not make that statement so. As you read the amendment to the motion, it's clear that the wording.... As a matter of fact, the wording — I'm just sending out for the charter that set up the Nuremberg trials — of this reasoned amendment is based largely on the language of the charter setting up the Nuremberg trials, and this is relevant in the sense that we're discussing a broadly ranging principle of a motion that's found in order. Simply that a Speaker does not feel that it's relevant in the way he would like to see it debated is not an appropriate judgment to be made from the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you hon. member. I'll take that into consideration. Again I ask that all hon. members, including the member for Alberni, please stick in debate to the intent of the amendment before us.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, our intent in presenting this legislation was that consideration in this province has to be given to humanity, justice and democratic traditions. We are concerned — and that concern prompted us to place this amendment before the House, and it was accepted as in order by the House — about the politicization of the civil service and public employment in the province of British Columbia. Those concerns of humanity and justice prompted us to present this resolution. As is every member's right in this House, I am drawing certain comparisons from history which allow the House and the public to consider why we feel so strongly about this legislation and why we are debating it in the way we we are. I'm using the example of that heroic force in western Europe in the early 1940s that did not have a majority in that area. They were vastly outnumbered by their opponents. Their opponents had vast resources, and yet those people stood their ground as long as they could. They knew that ultimately those forces of darkness would have their way, and yet they had a heroic obligation to stand their ground to protect that type of government from sweeping across Europe and plunging it into darkness for years and years.

I remember a line from a little poem I learned in elementary school that described the situation we had in the Legislature last night and the situation that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was put through in the last 12 or so hours:

And haggard men fought hard with sleep

And when their strength was gone,

Still their brave spirit held them up

And drove them on and on.

Wherever the large force of the majority is being used to crush the rights of the minority, with all the resources they have at hand, with their ability, through the standing orders of this House and the laws of this land, to ultimately stifle dissent and ultimately stop dissent....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I personally object to the debate that is taking place now. As one who lived and suffered under that threat, I would say to that member that had we listened to Churchill in those days, we would not see socialism and communism threaten the freedom, as they do here today. I resent that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! No hon. member in this House can get up on a point of order and use that point of order, even if it were in order, to enter into debate. Hon. members, again I repeat to the member for Alberni that tempered debate, tempered language and sticking strictly to the intent of the amendment to the bill or whatever is before us would not bring on that kind of outburst in this House. I ask all hon. members to stick strictly to the intent of, in this case, the amendment before us.

[4:30]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, this amendment was drafted by the opposition, and we are aware of its intent. But maybe I'll read it again for the member who's so concerned about the content of our arguments: "that every consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose measures which would encourage practices of political

[ Page 1721 ]

patronage through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees."

Mr. Speaker, I had family who went through that war as well, and I am standing here on the same principles that that member purports to adhere to.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we please have order on both sides of the House.

MR. SKELLY: Let me make a comparison, then, a little more remote in time. In the minister's confusion over what happened during those days and what's happened since, maybe we should take an example a little more remote in time which the minister cannot claim to have been involved in or to have had family involved in. I'll take him back to 300 years before the birth of Christ, just to give you a comparison of the reasons for the debate taking place in this House.

At that time the city-state of Athens, the most powerful state in the eastern Mediterranean, had the power to do whatever it chose: the largest fleet in the Near East. They were at war with the Spartans. Seeking allies and money to support the war, they went to a small island just off the Turkish coast, the island of Melos, taking a tremendous fleet with them headed by an Athenian commander named Alcibiades. They laid siege to the island of Melos, seeking booty, money and slaves in order to prosecute the war against Sparta.

They had a debate when Alcibiades was before the gates of Melos with a superior fleet and a superior force. The Melesians came to the gate and said: "We cannot possibly fight you who have such a superior force, but you must understand that right is on our side. Nobody has the right, using the force of their majority and their tremendous fleet, to crush all opposition." They called upon the Athenians, in the interests of humanity and of justice, to respect their right to exist as a sovereign state in the eastern Mediterranean. The response of Alcibiades — and I commend to everybody to read The Peloponnesian Wars by Thucyclides, an ancient Greek historian, no supporter of democracy.... You'd probably all be interested. Mr. Speaker has probably read it. His response, and I'm paraphrasing, because I don't have the book here right now, was this: "Men in these circumstances know that the powerful have the right to do whatever they want to do, and the weak can only do what they will."

Mr. Speaker, those Melesians fought the Athenians in spite of their superior fleet and superior power. In spite of their majority and their mandate they fought them to the death, until the city was taken captive, the women enslaved and all the men and children killed.

Mr. Speaker, this government is operating on the same principle — lack of principle; the same argument made by Alcibiades thousands of years ago — that they have a mandate and majority and, therefore, the power to do whatever they want. This opposition, as those Melesians did over 2,000 years ago, and as that British Expeditionary Force did in Europe — it's very close to us in time — said: "We will stand against that type of government approach which is undemocratic, authoritarian, and based on the use of superior power against the right." Mr. Speaker, that's why we're standing here debating this legislation. That's why we're using every technique possible to bring the government to its senses and to make the people aware of the anti-democratic nature of the legislation that's before us.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Provincial Secretary, when he stood up to oppose acceptance of the amendment in the House, said that we had misread the bill, and that it included provisions that watered down the statement that the bill was designed to terminate — without cause. In fact, Mr. Speaker, that's not true. We are dealing with the bill as it was originally presented in the House, and section 2(1) says: "Notwithstanding the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, a public sector employer may terminate the employment of an employee without cause." That's the bill we're dealing with in this House right now.

There are a number of ways that the government could have changed this bill. They could have withdrawn the bill, taken it back for redrafting to eliminate the offensive, authoritarian and anti-democratic sections and then presented the bill again in the Legislature. They had that option; they chose not to exercise it. They had another option: to withdraw the bill entirely. The government can really do everything it would like in terms of downsizing the public service, and has done so in the past. The Premier advises us that he's sacked approximately 6,000 public servants over the last year. So the government has the power to do it without this bill. The government selected a way of changing the offensive sections of the bill by presenting amendments in the Legislature. The Provincial Secretary, when he stood up to object to the acceptance of this reasoned amendment, drew the Speaker's attention to the fact that these amendments were on the order paper and would change the effect of the bill, so that in firing public employees certain things would have to be considered. He mentioned insufficient work, insufficient current operating funds budgeted, etc. But those are only amendments on the order paper. I could put amendments on the order paper myself. That's no guarantee to the people of this House, or outside this House, that those amendments will ever be called, ever be debated or ever be incorporated into this legislation.

So what we are still dealing with in the House, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most offensive documents ever tabled as a bill in any legislature in Canada. It's a document that still allows public sector employers to terminate their employees without cause. We're not dealing with those amendments yet. We're still dealing with that offensive, anti-democratic, authoritarian piece of legislation that was originally presented to this House during, the "Black Tuesday" budget back in July. That's why we've presented this reasoned amendment. If the government had consulted with the public or had been concerned about the objections raised, even those raised by the Employers Council of British Columbia, they would have withdrawn the legislation. It should be an embarrassment for them that this legislation even exists in print. They should have gone around and picked up every possible copy, taken it back and redrafted it, and presented it in a form more acceptable to a democratic House. Instead, all they did was place amendments on the order paper that may or may not ever be debated in this House, and may or may not ever be incorporated into the legislation.

That's why we in the opposition are compelled to present this reasoned amendment: because there's still the opportunity under this legislation to fire without cause, or to

[ Page 1722 ]

disguise the cause under the legislation. Even the amendments say that you can fire a person because insufficient funds for his or her employment have been budgeted. The minister or the government could, at whim, suddenly withdraw funds that are budgeted for a certain position and fire a person without cause — simply by changing the budget. They have that power under current legislation. So while the amendments purport to change this legislation to eliminate the provision for firing without cause, in fact they allow the government to do an end-run on that phrase and to fire without cause in any case.

Mr. Speaker, if the amendments had changed the bill materially, then all of those people who were sacked and sent home at full pay until October 31 would have to be reinstated, because the impact and the effect of the bill would have been changed so that you couldn't fire without cause. In fact, those people are still sitting at home, still collecting full salaries, and they know full well that when October 31 rolls around they will be fired; they will be out of their jobs completely. So the impact of this bill hasn't changed. The bill still allows the government to fire without cause. It misleads the public to that effect; it waters down the wording; it's window-dressing. So really we're still here dealing with that provision of firing without cause, an anti-democratic, unjust, undemocratic form of legislation.

People are only now beginning to understand how seriously this type of legislation can affect our form of government, our traditions of democracy, our traditions of independence in certain areas of public employment. Mr. Speaker, I know that the government has no respect for public employment, no basic respect for public employees — but there are public employees who do needed service in this province. Look at the concerns of the police around this legislation — concerns that have not changed as a result of the changes in wording proposed in the amendments. They know it still means firing without cause; it still means termination without cause. And they know you can disguise the cause for terminating an employee.

[4:45]

The police have asked themselves, and have placed this question before the public in this country: what happens if a policeman is engaged in pursuing an investigation that would affect a cabinet minister, a member of the Legislature, friends of the government? What would happen if the government found out about this investigation and wished to protect its friends or colleagues, and so that policeman was fired without cause? Or he was told that his budget had been cut back; that he was no longer employable because they didn't have sufficient funds. In other words, he'd be fired without cause or through a disguised cause, through the back door, by withdrawing the funds that provide for his salary. Mr. Speaker, this affects the independence of the police and their right to pursue investigations, to curb crime and to protect the citizens of this province from criminals who would otherwise escape detection. That's one of the reasons we're concerned about this legislation. In every undemocratic state, in every dictatorship, the police are directly controlled by the government; there is no independence. This legislation, through the back door, by making it possible for the government to fire police who are independently pursuing investigations, turns this government a little towards an undemocratic state and a little away from what that member claims to have fought for — or claims to have stood for so many years ago. If this legislation is passed and the independence of the police forces in this province are compromised, a lot will have been lost, and we will have moved a few steps closer to authoritarianism, dictatorship and injustice. That's why we stand here debating this amendment.

We've also discussed, and a number of groups in the province have discussed, concerns about academic inquiry. One of those groups of public employees receiving their salaries from public bodies which would be affected by this legislation are those involved in research and academic inquiry in our universities, colleges and research institutes. They are concerned about this legislation, concerned about what happens if, say, a group of political scientists comment on the direction the Social Credit government in this province is following, recognizing that it's a path some countries have gone down before, a path toward authoritarianism and dictatorship, toward undermining the ability of the police to act independently to pursue investigations and to protect the citizens of this province. What happens if those political scientists involved in their research speak out and warn the public that this is happening? What will happen to their salaries? Under this section the government can either terminate them without cause or, if they succeed in passing the amendments, cut back the budgets of their departments in the university; in other bills we give that power to the government.

We're following a very dangerous course here, the course of sabotaging independent academic inquiry. We're doing it under the guise of restraint. The government uses the word "restraint" to cover many activities that would otherwise have an unacceptable ring to people in a democracy: sabotaging human rights, the right of security of tenure for tenants in rented premises, and services to people; sabotaging the tax system so that it bears more heavily on the poor and middle income groups and feeds money to the rich; sabotaging virtually every principle of liberal democratic institutions. The government uses restraint to cover a multitude of sins, Mr. Speaker, and here they're using restraint as a justification to sabotage independent academic inquiry and research. We have to be concerned, this little band of oppositionists in the Legislature, using every opportunity legally available to us under the standing orders of this House to prevent the passage of this legislation which will plunge this province into a darkness unknown in its history since we won responsible democratic government.

That's why we're opposed to this legislation. It sovietizes academic inquiry. If somebody involved in research that the government considers overly sensitive publishes information, or information about the research becomes known to the government, suddenly the budget for that research project will disappear. The budget for that person's salary will disappear and he will find himself out on the streets, the doors to his lab locked behind him and his avenues of inquiry cut off. We are concerned about this legislation.

This government talks about the growth in public sector employment and how it is mushrooming and has mushroomed over the last few years. There's an interesting book published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy in Canada, called Public Evaluation of Government Spending. I would commend it to the members on the government side, especially chapter 8, "Bureaucratic Growth in Canada: Myths and Realities." While the figures aren't completely up to date, it suggests that in the 14 years between 1961 and 1975, actual growth in public sector employment was minimal. In 1961 some 22.2 percent of the employees in Canada

[ Page 1723 ]

worked for the government, and in 1975 it was 23.7 percent. So it's a myth.

In order to give the government more time to consider the impact of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the House do now adjourn.

[5:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 24

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

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I am rising under standing order 58, which requires that "whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately...and quote the rule or authority applicable to the case."

We are dealing in the House with a reasoned amendment, for which our standing orders are silent. When our standing orders are silent, our authority, as you know, is the parliamentary practice of Britain as described by Sir Erskine May. Under reasoned amendments, every edition of Sir Erskine May has this statement: "A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories." You, sir, have found that the content of the motion before us is in order, but Sir Erskine May requires — and therefore it is a requirement of our House, our orders being silent on the matter — that such a reasoned amendment be placed on the order paper. As one member, Mr. Speaker, not having had notice of this motion and really not understanding its content, I am unable to debate it with the thoroughness of our members opposite, who placed it on the order paper without notice. I would request that this debate and the amendment be found out of order on those grounds.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order. I simply want to point out to Your Honour that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is wrong, wrong, wrong again.

Where have you been all your life?

Mr. Speaker, if he wanted to object to anything he should have done so at the time the matter was under consideration, not at some time after he's awakened from a deep sleep.

Secondly, the use of reasoned amendments in this chamber has always followed the practice of moving them without having to give notice. In any event, he's had the ruling and he's just kind of awakened to the fact, upset.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will reserve opinion on both propositions put forward by the hon. minister and the....

MR. HOWARD: With respect, how can you reserve judgment...

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, when might we anticipate a decision on this matter be rendered, because debate, I would propose to you...

MR. HOWARD: ...on a decision that's already been made by the House?

HON. MR. McGEER: ...is being carried on in this House which is out of order.

MR. HOWARD: The only person out of order is you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. One moment please.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Mr. Speaker seriously considered this when it came up — you did. Mr. Speaker, or someone who resembles you in your great capacity — the Chair — did not make a sudden ruling. The Chair took at least 45 minutes, during which time the member for Vancouver–Point Grey or any other member of this House had plenty of opportunity to make any point of order that they wished. As you have ruled on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, once Mr. Speaker has ruled, that is it. There is no further debate, whether a member attempts to raise that debate immediately after the ruling or an hour later.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the member brings forward, of course, an excellent point. But I submit the ruling that was made from the Chair was with respect to content only. This is the first time that a member, who I must confess, in my case, was confused about how to debate the question, not having received notice of it and considering the fundamental importance of the question, would really require notice adequately to prepare for debate.... I think this is the position that all members of the House would be in, being faced with an important but surprise amendment. That is why this is the initial opportunity for it to be brought to your attention and therefore for you to consider a point that obviously has not properly been canvassed in the decision on content.

MR. LAUK: The reference read by the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications was a reference to the word "paper." It seems to me, from most of what is contained in Sir Erskine May, that whenever a notice is required it explicitly states so and gives references to the precedent-of-notice requirement. That not being the case, in desperation the Minister of Universities, as acting House Leader, obviously has found a reference to the paper that could mean that the motion should be written down on a piece

[ Page 1724 ]

of paper, for all we know. But if it means notice, Sir Erskine May would expressly say so.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, regarding the matter that is raised, the Chair is prepared to advise the House that the earlier decision of the Chair stands and that the motion is in order — notwithstanding the points raised by the minister. The practice of this House clearly has been that such matters have not required previous notice. Hon. members, on that matter the decision of the Chair is that the motion is in order.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in that case the insomniac member for Vancouver East rises to debate the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: Why am I called to order on that point?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in spite of those interjections, the somnambulant member for Vancouver East rises to debate....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not here.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: You object to that? The soporific member for Vancouver East rises to debate the reasoned amendment with a reasonable speech.

Mr. Speaker, we have in this bill, we've seen in other bills, and this is what the amendment is talking about, the power being given to the government to exercise itself in terms of its employees throughout the whole public sector in ways that are capricious and arbitrary.

I have to repeat that; but I won't repeat it. While I've a had a little fun in my opening remarks, I'm not of the opinion that there is anything really humorous about what we're doing in this bill. When the reasoned amendment, drawing attention to one important defect in the bill, says that this is a measure that will give the government powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees, that's exactly what this bill does. It's full of arbitrary powers.

We have had, in the country of Canada and the province of British Columbia, something known in general terms as the rule of law. That means that laws of general application are held to prevail in respect to groups and categories of people, or all of the people, depending on the individual case. We have never surrendered to government the right to pick and choose particular employees or individuals or groups and single them out for dismissal. We have had, under the Labour Code of the province of British Columbia — which is a very excellent code, whatever else you may say about it — a law of general application, whose powers, including layoff and dismissal in the public and private sectors, are fairly and evenly applied to people. We've had the same within the public sector domain — the immediate public service domain — under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. We have now, in Canada, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whose basic intent is to protect individuals from the arbitrary singling-out of themselves for purposes of discrimination, revenge or spite. Included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are the words "freedom of association."

So what we're dealing with when we're talking about employee rights in this legislation is fair and even treatment of employees; and now it is fair and even treatment of employees under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I doubt very much whether the arbitrary and capricious powers contained within this bill to get at somebody by regulation, cutting off funds or reorganizing a division or a branch is constitutionally correct, in view of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Because I intend to speak on this legislation at a later stage, I'm just going to make one or two points, at this hour of the day....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hurry up.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister says "hurry up," and I'm prepared to make my points as briefly as I can...

MR. KEMPF: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and listen to the points of order, which are always a welcome relief, a comic relief.

[5:15]

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it has been a long-standing custom in this House to prohibit — and the reference is Beauchesne — posters and displays. I would ask that the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) take the one that she has off her desk.

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the member is a valid one, and in keeping with the parliamentary practices I am requesting that the member — that's the one, hon. member....

MS. SANFORD: Oh, this!

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, how does your ruling conform to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Freedom of publication and information, I think.... It's very hard on that member.

MR. SPEAKER: It would be an appropriate discussion for another time, hon. member, but at this time we are on the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm going to refer to a couple of the areas of this bill which give the government arbitrary and capricious powers over individual employees.

The first is that under this bill, although it is later in terms of the sections of the bill, the minister has the most amazing powers I've ever seen granted to anyone in any kind of a jurisdiction. The minister, with respect to senior employees, can — not by a regulation that applies evenly to all people — pick out a senior manager, which is a very wide group, and cut off his salary. Am I not right, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

[ Page 1725 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Well, is not cutting off the salary equivalent to depriving that person of employment?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. Speak to the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: It isn't? I think it is, so I'm speaking to the amendment. I think this gives you the power to get rid of anybody throughout the whole of the public sector by dismissing....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Isn't it arbitrary dismissal to deprive somebody of their pay or so much thereof that they can't carry on? Isn't that forcing the dismissal of that employee? Of course, it's also a great power of intimidation the minister is taking unto himself over all of the senior managers within the public service. But when you have the power, and it can be exercised by a direction — not a regulation.... You can say: "I direct the Vancouver School Board to reduce the salary of its superintendent of schools by 50 percent." Do you have that power under this bill? Just nod your head if you have, Mr. Speaker.... I have to ask the Speaker if he's going to Regina, but I'll do that another time. You are, Thank you, We've cleared that up.

That is the power that you have. The minister — and he doesn't deny it — under this section by direction — whatever that may be; could that be a telephone call, or does it have to be a letter...? It doesn't have to be a regulation of any kind.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No. I know. It was so similar to the power you've taken over school boards that the parallel is unbelievable. In each case, you're centralizing power over individuals in the hands of the minister, by directive. Where in the world does that word "directive" come from? It's the most amazing thing. I would think it means that a direction of the minister....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Okay, that's what a direction is. You're quite right. That's all I'm saying.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, but I'm telling you what the power is that you've got. You can take the superintendent of the school district of Vancouver, whose salary, incidentally, is quite high — I know what it is — and probably too high....

Interjection.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I see. So now the government is going to decide whether the superintendent of schools for the school district of Vancouver deserves to have his salary reduced, say, by 50 percent, and if the minister so makes that decision, then the minister can pick up the phone, phone the Vancouver School Board and say — this is a direction, and he might even say that a letter will follow. but he doesn't have to — "Reduce the salary of your superintendent of education by 50 percent," The person on the other end of the phone says: "Who's speaking?" The minister replies: "It's the minister, the Provincial Secretary, and I'm speaking pursuant to section 6" — I think it is — "of the Public Sector Restraint Act." That answers the question as to who's speaking. So this puts the superintendent of education in that school district in a rather difficult situation when he could be subject to that kind of direction.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Not that kind in a free society. No, not that kind, not arbitrary, not capricious, picking people out. But that's the power that is given to you in this bill.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Not this kind. That's what I was talking about: the rule of law is being thrown out of the window.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: "What's the rule of law?" says the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). I don't know whether we're having a duet. I'm trying to make points here, and the minister, who doesn't seem to understand the bill and who doesn't have the carriage of it, is contributing to my speech.

So the Provincial Secretary can issue that kind of direction. What's the position of the Vancouver School Board, Mr. Minister? They either carry out your direction or you can fine the Vancouver School Board members $2,000. I've never heard of such haywire stuff being brought into a responsible Legislature, a law-making body, in my life. It's absolutely hilarious.

How are you going to pick out the employer who contravenes your direction, when you picked up the phone and said, "Cut that salary by 50 percent," and have driven the poor fellow — because he's got a family to support — into dismissal? Then you look at the records of the school trustees, I suppose, and you've got one or two who are really skookum.... They say: "We back up the minister; cut that salary." You're not going to fine them, are you? Somebody else was kind of wobbly, though, when the debate took place, and said, "Maybe we should do it; maybe we shouldn't do it," and finally votes against the minister. He's subject to a fine of $2,000. When I'm talking about these things, I find it absolutely unbelievable.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're wrong.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't know that I am wrong, Mr. Minister. Where a public sector employer contravenes the direction, each member of the governing body of the employer commits an offence. Does that mean that even those good Social Crediters on the Vancouver School Board who support the minister in his direction to cut salaries by 50 percent can be fined $2,000, even though they did their best to back you up? Or just the bad ones?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just the bad ones.

[ Page 1726 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, now we're getting some where: just the bad ones. This legislation, honestly.... Are you serious about it, Mr. Minister'? It's got to be the strangest kind of stuff to put before anybody I've ever heard in my life.

So now we're on a search to find the bad ones. We're forgetting about the superintendent for a while. He's had his salary cut by X percent, and you've got to find out who are the bad guys on the school board.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll explain who they are.

MR. MACDONALD: Will you speak on this reasoned amendment, on this point? I'll sit down if you promise to give your explanation and answer to these points — and I'm not talking about you speaking at the end of second reading, when nobody can answer you. If you speak on the amendment, you will still have the right to close the debate.

I don't know whether it's through lack of sleep, or what, but I find this part of this legislation so hilarious that it's impossible to believe that it could be upheld by the court in terms of natural justice. You're going to pick through the Vancouver School Board and say: "Who are the bad guys?" "Each member of the governing body of that employer commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000." Each member — maybe the member supported you.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, now we've got a commitment from the minister here, which isn't in the act, because it says "each member." That would be the minority who lost the vote, eh?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Four to three vote — four offenders.

MR. MACDONALD: Now we're getting somewhere. If there's a four to three vote on the Vancouver School Board not to go along with the minister, there are four offenders; that's only $8,000 that they're liable to be fined.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the penalties.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I see. All right. This has got to be Gilbert and Sullivan. Are you, really serious about this legislation? I shouldn't refer to the Speaker as having municipal authority in the past, but I suppose a good candidate to pick out as a city employer in Vancouver would be Harry Rankin. He could afford a fine of $2,000. You give a direction to the Vancouver city council with respect to one of their senior management personnel and you've got a pretty good chance that Harry Rankin will stand up and say: "We ought to be able to make that decision. We have our total budgetary amounts to spend. We don't want the minister phoning us up and saying: 'We want this salary cut.' We'd rather cut some body else if we have to cut anything, or reduce things or save in some other way." So you might have Harry Rankin, who can be quite a rebel....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hello, Harry? This is Jim.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, you phone him up. But he say’s: "I'm not going along with your direction." And you say: "That's going to cost you $2,000."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Plus the phone call.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on! You can't bring legislation like this into a law-making body. God almighty! We're not summer relief here, are we? We've passed the summer days.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We've got to pay for the $80,000 a day you're wasting here.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, we're wasting money in drawing out and presenting the general rule of law, and the rights and freedom from discrimination of all the Canadian people, including employees. We're wasting money by drawing these points to the attention of the minister. I find that absolutely.... But what I am saying is that it's right within this amendment. You can get rid of employees, eh? Not directly. Under this part of the act you can but under this section part — the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) made those points abundantly clear — you dismiss them by taking away their salary, by picking up the phone.

I don't know whether the hon. House Leader was listening to some of the answers this minister was giving. The minister is saying that if you pick up the phone and tell the Vancouver School Board to cut the salary of the superintendent of education by 50 percent, and then you have a four-three vote on the school board saying, "No, we're not going to do that, we're going to economize in some other way within our budget," you've got a fine there of $8,000 on the bad guys but not the good guys, even though it says "each member of the governing body." The good Socreds who voted to support the minister in his direction don't get fined; the bad guys, like the Harry Rankins of the world, get fined.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're catching on.

MR. MACDONALD: Come on! Are you guys serious about this legislation? But the thing gets more serious. Suppose it's the chief....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: How can you be serious and talk about Harry Rankin?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, let's take another example.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Ask him to sit down and I'll speak.

MR. MACDONALD: Don't worry, I won't be too long. I have a chance to speak again on this legislation and I intend to do it, if you are serious about going ahead with it.

Let's take the case of the Vancouver chief of police — a senior management official within a public body, clearly within the definitions of this section. So you don't like the way he's been carrying on; through some of his officers, he stopped a Socred cabinet minister whose car was weaving. The minister doesn't refer to that, but he phones the Vancouver city council and says that he thinks the chief of police is

[ Page 1727 ]

making too much money. You know, we're living in a time of restraint and we've all — except the rich people — got to pull in our belts. We know that. Things are very tough and they're getting a lot tougher for the ordinary people of the province than they are for some others. Anyway, you pick up the phone, you say to Vancouver city council: "Reduce the salary of your chief of police by $20,000 a year." You don't refer to the fact that he's fallen into your disfavour, because that would sound pretty bad on the telephone. So the city council then says....

[5:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're too much.

MR. MACDONALD: The legislation is too much. Nothing I've said can you deny.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're really too much.

MR. MACDONALD: You're not going to rise up and dispute anything I'm saying in this part of the bill.

So we're back in the situation where you have a hot debate in the city council of Vancouver: "Shall we carry out the direction of the minister to cut the salary of the chief of police by $20,000?" Somebody gets up and says: "I think he deserves what he's getting. I think they're trying to get after the chief of police for ulterior reasons." He makes that speech in the Vancouver city council — probably Harry Rankin, a constituent of mine who does everything for me that I could possibly ask except vote for me. But that's all right; you can't win them all. So he makes a fiery speech....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Who does he vote for? You'd have to ask Harry who he votes for. I don't think he's voted for a Social Credit candidate for the last 35 years, though. I don't think he's ever done that. But he usually has somebody else running in Vancouver East to whom he is a little more favourable. That's all right. We're not discussing my political bad luck in losing a vote here or there. We're discussing this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: You didn't mind making a speech in Penticton. You didn't get as much applause as Bill Vander Zalm by any means, but you made your speech. Now you can speak on this reasoned amendment and tell me if I'm wrong.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Sit down.

MR. MACDONALD: You're not going to say anything about it. This is the whole thing. Your legislation is so ridiculous that when we bring out a specific point like this discrimination section over individual human beings, nobody gets up on our amendment from the government side to debate it.

Anyway, back to the chief of police, Mr. Speaker. The thing has gone out to cut his salary by $20,000 and Harry Rankin makes a fiery speech and says: "I think they're trying to get at the chief because of what he did last Thursday — not that he doesn't earn the money he's getting. I'm against following the direction of the minister." Then Harry Rankin is fined $2,000.

MR. HOWARD: Or maybe jail.

MR. MACDONALD: In default of payment of the fine. I think that Harry might be able to pay the fine, but he might choose to go to jail. So he goes to jail — for what? For expressing, on a municipal council, an honest opinion. Now really, what in the world are we coming to in this kind of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to reserve some of my other remarks until a later stage in the debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not another motion, for heaven's sake.

MR. MACDONALD: Another motion?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: He just got one from Kube and handed it to you.

MR. MACDONALD: Is that CUPE, the public service union, or Kube? Is it with a C or a K?

Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 11

NAYS — 25

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) didn't stand in her place for either side, and I'm wondering if it's okay to count her with the gang of 11 over there.

MR. SPEAKER: The recorded vote indicated that the member voted. The Chair observed that the member had stood in her place, and the vote was recorded properly.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the member did not stand.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that the member's vote was recorded properly, and the matter is concluded. On a point of order, the member for Vancouver Centre.

[ Page 1728 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, twice now this confusion has arisen. I suggest that all the members be polled as to their vote on a division. It might take an extra minute or two, but it's a procedure done in the House of Commons. I think that just to be sure the Provincial Secretary doesn't get upset again, we should poll each individual member. Do you think that's a good idea, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: If you're asking me, hon. member, if we were to adopt the rules of the federal House or the Westminster House, we'd have a different situation than we have at present.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I will be very brief. I was hoping that those who challenged me to get into this debate would stay and listen to some truths.

Speaking against this amendment, but more particularly responding to some of the statements that have been made, I want to draw the attention of the House, and hopefully the public, to the fact that no matter what the issue is, we always find the opposition with a vehicle that they find very convenient to use. In the short time that I have served in this House, I have seen the sick used as a vehicle to further their political cause. I have see them use the elderly to further their political cause. I have seen them use the handicapped to further their political cause. I have heard them use students to further their political cause. I have heard them use teachers to further their political cause. But most disgusting of all is the use of our churches to further their political cause, particularly by those who seldom are present for opening prayers.

I find this a very difficult thing to accept, but as I sit here as one who came through the last war, one who suffered as a result of what took place during the last war.... It hit home as I sat here and listened to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) using examples from the last war to further their political cause. I can honestly, accurately and very confidently stand here and speak for hundreds of thousands of people who suffered through the last war as I did; people who lost family as I did; people who lost homes, who had to move as evacuees, as I did. That sort of use to further a political cause hurts immensely.

I can recall that in my days as a child, whenever the labour unions fought hard for a free opportunity to have a fair deal, I and my family were part of those who fought hard to get a better deal. We weren't fighting for socialism. We were only fighting for an opportunity to work for what we thought was fair. For a long time we heard our Prime Minister of the day tell us that there was no need whatsoever to be concerned about Hitler. We were told that there was nothing to fear, that there would be no war. We listened to that, and we didn't arm; we weren't ready.

[5:45]

I can remember quite vividly that day in September when my father brought me to the gates of the Mary Hill barracks in Glasgow — the day that war was declared, when the soldiers were brought back off leave into the barracks and prepared for shipment out to fight in the war which we were not prepared for. I remember quite clearly when the elderly, and those of us who were old enough and strong enough to handle a gun, were trained to use one. They built sandbag barriers in front of our houses — in front of the closes, as we called them — so that we would have some protection from the enemy in an invasion that we fully anticipated would take place. I can recall the first sirens that were heard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair is having some difficulty in relating the remarks of the minister to the amendment before us. While latitude is allowed, and reference to the original legislation and the bill itself is allowed, currently the remarks of the minister.... The Chair is having great difficulty in relating them to the amendment before us.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I fully understand the difficulty you must have, Mr. Speaker. There was another Speaker in the chair at the time, and I am dealing with the amendment as it was dealt with by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), but I am taking the position of the person he was attempting to use to further his political cause. I am one of those he was attempting to use. I will continue to refer to the amendment. I must, in all fairness, be able to respond on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people who have been hurt, if the press are fair, by the remarks made by the member for Alberni. It is not the first time, because I have heard that sort of stuff take place in this House from that same speaker many times.

Mr. Speaker, as I refer to his remarks, as they were applied to the amendment and as he fitted them to the amendment, I recall the days when the sirens went off and the barrage balloons were put up into the air over our housing to keep the planes from getting low enough to machine gun us. I recall very clearly the days when we were put to bed about 5:30 or 6 in the evening so that we could be got out of our beds around 9 o'clock or whenever the sirens would go again to be put safely into a shelter, which was a hole in the ground in the yard where we spent the rest of the dark hours. We sat there in fear, watching the red-hot shrapnel burn into the pavement where we usually played during the day.

I can recall those days very vividly, and I also recall the days when one of our own family lost his life in that war. I can recall the mornings when daybreak would come and my father would take me and my brother out around the community to see what we could do to help others who were less fortunate — those who had been bombed — or to see if we could help find some bodies or help families find their other family members.

As time progressed, I also recall the days when there was very little food on the table. I'm sure most of the members in this House would feel quite safe here in Canada, and particularly the one who just spoke and used this as a vehicle to further his political cause. I can recall the days very clearly when there was very little of the essentials on the table, such as butter, milk, eggs, bacon, sugar, tea, coffee and so forth. The reason it was so difficult was because the then Prime Minister listened to the bleeding-heart types and said that we should not have war, and the way not to have war is not to arm, not to be prepared.

I can recall then that I tried to get into the forces and oftentimes was turned away because I was too young. But then times got very difficult indeed. They started to take us slightly younger than the law said, and I can recall being very proud indeed when I first put on my uniform. I can recall those frightening nights as I took my two-hour watch — not sitting in the safety of this Legislature, the safety of this country, the safety of the political climate we have and the safety of all of the great things we have, but rather sitting out

[ Page 1729 ]

there bobbing in the water, doing my turn on watch and being afraid that they would spot us and get us.

I can recall the nights when I was expected and asked to use a gun that scared the living daylights out of me. I can recall many times as I watched and witnessed family members go out of their minds because of the devastation that took place through those years. It hurts immensely.

I hope that the little outburst that I have had will be excused, because I can tell you that absolutely nothing hurts me more than to hear a politician who has never known what it is to face up to those things.... Even more devastating, when I hear them piping up, such as the member here for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who was chattering away about my concern.... I'm sure she was well protected. I was very hurt as I listened to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) also chatter away with his Nazi statements that he has used in this House before. He's a person who, by his accent, should know better. Unfortunately he doesn't know what it was like over there. I hope that this will never happen to this House again, because not only do I get hurt but I'm sure that there must be hundreds of thousands of people out there hurting with me.

The greatest mistake that was ever made with respect to that whole war was when Winston Churchill was ignored when he said: "Our biggest problem will be socialism and communism." That is why we are having such difficulties today. That is why over 200 people lost their lives on that Korean airliner — because we didn't listen to Winston Churchill, and we allowed socialism and communism to continue their drive to master the world.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. With the greatest deference....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I refer to the amendment, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Simply referring to the amendment, hon. member, is not sufficient. While the member may feel very strongly about his views, and has certainly generally expressed those views, we must return to the amendment before us. I would commend that to the member speaking and hope that he could relate his remarks to the amendment and the bill before us.

HON MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I will come back to the amendment and respond to it in a way in which I can answer the charges of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the chattering of those other members who totally supported the things that he was saying. Had you been in your chair, Mr. Speaker, you would have witnessed that there was money flashed in the air here — bets that I was not prepared to get up and speak in this House.

I feel very emotional about this whole thing, and the reason is that experience. The biggest reason of all is that I did come to Canada, and particularly to British Columbia. I became a member of the Social Credit Party in 1952 in order to defend and help to work for the things that this great country offers.

I want to talk a little longer, but I think that possibly it may be wise at this moment if I moved adjournment of the debate so that I can continue with my remarks later. I hereby move adjournment until later this day.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.