[ Page 1731 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 1731

Mr. Blencoe –– 1733

Mr. Rose –– 1736

Mr. Mitchell –– 1741

Mr. Lea –– 1745

Mrs. Dailly –– 1750

Mr. Nicolson –– 1754

Mr. Stupich –– 1758

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1763

Mr. Barrett –– 1767

Mr. Macdonald –– 1774

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1778

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1781

Division –– 1783

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1983

The House met at 8:05 p.m.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make introductions of some guests in the gallery tonight.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The B.C. Association of Broadcasters is having a meeting in Victoria this evening. In the gallery tonight, I would like to recognize the following people: Gary Milne of CHWK, Chilliwack: Norm Wessen of CKCQ, Quesnel; Hal Davis of CKNW, New Westminister; Bill Coombes of CHWK, Chilliwack; Walter Gray of CKIQ, Kelowna; Fred Webber of the Skeena broadcasters; Tom Peacock of CKWX, Vancouver; Ray Dagg of Target Media; Ray Peters of Western International Communications; Noel Hullah of CHQM, Vancouver; Tom Waterland from Merritt; Jamie Brown of CKOV, Kelowna; and Dennis Gerein of CJAT in Trail. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: On behalf of my party, I'd like to join the Minister of Health in welcoming these electronic luminaries who are meeting in convention in Victoria today. As a long-time member of the broadcasting committee in the federal House, I had an opportunity to meet them, and many times I heard from some of the others, who are old and personal friends of mine. Could I list three of them?

One I don't know particularly well, but when I was a teacher in Kelowna, there was the Brown family who owned the main radio station. They were extremely kind to me in my beginning career as a music teacher. Also, when I first went to Kelowna, one of the people who is not blowing my horn, but whom I taught to blow a horn, was CKIQ's director, Walter Gray. I look forward to meeting him on November 11 when I come up with Mart Kenny's band to play there.

Finally, I wonder if I could also acknowledge how much I appreciated the help, when I first went to New Westminister as a struggling, fuzzy-faced youth of a music supervisor, of CKNW's director, Hal Davis. Could I welcome them all, please.

Before I sit down, I saw the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) pointing at his own Adam's apple. I'd like to welcome him back from wherever his latest travels have taken him.

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I was challenged to rise and take my part in this debate. In one case the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) waved some dollar bills in order to entice me up. Well, it takes neither challenge nor money to get me into a debate.

I listened to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who has now forsaken the labour movement, the sick, the elderly, the handicapped, students and so forth in order to use people like myself — and hundreds of thousands like me who suffered during the last war — as a vehicle to further his political cause. As we speak to this amendment, Mr. Speaker, I have to refer to that because that was the argument he used. His argument was: here we are bringing in legislation as was brought in during the last war by the fascists, who brought all the suffering and so forth. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to that sort of debate my memory.... I wouldn't want to be accused of accepting this. I want you all to know that I don't accept it all.

As I listened to that terrible debate — that vile debate — my memories go back to those days when the Prime Minister of the country said: "No, there's nothing to worry about. There will never be a war here. Hitler does not mean to declare war on us. There's no need to arm. Carry on; all is well." But that wasn't so. It wasn't too long after we heard those words that the trucks were driving down our main streets with cutting-torches in desperation looking for metal that they could quickly assemble in order to build arms and make ammunition required to fight a war brought on by Hitler at that time.

As I hear that vile debate from the socialist side, I can't help but think of those days when daylight would come and we would come out of our shelters and walk down the streets to see where we could be of any help. We would see tenement buildings half down, death all around, curtains blowing in the breeze, pieces of bed-linen and clothing and all of those things hanging from the branches of trees that had been stripped of leaves by the blasts of the bombs dropped by those people. I remember those days very well, and as we debate this amendment and listen to this member using this vile description and applying it to the government which I am part of.... I am one of those who not only suffered under the deluge of bombs and the shrapnel but also took their part in uniform.

I'm delighted that we have so many people here tonight from the news media. I certainly hope they will have an opportunity to tell the province but especially tell all of those people who came out to this great land as I did, who suffered through those days, about what sort of description is being used to describe the actions of this government. This Bill 3 that they want to amend is not a bill that brings darkness to this province but rather a bill that lightens up this province.

I can recall very vividly the evening we walked down in the daylight to see where we could be of any help, and saw a school that was used as temporary quarters for those people who were bombed out, the playgrounds full of temporary shelters, tents and so forth: it had itself received a bomb. Devastation. As we hear the giggles from the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), it hurts me even more because there is a member who has been protected by good government on this Island never touched by war, never touched by those hardships that they accuse us of bringing on, sheltered in a marvellous country in a marvellous province. What does she do? She giggles. Mr. Speaker, at one point she said: You're too touchy." They have the audacity to use such vile descriptions in this place — to use such a terrible argument that touches people like myself and then turn around and say: "You're too touchy. You should take all the things that we say and not respond." I can't help but respond, because I do feel hurt. So do thousands of others in my age group, and I hope that they and their children and grandchildren remember what your party is doing in this House. And I hope too, Mr. Speaker, as we debate on this, that we will think back to those days when Winston Churchill said: "We should not stop now.

[ Page 1732 ]

We should carry on and put an end to communism in this world, which no doubt will be a problem in the future." As I take a look at the Waffle Manifesto of the NDP," Independent Socialist Canada," then I know for sure that Winston Churchill was correct, a man of vision. He knew where the problem would be coming from, and now we're feeling it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), with the English accent, obviously came to this country to get away from the things that I got away from, and here he is hoping to perpetuate the same mess that he and his type created in the Old Country.

I remember very well whenever the all-clear sirens went and we would go out there....

[8:15]

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: This isn't funny, my friend. This is very serious, and you people brought it on.

I recall very well when the all-clear siren went and we all thanking God that we were still alive — those of us who were. You are the people who would sit there and allow your colleague to enter into a debate using such descriptions as he did against this party.

As we get into this debate, I can also recall that whenever the Labour Party — which is the socialist party of the day — says, "Vote us into office and we'll bring you all home, " and they're voted into office, what do they do? They nationalize the railways and the big businesses and move along ruthlessly, as they attempted to do in 1972. Fortunately they didn't have too many days or they would have repeated what happened in Britain. Mr. Speaker, that socialist party of the day, called the Labour Party, moved right along and ran that country into the ground, as we see it today. Thank God we have Margaret Thatchers in this world to reverse that.

MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we came here tonight to listen to a discourse on British politics. I wonder if you could ask the member to get back to Bill 3, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is quite well taken, hon. members. I will remind the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs that we are debating a reasoned amendment to Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act, and if he could relate his remarks to the principle of the amendment before us the Legislative Assembly would be well served.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I think quite a bit of latitude was given our side in discussing this legislation, and I think it only fair that the minister have the opportunity for the same kind of latitude. Besides, we need the votes, and I'd like him to continue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Latitude is allowed, I guess, but if the minister could relate his remarks to the amendment before us the Legislative Assembly would be well served.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will do my best to stay as close to the reasoned amendment as have the speakers in the opposition. I would remind the member for Burnaby North that that side has talked about politics in South America, Britain, Greece, Central America — all over the place.

I can recall very well when their Labour Party, their socialist party, moved into the system and took over. Those fellows who came back from the war, thousands of them, very soon found that the dream wasn't there. The government had taken over. Many of them came out to Canada; many of them to British Columbia. But they're not satisfied with that lesson. They want to do it to this country as well. It's for exactly that reason that I am in politics here in British Columbia today. I intend to take my stand and fight to the bitter end to prevent socialism from taking over in British Columbia and, indeed, in Canada.

This reasoned amendment is just a bunch of hogwash. It's just a stall; it's obstructionist. We know that bill brings light to this province, not darkness, as suggested by them. That bill simply gives back to the employer the ability to manage, which it lost because of the pressures of people like those on the other side. The bill is a promise to the people of British Columbia that they're not going to be asked to continue bearing the heavy burden of government; that we are bound and determined to turn this thing around and reduce the size of government.

They fight tooth and nail to protect those who work for government. What gives anyone the right to fight for some specialized group? I say that no matter where you work you're entitled to do a good day's work and you're entitled to receive a fair reward for what you do. I don't think anyone is entitled to special protection because of what the government.... As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would say that because we are paid from the taxpayers' dollars we should be working harder. We should be producing harder. We're not entitled to all of those special things that are not available in the private sector. I didn't hear them fight for all of those businessmen who suffered bankruptcy or who are on the verge of it, for all of those people in the private sector who were laid off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you did. Who had the task force for small business?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: They didn't scream for them. No, they're fighting for a group that they think should be specially treated.

I admit that the type of language, the type of demonstrations and examples given by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) does touch a sore spot with me, and I certainly hope that the press of this province will make sure the message gets out. I hope all of those people who came to this country for the same reason I did will get that message, to make sure that the word gets through loud and clear that never again do I want to see that happen to my country, and that is Canada.

I apologize for the initial outburst, but I want to assure you that any time those members want to use something like this, they can expect this sort of response. They sit and chatter and natter and fool around and try to cover up for the mistakes of their colleague, try to look busy; they blush, are embarrassed. I would like to know what was said to the member for Alberni in caucus tonight. Did you dress him down? He's not here. A further split in the Party.

Bill 3 is here, and it's here for the reason given to the people during the campaign. The people told the socialists

[ Page 1733 ]

what they wanted: they wanted this government, this leadership, because we believe in restraint. Your leader said he would dismantle it. That was repeated in Coquitlam not too long ago, when the now member for Coquitlam-Moody, in great excitement, thought: "I'm going to jump over into the political scene because Davey Barrett is going to be the Premier of this province, and I'll be in his cabinet." What did he get? He's now a useless back-bencher over there. Not only did he lose that, but he lost Sophie as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I will.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is an unparliamentary reference to a member. I'll advise the member to please relate his remarks to the amendment.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On the amendment, Mr. Speaker, this reasoned amendment is an attempt to obstruct, not to amend. That bill is here to follow through on a promise made to the people of this province, who on May 5 told us what they wanted in a very resounding way. They repeated it in Maillardville-Coquitlam just recently by making sure they put the right party and the right representative into that area. I oppose this nonsense of obstruction, this reasoned amendment. I hoped these people would have learned that they can't continue to use the sick, the elderly, the handicapped, the students, the labour unions, the blind, and those who suffered during the war to further their political cause.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like first this evening, as the second member for Victoria, to congratulate my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) for his excellent presentation, which started early this morning and ended this afternoon.

I believe the first member for Victoria tried to give the government some sane, rational and intelligent approach for the thing they're trying to do. Unfortunately, the government seems incapable of listening to reason or alternative approaches for running the province. As the word "reason" enters into this amendment to the motion, I'd like to reflect on reason. In my estimation, and the estimation of our party, people in British Columbia are looking for a high degree of reason at this time, for an intelligent and reasoned approach to the very difficult problems that face certain British Columbians in very obvious ways — a reasoned, intelligent, rational and thoughtful approach to the problems. In my estimation, and I think in the estimation of thousands of British Columbians, the government has embarked on something the result of which I don't think they know. It has very little to do with reason or reasonableness.

Mr. Speaker, I think the word "reasoned" amendment is appropriate at this time, given the state of this Legislature and the hours and hours we have debated. The opposition has come down to propose a reasonable, intelligent alternative to what you're doing. I most sincerely urge the government to rethink. I urged the government to rethink on Bill 6 and on other pieces of legislation. In debate on various bills I have given alternative approaches and constructive ideas to try to resolve some of the things that they are trying to accomplish.

[8:30]

If there is one thing the people of British Columbia feel — and that is why the opposition is still here and is taking its present position — it is that the government has overstepped the mark. They have misread what people supported in terms of that word "restraint." Nobody has trouble with trying to save dollars in difficult times. Nobody has trouble with trying to ensure that the taxpayers of British Columbia get a fair return for their dollar. that essential services are maintained and that those in greatest need in our province are protected and helped in times of trouble. But it’s our belief that in Bill 3 the government has gone beyond restraint.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

It is our belief that the government has gone beyond restraint, and that for some unknown reasons they have decided to carry out a mission that if they carefully look at the package.... Bill 3 is certainly on the top of that package, which if it is carried out, will radically affect British Columbia for a long, long time. The impact will have horrendous implications for the social fabric of the province. I urge the government to consider and reason with their consciences — because I know that many of those members across the way are equally concerned about what's happening in this province; there's no question about that.

I have to wonder if the government intended to do away with things, or workers, that are an integral component of a civilized and progressive society. I refer to such things as child-abuse teams, family-support workers or grants to handicapped people, so they can take....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm really trying to be reasonable. Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately certain members continue to be extremely rude in this House. It's most unfortunate.

I don't think the government or many members across there realize the full implications of their package, and particularly Bill 3. If there was ever a time in the history of this province, and what's happened in the last two or three days in this House.... It's now time to take a second look, and we're prepared to participate in that second look. It's time to adjourn this House for about a month. Leave things where they are.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this is the very reason I'm saying we need to rethink and to adjourn this House. The government — as portrayed quite clearly by some of those members over there — is not prepared to think again on some of their actions.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, gentlemen. Please give the member on the floor an opportunity.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, over the last few days I think all of us.... If we were to go in the corridor or have a coffee quietly together, even though there appears to be a wide gulf between us politically and philosophically, we might admit that perhaps we need to take a little break; we need to look very closely at some of the things that are being suggested for the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 1734 ]

There's a lot of rhetoric that's gone on for the last few months — no question about that — and it's going to happen in this chamber. But there have been some sincere objections to some of the things that this government is trying to do. I'm trying to stay away from being — you know, it's the opposition speaking. There are some things in there that are indeed highly objectionable, and maybe they should be rethought. I urge the government once again to perhaps step back, take a month off, talk out in the communities, talk to....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, if I may I will try to continue. Perhaps you will give me some protection from the members across the way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the members please give the speaker every courtesy and opportunity to take his place in debate, and I'm sure he will extend the same to you when it's your turn.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will.

Again I reiterate that there are pieces of legislation and some implications in Bill 3 and other pieces of legislation like the human rights legislation that we'll be debating perhaps in a month or so. I think people of all political stripes are deeply concerned. There is no question about that. The government has taken a lot of heat and a lot of attack, and I know in political life it's very difficult to back down a little bit —very difficult. But there is nothing wrong with admitting to the people — and I think people respect you a little more — that perhaps the message has been one of concern and maybe there are ways to accomplish what you want.... I don't necessarily agree with all you want to accomplish, but maybe there are ways to accomplish what you want without taking away some of the roots, some of the fundamental components that make this province a very fine place to live.

Maybe just once, given that we are in a watershed time in this province, given a watershed in history....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a well-used term, Mr. Member. We are at a critical crossroads in this province. We are, however, Mr. Speaker, one of the richest areas in the world and we have an incredible future.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You think money grows on trees.

MR. BLENCOE: No, I don't, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I really would ask you to allow me to complete my part in this debate without interruption from certain members of the government side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If the members on the government side would please allow the member for Victoria to have his say, and if the member for Victoria would please direct his speech to the Chair, I'm sure we'd have less interruption from the government side.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not only did the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) make an interjection, but he also rose on his feet and made that interjection. That is a clear breach of the standing orders, and if that practice is going to start in this House it will lead to absolute chaos and anarchy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may just make an aside, Mr. Member for Nelson-Creston, there is a saw-off in that both you and the Minister of Forests stood up without acknowledging under what point of order you were standing.

MR. NICOLSON: He did not indicate that he was on a point of order. That is my point.

MR. BLENCOE: What I'm trying to do at this late hour.... I fully expect we'll be going through the night again. What I'm asking on behalf of my constituents and I think many other British Columbians is for this government to admit that perhaps the time has come to take another look at certain pieces of legislation.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) discussed some of his personal thoughts about wartime and what he went through. I respect his words and his concerns. However, he decided to make an attack on the NDP for trying to.... The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was saying that perhaps there were some analogies that could be drawn between other regimes and a certain history of what was happening with this government. The minister took great exception to that. However, I would remind the government and that minister that if they are students of history they only have to take a look at where certain things started in terms of governments that became extremely dictatorial and, I believe, counterproductive in civilized societies. If you took at your history, many of those jurisdictions started with things like Bill 3. When you have a government that seriously considers firings without cause....

MR. PARKS: Have you read the bill and the amendment?

MR. BLENCOE: I've read the bill and other pieces of legislation that eradicate or dramatically affect things like human rights. If you take a look at your history, you have to say that it's those kinds of moves that have led to other things. Those are the types of pieces of legislation that I think the people of British Columbia would like this government to reconsider. It's a reasoned amendment, Mr. Speaker, at a time when British Columbians want a reasonable approach to the problems of this province.

I would like to share with these members across the way what I have said in the past: people of all political persuasions have become deeply concerned with many of the pieces of legislation that are before this House. Recently Victoria city councilI passed a resolution asking the government to remove and take another took at Bill 3. The fact that Victoria city council did that was interesting. I think it also indicates that that local council had some deep reservations about what the government was trying to do. But the most interesting fact is that one of the members of that council is a man whom I respect highly, a gentleman named Frank Carson. Alderman Carson is a man that I worked with at the local level for many, many years. He is respected in Social Credit circles. He voted for that motion. Mr. Carson is a well-respected member of this community. He's a well-known Social Credit member,

[ Page 1735 ]

Mr. Speaker. He has run for your party in Oak Bay. I believe that he is a personal friend of the Premier. He has done a number of things for this government in this local community, has represented your view on many things and has taken a course of action on your behalf. Yet that gentleman — perhaps one of the most well-known Social Credit people in this region — asked you to reconsider Bill 3.

[8:45]

MR. PARKS: He is not in government.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'm trying to say that there are people on all sides, in all walks of life and in all economic positions saying to this government — and that's why you have a reasoned amendment before you — that maybe, just maybe, you've gone a little too far. If you want to accomplish certain things, you don't have to take a 2-by-4 and hit people over the head to do it.

It's interesting that a most prominent Social Credit member in this region — one of the most highly regarded people in this area — has supported a resolution that asks the government to reconsider and withdraw Bill 3. That's got to tell the government something. There are other people. The Leader of the Opposition talked about Mr. Gary Begin, one of your Social Credit candidates, who has said that if he had known what you were going to do, he would never have run for you. I think that's the real point. I think people, in their wisdom — the majority of British Columbians — decided to vote the Social Credit government back into office. That's their democratic right. They did that. But I don't think the people of British Columbia voted for the various pieces of legislation that you've brought before this House. I believe they don't think you have a mandate to impact radically upon the very social fabric of this province. I urge you to think again about what you want to do.

Many have asked why the New Democratic Party has decided that it feels so strongly about various pieces of legislation before this House — and in particular, Bill 3.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: If the government would conduct business at a normal hour, then we could get down to some normal business for the people of British Columbia. But we have an abnormal government in British Columbia at this time.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can give me some protection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: They don't want to hear these things, unfortunately.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I know you are new to that job. Mr. Speaker, but perhaps you could....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon. members on the government side would please come to order, and the second member for Victoria would direct his comments to the Chair and not to the galleries or to the members, we might have less difficulty and fewer interjections.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I have been listening to the member for Victoria addressing the Chair and not playing to the galleries, but asking the government to make certain changes in legislation that he finds absolutely intolerable. That isn't playing to the galleries, and I feel that that was an unfair comment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Would the second member for Victoria please continue.

MR. BLENCOE: I was trying to say that we have an abnormal government in some abnormal times, and it would appear that we are to be forced into abnormal times, trying to debate various pieces of legislation. That's unfortunate, because we still feel strongly that what we should be doing is trying to debate the legislation in an intelligent and forthright manner and to give you constructive alternatives, When you decide to try to put legislation through this House by wearing down Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in such a dramatic and draconian fashion, it's very difficult to do certain things. This is the very reason why this government should adjourn this House. They will not listen to reason. They have gone beyond reason in the province of British Columbia. They're beyond it; they're incapable of listening. It's a very sad day for the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have approximately 14 minutes.

MR. BLENCOE: I alluded earlier to the fact that the government has taken a lot of criticism from many sectors. One of the critics I referred to is perhaps the most prominent Social Credit member in this region, Mr. Frank Carson. The churches, however, have also had a few words to say, and I'm not referring only to the Bishop of Victoria, who is, I believe, a very fine gentleman. Many churches of all denominations have had certain things to say.

When the Social Credit government, or any Socred, gets attacked by the church, I know it really hurts. The former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, always felt that he was very close to the churches, and some very famous quotes came from that gentleman about his affiliation with and feeling for church organizations. I do not believe W.A.C. Bennett would ever have incurred the wrath which this government has incurred from caring people of all religious denominations across this province. He would never have allowed it to happen. It hurts the Social Credit government because they've always felt they've had a handle on the church organizations. When the very groups who support them as a party attack them at their roots, they know they are in trouble. That's the reason I'm saying to take another look. Your own supporters are saying: "Take another look."

Certain members of this government have attacked those church organizations. They have attacked Bishop de Roo in particular as somehow not fitting in with what the Catholic Church is saying today. I have some very important statements from the Pope, and I would remind this government that the Pope represents 400 million people. He talks about labour and the rights of workers. I want to read what the Pope

[ Page 1736 ]

has to say on certain things, which I think is very important as this government believes it has the support of churches across this province.

In a recent encyclical entitled Laborem Exercens, he states:

"In order to achieve social justice in the various parts of the world, in the various countries and in the relationships between them, there is a need for ever new movements of solidarity of the workers.... This solidarity must be present whenever it is called for by the social degrading of the subject of work, by exploitation of the workers, and by the growing areas of poverty and even hunger."

The Pope then goes on to talk about the priority of labour.

I imagine that some of these members are going to accuse the Pope of being Marxist. That's the next line. This government has an incredible capacity to call those who criticize their policies pinkos and communists, or they dismiss them. That's what we've come to in this province: disagree with the government and they tell you you're some nut, or that you're far out. That's why we need to rethink. This government is pitting one group against another and creating fear in this province. They are creating political mileage by turning people against each other, particularly people like public servants and teachers.

This is what the Pope had to say about the priority of labour:

" Every human being sharing in the production process, even if he or she is only doing the kind of work for which no special training or qualifications are required, is the real efficient subject in the production process.... The means of production, the whole collection of instruments, no matter how perfect they may be in themselves — machines, factories, laboratories and computers — are only a mere instrument subordinate to human labour."

The Pope is saying that workers and the work they do are superior to the profit motive.

The Pope goes on to talk about the rights of workers:

"The principle of the priority of labour over capital is a postulate of the order of social morality.... From this spring certain specific rights of workers corresponding to the obligation of work. The human rights that flow from work are part of the broader context of the fundamental rights of the person."

[9:00]

If there ever was a time in the history of this province for this government to consider a reasoned amendment, to reconsider its legislation, to discuss with the groups that represent all political thought in this province, that time has come. If the government is prepared to do it, I am sure our party is quite prepared to meet with whomever you wish. It could be a standing committee for full discussion of certain aspects that have created concern in this province — out of the heat of this arena so that we could enter into some sane and rational discussion of the issues. I'm sure our party would consider that approach.

There has to be a new approach and a new attitude on the part of the government. In my estimation and in the estimation of our party there is a deep cynicism in this province that is spreading: that the government is unprepared to listen to people who say, "Change your course." Certain things that you want to accomplish may be acceptable, but how you do it is critical; the end never justifies the means.

I'm just about finished. I'm not going to take my full time.

The NDP has decided that there are certain bills we cannot, in all conscience, support, as they violate some fundamental democratic rights. We've said that over and over again. Bill 3 is a violation of the rights of public servants. No matter what you say about public servants, they are human beings, and they are entitled to their rights like anybody else.

The only recourse the New Democratic Party has is to try to say to this government — indeed, it sometimes takes a long time — to rethink, and also to let the community and the province know exactly what's included in some of these pieces of legislation. If people took a look at some of them, particularly Bill 3, in terms of the incredible centralization of power in the hands of a few, it would further worry the people of this province.

I said earlier, and I'm going to repeat it, that there is nothing wrong with a government saying it wants to take another look. I think we would all benefit by that. I think the people of this province would certainly benefit by that. Maybe there are some fair, just and legal ways to accomplish certain of the things you want to do.

The reasoned amendment is a serious one, and there's a time when reason, intelligence and fairness have to come into play. I ask this government to consider their actions and discuss with the people of this province what they are doing, because I don't think they want many of the things you support and want to introduce.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 11

NAYS — 25

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

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the reason that I and my caucus voted for the adjournment is that we didn't feet that we should be sitting here in the evening anyway. Consequently, before anybody gets too comfortable on the government side....

Interjections.

[ Page 1737 ]

MR. PARKS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, It was my distinct understanding that the hon. member for Coquitlam Moody was attempting to reflect on a previous vote of this House. It is my understanding that such actions would be out of order, and I would wish you to so direct the hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam Moody will continue.

MR. ROSE: I would like to congratulate my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam for a brilliant piece of deductive logic, analytical thinking and knowledge of the rules. I hope that if I ever get in trouble and I need somebody to protect me legally...

AN HON. MEMBER: From a traffic ticket.

MR. ROSE: ...from a traffic ticket, that he won't be my last resort.

I was attempting to explain to the House, not to reflect, and I think there is a difference between an explanation and a reflection. If you look in the mirror, that's a reflection. But if you look in the mirror and the mirror asks you why you voted Socred, that's an explanation you have to give. So I think there is a basic difference between a reflection and an explanation.

[9:15]

I really wanted to launch into my little part of this evening's performance having to do with the reason that we do not believe that we should be subjected, as members, to this kind of shift work and legislation by exhaustion. So we have voted and will continue to vote against this kind of attempt on the part of the government to make certain that you exhaust the opposition so that it will no longer be able to perform its duty. That's what its job is in this House — not merely to obstruct, which I've tried to explain many times.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Just a minute. That hon. member over there last night was beautiful in his sensitivity. He was shouting "sleaze-bag" across the hall at me for about 15 minutes. I don't know how he's equipped in terms of his vocabulary, but I was trying to explain what I thought was a kind of a sleazy approach in that particular bill to a political formula having to do with what grants and what boards were going to be asked either to add to their budgets or to take away therefrom. The minister of noise pollution is in here again, as he always is — the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) — whenever I get up. I don't know. I think I bring out the worst in him. I think he's probably a rather pleasant gentleman, and he's got a tremendous workload. He's got a lot of things to do, and I suggest that he ought to go and do them: or perhaps he might be quiet and listen for a little bit, because I know that if he had a lot of students in his school who behaved the way he has done tonight, he would certainly be very concerned about them and would perhaps take some sort of disciplinary measures. I don't know about that for certain, because I.... Well, I was in his school one time, I think, in the great white north.

I think that the people in the audience should know that the only way we have in the opposition of making our opposition known to the public and to the people in the government is this way. We do not have the option of sitting over there and shouting sweet nothings.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Seven people.

MR. ROSE: I see the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) over there talking into his beard. He's raising his two fingers, and he may want to leave the room. I suggest that he consult the ex-principal, if that is permissible. He's drinking water in school and, by god, he might be chewing gum, for all I know. Because that's what he does most of the time, the Minister of Agriculture — chews his gums. I don't know what he's talking about when he says "seven," but there were 11 people here tonight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we please get back to the motion at hand on Bill 3.

MR. ROSE: I was talking about the motion and the business of humanity and justice. The Minister of Agriculture was attempting to harass me with obscene hand signals. We had seven of us showing up. What I'd like to know is where the other four came from. We had 11 here, and we're only supposed to have seven. That's our team. The other 14 or 15 are waiting in the tunnel. We're going to wait until you people go to sleep, like you did when you wrote this legislation. When you go back to sleep.... I think that this is extremely serious. I think that this is an extremely important amendment. It is not only a reasoned amendment; it is a most reasonable amendment.

I hope that because I'm facetious, you don't think I'm foolish. Because I don't think you'll be wise just because you're grave and because you have a long face. I don't want to trivialize this debate. The opposition has not trivialized the debate. It's the government that has trivialized the debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're stalling, and that's all you're doing.

MR. ROSE: I want to make certain that the minister has his usual opportunity to interrupt me, as he does about every two or three minutes. He suggests we're stalling. We're doing what we have to do as an opposition. We're taking the only course that we have left open to us. If you have a stream-roller majority government, once it comes to a vote, the government always wins. The government is stubbornly determined to have this piece of legislation, amended or unamended — although I understand there is an amendment proposed for it, with which I will deal in a minute.... They're going to get it. It's just a matter of time. It's just a little waiting game. What's the hurry? You have to pay the Legislature anyway. What's the big rush? What's the mad rush to get all this through? You want to legitimize those people that you're going to savage on October 31: that's the reason. You've been doing it without the legislation: firing people, laying them off, pink-slipping them, putting them down, intimating them, whipping them, banging them all over the place, ruining their security. What's the hurry? You're destroying their mental and physical security. That's why we have this amendment.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am going to attempt to read this amendment. I don't expect.... Oh, there goes the minister of noise pollution. The Minister of Environment is leaving. He's leaving, and I am pleased to hear that. I hope

[ Page 1738 ]

he doesn't make too much racket, because my office is right next to him, and when I'm through with this, I want to have a little snooze too. I hope he won't be beating up on anybody in there.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I'll stay to see if you ever come up with anything intelligent. I've been waiting for three months now.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, this administrator, this king of intelligence tests, would probably not know what intelligence was if he ran into it in the street. But in case he thinks he might get something intelligent out of me, then I would welcome him to stay, because I hope that maybe we could come to a meeting of minds, since we both share the same kind of profession. I might be a little bit more glib than he is, and he objects to that.... The other thing he was yelling across the House at me last night was that I was cute.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I never said that. I object. I won't go that far.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm pleased and relieved at that retraction, because it would certainly make me nervous, considering that my office is right next to his. If he has retracted that, it does my poor little timorous heart a lot of good. I'll be able to sleep better tonight knowing that he doesn't feel that way. But I think someone did, over there in the corner. I think it might've been the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That shows how much effect you have — I didn't even know you were there.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for speaking while the Minister of Environment is attempting to interrupt me.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: He's polluting the air; I'm going to check on it.

MR. ROSE: The minister of noise pollution has just come up with his latest profound utterance. One of the things that bothers me about this whole debate is that it's not a debate on a particularly high level.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, you're doing the debating.

MR. ROSE: Well, I was just....

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's been a long-standing custom of this House that members are honourable, and therefore we refer to hon. members by their appropriate ministry, title or constituency. I suggest that possibly the member for Coquitlam-Moody should refer to the Minister of Environment, and Lands, Parks and Housing, by his appropriate title to show his appropriate responsibilities.

MR. ROSE: I would certainly like to thank the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano for his advice and ammunition — or is it admonition? Perhaps I made a mistake in calling it ammunition. I'm sorry; I thought he was a big shot, or a man of large calibre, or perhaps a huge bore. [Laughter.]

MR. PARKS: Where did you get your speaking notes from? They're excellent — not the least bit relevant, but they're pretty funny. The gallery loves it.

MR. ROSE: I think the gallery's entitled to something. After all, the citizens of this province are getting hosed left and right by politicians; they might as well get some fun out of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we please proceed with the debate on the amendment to the bill at hand.

MR. ROSE: What bill was that, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's William number three.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a motion, and the motion is that Bill 3 be passed at second reading. But we have what is called a reasoned amendment. It is not an unreasonable amendment; that's why it's called a reasoned amendment. The amendment reads:

"That the motion be amended by leaving out all the words following 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is the opinion of this House that 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'd like to congratulate the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) for proposing that motion, because I think that he's really got to the nub of our concerns. I think we should congratulate ourselves as well, because it is our job, as I see it, to come and oppose this with all the skills that we have, within the rules available to us. It would be much simpler if we just folded. I can hardly name a member in the whole House, even an honourable member, who wouldn't rather be somewhere else this evening — especially when I'm speaking. But why are we here? Well, we're here first of all because we were ordered to be here because of a motion, to make certain that we have the legislative process proceed — by exhaustion, by force, by powers of numbers or by the tyranny of the majority if necessary. Otherwise we would all be somewhere doing other things that might be even more productive than what we're doing. But our job is to oppose legislation and we're here to do just that; we don't do this in any sense of frivolity and we don't wish to trivialize it. We want to do our job. It would be much simpler for everybody concerned if we just shut up.

I don't know if anybody out there in the great outside, in the Great White North or wherever, even knows what is going on in here or cares very much. But it doesn't take a great mass of people to care. The people who are supposed to care are the people who were sent here to do just exactly what we're doing now. It would be much easier, more ordered and fun for everybody concerned if we could get together and cooperate on a piece of legislation, as a municipal council might do, where we didn't have hard and fast party lines, where all the bad guys were sitting over there — with their headsets on — and all the good guys were over here. The bad guys think the good guys are bad guys and vice versa. I don't think that gets us anywhere. That isn't the way we work. We're locked into a system that is so old, traditional, inflexible and historic that we even continue, in spite of the fact that we don't wear

[ Page 1739 ]

swords any more, to have our seats two sword-lengths apart to keep us away from one another's throats, chests, groins or whatever might be handy to a sword.

MR. REID: We're not. We're on this side.

MR. ROSE: Well, not on your side. As a matter of fact, I was thinking of having a barrier put up there — perhaps an electric fence. I find that my friends over there in the "Loyal Rump" really are my friends. I'm not intimidated by them, except when they start yelling at me. I'm really more worried about them when they're not yelling at me because then I have to maybe proceed with a written speech, which I find very difficult.

What I'm saying is it would be nice if we could all cooperate and work out the best systems. In my experience in political life, aside from municipal council, I have never yet found a parliament where that kind of cooperation is generally possible.

[9:30]

So we proceed with these pejorative motions, suggesting that this bill is inhumane — notice that I'm getting back to the bill and the amendment, Mr. Speaker — and somehow unjust. The amendment refers to its injustice and its blind, short-sighted policies. We can't work it out together here because in spite of the reasonableness not only of this amendment but of a number of others, the government does not accept it. It's our job to oppose things often when we don't really need to oppose them that much. I can give you some examples of that in this most recent session. We had to oppose things that we didn't really feel we wanted to oppose — things that we ultimately voted for and will vote for — because we felt that the only way we could gain time to give the public a chance to know how serious, how vile, how pernicious some of this legislation is was to blockade the whole package. I would like a system in which we could work together on behalf of British Columbians.

This is what my colleague the second member was talking about. He said: "The time for rancour and name-calling may be over — or should be." I don't think it will happen. The only experience I've ever had in my political life, aside from municipal council, where we worked together to try and sort out certain kinds of problems was when we had task forces on particular issues. I was a member of a task force on alternative energy. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) was one of the few people who took the trouble to make a presentation to this, and I congratulate him. He was also one of the few people who took the trouble to make a presentation to the MacDonald commission. The members of that task force consisted of four Liberals, two Tories and one New Democrat. We all worked together; we didn't try playing any funny stunts to upstage one another in front of certain kinds of media. There were task forces on the disabled and a number of others about two years ago, when the federal House operated that way. They did excellent work and came up with excellent reports.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sure both sides of the House find your comments most laudatory. But if you would, please restrict your words to the debate at this time, which is on the reasoned amendment of Bill 3.

MR. ROSE: One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that people in my party think that this motion is worth supporting is that we're concerned about Bill 3 and its effect on humanity and justice. We think it's actually going to encourage political patronage. I would like to elucidate and give a few examples of why we think this may be the case.

What we've seen here in this bill and in a number of other bills associated with this bill is the fact that any form of opposition that exists out there and is publicly institutionalized, such as the Human Rights Commission, has been cancelled or effectively strangled. In the past college boards were elected, and that system worked particularly well and was a unique part of the British Columbia tradition. We notice that those college boards are now going to be entirely appointed by the Minister of Education, and we're concerned that that kind of approach leads not only to political patronage but also to a complete absence of any kind of opposition or alternative thinking on the part of those college boards. We think that those positions that were once elected will now be appointed. I would point out the words because I notice you're getting a bit restless, Mr. Speaker. You seem to be seeking a little bit of advice from the ex-Speaker, the bearded Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're right. I am getting a bit restless.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, with all humility and respect I suggest you not do that, because you're disturbing that minister's slumber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, hon. member, I would expect that your comments with respect to other legislation before this House are somehow setting the stage for you getting back to the matter before the House at this moment, which, of course, is the reasoned amendment. I'm sure you will do that, and I will cease being restless once you have.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, you just took the words out of my mouth, because I was attempting to relate how this measure, if allowed to proceed, will lead to subtle forms of political patronage, or at least a possibility of such.

I was also going on to say that part of the package of which Bill 3 is a member contains some other measures which affect publicly funded advocacy groups — I speak of the rentalsman, the Human Rights Commission and the college boards. A section in this bill permits someone to be fired without cause, as an example of how people can be intimidated to say only the right things — if you like, to spout only the party line. That really concerns our party.

I don't think it's fair to trivialize it. I notice that when my colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), was attempting to put forward the same kind of proposal that I am — that we find ways to cooperate and compromise — a substitute for serious political debate was catcalls and ridicule. That's all he got for his very conscientious and serious attempt to put forward some way out of this morass, this abyss, this Mexican standoff in which we find ourselves. I think as politicians and citizens of British Columbia we owe it to the people of British Columbia not merely to oppose. A stubborn opposition, a stubborn public and a stubborn government cannot be good for our province. It can lead to all kinds of things, including political chaos.

[ Page 1740 ]

When you have political chaos then you have the situation where a dictator or some strong man moves in and then there isn't any opposition. It would be much nicer if we had some kind of reasoned opposition where we debated what we had to do, made suggestions, found those suggestions were acceptable — if they were any good — and adopted them without the fear that somehow it showed weakness if you adopted some suggestion that came from a member from the opposition, from outside or even from a trade union or a church group.

We've been through about two and a half months of what I think has probably been — in my recollection — one of the stormiest times in our recent history. There has been a dramatic turn in the direction of the government from what we've had over the past generation, when we had, in effect, labour peace, a social contract in which there prevailed an understanding, if not explicit at least implicit, in which working people and their government worked together to provide themselves with the kind of safety net — security measures, if you like — things that make us civilized such as measures like the Human Rights Commission to protect human dignity, to protect visible minorities against bigotry, to protect people against discrimination in housing, employment, education or whatever. We developed a whole series of these measures, including safety net measures and social welfare, help for abused children, opportunities for training and legal aid for people who needed it and couldn't afford it. Then all of a sudden in early July it all went out the window. Naturally there's going to be a reaction, Mr. Speaker.

People can only take a certain pace of change. By tradition we are not revolutionary. Canada has always been built on consensus. We have never gone through the bloodbath of a revolution, as did the French and the Americans and a number of other countries. Consequently we found that as we evolved we developed a consensus, which is what we have in Canada and which has been admired throughout the world. If, in spite of all the things that we say to one another and about one another and the difficulties and the viciousness, if you like, of the legislation, and no matter how much we use these highly emotional words, if you ask most people in the world where they would like to live, it will still be Canada. We should never forget that. If we have to make our choices, it will still be Canada. But with Bill 3 and the other measures that are contained in this package of 26, including the dirty dozen, it will not be quite the same Canada we have come to know.

That is what bothers people more than anything else. They didn't expect it. They didn't expect that one day, suddenly, the rug would be pulled from beneath them and all the things that they thought — all the assumptions that they made about their society — were suddenly going to be removed. When I say "all," I'm exaggerating. They haven't all been removed, but there has been a sudden shock and a sudden change of immense proportions — at least proportions that are much larger than people anticipated. They are not used to them and they are not ready for them. They react that way. There are people who get sufficiently emotionally involved to occupy a cabinet building down in Vancouver. There are also people who are going to become emotional enough not to do what the Filipinos have done because of Ferdinand Marcos, but certainly they are going to be upset enough to make their views known. They aren't going to be burning buses or bras or anything like that, but they are certainly going to take to the streets and rally peacefully and let people know how they feel about things — even if it is a simple thing. I don't mean to trivialize it or degrade it, even if it is a relatively simple thing, but it's very big for many school teachers to take job action and have a study session in Prince George today. A lot of people may think that's a dumb move, but what else can they do now for four or five years? There is no such thing as recall. In the United States we have a system called recall. When there is inhumane legislation that leads to patronage or the absence of social justice....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm going to call you to order. For the benefit of the entire House I'm going to read a part of Sir Erskine May that pertains to reasoned amendments. Personally I feel that the hon. member has been digressing somewhat extensively beyond the principle of the reasoned amendment and hence this course of action. The sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 531, reads: "The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The amendment must strictly relate to the bill, which the House, by its order, has resolved upon considering and must not include in its scope other bills then standing for consideration by the House."

I would suggest that means that we will be listening to debate on this amendment purely pertaining to Bill 3 and not to any other bills before the House at this time. With that direction, hon. member, please continue your debate on the reasoned amendment on Bill 3.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think your excerpt from May related to the fact that the motion had to be in order. The motion had to relate directly to the bill. The motion has been found to be in order or else we wouldn't be debating it. On the question of whether or not I was doing a few figure eights round the edges of the bill, I must admit that sometimes I did digress a Iittle bit. I will certainly bring every power of my intellect to bear on remaining in order. But I have a certain sort of respect and even humility about the powers of my particular intellect. Therefore I might be caught out again, but I will certainly do my best not to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair and I'm sure the rest of the House will appreciate that.

[9:45]

MR. MICHAEL: I do.

MR. ROSE: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), just took his marriage vows again.

I don't think people should be blamed unduly because they react to the inhumanity found in Bill 3 and also in the amendment or to the injustice of being fired without cause. They react and protest because that is the duty of a citizen in a democracy, within the confines of the law. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who was once a very active person in a number of causes and may still be, would agree with me. When we have a system of injustice or intolerance or somebody is struggling for better working conditions or higher wages or whatever, it is his duty as a citizen to work not only by himself but also with his fellows and his peers to seek redress from that injustice, in any legal and peaceful manner. That's what people are doing. They're reacting to the injustices they see in this, because they're concerned about the ultimate. What is the ultimate?

The ultimate is that people are going to be so whipped into line by the absolute removal of opposition, from normal

[ Page 1741 ]

sources such as the school boards.... And you say: "Why would that occur?" Because in Bill 3 there's a $2,000 fine if you're not good boys and girls. They're going to be concerned about this if, for instance, they're nurses or policemen. Again, policemen and nurses — I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will be interested — and dozens of people fall under this and can be influenced by political patronage. If that doesn't square with the amendment, Mr. Speaker.... I don't know whether you have a copy there before you, but I'm doing my best to keep right on it, and I am.

Who are these people who are going to be affected by this? Board of Parks and Recreation under the Vancouver Charter. If the poor people on the board don't do what they're supposed to, they might get a $2,000 fine. The B.C. Assessment Authority. What if a powerful politician doesn't like the assessment on his land or building? Can the assessor be fired without cause? Could this lead to silencing opposition or to political patronage? I submit that that's a possibility. This is what the motion suggests. Now, Mr. Speaker, you're going to say to me: "Well, we've got an amendment to fix up all that." I know if you were in your seat over there instead of that big chair, Mr. Speaker, that's one of the things you'd be saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not as Speaker.

MR. ROSE: I know. At least I know how to read Erskine May.

What if I were a member of the B.C. Buildings Corporation or the B.C. Development Corporation? Supposing I turned down a grant to a Socred businessman: he wanted it badly, and he knew some people. Under those conditions, is it possible that political patronage could be the result? Mr. Speaker, that's not an irrelevant question; it's not an insignificant question, nor is it a trivial question.

MR. MICHAEL: Nor is it a logical question.

MR. ROSE: I'm always logical, Mr. Speaker, unless I can avoid it.

What if I were a member of the B.C. Ferry Corporation? Supposing I was a deckhand, or something like that, and I was putting up signs in Shuswap-Revelstoke or North Vancouver–Capilano, or somewhere, and somebody who saw me didn't like me. Could I be fired without just cause? Is that a possibility? What would you do, Mr. Speaker?

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I recollect an earlier ruling of the Chair, the member speaking to the reasoned amendment is not permitted to read the list on the bill. Maybe you would be kind enough to remind him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair remembers a similar ruling some hours beforehand, based upon the practice of this House. I would ask the hon. member to desist from doing it.

MR. ROSE: I think I'm permitted to read the list, Mr. Speaker, provided I table it at the conclusion of my speech, and I'm prepared to do that.

I'm attempting to set up an argument in which I am asserting the possibility of a number of people.... We have a vast network of people working for the public service. I know this is of concern to the members opposite. They think that 25 percent of them should be gone. That really concerns the 25 percent of them who might be gone, too. So it could be a lengthy list that I have here, but I think it's important for members of the House to know the magnitude of the problem and how far into every town, hamlet, village or little burg the long arm of the government can reach in this way. This is very sinister. This is something we should all be concerned about.

The Housing Management Commission, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Institute of Technology, British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, B.C. Railway, B.C. Steamship Company — the good old Marguerite — B.C. Systems Corporation — as long as we have it: before we give it away, like we give away most things — B.C. Transit System, B.C. Utilities Commission, Capital Regional Hospital District, City of Vancouver, Compensation Stabilization Commissioner, Greater Campbell River Water District....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, hoping to assist you in the fact that you have less than three minutes remaining, perhaps you could leave the list and go back to some of your very logical and interesting discussion on the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I think I've said enough to indicate that there is a very large measure of concern out there about the direction which this bill is taking. While we no longer have in it the two offending words "without cause," we've got an amendment before us that I don't find particularly reassuring. We've got the offending words "without cause" removed, but we'll now limit the firings to situations where the employer — meaning the government — has insufficient funds, or where there's a reduction or elimination of specific programs or a shortage of work. So those three particular things are supposed to cover it all up and reassure us. I know that the public sector really feared the "without cause" provision. It made teachers and police and others on the hit list — of the list that I mentioned, because they're all possible candidates for the hit list....

In conclusion, when we recall that the three things that are justification for termination are insufficient funds, reduction or elimination of specific programs or a shortage of work, I ask you this: could a teacher be fired without cause, for instance, if he dared to campaign against an incumbent school board member? Could a pro-choice nurse be fired without cause if she campaigned against a pro-life hospital board member? Could a policeman be fired if he uncovered some evidence embarrassing to a crooked politician? I ask you this. They're going to continue. You want to get rid of a politically active teacher? Simple. Eliminate her program. You'd like to axe a pro-choice nurse? Plead insufficient hospital funds. You want to nail a nosey cop? All you have to do is assert a shortage of work. So what we've got is a distinction without a difference, and this party is not buying it.

MR. MITCHELL: When we started this sitting earlier on this evening, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) was the leadoff speaker. I'm sorry he is not here, because I want to say that when I sat here and listened to that minister wrap himself into the flag of patriotism, I was sick. I represent a riding, Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, that has more military personnel per capita, who have more medals....

To listen to this man talk about patriotism.... I say this about the Battle of Britain. When he condemned the social democrats, known there as the Labour Party, he failed to mention that the government that led Britain through that war

[ Page 1742 ]

was a coalition government of both Conservative and Labour. Clement Atlee, at that time, was the Deputy Prime Minister of Britain. I would like to say that when you do have problems, and you have problems of the magnitude that Britain faced in that war, you use the talents of every person from every political sector. You use the ability of all the country to mobilize and find the answers that are needed to solve the problems. As my colleague said earlier, when we have the problem that we face today, you're not going to solve that problem by smashing one section of the workforce. You're not going to create the atmosphere that will pull us out of this depression by putting more people out of work.

I listened to the minister tell how he immigrated to Canada. I didn't immigrate to Canada. I was born here, but my parents immigrated to Canada in 1912, for the same reason everyone else has come to this country: because it is one of the greatest countries and one of the richest. With the work of the people of this country it can be the greatest. You are not going to make it great by destroying one group, by pitting one against another.

I listened to the attacks on the public service personnel that this bill and this amendment deal with; you say, what about those in the private sector? Having worked in both the private and the public sectors, I can say without any hesitation that whatever sector I worked for, I worked. The money I earned went back out into the community, because the community was paying my wages. It didn't make any difference whether they were paying me as a construction worker or as police officer; they were paying me for the service I was performing. If the services are needed, then the community is prepared to pay. You don't attack people; you work with people.

I listened to that minister and many government members stand up and talk about the great May 5 election, and I'd like to reminisce a little.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, while you are reminiscing, I would ask you to attempt to get a little closer to the principle of the motion. As long as you tie in your reminiscing in some way, I think that would be in order, but in the last four or five minutes I don't believe you have.

[10:00]

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was definitely getting back to humanity and justice; that is in the amendment. I know you are going to allow me a little of the same leeway you allowed the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) in reminiscing about the years during the Second World War when he lived in Britain. I know you're going to allow me that same latitude.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: When I first became a political activist, I used to come down to this House and sit up in the gallery. That is one of the reasons I personally like the night sittings: because they allowed people like me to come down and see and bear what is happening in the capital city of British Columbia. I sat in those galleries in 1946, 1947, 1948. I participated as a worker in the election of 1949, when the coalition government was returned to this House with 40 seats out of 48. I remember sitting up in the gallery, looking down at that little rump group of seven CCFers and one independent labour member, and hearing the catcalls and the ridicule that came from the 40 members who sat as the coalition: how they bragged about demolishing the then CCF; how they laughed and ridiculed and said they were the greatest. That was in 1949. In 1950 there was a by-election. In one short year, because of the policies, and the ridicule, and the power that that government had.... They had absolute power. Mr. Speaker, as an ex-serviceman, you know as well as I do that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Within a year there was a vacancy in that House, and I was chosen as the candidate in 1950-51. I knocked on doors throughout the Esquimalt riding. I talked and I listened.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Although the story that the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is telling is very interesting and probably has a lot of merit, it will probably eventually end in his telling us how it was that he personally got to this House. But I'm having a very difficult time ascertaining how on earth it has anything even remotely to do with the principle of the amendment now before this House.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the remarks being made by the hon. member for Esquimalt are in order, according to the amendment to the motion. The amendment talks about the consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands, and that's a pretty broad-ranging debate. I think it's beneficial to the debate to hear a person who's had so many years in public life tell us about the history of this province. We can then better understand the humanity, the justice and the policy demands that have been in this province before us so we can better make up our minds. I think he's absolutely to the point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, the meat of the motion before us reads: "...which would encourage practices of political patronage through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees." I beseech you, Mr. Speaker, to tell me how the debate which we have heard from that member in the last 15 minutes has anything to do with encouraging practices of political patronage, or anything to do with arbitrary dismissal of public employees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter of relevancy, hon. members, is, I would suggest, sometimes somewhat difficult to determine. But as I said earlier today, the hon. member on his feet at the moment has been around this assembly for quite some time and I'm sure he's aware of the requirements for relevancy in these matters. Perhaps the Chair might just ask him if he would please try and bring his remarks a little closer to the reasoned amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: Before I get back to the debate, I hope this interjection will not be taken off my 40 minutes.

What I am getting to — and it's quite obvious in this reasoned amendment — is the political patronage. I just can't understand that ex-judge who can't read something that is very.... The practices of political patronage are what I was getting to, Mr. Speaker, when I said that in 1950-51, when I was knocking on doors in Esquimalt. I was hearing of the political patronage that was taking place under that powerful coalition government. As you all know, I was elected as a result of that election. I came from the galleries down into the fourth seat up in the back row. What I'm saying, and I repeat it, is those were the exact same words of the Minister of

[ Page 1743 ]

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) when he was standing in his place here at the beginning of this sitting: that they won the election, they are going to govern, and the 45 percent of the voting public that our group represents will be forgotten. Go back into history and read what happened in 1952, when that powerful coalition government went back to the people. They were wiped out. Only nine were returned in the '52 election. And by the time we got to the '53 general election, there wasn't one of them left. Neither was I. But I'm saying that it is not who wins the election, it is the policies the government in power institutes that keep them in power.

Let's go back to that election of May 5. I think it's important when we're dealing with political patronage, humanity, justice, to go over some of the programs that the Social Credit Party campaigned on. I wouldn't like to take anything but the facts. I know I can't hold this up, but for your benefit it is a full-page ad out of a Vancouver paper, put in by Social Credit, asking the voters of Vancouver–Little Mountain to vote for the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and for the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). I'd just like to read some of the facts that this government campaigned on. I'll read it right out of the government's own ads that they presented to the public.

It starts off: "Good jobs are made by hard work, not by wishful thinking." I find it interesting. "Grace McCarthy spearheaded the programs that turned tourism into the third largest industry in British Columbia. Grace McCarthy was made Deputy Premier because of the work she has been doing in the areas of health, housing and economic recovery, work that must be allowed to continue."

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I would like better than to have that member read that ad in this House, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the amendment now before this House. I would ask that under standing order 43 you once again, possibly for the last time, ask this member to come to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I would hope the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, if he persists in reading from the article, would relate it to the amendment before us. Anticipating that this is what you are about to do, I would ask you to continue.

MR. MITCHELL: It definitely relates to this bill. This is Bill 3, and the amendment we are debating now is part of Bill 3. Bill 3 relates to public servants in the province of British Columbia, and this is what I'm relating to.

As I said, I will read it out, especially for the member for Omineca: "...Deputy Premier because of the work she was doing in health" — that is a public service — "housing and economic recovery." All of these things are facts put together by the employees of the public service of this province. It definitely ties into what the bill is about. This was before May 5. After the election, what happened to the Deputy Premier? She was fired as Deputy Premier. This is the whole issue of this campaign, the issue of what this bill is doing, This bill is part of a package that is part of the budget debate. It is phony. It is as phony as this ad that the Deputy Premier was going to come from the great riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain. But she was fired.

I'll go on to another one which I think is really interesting. I'm sorry that the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain is not here. It talks about the great things he has done.

"Doug Mowat's contribution to the community is genuine."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, just before you continue, I think the hon. member is aware of the fact that we do not name names in this assembly.

MR. MITCHELL: You're right. I'm just reading....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a moment ago the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) drew your attention to standing order 43, which directs that the Chairman or the Speaker, "after having called the attention of the House...to the conduct of a member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members...may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him." Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is persisting in irrelevance — not only entering into irrelevance, but persisting in irrelevance. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider taking the available remedies which are within your power as Speaker under standing order 43.

[10:15]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with the point of order which you yourself raised, perhaps earlier, before the one just raised by the House Leader. The point of order was that the member was using the name of an hon. member rather than title, but it has long been held as practice that when you are quoting a newspaper article, or reading information, that is permissible; in fact the only reasonable thing one can do is to actually read it as it is written down in the material being quoted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that matter has come up before, hon. member, but I think perhaps it is also a matter of degree. If there is a persistence about it, I think then it's changed somewhat. So I would leave that also up to the discretion of the hon. member.

The member for Omineca rises on another point of order?

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I'm a generous man, and I took no exception to the fact that the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was using names. What I took exception to was the fact that the material in which those names appeared had absolutely nothing to do with the amendment to Bill 3 before the House tonight. I agree with the hon. Minister of Health that unless that member is brought to order in regard to relevance as laid down in standing order 43 in the standing orders of this House.... I would ask that you take appropriate action.

MR. NICOLSON: Now that we're dealing with the second point of order. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that rather wide scope was established on this particular motion when the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) started canvassing the Second World War, the Labour Party, his alleged....

Interjection.

[ Page 1744 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Well, perhaps it was started by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), but certainly the debate that I heard.... I'll apologize for the interruption, Mr. Speaker. There has been rather broad scope established in this particular debate, and it would be rather regrettable if suddenly one particular member were singled out for a practice established by others preceding him.

DEPUTY MINISTER: Thank you, hon. member. I hear what you're saying. Yes, you are probably quite correct. I have heard quite a bit of the debate that has come forward on this reasoned amendment. But may I suggest that perpetuating a thing like this is really not going to accomplish anything. There is a requirement to follow the rules, and there is a very hard and fast rule about relevancy in debate. I think there has been enough discussion. I think all hon. members are aware of the requirement for relevancy, and once more I would ask that the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew please try to the utmost of his ability to make his remarks relevant to this amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate your attitude, and I know that you're going to allow me to refer to the first speaker of this sitting this evening. When he stood there and waved the Waffle Manifesto around.... He waves it around with every speech he makes in this House. For four years I have watched him wave the Waffle Manifesto around as if it is something we are responsible for. When he waves that around, the Speaker of the House allows it. And you have one of the new acting Speakers try to do a closure on me? If you're going to have law in this House, set down by the Speaker, if he allows certain actions as related to certain bills, and if the Waffle Manifesto is all right but Social Credit ads are not, then I say that you're not going to pull closure on me. The Minister of Health knows that, and I know that you're going to protect me. The member for Omineca has lots of fun in trying to put me off-stride. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that member will not put me off-stride.

I would like to make that one reference and then I'll put this away. Dealing with the second member, it talks of the great work that he did with the Human Rights Commission. What does this bill relate to? This bill relates to the firing of all the employees of the Human Rights Commission. They campaigned before May 5 on human rights and on the great work that the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) did, and then they bring in a bill — Bill 3, which we have amended, asking for humanity and justice. The Minister of Municipal Affairs kept referring to this great May 5 election. The May 5 election was based on fraud, deception and propaganda.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to have that kind of definition, that the election campaign was based on fraud and deception, perhaps it should also go into the record that the perpetrators of that lost the election.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The member will please continue.

MR. MITCHELL: If I lost the election, I guess I should be thrown out. Maybe that's a way of getting rid of me. I believe, if you took at the first day of this session, there is a bill on public orders that said I was elected, that I won this election.

I'd just like to get back to my program. I'm glad the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is in here, because I hope to get around to him, if I don't have so many interruptions from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and those others.

Let's read another Social Credit ad: "B.C. jobs depend on a government which supports restraint." What does it say? I won't read the name. "The Premier's government has led the country with programs of restraint on government spending and restraint on public sector wages. These programs have been accepted as fair and equitable and have helped to reduce the spiral of increased costs in both the public and private sectors." These programs have been accepted as fair and equitable. This is not my speech; I'm reading from Social Credit advertisements.

What are these programs? They are embodied in Bill 3, where you can literally be fired without cause. These are the programs that the government campaigned on before May 5, but the program that this government is bringing in is just as rotten and rough and brutal as the programs that the coalition government brought in between '49 and '52, when they were wiped out of the political history of the province of British Columbia.

I'll go into other ads. I have a lot of ads. I like to keep them, because I know that the ads that the government party campaigns on are not the programs the government brings in. Here's one on ending ferry strikes and saving jobs, which says: "We believe the unions involved should be given an alternate means of resolving their labour-management disputes so that they can keep the ferries running." That's what they campaigned on, but what are they doing? They're bringing in a piece of legislation that can threaten them and cause fear so that they will submit and bow down and be walked over. The campaign was that they should have alternative means. There have not been any alternative means. They have brought in a hammer to hammer the workers who are working in the public sector. It's interesting to go through these.

Here's another one. This is from the Social Credit candidate in the capital city of British Columbia. He went through the typical Social Credit Party propaganda that came out prior to the election. "Job creation plans, security for present jobs...." That's one of the campaign promises of the Social Credit Party in the capital city of Victoria. "...emergency health centres: no increases in user pay." The one that's really interesting says: "Fairness for renters. The renter's tax credit should be reinstated immediately by the re-elected Social Credit government."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please, hon. member. I'll only take a moment of your time, but I would like to read, particularly for those who sit in opposition in this House who are speaking to this, the resolution which came forward from your own member. This resolution reads: "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 powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees." Having said that, hon. members, I would like once again to direct your attention, especially that of the speaker, to standing order 43, which deals with the very important matter of relevancy.

[ Page 1745 ]

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I know you are not taking any directions from any of the back bench or the cabinet, but everything I have said has referred to this bill. Everything I have said refers to Bill 3.

MR. KEMPF: Tell us how.

MR. MITCHELL: The renter's tax credit is dispensed by public servants. The rentalsman department is part of public employees. This is dealt with in the Public Sector Restraint Act, and the amendment is to that bill. I have to keep on repeating it because I know you are a slow learner, but I know the Speaker is a man of compassion, a man of integrity and a man of a lot of ability. I keep on getting interrupted. I find it hard that this government really is afraid to have some of the facts that they presented to the public before May 5 brought to the attention not only of this House but of those wonderful people who come down and listen to us, those wonderful people who read Hansard, the press who are sitting in their little cubbyholes listening to what is going on in here. Every time I get started on a particular program, we have completely spurious interruptions from a certain member who has appointed himself as my number one heckler. I really don't think he is very effective.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? Mein Kempf?

MR. MITCHELL: I was going to comment on that, but I really don't think it would be appropriate.

I'll carry on with this wonderful amendment that one of my colleagues presented to this House, after he set, I believe, some type of record for speaking continuously to one bill. He was not allowed the normal interruptions and release from the arduous task of standing here hour after hour, Mr. Speaker.

[10:30]

MR. KEMPF: Point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: You sit down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't really think you're persisting in this, but you are certainly giving me the impression that you're having a great deal of difficulty getting back to the amendment. We do have an hon. member standing on a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: Regardless of the points of order that I have stood on before, I would ask, Mr. Speaker. that you ask that member who has just taken his place how he can relate the debate of the last five minutes to the amendment before us. Just to assist you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the standing order that I have cited, standing order 43, which in part reads....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have the standing order right in front of me, hon. member.

MR. KEMPF: I'd like to read it, nevertheless, for other members of this House who apparently have not read standing order 43 and for the edification of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, whom I have on occasion seen with a rule book, but I'm not sure that he can read it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is the duty of the Chair to apply the standing orders of this House, and I think that it follows that if the Chair sees a requirement that a standing order be read, the Chair should also read it. I certainly appreciate your concern, and I appreciate your trying to help the Chair, but I’m well aware of this standing order and I'm going to bring this for the last time.... This is the last time, hon. member; I've been much too lenient. If you persist in not speaking to the amendment, I will have to ask you to discontinue your speech. Also, your time is almost up.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I did ask that these continual interjections from the member for Omineca not be deducted from my time. I know the Premier won't let you get up and talk, so all you do is work out your frustrations by harassing the members who are getting up to speak on this debate, who are bringing the facts and the truth to this debate. Mr. Speaker, when I was so rudely interrupted by the member for Omineca, I referred to my colleague who presented this amendment and I was going to read the amendment that he presented. I really can’t see why I've been continually harassed. They attempted closure to try to cut me off in debate, and I never got around to bringing some facts to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), because it directly came to this particular amendment that I would like to read....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but your time is up.

MR. MITCHELL: You're not going to allow me to deduct the time that the...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry. hon. member. You time is up, according to the official....

MR. MITCHELL: That's a type of closure you're doing. I thank you for your persistent support of me and for holding me from that wild man.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refresh my memory and others in the House by just going briefly over the amendment so we understand what we're talking about. The motion basically says 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 powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees." It says that we want to oppose measures which would encourage practices. So what are those measures that we would oppose?

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

Through this debate we have talked on this side about the need for cooperation among different sectors of the province in order to pull in unison toward an economic recovery. When we talk on the bill the members opposite will say to us, either in debate or by remarks across the floor, "Where would you get the money?" implying that the measures that they are taking and that we are opposing in this amendment are correct measures. What are those measures? First of all I think it's germane to the debate, Mr. Speaker, that we take a look at a little bit of history to see what conservatives were saying during the last depression, to see whether anything has changed. They talk about neo-conservatism in this country

[ Page 1746 ]

and in this nation and in North America and in Great Britain. But really it isn't neo-conservatism; it is old conservatism with neo-faces. In 1932 in the United States they had a conservative government and a conservative President by the name of Herbert Hoover. I'd like to read a short excerpt about the Depression and what Mr. Hoover, that arch-conservative, had to say and to see whether or not there isn't just a ring of what we're hearing today from these neo-conservatives, and to see whether we don't have almost exactly the same situation going on now in the province.

As for the leader of the government's executive branch, when the bonus marchers begged Herbert Hoover to receive a delegation of their leaders he sent word that he was too busy. He wouldn't meet with them. Sound reminiscent? Reinforced police patrols surrounded the White House. Barricades were erected to close nearby streets to traffic. A New York Daily News headline proclaimed: "Hoover Locks Self in White House." In July the President had the army, with fixed bayonets and tear gas, drive the veterans out of Washington. He handled the Depression with equal firmness. I'm a little behind 1932, but it's leading up to that. In December 1929 he had said: "Conditions are fundamentally sound." Remember the Premier coming back from Japan, being met at the airport and asked about the depression that we were afraid was developing in the province? He said: "Nothing to worry about. Everything is perfectly sound." As everyone else knew we were heading into a depression, the Premier was still insisting that everything was economically sound and there was nothing to worry about.

In March 1930 he said the the worst would be over in 60 days. In May he predicted that the economy would be back to normal in autumn. In June, in the midst of still another market plunge, he told a delegation which called the White House to plead for a public works project: "Gentlemen, you have come 60 days too late. The Depression is over."

In his December 2, 1930, message to Congress he said: "The fundamental strength of the economy is unimpaired." When asked why that was so, when so many unemployed men were selling apples on street corners, he said: "Many people have left their jobs for the more profitable one of selling apples." His secretary noted that the President was beginning to regard some criticism as unpatriotic.

Are we getting that again? Those who criticize the government and its programs are immediately labelled malcontents at best, and commie sympathizers at the worst. It is shocking that we are in a state that any criticism of the state is met with countercharges of not being patriotic, that somehow you're out to tear the structure of society apart.

In 1932 his tune had not changed. In April of that year a visitor was authorized to report that conditions were getting better. The President was in high spirits over the economic improvement. When delegations came to the White House, begging him to endorse direct federal aid for relief — what we now call social assistance — or increased spending on public works, he refused. He said: "As long as I sit at this desk, they won't get by."

He couldn't bear to watch suffering, so he never visited a bread-line or a relief-station. As his limousine swept past men selling apples on street corners, he turned his head so that he wouldn't have to look at them. Even Time magazine, after more than two years of maintaining a facade almost as cheery as Hoover's, noted in 1932: "The nation's needy have gone through three hard winters without a dollar's worth of direct aid from the federal treasury." Hoover said: "Nobody's actually starving. The hoboes, for example, are better fed than they've ever been. One hobo in New York got ten meals in one day — he wasn't starving." Having decided that economy in the President's kitchen would be bad for the country's morale, he continued eating at the most elaborate table ever set in the White House, even when the only other diner was his wife, Lou. Dinners were always seven courses. While Hoover, always dressed in a black tie, ate his way through those courses, Marine duty officers in dress blues would be standing around in the doorways all dressed up to watch the President and his wife eat as people outside were starving from a formidable Depression.

When after months of haggling, Congress finally passed a public works bill, the President called it an unexampled raid on the public treasury and warned: "We cannot squander ourselves into prosperity."

It's all being said again, Mr. Speaker. Nothing has changed. The conservatives are still the conservatives; they're neither progressive or neo. It's the same old nineteenth-century Great Britain laissez-faire capitalism that this government would have us go back to. Those are the measures that we're talking about, the kind of measures that this government is taking. Now would it cause insecurity, do you think, as the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) pointed out, when we get down to the practice of political patronage maybe being encouraged by the kind of action that this bill is taking?

I for one don't believe that the government is deliberately setting out to pass this bill with the idea that there's going to be patronage. It doesn't work that way. I don't think that the honourable members are dishonourable in that respect. The danger is that you're leaving the door open. You're taking the check and the balance out of this province.

[10:45]

Mr. Speaker, I worked in the media and there was no censorship. But censorship nevertheless happened, because you were always tempered by what your editor or your publisher wanted you to write. He didn't actually come down to you and say: "We want you to be biased in a certain way. We don't want you to report certain things and we want you to report others." You knew what would be acceptable and what wouldn't be acceptable. The thing that happens in the media in that kind of case is that they censor themselves by wanting to survive in the system. The danger of patronage in this bill isn't the fact that ministers are going to demand it. It's the fact that people are going to be afraid to make decisions based on sound principles. For instance, when that Social Credit supporter comes for a grant to the British Columbia Development Corporation, hanging over the head of those public servants will be the knowledge that they are not protected from political repercussions; and the knowledge that they are not protected in some form of professional civil service is going to do the dirty trick on its own.

The point that disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that I don't honestly believe this government sees any danger in it. It's like much of the other legislation. They don't really see the danger which they're bringing to this House and to this province. And that is a frightening thought.

If they were only scallywags, out to do the province in, in the name of self-interest, then we could deal with the problem, because the people would take those scallywags and they probably wouldn't even let them serve this term of office — if it were possible in our British parliamentary system.

[ Page 1747 ]

People would be very angry if they thought that you were just scallywags out to feather your own nests. It would be easier to deal with scallywags and crooks, because they would be easily recognizable in our society. The problem is that they're doing something not based on their plan to be scallywags and crooks; they're doing something that they actually think will help the province of British Columbia, and that, as I said, is the frightening part. They believe the message that they're giving us.

They're not lying to us. They're not being a bunch of phonies. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) got up and spoke earlier in the evening, and I believe that he believed, as the truth, every word that he was saying.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Can you say the same thing?

MR. LEA: Yes, I can say the same thing. Everything that I'm saying I consider to be the truth. The choice that people have to make is which side of the House they agree with.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They already made that choice on May 5.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Labour says they already made that choice. I said the Minister of Municipal Affairs told the truth, from his point of view. If the Minister of Labour is telling the truth from his point of view — if he honestly believes that the people of British Columbia thought, from the government's promise of continuing restraint, that this was what they were going to get — then the minister is either naive, misinformed or out of touch.

It makes them a little nervous, as I suppose it makes us nervous when we.... When I was listening to the Minister of Municipal Affairs earlier, it wasn't without some truth. No side has a monopoly on truth. But as the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said, in this House we are precluded by party politics in certain ways from dealing with things as our conscience sees. But the time has come. In my opinion, we are in a time of crisis in this province.

I think it worthwhile to discuss the crisis that we're in. When we get back to the measures which we oppose — and which brought this around — we have to talk about the measures we're taking in dealing with the economy of this province, because the government says it's the lack of revenue that is causing the problem. I believe that if we as politicians were honest, we would be telling the people in this province that it's not just short-term problems that we have.

I was speaking to the vice-president of a very large forest company the other day, and I said: "What's going on? You're closer to the government than I am. Do they honestly believe what they're doing?" He said: "Yes, I think they do." He went on to say: "One of the things that they think is that if the housing starts in the United States pick up to a certain point, then we're going to go back to the good old days of '78 and '79." I asked him if they honestly believe that the forest industry is going to go back to where it was in '79, regardless of the housing starts in the United States, and he replied that they did. He said: "They're time-locked."

I know the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) knows that we have a situation in the forests of this province that is of crisis proportions. I'd like to describe what I mean. On the Queen Charlotte Islands, in the timber supply area.... That's not including the TFLs, Mr. Speaker; that's the land base that is managed by the Forest Service. As a matter of fact, the minister dealt with it, and I thought that a fairly good job was done. I think he is a fairly good minister in many ways. If he didn't have the influence of other cabinet members he would be a lot better.

We have an approximate annual allowable cut in that timber supply analysis area of about 600,000 cunits. Within between 25 and 30 years, which isn't a long time, they have what they call in the forest industry a falldown area, The annual allowable cut will drop from 600,000 cunits to about 300,000 cunits, and if we don't change our practices that 300,000 will not be sustained either.

The forest industry is in bad shape, but it's not just the economy that we're going through now. We have structural problems in the Forest Service and the forest industry that are of crisis proportion, and we don't even discuss them. Are we afraid that if we tell people the truth, they're not grownup enough to understand it? The problems we have are deep-rooted and structural, and we have them because we have not diversified our economy. I guess we could go back in history and point to whose fault it is, maybe with some accuracy, maybe not. I don't even know whether at this point it matters much. The point is, are we going to deal with it now? Are we going to need this kind of legislation and amendment year after year, when down where we live we know that the problems aren't that simple? It isn't a matter of saving some money in government and the economy is going to get better, that things are going to be rosy. Nobody believes that, at least not the people from the industry I talk to. Whether it's the forest or the fishing industry, we are taking our renewable resources in this province and making them finite. That's the stupidity. I don't blame anyone in particular, but you have to hand Social Credit a great deal of the responsibility for where we are. They have been in government for 27 out of the last 30 years.

The fishing industry? I think we have to blame the federal government to a great degree. The same thing is happening in the fishing industry: we're fishing our stocks out; we're making it a finite rather than a renewable resource. We've allowed too much capital out on the fishing grounds, with too much efficiency. The same fleet could catch all the fish we could allow. Never mind the trollers and the trawlers and the gillnetters. We have a crisis situation in the fishing industry. Laying off a few civil servants isn't going to cure it; it isn't even going to get us through the bad time that's coming. We've got problems, and we're not dealing with them. We're trying to cover them up in a smooth public relations package like Bill 3.

The government doesn't want to admit that we have the problems. because somehow they think they're going to be blamed for not having all the answers. People don't expect government to have all the answers anymore. They've listened to too many governments of all stripes that said they had them. It's always been a dismal failure; trying to run things from the centre is always going to be a dismal failure. People are also doubting the thoughts that we've had on our side of the House over the years. When there's an ailing private sector industry, a big one, that has all the bureaucracy and inefficiency that big brings, people now don't say that the answer is to nationalize it and have a bureaucracy made of up of civil servants replacing the private sector civil servants. People don't believe that either.

Interjection.

[ Page 1748 ]

MR. LEA: I hope they're starting to.

So if we're going to insist on large Crown corporations to do our business for us, I don't think we're meeting the needs or the wishes of a lot of people in this province. The big companies are just as inefficient and bureaucratic. The only difference, when. you go down to get a pencil from stores in the civil service or Imperial Oil, is that you use one colour for the company and another for the forms, but there are seven copies. It's the same thing. It's a group of human beings. I can't tell the difference. It doesn't mean that those human beings working in those companies, whether it's a Crown corporation or a private company, aren't doing their best within the system. But I think we had better take a look at the system we're asking them to work in.

People are feeling alienated — from the companies they work for, from the government they've elected, regardless of stripe. They're afraid and they don't know what to do. They know that we as legislators are not even addressing the problems that they perceive we have. The government on one side won't admit anything is wrong. Politically I guess they can't afford to, because people would turn against them. They've got to keep saying things are rosy, like Hoover. They feel that's politically the way to go.

And on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I don't think we've dealt with it either.

I've mentioned this before. I think the first thing we have to do, in order to start dealing with the problems, is admit we have them. We must admit we have the problems, or we'll never get to work on them. Because they don't have the answers, the government is afraid they've got to cover it up. So they bring in a bunch of legislation that they call restraint legislation, like Bill 3, which is nothing more than the result of their frustration at not having the answers.

[11:00]

Where are we going to go, Mr. Speaker, if the politicians in this province don't start admitting something that the people out there already know? All you have to do is go to my riding on the Queen Charlotte Islands and talk to a small logging operator. Talk, in a quiet moment, with the people involved in the large forest companies. Talk with the people who are involved in the fishing industry. The answer you'll get from them as to what is happening I believe will be very close to what I'm telling you. I don't think I'm exaggerating; if anything, I think maybe I'm not putting the arguments forcefully enough, and with enough clarity.

So here we are, not through sinister thoughts, but I think through mistaken policies brought around by the government's own fear and frustration of the voters. That's something, Mr. Speaker, when you get politicians afraid of the voters. I don't know where you go from there.

Run through the list of legislation accompanying the budget. Look at Bill 3 and say to yourself: "If I thought Bill 3 would solve our problems, I'd vote for it." It won't solve our problems. In reply to the minister, it will not go a long way.

If the government really believes what they're saying — that economic recovery is just around the corner if we tighten our belts, and tightening our belts will help economic recovery.... It's one thing to believe that. But it's pretty hard to believe it when you start examining the facts. Even if housing starts in the United States are going full out, 25 percent of the people in the forest industry are not going to go back to work in the forest industry — not in the near future, and not ever. We've been fooling ourselves into believing that if only we can, through good forest management, manage the forest base to meet any demand, however insatiable, our problems are over. That's all we have to do. We've been doing not a bad job of managing the forest base, and we're watching it fall behind.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You're a very astute countryboy politician — speaking through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister from Columbia River.

We have here a motion that basically says to the government: think it over. If we are ever going to have economic recovery, it's going to take the cooperation of all sectors of society and all sectors of the economy. We are going to be in this kind of trouble for some time to come, and while the government feels this is the answer, the test of time will tell the people of this province who is correct. I'm convinced that the government is not fooling with this legislation; that they intend to pass it through "legislation by exhaustion," or whatever parliamentary and legal means they can employ.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

So we are actually going to see the test of time on all of this package. We're going to find out whether causing unemployment will help us to bring around economic recovery. We're going to see whether taking money out of the tills of the small business community is going to help them survive the depression. I had a Social Credit ex-cabinet minister estimate to me that he felt the effects of this bill on Victoria would be approximately $300 million a year in lost revenue to the city of Victoria. I honestly have to admit that I haven't checked that figure out; I'm telling you that that's what a Social Credit ex-cabinet minister who knows Victoria well told me.

In my wife's store, for a while, the British Columbia Government Employees' Union people were marking their bills to let merchants in Victoria know how much of the money they were getting in their tills came from public service workers. We were surprised — and I've talked to other merchants who were also surprised — at the number of dollars that came into the stores and into the service areas of Victoria that were....

AN HON. MEMBER: A big payroll.

MR. LEA: A very big payroll. And it's important not only to the people who are making the money but to the merchants, those people who sell the goods that the public servants buy.

I'd like to tell you a story. I think it's germane to the bill because it'll let us know the attitudes of each other, and that's important. I was riding on the ferry from the Queen Charlottes over to Prince Rupert and there was a good Social Credit supporter on the ferry at the same time. This was before the last election. I won't mention his name; you'll see why.

He said: "Graham, I've got a problem."

"What's your problem?"

"Well, actually, I'd like to vote for you, because I think you're a good MLA, but I can't vote for you because you're NDP. I'm actually Social Credit and I'd like to vote Social

[ Page 1749 ]

Credit, but I can't stand the Social Credit candidate. I've got a real problem. What do I do?"

"Well, " I said, "what do you dislike about the NDP?"

"I'm a small businessman, and I just can't stand the trade unions. The NDP's connection with the trade unions just means that I can't vote for the NDP. That's the way it is."

"Well, I guess I'm a lot greedier than you are." That tweaked him, Mr. Speaker, because he couldn't imagine anybody greedier than himself. Not many of us can, can we?

So he said: "What do you mean?"

I said: "I want my customers to be trade union; it's my staff I don't want to be trade union. I like my customers to make all sorts of money, because if they don't I won't survive."

"You know, I've never looked at it that way before."

"Further, if you were going to open up a new business, and you had your choice of starting it in a town where there's a pulp mill with a trade union belonging to it or another town where there's no trade union, where would you start your business? Be honest."

"Well, I have to be honest, " he said. "I'd start it in the town with the trade union."'

So things are not always what they seem.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Could you repeat that? I missed it.

MR. LEA: You missed it? I'll repeat it when we go and have a coffee.

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I do believe that the citizens of this province — maybe not the politicians — are frightened, and maybe it takes the kind of fright we have in society today to make us pull together. Maybe it takes the fright we've had before we'll start cooperating with one another as opposed to beating one another over the head.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You’re serious about that leadership, aren't you?

MR. LEA: I sure am. I'll tell you why I'm serious, Mr. Speaker: I think the things that I'm talking about tonight have to be said, and I intend to say them in my bid for leadership. I intend to talk about the problems we have and the fact that we are not addressing them. Because we haven't addressed them sooner, we're watching a government that’s caught in a completely open economy where we import almost everything we consume and sell almost everything we make: a completely vulnerable, non-diversified economy that has made us suffer more in the depression that my other areas. We were vulnerable because we had had no plan of action by the governments of this province to take us into a diversified economy. We have been absolutely satisfied to do nothing more, whenever we had to increase our economy to facilitate new growth of population, than ever widen the extraction process. I suppose, up until now, it has served us fairly well; we've gotten away with it. Well, it's over. Unless we start dealing with the very basic structural problems we have in the resource economy of this province, we are not going to solve anything by merely cutting back on government expenditure.

Cutting back on government expenditure will really mean only one thing in the long run. When things start to pick up again — and they will, but not to the degree to which they were in '78 and '79 in our forest or fishing industries — the only thing the government not spending as much money now will mean is that we won't owe as much money. That will be the one fact that will be there. But as for this budget and Bill 3 and the accompanying legislation helping to bring about economic recovery, that's not true. The Premier himself said it, really. He said: "What we have to do is tighten up our belts, be frugal and wait for good times again." He says that the private sector, the engine of the economy, is going to thrive again in this province, and our troubles will be over. He says the government should have no involvement in it; let the private sector do it, with no interference or intervention or partnership with government and the private sector.

There are those in our society who would nationalize the corner stores; they're foolish. There are those in society who think the government doesn't have any right to intervene in the economy under any circumstances. When the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) referred to somebody as "bonkers," I think she'd have been better off calling the people at both ends of that spectrum the bonkers ones.

The fact of the matter is that we have a mixed economy; and we're going to have a mixed economy in the foreseeable future. If the government would admit that to themselves, as we do, then they could get down to the business of trying to make our mixed economy work to the benefit of us all, but if they are determined that there shall be no cooperation, no joint ventures between government tax dollars and private sector dollars, then I think we're going down the wrong path.

If we are to have any hope in the future of this province, we are going to have to forge those new social contracts. We are going to have to have a tripartite form of cooperation among labour, management and government. We are going to have to have that. It's not enough to just do that. If we just did that, other sectors of society, like the small business community, would be left out. So we have to be very careful we don't leave anyone out when we're making those decisions. If we leave them out, they will not be part of the planning and will not be part of setting the goal. Only when people are allowed to help set the goals and the methods that will take us to those goals will you get a truly cooperative society, one that works together for the good of all.

I'm going to support this motion, because I honestly believe that we are hurting people who don't need to be hurt. I think what we are doing is setting our priorities incorrectly. We all admit there is room for restraint, but it has to be done with fairness. It has to be done with an eye to the future. To cut off our nose to spite our face because we're afraid to admit to the problems we have, I think, is doing the people of this province a great injustice. We're not fooling them. In closing, I feel, sometimes, that there are more people out there than in here who know about the kinds of problems we're having.

Mr. Speaker. I'd like to move that the House do now adjourn.

[11:15]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

[ Page 1750 ]

NAYS — 27

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

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) was thumping quite loudly and I wanted to start my few comments tonight by reflecting on some of the remarks made by that minister. I hope he doesn't disappear too quickly.

We are debating tonight the amendment to Bill 3. To refresh everyone's memory, it states 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 powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees." The minister in charge of this bill, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), nodded his head — he approved of my reading it — and I heard him say that he hoped I would stick with it. I wish to assure him that I intend to stay with the amendment.

The Minister Of Municipal Affairs did not stay with the amendment, but of course I won't use that to abridge what I should be doing here. Even though his remarks were general and seemed to have very little to do with the amendment, they symbolize the problem that the NDP and thousands of other people in this province have with this bill. That member kept referring to his own radical, right-wing dogmatic philosophy on the running of a province today, or any government. That's the problem with this bill. It doesn't deal just with the firing and the elimination of a number of public servant positions, but goes far deeper than that. This bill is basically a political document.

AN HON. MEMBER: We’re not discussing the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: The amendment has been brought forward because of the political philosophy that underlies the main motion. Therefore I too have to bring attention to the fact that we have felt compelled to refer to humanity, justice and the possible practice of political patronage. The underlying philosophy of radical right-wing extremism, as expounded tonight by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, shows this lack of humanity and compassion. As many of us have said many times, when you feel it is necessary, in a time of recession, to see that the poor, the weak, and those who can least afford to survive are the ones to suffer, then you are indeed inhumane.

[Mr. Campbell in the chair.]

Some of you may say — and I'm sure you may be thinking it — that many of the public servants are not in that position. Some of those public servants who are being arbitrarily dismissed are in a position that I don't think you and I would like to see our families placed in. That's why I want to deal with the amendment from the point of view of humanity and justice, and then move into discussing the matter of political patronage, which is specifically what our amendment refers to. We are concerned with possible political patronage, judging from some past appointments, and perhaps dismissals, by that government.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we must talk about public servants. The amendment basically deals, not entirely with public servants but I think primarily so — public servants not only in the provincial government, but in the municipalities, school boards, and even in the universities.

The House should perhaps realize, in discussing this bill at this time of the evening, that we are dealing with people. That's why I'm standing here in my role as a member of the opposition: to try, through this amendment debate, to point out to the government that it is the people of this province who will suffer in the long run if this bill goes through.

[11:30]

I know most of us in this Legislature take students through the buildings. I think most of us find it one of our more enjoyable jobs as an MLA. When I take students through and talk to them, I always try to point out to them what it is we're all basically doing here. You usually find that most students, like the parents who come in, aren't really quite sure what goes on in here. After these last two or three nights, I'm sure that will be asked even more. I point out to the students that the main thing that goes on here is the passing of laws. I also try to point out to them that laws are being passed for one purpose only, and that's to benefit and improve the lives of the citizens of this province. That's why I'm on my feet at this time of night. That's why the NDP feels it necessary to continue debate on this bill, why they are bringing in amendments to the bill. We sincerely believe that if the provincial Social Credit government does manage to put this bill through the House without amendment, one of which we have before you tonight, the lives of the people of British Columbia will not be better. In fact, their lives will be worse. If I were talking to students today and had to tell them that I may have to sit here and unfortunately watch the passage of this bill, I wouldn't be able to say to them that I was very proud of this law brought in by the Social Credit government, or law which they are attempting to bring in.

What is our basic concern, and why have we brought in this amendment regarding restoring humanity and justice, and regarding the possibility of political patronage? Let's talk about humanity and justice, and how this bill really affects people.

One of the first persons to be fired because of this bill was a lady named Adrian Downey, who was fired at 4 p.m. on a Monday, while on her way to visit two more families whose children have been teetering on the brink of delinquency. She was performing her job as a public servant in the area of children who have problems with delinquency. It was at that time that she received her notice. I'm bringing this up because I don't think it shows a very humane, just or caring government to move on a person in that precipitous way.

Adrian Downey went to those meetings clutching the letter from the Human Resources Ministry that told her she was redundant and could not be guaranteed redeployment in another ministry office. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 1751 ]

Chabot) and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) continually tell us, "We really are not doing anything too bad. All we're doing is redeploying, and most of these people will find other jobs." Of course, anyone who has young friends or relatives out looking for a job will know what the situation is. Even to suggest that it's going to be easy for these fired workers to find a job is a pretty cold, calculating approach to this whole area of firing public servants today. It will not be easy.

Despite all the rhetoric of the Social Credit government when they brought in their budget, I have not seen any great improvement in the economy. As a matter of fact, we all know that the exact opposite is happening. Since the budget came in and these arbitrary firings took place, the employment situation in British Columbia has worsened. The rate is now the second highest among young people, after the province of Newfoundland. What a sad, tragic record! Yet this government seems determined to continue to march on, in their dogmatic, ideological approach, trying to solve the problems of a recession. Their whole house is falling down around them, and yet they persist in bringing in regressive legislation, such as we're discussing tonight, which will do nothing to improve the economy. What it will do is to satisfy some people whom the Social Credit government feel they have a responsibility to. Obviously they feel that they voted for them on one basis. We’ve heard them say over and over again: "We were given a mandate to fire public servants." Perhaps a number of' people were concerned that there are some situations top-heavy with public servants. But we all know that the vicious, arbitrary move on public servants that we see in Bill 3, and why in our amendment we refer to humanity and justice, was mainly to cover up for the government's own ineffectiveness in handling the economy. It's very simplistic to say: "Government is too heavy. Let's get rid of the public service, and everything's going to be marvellous." Maybe there were a few too many public servants, but let's remember something: the Socred government bringing in this bill has been in power in B.C. for 27 of the last 30 years. It was Social Credit themselves that created what they keep talking about as a bloated government. They expanded the public programs because they thought that was what the people wanted. They inflated the payroll bill that the taxpayers are now — so they claim — fed up with paying.

So here we have the very government that added to this public service payroll, and now, for the sake of saving their own political skins, they very callously turn on those public servants and use them once again as a scapegoat. They did all those things because they were playing a real political game to get elected. Now the people whom Social Credit brought into government themselves with their own actions are to be sacrificed through Bill 6. That's why in the amendment we refer to the need for humanity, and we refer to political patronage.

In the few minutes left, I want to move on to discuss my very sincere concerns about how the Social Credit government could now move in on appointments to public positions through political patronage, instead of through the normal way. No politician should have their hand in the appointment of a public servant — from the point of view of a partisan hand. The Social Credit is now going to sacrifice the same people that they brought into government. If a business can't afford to pay its employees....They keep telling us they have to let them go, saying: "Why shouldn't the government do the same as a business?" I keep hearing that over and over.

But a very important point here is missed: a government is not a business. It exists to provide services that meld and put together a civilized society. Which services are essential or otherwise depends on your point of view. There's no question about that when it comes to the provision and priority of services to people, this is where there is a very basic difference between the Social Credit government and the NDP.

I've mentioned many times during debate in this House that the NDP does not think that large buildings, edifices to governments themselves, should have priority over services to people. Yet we have found through the years that the Social Credit government puts great emphasis on buildings: for example, the suggestion of a $30 million building outside of B.C. Place — what for, we don't know — at a time of restraint. I mentioned that in a speech recently so I won't repeat it now. The point I'm making is that government is not a business. It exists to provide services that meld a civilized society. Which services are essential or otherwise depends on your point of view. Points of view are very important at election time, especially to the voters. If a public program is considered important, a government has two ways of financing it: it can go into debt and pay the interest charges, or it can raise taxes to pay for it. I find it rather tragic that many of the public servants of this province are having to pay for the financial mistakes of the Social Credit government. There's no question about it. The facts speak for themselves. We've had it reported many times on this floor by members of the NDP that since Social Credit came into power, government debt has more than tripled. It is really ironic, for a government that talks about the need to be debt-free, that the debt has tripled since they achieved office. We know this government has put itself in a very serious financial situation because of the interest charges on those debts. Much of it is due to their own ineptitude, not just world problems,

You always have to find a scapegoat for mistakes — apparently the Social Credit government does anyway. That is why we have this bill in front of us. It's a bill that is going to use the public servants of British Columbia as the scapegoat for Social Credit's financial inefficiency. I think the only way for the government to prove that it is not using the public servants as a scapegoat is to withdraw the bill, the amendment to which I am speaking on.

As I said earlier, Bill 3 is primarily some very extreme right-wing philosophy couched in a political statement. The sad thing is that not only is it a political statement, but it is bringing about action which tragically affects people in this province.

I mentioned earlier that I felt the manner in which our public servants have already been released from their positions is inhumane and callous. I want to remind this House that even though we're debating an amendment to a bill that hasn't been passed, a total of about 600 public servants have been handed pink slips. That was just in the very first weeks, as this bill was introduced. Twenty of those people, counsellors of families whose children are fighting or turning to drugs, acting out and suicide, are from Victoria. All of them are family support workers and members of a program introduced in 1978, and heralded as the service which would keep kids out of institutions and save the province money.

"The program was eliminated at 4 p.m. on Monday. 'What will these children do, because there is no psychiatric treatment in Victoria?' asked one of the workers who was fired. 'One young girl who tried to commit suicide had to be put in the hospital because

[ Page 1752 ]

there was nowhere for her to go. What's going to happen to them now?' The fired workers were still trying to digest the news."

[11:45]

That goes back a month or so, so I won't go into that any further at this time. But they made a very good point when they asked what was going to happen to those children now. In this obsession with saying to the public, "We're a tough government; we're going to get rid of those unnecessary public servants," the tragedy is that in taking this action the government is cutting back on services that are really needed. The elimination of many of those services will cause many problems for our society in the future. Somehow or other the Social Credit government is so short-sighted that it cannot see that. When you start cutting back on programs that have been assisting people to survive emotional and other difficulties which could perhaps get them into serious trouble in later life, if you're talking about saving money, you'll find that it's going to cost all the taxpayers of British Columbia far more money in the future.

Political patronage: I think we have a right to mention that, and we have a right to express our concern regarding public servants. When I debated this bill — how many months ago now? When did we start this bill? It seems a long, long time ago. I recall reading to the House at that time the history of the public service of British Columbia, and referring to the bad old days in British Columbia when public servants had no collective bargaining rights and could be fired at the whim of whoever was their supervisor — even if they just happened not to like the way they looked. That actually happened, Mr. Speaker, before the advent of collective bargaining for public servants. How on earth can we not suggest in our amendment that practices of political patronage can now occur through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees? It did happen in the past. We're very concerned, because already.... I am not going to say in reading this that this was based entirely on a vendetta, but I am going to refer to two senior officials — this has been mentioned before in this House, but it's very relevant to the amendment — of the B.C. Government Employees' Union who were among the hundreds of civil servants fired by the Ministry of Human Resources. I want to point out that there is a concern that perhaps they were not fired in, shall we say, an impersonal, objective way.

"Social worker John Shields, the union's first vice-president, who has been coordinator of day-care services in the capital region for the last nine months, a job that the ministry says is now redundant. Diane Wood, the union's second vice-president for the last seven years, who was administrative assistant at the ministry's Prince George office. They were part of the dismissal notices that went out, slashing family support and child care programs. For Shields, 43, a former priest and civil rights fighter, an advocate of workers' rights in the union, the government's legislation package introduced with the budget on July 7 is 'a legislated attack on rights in B.C.' He believes that his outspoken style made him vulnerable. He says, 'I was targeted.'"

I cannot say if that is correct or not, but the point I'm making is that a government which puts in a bill stripping the public servants of British Columbia of the protection they had before against unwarranted dismissal certainly leaves open for suspicion the suggestion made here by this union worker who found himself fired. He happens to be active in the union.

AN HON MEMBER: How many people were laid off altogether?

MRS. DAILLY: Many people have been fired other than the particular two I'm mentioning, but I'm dealing with one issue in this amendment right now: the concern of the NDP that the Social Credit government can and may use political patronage in their appointments. I don't know why I'm even saying "may use," because we have a concrete example in the appointment of one of the Premier's close associates as a government agent. I think we all well remember that that appointment was not made through the regular channels. That has happened right here in British Columbia in 1983, yet we are being asked to support a piece of legislation which will help provide the framework so that this could happen in many other cases in the province. There is no way that the NDP opposition can ever support that. That is why we say again, in this amendment, that we think humanity and justice demand that we oppose any measure which could allow for political patronage in the dismissal of public employees. In the other case, I was referring to the hiring of one, but if you want to carry it to the extreme, somebody else might have been dismissed, or someone better qualified should have had that position. Whether or not he was qualified, the point is, if he was qualified, why was it not done openly and aboveboard? These are our concerns.

I have in front of me articles which use some very strong terms about this Bill 3. I know you've heard them and that it has been debated in this House for a considerable length of time. In the public's mind, it is a bill which seems very highly visible. Most people today know that if the government goes on a vendetta against their public servants, in the long run everyone will suffer. One sign of a civilized government is the way they treat their public employees. I'm very concerned that this government, through Bill 3, is showing the public of B.C. that they no longer really care about fair, unbiased treatment in the hiring and firing of their public servants. To repeat, there is no way that the official opposition could possibly consider allowing this to go through without expressing, at great length, our concern.

Our member who spoke earlier today — the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) — gave an excellent speech in which he pointed out, in his own inimitable manner as a long-time eloquent speaker in this House, his grave concern over Bill 3 and the imposition of the arbitrary powers of the Social Credit government relative to a section of the bill which would actually allow the government to fine a public servant in a municipality or a city. Imagine that for a heavy-handed, centralized control!

I do not know where the Provincial Secretary, whose bill we are now debating, is, Mr. Speaker, but I know we're here in the NDP opposition. We're prepared to debate it but the minister is not here.

I think patronage is one of the most serious things in this bill, and that's why, in the amendment, we refer to humanity, justice and our concern about political patronage. Let me give you an example of what Bill 3, if it goes through, can mean to the Vancouver city council and its employees.

For over two years, with the introduction of the compensation stabilization program last year, unionized employees

[ Page 1753 ]

of the city of Vancouver have been stripped of their right to collective bargaining, and the elected officials of the city and the GVRD have been stripped of their right and responsibility to represent the voters by concluding fair collective agreements. At the same time, most of the senior staff were even more drastically affected. I am not here to propound a great number of senior staff positions. I'm not here to advocate ridiculously high wages. I'm talking about the principle of interference and possible political patronage in a section of this Bill 3, which would seriously affect the autonomy and rights of the municipalities and cities of British Columbia. I think you are aware that restrictions have now been placed, through Bill 3, on senior staff salaries. Government may order them reduced and fine council members $2,000 for not carrying out these orders. Think about that; it is absolutely incredible. I want to repeat that. In this Bill 3, which we propose to amend, we actually find that the government of British Columbia is going to give themselves the right to order the reduction of staff and to fine council members $2,000 for not carrying out these orders.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or school board members.

MRS. DAILLY: Right.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine anything that encroaches more on the democratic rights of a council or a school board than that kind of a section? Is there any wonder that we talk in our amendment about putting an end to these oppressive measures? If someone in the government does not like the way one of the staff members is conducting their affairs on behalf of the city of Vancouver, it can actually move to downgrade the pay of that particular member: in other words, push them to one side. At the same time, if any protest comes from the duly elected representatives, they will have the right to fine them.

No wonder the province of British Columbia has been written up in many of the newspapers across Canada, and elsewhere. Most people are absolutely astounded that a government in 1983 could possibly bring in this kind of legislation. It is gross interference in the fiscal affairs of a municipality or a city. There is no justification, in principle or in practice, for the province of British Columbia to attempt to control the fiscal affairs of Vancouver or any other municipality. If this government persists in these kinds of steps, and if the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), who has just arrived back, persists in ramming through his legislation, which is also autocratic, there will be no need for the elected body. I know that you may perhaps have wanted to get rid of the GVRD, but you're also moving right in on the autonomy of the councils and school boards of British Columbia. It is questionable whether they’re going to be needed anymore as far as the Social Credit government is concerned. What is the point of having elected bodies if you don't give them the opportunity to run their own affairs?

[2:00]

Watching some TV news recently, I was glad to see that some people are saying: "Let's not sit back and give up," despite the draconian, authoritative measures of the Social Credit government and their attempt to move in and remove local control from municipalities and cities. I predict that the municipal elections this year may turn out to have quite a number of people running for local positions. Many of our people in British Columbia will not be intimidated by an authoritarian government, and they are going to run for local office and fight to maintain their rights.

Returning to my discussion of the political patronage, there is no way that the province should have any right to interfere with an employee performing his function, and one duly hired by another elected group. Why do they want it? We've been sitting here for quite a few hours, day and night continuously, and I have yet to hear one Social Credit member put up a positive strong defence of these measures. We've heard a number of comments, but what we get in defence is really the old right-wing radical rhetoric: "Get government off our backs. Fire public servants. Turn the clock back to the turn of the century and everything will be beautiful in British Columbia." It's a very simplistic approach, one that won't work. Even worse, this simplistic approach allows for the abridgment and removal of many basic rights.

It's taken a long time for the province of British Columbia to build up, very carefully and step by step, laws for the protection not only of its public servants, but of all the citizens of British Columbia. It's been a long, slow process. These chambers that we're debating in tonight have been the scene of many magnificent debates, from the time the first group of legislators met here. There have been many arguments and debates, but out of it all, painfully but surely, some very progressive legislation has developed. I give credit to whatever government was in for the fact that it became law. This is why everyone who has criticized the package of legislation brought in by the Social Credit government is so concerned this time. This is why groups are forming and will continue to form around this province to express their concerns. These people know you cannot sit back quietly and allow a government to move in and remove many of the rights which were granted and worked for through the past years.

There is a tendency for the Social Credit government to say "trust us" and "don't worry," even though the legislation states that it can do these things which I'm talking about now and am very concerned about. "Don't worry. It won't be that bad." In the past that might have worked. But I'm glad to say that you cannot underestimate the intelligence of the people of British Columbia today. I do not think they will stand back and allow this to happen. That is why our amendment is moving in to point out to the people of British Columbia that they have an opposition that says we will not let these laws pass. Mr. Speaker, I therefore, in closing, move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 26

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

[ Page 1754 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the almost unprecedented occasion of not rising on a point of order but rising to speak to a motion — in this case a reasoned amendment — in which we are to look at this bill....

[11:15]

[Mr. Reynolds in the chair.]

MR. RITCHIE: I rise on a point of order. The member for the opposition is trying to make a speech and I can't hear it for all the mess and kefuffle that's going on. Would you please ask them to come to order?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we are on a reasoned amendment, one that would express the opinion of this House that every consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose measures which would encourage practices....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have an amendment to the motion here by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who made the motion and disappeared shortly thereafter this afternoon. Is it necessary....?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're being facetious.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I'm not. I'm asking if it is necessary for each and every member of those dozen members out of 22 over there to have to read the amendment. I think the House is sufficiently knowledgeable about the amendment. A copy is there on the order paper. I don't think it's necessary to be read each time that one of those members gets up to waste the time of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member continues.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, my point of order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Whew! That's a pretty tough Speaker we've got.

MR. NICOLSON: Moving right along, this Legislature should impose measures which would encourage practices of political patronage through powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees. Today it's my intention to show some of the reasons why one would think that this is indeed what was intended in this act. Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak to the act as presently written.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Speak to the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not speaking to the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order!

MR. NICOLSON: We can't trust that bunch over there to even pursue the amendments, Mr. Speaker. We get agreement from the other side that they're going to do one thing...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order!

MR. NICOLSON: ...and then they do another.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary has a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I'm astonished, really, that that member for Nelson-Creston says he's not going to speak on the amendment. We're dealing with an amendment. I wish you'd bring that member back to the issue we're discussing, an amendment to the motion here. He has threatened the House with not wanting to speak on the amendment. I think that's a serious breach of parliamentary rules. Unless he's prepared to debate the amendment, I suggest you tell that member to take his seat.

MR. NICOLSON: On that point of order, I would like to say that the member....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll hear that member on his point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker....

MR. NICOLSON: Only one person can be on their feet on a point of order at any one time, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a moment. Point of order! Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member should take his seat...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...while my point of order is being made. I would ask you to ask him to take his seat while I'm making my point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I was on in my feet making a point of order. Only one person can be on their feet at a time Mr. Minister, and...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. NICOLSON: ...I've already risen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member continues.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary on a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that the member was on his feet while I was speaking. He's sitting down now, thank you very much. Really, I don't think his mike should be on and be able to interject while I'm making a point of' order.

MR. NICOLSON: I think the minister made a fairly valid point: that I didn't distinguish.... I understood his remarks to be indicating that I should be speaking to the amendment which the minister has on the order paper, which

[ Page 1755 ]

would be improperly dealt with at this time — that is, the amendments that would be dealt with during committee.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation has, I think, offended considerations of humanity and justice. Last evening — it does get rather confusing, of course: when I say "last evening," I'm not referring to Wednesday evening. I'm referring to Tuesday evening because this is still Wednesday, even though it is some 20 minutes after midnight.... Last evening, Tuesday, I heard a first-hand report on how the Human Rights Commission was dismissed. Without even the director of the branch being informed, but hearing it through the media, a group of employees was summarily dismissed. A group of people who worked very hard on behalf of the people of British Columbia and on behalf of the concepts of humanity, justice and fairness for all British Columbians....

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Hunky Bill?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, there is an interruption concerning the generic Bill — the person of Ukrainian heritage, who became involved.... I must say that that was a rather long and drawn out procedure. Who set that in motion? It was the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) who set up that whole procedure. That is where the responsibility lies, in the parliamentary system. He actually signed his name to the order, so all those dollars you might want to complain about or anything you might object to in that particular procedure were put in place by the Minister of Education.

Now to the bill and to the reasoned amendment. That was the manner in which some people were dismissed without the considerations of humanity and justice. Mr. Speaker, this is something that's even a little bit closer to home. This is a letter that was sent to the friends of the two people who were the field people for the recreation and sport branch. They sent out a letter informing all the people that they had been working with in the community about their dismissal. They said:

"By now, many of you will have heard that the recreation and sport field offices around the province were closed after 30 years of operation as a result of the restraint measures announced in the provincial budget on July 7. These closures were, in fact, effected at midnight July 7. Sixty percent of the recreation and sport branch staff still remain in Victoria and Vancouver to provide centralized services."

Mr. Speaker, in a stroke — I guess the "bold stroke," in the mind of the government, which took place at midnight of July 7, the day in which the infamous budget and the infamous legislation were brought down in one motion — these people were dismissed without humanity or justice. I was a beneficiary of the program that evolved into that sport and fitness branch. It was started provincially — Pro-Rec — and the former Deputy Provincial Secretary and former Deputy Premier who served under this government, as well as the previous government, and the government previous to that. Mr. Lawrie Wallace was one of the founding people of that movement. Mr. Speaker, that is another thing that was summarily dismissed. Even if it had reached its time, even if it had become redundant, after 30 years one would expect a little bit better consideration, a little bit better notification than a midnight letter summarily dismissing people and dismissing a program which had served this province very well for over 30 years, and then centralizing it so that it no longer really exists for people who live outside of the lower mainland, beyond Hope, British Columbia.

This bill has brought about, in its present form, some very serious comment. Canon Robert MacRae, when he was addressing a crowd on behalf of a coalition of clergy and laity from Anglican, Catholic and United church groups, clearly set out the overriding danger generated. He said that "it threatens to destabilize our society, giving rise to a climate of unrest, fear and distrust. The spirit and direction of this legislation is contrary to the deeply embedded values and principles upon which all major political traditions in Canada have been agreed and relied."

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look at some of those target groups that were singled out for that "bold stroke," the people who were made an example of, and certainly much has been said about the dismissal of the family support workers. We saw the manner in which these people were dismissed, and we have seen other things. We have seen a government that appoints a person who was a personal friend of the Premier, a detached relative of the Premier, to a position. He was not qualified to be a gold commissioner, let alone a government agent, Mr. Speaker — he knows how to carry bags, maybe. He was appointed over people who have had training for years and years and years in that very noble position in the provincial government.

That is the signal that this piece of legislation is setting the way for patronage appointments. This piece of legislation will encourage practices of political patronage, because it will enable more arbitrary dismissals of public employees and will enable people to be examined for the correctness.... I talked to one public employee who was dismissed. That public employee went to her MLA, who happened to be a Social Credit MLA, and was told: "Oh well, we have a job for you. Get back to us and I'll look into it." Then the person, when they phoned back, said: "Oh, by the way, how did you vote during the last election?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. NICOLSON: No, I'm not going to name names and bring down a reprisal on that person. I'm an honourable member. I will take the responsibility for my remarks in this House, and that is an honest remark from an honest conversation held less than two weeks ago. I'll name names. It was the constituency office of Hugh Curtis, and if you want to go sniffing from there go ahead.

[12:30]

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I'm sure you will. I'm sure you'll run it through your computer, as you did before. to find out how that person voted when that person was being considered for employment. Mr. Speaker, that is what is being encouraged and prepared through this piece of legislation.

There is another real contradiction in this piece of legislation. It has a compensation clause in it with a very nice little slip. It says it will provide for compensation for the employees whose employment is terminated under section 2, or under any other circumstances without cause. If you look at the explanatory note, though, it says: "The government may establish an equitable and consistent scheme of compensating senior management in the public sector." And how this government compensates senior management!

[ Page 1756 ]

Mr. Kinsella was invited to come out here from Ontario and was offered a job in British Columbia. He was offered $10,000 just for moving expenses, and all he had to do to get the $10,000 was to submit a letter. He submitted no receipts and was given $10,000 on the basis of a letter from the Premier and one from himself. I say that's a signing bonus. There were no receipts submitted. Did it cost him $10,000, $6,000 or $3,000?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to withdraw the statement which he's just made, which offends this hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear any statement made by the hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I heard it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the minister withdraw at the member's request?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I did not make any reference whatsoever to anything that the member was saying or to the member. If, in fact, anything I did say to someone else he felt fitted his description then I will withdraw that.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that we see money being handed around, very generously sometimes, to certain people who don’t even have a track record. The only condition on that $10,000 was that Mr. Kinsella stay here for two years. It sounds to be almost like a contract for Dieter Brock, or somebody like that, to attract them to a certain area. And it sounds to me more like a signing bonus than something for actual, legitimate moving expenses. It would be rather interesting to see if actual receipts could be produced to that effect.

In this legislation we are led to believe that there will be compensation for employees whose employment is terminated, either under section 2(1), which establishes criteria within a unit into which employees have been designated, or who have been dismissed without cause.

I have had letters — to be honest, one letter — from a person who was considering early retirement and wondering what this part of the legislation meant and whether they should retire right away or should perhaps look and see if the government gives some enticement under this piece of legislation for an early retirement and compensation. One is led to believe by reading just the legislation that the compensation package applies to everybody. But in the explanatory note there has been a Freudian slip; in fact it applies only to senior management.

MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There appears to be only one member interested from the opposition side. I wonder if he could declare his speech discontinued for lack of interest. There is only the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). The rest of them appear not interested in the debate at this time. Is that a valid point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a valid point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, therefore we see that in this bill there is the provision where special people can be singled out, maybe not even by a class at managerial level, maybe just special ones — some of the ones who were brought out and given political appointments. So this bill certainly encourages a type of political patronage. This bill has been characterized by John Starkey, president of the faculty association of the University of Western Ontario, as a document toward a repressive society. About 15 or 20 years ago we were talking about a movement toward a just society. That, I think, really epitomizes where we're being taken by this bill. It points out the powers already, for instance, held by universities. A faculty member can be dismissed for cause such as incompetence or dereliction of duty or financial problems — in other words, where the financial means do not exist to continue a certain program at a university. So those things already exist. But when you bring in dismissal without cause you create an atmosphere in the university which attacks academic freedom: the right to speak out in a way which will actually bring forward the new ideas which may not be acceptable immediately, which may not always find favour, but which will eventually end up to the betterment of all mankind.

Progressive thinkers have always faced some forms of persecution. Back in the days of the Greeks the library at Alexandria was burned and all of the information was destroyed because of a schism and a move toward the beliefs of Plato and Aristotle, which were dogmatic and rooted in the present instead of the future. For that reason the world lost the information which has accurately shown that the world was round and very accurately measured even the diameter of the earth. We went through a dark age for over a thousand years where this knowledge was lost, almost for all time. It is only through this type of repression from a party which sent a member to this Legislature — John Tisdalle — who still believed in the flat earth.... He was a member of the Flat Earth Society. Mr. Speaker, many other members of the government party would appear to be very much in spirit with Mr. Tisdalle; if they do not literally believe the earth is flat, they still have much of the same type of a philosophy.

So the main purpose of tenure at universities is not job security. It is to provide for academic freedom necessary for the conduct of independent research and teaching, subject only to the constraints and the discipline of independent and external political considerations. One cannot be looking over one's shoulder to be worrying about external political considerations if one is truly going to pursue academic excellence, pursue new ideas and make a contribution toward the future.

The same kind of ignorance was professed by the archconservative elements of the church in the Middle Ages — not by the progressive elements of the church, who were out doing missionary work all over the world and many good things, but the arch-conservative elements. These were the same people who caused Galileo to recant his discoveries, who tried Copernicus as a heretic, and who caused Tycho Brahe to never even publish any of his works, because he was so afraid of the orthodox police of the day that he repressed and didn't even believe the things he had discovered, leaving them for Kepler to bring to the attention of the world, so that Kepler is more famous than Brahe. This same kind of orthodoxy is being manifested by many of the people opposite here yesterday — or today, if we consider today to be still Wednesday.

[ Page 1757 ]

"The attack on tenure in the universities is a small part of the attack which the Bennett government is mounting on the public sector employees. Since the civil service is largely the creation of successive Bennett governments over the past 30 years, the proposed actions of the government of British Columbia are analogous to the captain of a ship dismissing his crew because he has charted the wrong course."

Those are the words of John Starkey, president of the faculty association of the University of Western Ontario.

I also have a letter from a constituent who wrote to me:

"I wish to express my outrage. The proposed labour legislation is frightening to me. From what little technical detail I am able to learn about, the legislation aims to denude citizens of certain work related safeguards we have come to depend upon. I am not a unionist, nor am I a capitalist. I do see that government must weave a network of countervailing procedures so that all of us will live peacefully together. The proposed legislation is nasty, pernicious and anti-worker. I look forward to you fighting against it, and toward a more reasoned policy vis-à-vis government, capitalists and workers."

So here is a person who is calling for, I think, a well-reasoned approach, a central path. That is the thing that bothers me about this legislation and is why I am of the opinion that every consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that we should not be encouraging practices which would encourage political patronage and the type of fear that is being put over everyone's head. We wouldn't be having the demonstrations if it weren't for fear.

The government knows very well what a powerful weapon fear is. The government was elected simply because they concentrated on a fear campaign in the election. I might say, I wish we had done the same. We should maybe have come out with a fear campaign and told the people what they could fear about the Social Credit government if they were re-elected. Perhaps things would have been different. Fear is a great motivator, and today it is fear of this legislation and its outcome which has people turning out.... Last evening I was at one meeting in Surrey that was quite well attended at the same time there was a very well-attended meeting of concerned parents about the education of their children in one of the schools in Vancouver, I just happened to notice.

[12:45]

Frankly, I would hope that we could do things without having to resort to fear. I would hope that we could get elected as government, on either side of this House, based on policies rather than on fear. But maybe I regret that we didn't also stress fear a little bit more and played to the fears of people rather than trying to appeal on the basis of policy. It's regrettable.

This piece of legislation, then, has created a tremendous amount of interest around the world. I've seen articles in the New York Times, the Manchester Guardian and, of course, all kinds of articles from other places. We've had letters, particularly from the university community, from New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and I guess just about every part of the world, concerned about this particular piece of legislation. If a person really wanted to make British Columbia the centre of the world at any expense, this might be the way to do it. But I wouldn't want to make British Columbia the centre of the world at the expense of making it the Biafra of the eighties, or another similar such tragic area.

The Vancouver city council sent some time ago — probably within a week of the legislation being brought down — a resolution. It was voted for by all except Alderman Bellamy. Even Alderman Puil and Alderman Warnett Kennedy voted for this resolution. Part of it says:

"Whereas, under provisions of Bill 3, in particular, members of city council could be fined up to $2,000 for failure to take a position ordered by Victoria; therefore be it resolved: that this city council calls upon the provincial government to take a second look and withdraw all 26 pieces of legislation and to initiate discussion with all the affected groups before making the new legislative proposals on all matters in question:

"And be it further resolved: that we take steps to adopt a definitive position in these matters for the purpose of formal representation to the provincial government.

The city council then wrote to the government, and I was informed last Saturday that at that time the government had not even replied to the city of Vancouver, the largest city in this province, the third largest in Canada. The government hasn't even responded to them about a motion passed not just by aldermen like Alderman Yorke and Alderman Eriksen, the persons who moved and seconded the motion, but also supported by Alderman Puil and Alderman Warnett Kennedy. I don't know all the members of the Vancouver city council, because it changes from time to time. I remember when Alderman Jack Cornett was on city council, and when he became the mayor, but I don't try to keep up with all members of city council. Things change from time to time.

Interjection.

MR. NICHOLSON: I have been accused of having fellow travellers now. That is a phrase that goes back beyond my memory of Alderman John Cornett. That must be really old stuff, and something I seem to remember from a different age, maybe from the age of Gerry McGeer, who of course was one of the persons who pressured for Oriental exclusion laws in this province and the continuance of them.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Oppenheimer was the first mayor.

With this legislation, we are taking away the rights that were guaranteed under the Canada Labour Code to people who work under federal jurisdiction — persons who work in telecommunications, on railways and so on. Persons who work in those areas but are not covered by a collective agreement would be covered by section 61(5) of the Canada Labour Code, under unjust dismissal:

"Subject to subsections (2) and (3), any person who has completed 12 consecutive months of continuous employment by an employer and who is not a member of a group of employees subject to a collective agreement may make a complaint in writing to an inspector if he has been dismissed, and if he considers his dismissal to be unjust."

It points out how the complaint shall be made. It's quite lengthy in terms of the types of complaints that can be filed. When a person who is laid off because of lack of work or discontinuance of a function, that is a justified dismissal. In a

[ Page 1758 ]

case where a procedure for redress has been provided elsewhere in some other act, of course, then there are other remedies. There are ways and means pointed out in the Canada Labour Code. In this province, though, we are now taking away from all public sector employees the right to justify dismissal with this act — in the spirit of this act, which I don't think will be changed even after it's amended. We're not just taking it away from public sector employees; we're also taking it away from public sector employers. They will not be able to grant terms and conditions for justified dismissal. If they do, they can be fined up to $2,000. No, if there was ever a piece of legislation that the government should have withdrawn totally, forgotten about, buried, and said that this was just the over-enthusiastic actions of a government that had just received a fresh mandate and was full of adrenalin.... I think it would have just run by and been forgotten. But this particular act and the companion piece that is very similar to it are the worst of a very bad lot of legislation. They do pave the way for patronage appointment, for dismissing people and then selectively.... It's not too hard to make patronage appointments. The only thing you've got to do is create the vacancies. By doing away with whole classes of people and regional offices and then creating some new kinds of regions and new kinds of offices, it will be possible for this government to create a tremendous amount of patronage in government. Certainly this is the kind of legislation that under the old coalition government, prior to 1952, would have been absolutely terrible and terribly abused. I believe that members of this House should support this reasoned amendment offered by my colleague from Victoria. I certainly will.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

[1:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 7

NAYS — 26

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is there no government member that wishes to speak on their own legislation? Are they that embarrassed about this stuff? Are they that ashamed?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Well, aren't you going to defend your legislation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Look at that. Shame on you! Defend it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Leader of the Opposition please take his seat. That's not a point of order.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order as the Leader of the Opposition. Does that mean that 15 members of the opposition approve of what we are doing?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order either.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm waiting until the hubbub dies down a bit.

I must say this is a much more reasonable time of the evening to be speaking. I started speaking on Tuesday morning at 5:05, and that was the first 5:05 a.m. on Tuesday. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that by a decision of the House Tuesday lasted something like 36 hours. We were still into Tuesday at the time everybody else considered to be 1:59 p.m. on Wednesday. But for us it was still Tuesday. So I'm talking about the first time that I spoke at 5:05. This is much better — 1:05.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: More money? I wonder what that refers to, Mr. Speaker.

In any case, I rise to support the amendment moved by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). It is an amendment, if the government members would take the time to read it, that I'm sure every one of them would want to support because it certainly makes eminently good sense. There is no question about that. There is no question that the legislation before us fails to meet the needs of the people of the province, as we were asked to do when we were first brought here. Removing all the words after "that" in the motion we're considering now, and substituting the words presented to us in the amendment, would certainly serve the needs of the people of the province much better than Bill 3, which we have been considering for some time.

The amendment refers to public employees. These are described at some length in the legislation so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind as to just who are public employees. Section 1(a) refers to government employees, and different members of the House at times during this debate.... I think debate on Bill 3 started within the first ten days...or by July 11, I suppose — some two and a half months ago — and even at that time letters were being read out in the House from people working for the government who had been dismissed without cause. There were concerns being expressed by these people that Bill 3, in its present form, was not serving the needs of the people of the province, in that it provided for "arbitrary dismissal of public employees," to quote the words from the reasoned amendment before us. One of the letters was from a Mrs. P.F. Smith in my own constituency, and I believe this letter was read into the record at that time by the Leader of the Opposition. There was a response from a Norman Spector, a displaced person from Ontario, who responded to this Mrs. P.F. Smith. I don't think this part of the letter was ever read into the record and I'd like to read the second paragraph of this response:

"I advise that the government, in the near future, will be introducing a fair and equitable severance package which will apply to your circumstances. You

[ Page 1759 ]

are encouraged to participate in this program when it has been fully developed, but you should be aware that all salary paid to you during the above noted period of notice while you did not actually attend work will, of course, be deducted from the value of your eventual severance entitlement."

Mr. Speaker, we're still waiting for regulations that have been promised to us several times in the past two or three months — were promised to us at one point by August 8. We are now into.... I believe that even the House has not made any decision to the contrary and my calendar says that we are now into Thursday, September 22, so I'm going to assume that is the case. So actually the regulations are now one month and 14 days late in coming. There have been many promises from the government about these regulations — as to what the regulations would do, when we would see them, when they would be available in print — and all of those promises have proven to be shallow promises in that they have not been fulfilled. No evidence as to when the regulations will be forthcoming, no evidence that the government is indeed even working on them, other than the comments from time to time from the Provincial Secretary, who does his best to assure people that the regulations will be coming in due course. That's about the only answer we can get out of him now.

Apart from those employees working directly under the government, there are the school board employees. Certainly the employees themselves are worried, but so are the representatives of the employers. The school trustees have made it very plain that they feel the government is going too far with the legislation before us now and that our proceeding with this legislation is not serving the interests of the people of the province because of the effect on school board employees. B.C. school boards don't want the right to dismiss employees without cause. I know there is an amendment on the order paper removing those two words, but I also know that there is an increasing concern in the community that in removing those two words, the government didn't really intend to change the way in which the legislation would be used.

"The B.C. School Trustees' Association told the Social Credit Caucus Thursday" — and this news report is dated July 22 — "that the trustees are opposed to Bill 3 the Public Sector Restraint Act, which allows all public sector employers to dismiss workers without reason." BCSTA representatives met with the minister; "but trustees said later they got nowhere in their attempts to get the government to change its mind. 'We're a little bit disappointed,' said BCSTA vice-president Bev Rodrigo of Kitimat. 'We had hoped the government would be open and cooperative.'"

Certainly there have been promises, many promises, over the last seven years from this administration that they would intend their ways, and that they would be "open and cooperative," but I have yet to hear from any group who feel that the government has lived up to those promises. Certainly in this instance the school trustees, through their vice-president, were reporting that they had hoped the government would be open and cooperative, but on meeting with them they found this was not to be the case.

"Rodrigo said their main hope was to go back to their home communities and the public to try to arouse waves of protest about the losses to the education system. That might be enough to change the government's mind, she said.

"Gary Begin, past president of the BCSTA and a Social Credit candidate in the May election, was more outspoken. 'I live in hope that a miracle will take place' and the Socreds will not pass the legislation, he said."

Certainly if he were here and if he were to act as he is reported to have spoken in this newspaper story dated July 22, he would have been voting in favour of the reasoned amendment proposed by the hon. first member for Victoria. At least that is the way he spoke at that time.

"Rodrigo said the trustees did not oppose the idea of school boards being able to lay off employees for economic reasons, but did oppose them being able to lay people off for no reason at all. There should be a fair process for people who are laid off or dismissed, she said. The BCSTA will encourage all its boards to set up such a process.

"In the Legislature, Education Minister Jack Heinrich refused to withdraw or amend the bill." This is talking about another bill that has already been passed in the Legislature, but the comments from the BCSTA referred to both of them. "Although the BCSTA may not like it, he said, he has received individual communications from school district secretary-treasurers, superintendents and trustees who support it."

Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, not a single one of those communications has been tabled in the House, although we have been able to table many responses from many people who have expressed concern – not just direct government employees or school board employees but also college employees.

The lead story of Synoptic, a publication of the College-Institute Educators’ Association of B.C., is headed: "B.C. Government Wipes Out Faculty Rights." I know there were some reassurances given them by a certain minister who was anxious to maintain his own rights, and perhaps that one group is the only group in our whole community to be satisfied that the government doesn't really intend to implement Bill 3 with respect to certain employees of the universities. But that does not apply to employees of the colleges, to the best of my knowledge and as the college instructors fear. Health care is included in section 1(h): "...a hospital as defined in the Hospital Act or the Hospital Insurance Act which receives funds from another public sector employer." They're included. The British Columbia Nurses' Union stated in their news release dated July 11, 1983: "Once again, the provincial government has acted destructively and without prior consultation, in the name of holy restraint." That is quite in line with the wording of the reasoned amendment moved by the hon. first member for Victoria. So again, one substantial group in our community who are concerned about the effect of this legislation upon the delivery of health services in the province would be strongly in favour of the reasoned amendment. Going on to read from this press release:

"It has wiped out individual rights having nothing to do with saving taxpayers' money. It has made permanent second-class citizens of public employees, and it has ignored the erosion of B.C. health care. It invites action against workers for no good reason,

[ Page 1760 ]

including simple disagreements with supervisors and espousing the 'wrong' political beliefs."

That is a real concern in the minds of many people, Mr. Speaker. Simply for espousing what some people feel to be wrong political beliefs, employees may have their employment terminated.

[1:15]

Here is a letter signed, "A.J. Brummet, MLA, North Peace River," which appeared in the press, in which he was concerned about some of the stories that were going around about health care. At that time, I think, he could not have anticipated Bill 3, but it's interesting to read his comment in the Alaska Highway News, some eight days before election day. I'll just quote briefly from his letter. "It was sick enough when the leader and Health critic of the NDP tried to frighten the sick and elderly with the false statement that the Socreds were planning to increase health user fees. This statement was an absolute lie, but it got headlines for the NDP." Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if that particular MLA at that time knew of the government plans for increasing health user fees. I would like to think not, else the lie would apply to him rather than to the statements being made by the NDP in that election campaign.

The B.C. Health Association, concerned also about the effect of the implementation of Bill 3, would no doubt lend their support to the reasoned amendment moved by the hon. first member for Victoria. "The responsibility and authority of boards of directors of hospital and health care facilities is being eroded by the provincial government's proposed Public Sector Restraint Act," says the B.C. Health Association.

"Hospitals are alarmed at the implications of the restraint act on the autonomy of local hospital boards. Under the Hospital Act, hospital boards have long been entrusted with full control of the finances of their hospitals and are responsible for the provision of the high standard of patient care and treatment provided by B.C. hospitals. Local hospital boards were the first group to feel the full impact of the restraint program in 1982, and have carried out their obligations with responsibility and dexterity. Boards now do not understand the need for additional government interference, especially since the Minister of Health recently complimented boards on their performance. The B.C. Health Association believes that the Public Sector Restraint Act is an unwarranted intrusion into hospital management."

In the schedule attached to Bill 3 is a reference to many Crown corporation employees. Not all of them have responded. I do have one response from the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union, extremely concerned about the effects upon the service for which they have some responsibility — that is the ferry service — and concerned at the way in which this legislation might be used against members of their organization, when employees might be terminated without cause.

I wonder, in the case of any of these employees who might be terminated without cause, even though those words have been removed, how such an employee can ever go and look for another job. What explanation can an employee give in going to a prospective employer when that ex-employee has to admit that he or she can give no reason why he or she was laid off? Suppose it's a teacher that was laid off. What suspicions might there be in the minds of the school board to which that teacher is applying for employment if that teacher can give no reason for having been laid off? Suppose it's a cashier in a government store somewhere or at a B.C. Ferries terminal, and that employee can give no reason why he or she was laid off? Might a prospective employer wonder whether that employee was suspected of having been stealing money? It's possible. Else why not some cause? Why not give them some reason?

There is some real concern in the minds of many people who are going to be laid off without cause that it's going to be very difficult for them to get any kind of employment associated in any way with the kind of work that they had been doing.

Moving on to section 2, where we have these infamous words in the legislation, "without cause," I have some material here where the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was assigned to travel around the province and defend the legislation before us. There's one story here from the Kelowna Daily Courier, July 20, 1983: "McClelland said that under the proposed act, public sector employees will still have protection under the B.C. Labour Code and the Human Rights Act." In the same story he is quoted as saying:

"'We want to have a total package,' he explained. 'For a person who has 20 years with the government, I think there's a very good opportunity there either for relocation into another part of government, if that's possible, or an early retirement package, or perhaps a good severance package. We don't want to be hard and rigid with this. We want to have a flexible program.

"...under the proposed act, public sector employees will still have protection under the B.C. Labour Code and the Human Rights Act."

I wonder why the minister didn't take the time to read the legislation that was presented by the Provincial Secretary before he went around the province defending him. Read section 1, even since it has been amended. "Notwithstanding the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, a public sector employer may terminate the employment of an employee." They do not have the protection of the Labour Code. The bill before us specifically states that they do not have such protection, yet the Minister of Labour is going around the province and telling people: "Don't worry about what the bill says. You still have the protection that the legislation specifically states you do not have."

There's further reference, just to make sure that it's abundantly clear to everyone, in the legislation in section 7: "Where there is a conflict between the Public Service Act and this act or a regulation made under this act, this act or the regulation prevails." So whatever protection anyone thinks they might have because of any other legislation anywhere — and the Minister of Labour is going around the province telling people that they do have such protection — the bill makes it very clear that no such protection exists.

There's a lot of nonsense being said about the job security public sector employees have. I talked to one recently who was not working in my constituency but was travelling through it; actually, I talked to him on the ferry travelling from Nanaimo to Vancouver. He's been working as a government employee — a young man; and I don't think I'll identify him any further than that — since 1973 and is still a temporary employee who could be laid off, under the existing legislation — long before Bill 3 was ever dreamed up — at any time if the ministry for which he was working felt that it didn't have enough work to keep him busy. There's no need to

[ Page 1761 ]

bring in the kind of legislation we have here. Yet that particular employee has been working for seven years for the government. He told me of others who have been working for much longer periods. So some people do have some measure of protection, perhaps, but there are large numbers of public employees who have no such protection. Even if they had.... Here's an interesting little reference to a publication that some of the members may see and some may not; it's an American publication called Boardroom Reports and it's certainly not a socialist publication. This particular reference is from the July 15, 1983, issue. It is headed "Shrewd Management," and the title of the article is "Keep Firings from Backfiring: The New Legal Hazards of Discharging Employees...and Shrewd Ways to Avoid Them." The advice in this article is intended to help employers who want to fire their employees without running into legal problems. The opening sentence is the one that attracted my attention: "America is one of the few countries in the world where employees don't have a right to job security." We're a long way behind the rest of the world; we've got a long way to go to catch up to most countries in the world. I thought that was a very interesting reference when I came across it.

One of those countries was described in a memo put out recently by our research department: "Law on the Discharge of Public Servants. Article 1: the government is empowered up to December 31, 1926" — we're reaching back in history for this — "to discharge from the service official employees and agents of every civil and military grade belonging to any administrative body of the state who, by reason of acts in or out of office, do not give full assurance of faithful performance of their duties or who place themselves in a condition of incompatibility with the general political policies of the government." The source for this is Beale's Letter, July 21, 1983. In that reference the employee had to show that he was an undesirable employee in some manner "by reason of acts in or out of office"; it didn't have to be acts on the job; it could be acts at home, or away from his work. In any case: "...do not give full assurance"; unless he could show that he was giving full assurance of faithful performance he might be let go. This gave the employees more protection than is afforded employees under the bill that we're discussing now — further reason for the reasoned amendment. This particular statement goes back to Rome, December 24, 1925, following Mussolini's takeover. Even then, Mussolini was not prepared to deal with government employees in the manner in which today's Social Credit administration wants to deal with government employees, and is trying to get this legislation through so that it may.

Speaking further about this business of tenure and the fact that only government employees have any kind of tenure, here's a reference to the current IWA collective agreement: "In this agreement, note article 2, section 2, which provides that dismissal shall be only for proper cause." All collective agreements contain such a clause pursuant to the provisions of the Labour Code. Bill 3 says that public sector employees — some 300,000 of them, according to the Provincial Secretary — shall not have that protection. But everyone outside the public sector employees, all who are covered by collective agreements, shall have the protection of the Labour Code. Section 93(1) of the Labour Code states: "Every collective agreement shall contain a provision governing the dismissal or discipline of an employee bound by the agreement, and that provision...shall require that the employer have a just and reasonable cause for the dismissal or discipline of an employee." Bill 3, as everyone in the House is aware, makes this clause non-applicable to public sector workers on the expiry of current collective agreements.

This is an article in the business section of the July 20 Province. I've been picking these out for some time. It's entitled: "The 'Good News — Bad News' on Bill 3" by Rod Mickleburgh: "First, the good news. Sources close to the provincial government report that regulations being drawn up to accompany the Public Sector Restraint Act, Bill 3, will include recognition of employee seniority rights in determining public sector layoffs." Well, where are these regulations? When are we going to see these regulations? Reading the legislation, one can certainly take no assurance that such will be the case, because the legislation comes very close to saying that such protections shall not be included. The bill does read, as I recall, that regulations may be drawn to give some kind of protection, but only that they "may" be drawn. There's no further protection. These are the regulations that I mentioned earlier. Long before August 18 we were actually waiting for these regulations. We were promised that they were coming, but there's been no sign of them.

[1:30]

A story in the Kelowna Daily Courier talks about the travels of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in trying to persuade people around the province that this is good, fair and necessary legislation. "He said a compensation package now being developed will deal with issues of severance pay provisions, early retirement procedures and retraining programs." Where is this package? We've seen no sign of it, no evidence that it's being done and no evidence that anybody's really working on it — just assurance occasionally that it is being worked on.

It's going to be a very fair and equitable package. Can anyone reading Bill 3 really believe that this administration has any intention of being fair with anyone other than friends of the government, cabinet ministers and the Premier? From evidence that we have already seen, we know that the Premier is determined that he will be more than fair with friends and shirt-tail relations, but certainly there's no evidence of any kind that he intends to be fair with anyone outside of that circle.

Nevertheless, the Minister of Labour is going around, doing his job and telling the stories. "It's going to be a very fair and equitable package which is being offered to the employees of the province." Well, none of them know what that package is yet. While the words may say "without cause," they didn't say "without care." At that time the government didn't know that they were going to amend it. The words "without cause" may be removed by the amendment on the order paper. But the minister is telling us that they don't really mean to be rough with people; they do mean to employ some care in laying off people. But from the correspondence that we have seen to date, from the letters that are being read out in this House — this is the third month that we have been debating this legislation — we know that precious little care is being exercised in the way that people are being laid off. "He said the compensation package, which will be introduced in the Legislature during the week of August 8, has been explained to all those employees...." August 8? As I said earlier, today is September 22. That's 35 days and we're still waiting for that to be produced.

"The minister refuted charges by public sector union spokesmen that changes to the Public Sector Restraint Act will

[ Page 1762 ]

do away with employee seniority. 'As far as seniority is concerned, there is no change.'" Once again, I must ask: why didn't the Minister of Labour take the time to read the legislation? The legislation makes it quite plain that seniority will not protect employees. Section 3(2) to (5) makes it very plain. Mr. Speaker, I seem to have mislaid my copy; it's somewhere around this desk. Perhaps I can find one.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the protection that is not included. Section 3(2) says: "A regulation under subsection (1) may establish criteria to be applied within a unit into which employees have been designated under subsection (3), (a) for the purpose of determining which of the employees within the unit will have their employment terminated." Then going down to Section 3(5): "For the purposes of the regulations, but without limiting the generality of subsections (1) and (2), the criteria referred to in subsection (2) may include...." It includes a number of things. Section 3(5)(c) is "the seniority of employees," and 3(5)(d) is "the senority provisions of a collective agreement." So even though employees have seniority, and even though the collective agreement provides that their seniority rights shall be protected, all the legislation tells us is that regulations may be drawn and that these regulations may provide some protection for seniority.

In going around and telling people that the legislation does protect seniority rights, the minister is not telling them what is in the legislation. Neither is he telling them what is in the regulations, because the regulations have not yet been drafted. So the Minister of Labour, in going around and telling these stories about the legislation, must be talking about a different bill, one that we have not seen, one that may have been prepared at a point in time, but one that was abandoned in favour of legislation that suited the Premier's purposes much better than does the bill before us.

I have another story about the restraint bill. Again, it's going way back to July 20. I would like to refer to the legislation, but first I'll read from the news story. This is with reference to this business about school board members not following the rules. "In fact, what the bill says is that 'where a public sector employer contravenes a direction referred to in this section, each member of the governing body of that employer commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000.'"

In reading this section, Mr. Speaker, it's almost like the Income Tax Act. It reads almost as though the offending school board member has to be able to prove that he or she voted in a certain way or would have voted in a certain way if they weren't at the meeting. I've seen some reports on this that indicate to me that they might be fined even though they weren't at the meeting where the offending resolution was passed, unless they can convince the minister that they would have voted the way the minister wanted that person to vote if they were at the meeting. It's terrible legislation — threatening to fine people up to $2,000 each if they don't follow the whims of the minister who's responsible for administering this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the reasoned amendment. "It is the opinion of this House that every consideration of humanity, justice and policy demands that this Legislature oppose measures...." Reading from an editorial in the Province: "Bill 3 will cut 7,000 workers from the civil service by removing their rights against dismissal without cause. Whatever the employers think about the civil rights aspect, they are hard-headed enough to see the damage that B.C. could suffer if the bill goes through. When the province is moving gingerly towards recovery, Bill 3 could provoke a labour-management confrontation of monumental proportions." Surely, Mr. Speaker, that's not in the interests of our community. This editorial is talking about 7,000. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) used the figure of 300,000 public sector employees. We've been told by various spokesmen on the government side of the House — not many of them in the House, but in speeches outside of the House — that they intend this 25 percent reduction in staff to apply to all of the public sector employees — the whole 300,000. That means that the government intends to lay off some 62,500 people.

In the name of humanity, justice and policy, how can anyone support legislation that anticipates laying off, at this time of high unemployment, a further 62,500 people?

In one of the news stories, one of the ministers says: "So what? They'll be covered for a while with unemployment insurance. They can go out and get another job." Well, Mr. Speaker, it's just not that easy these days. We are in a period of depression and high unemployment. To lay off people — particularly to lay off people without giving them any reason — gives them no assurance that they're going to be able to go out and find employment in the private sector or in the public sector or anywhere else, unless of course they are prepared to leave the province, which some of them may well be doing.

Employers are concerned by the rulings. Employers' organizations are concerned. Editorial writers are concerned. This is talking about businessmen and their attitude: "If, for instance, dismissal without cause were to be used extensively in Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail, where private sector unions have traditionally operated, there could be hell to pay with the entire labour movement." I'm told that there are as many as 40 unions working in various aspects of the public service. Now what does that do to all of the collective agreements that all of these organizations will have outside of the public service? For example, there are carpenters' unions who are certified in certain school districts covering the school board employees. What is it going to do to their collective agreements if some of their employees are going to be treated the way they are with Bill 3?

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will do nothing for recovery. To add some 62,500 people to the unemployed lists in the province is going to be bad from an economic point of view. These people are already experiencing difficulties. I've had individuals in my constituency tell me that when they go to the bank to renew their mortgage, they're told that they no longer are good risks. As government employees there is the distinct possibility that they may very well not be employees for very long because of the government's determination to cut by 25 percent. They're having trouble renewing mortgages that they have kept up to date until this point in time. What is that going to do for economic recovery in the province?

Mr. Speaker, in the name of justice, humanity and economic policy, government members should support this reasoned amendment. Speaker after speaker on our side of the House has tried to persuade the government to take time to think about this. We did ask for a hoist. We have now moved the reasoned amendment. We've done just about everything we can to try to persuade the government that they're making a mistake.

I move adjournment of the House.

[ Page 1763 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I've heard the member's motion. I would suggest to him that a motion to adjourn the House at this time is out of order. The last motion that the House voted on was an identical motion; it was defeated. There's been no intervening business; therefore the motion is out of order.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following motion:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 7

[1:45]

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

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Secretary wasn't allowed to continue. That was the most articulate speech I've heard him make in some time in this House.

So that we can focus attention on what it is we're doing here this evening, I would like to begin by reading the motion under debate: "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 powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees."

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the beginning of the effects of Bill 3 in two symbolic ways in the last few months. One is rather more than just symbolism to the 1,600 or so people whose lives have been so dramatically affected, but the outright and arbitrary dismissals that have occurred to that group in our society are something that I think every fair-minded person who thinks it through is more than appalled by. The other symbolic way, and perhaps the beginning of a process that has been set into motion by this particular bill, was the hiring of a person normally hired through the Public Service Commission for a Public Service Commission job in Kelowna. That was the political appointment of Tony Tozer to a government agent's job in Kelowna.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What we're seeing, without the legislation even passed, is a move, on the one hand, toward management practices that would not be tolerated in the private sector, and are not tolerated in the private sector — practices that are in fact discouraged by intelligent and progressive management people. On the other hand, while it's only just begun, we're seeing the beginning of the politicization of the public service of this province. If it's Tony Tozer in a government agent's job in Kelowna today, why wouldn't it be the grader foreman on the road crew between Holberg and Port Hardy next month? Why shouldn't that person, too, retain his job if his political party comes in, and lose it if his political party loses? That kind of political patronage is something that still occurs in parts of this country, although it's on its way out for the most part. It's something that did occur for decades and decades here in this province and has been eliminated through the course of W.A.C. Bennett's time, through the time that we were in office, and the first terms, too, of the current government. But we are now seeing a beginning of that slippery road back to the days when if you voted for the right party, you might get to drive the grader on the road. That's a major implication of this legislation.

I heard the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) call out the name Cass-Beggs. David Cass-Beggs, even though he worked for a Crown corporation, was not hired by — nor should he have been, nor should Robert Bonner —the Public Service Commission. All of the so-called political appointments that were made by our government — in fact, by the current government in its earlier incarnation, certainly in the latter years of W.A.C. Bennett — were made by order-in-council, and were made because people hired in those positions were not part of the public service of this province. That's an important distinction. The Public Service Commission should not in any way have anything to say about who will be hired to be the executive assistant to the Premier, or to any cabinet minister. Those cabinet ministers do have and should have, and will have under our government or theirs, the right to hire those people politically. Of course, the consequences of that are that when their time in office is up, those people are also dismissed politically, the same way as they are hired.

That concept also applies, in my view, to the very senior decision-making levels of Crown corporations. I don't object to the cabinet selecting the chair-person of B.C. Hydro. I don't particularly think we've got a good one at the moment, but I don't object to the fact that that person was hired politically. A major organization like B.C. Hydro needs to reflect policies of the government of the day. One of the ways you make certain that happens is that the very senior management of the board of directors reflect to some extent the views of the government of the day. But that's not what we're talking about, or what I was talking about in the hiring of Tony Tozer, which is the first thin edge of the wedge on that slippery slope to the situation so well described by Mike Royko in many, many columns describing life in Chicago. It's unfortunately still true to some extent in other parts of our country, although not so much in western Canada.

[2:00]

But we've begun that process here in this province as a result of the implications of Bill 3. That's why, in our reasoned amendment, we talk about opposing measures which would encourage practices of political patronage through

[ Page 1764 ]

powers of arbitrary dismissal of public employees. It's clear that we now are in the position of beginning the process of hiring people for their political views — people to take jobs in what should be, and have been, public service positions but are now political service positions. The provincial secretary agrees in general, although not formally — because he hasn't taken his place in either of these two debates, where he's had an opportunity to participate — with my contention that the firing-without-cause provision has not been changed at all by the replacing of those words with a number of other words in the amendment.

So what we really do have in Bill 3 is a continuation of the right of the cabinet in respect of the public service, and the right of the employer in respect of a whole series of Crown corporations and Crown agencies, in effect to fire without cause. If anyone disputes that, I'm quite prepared to go through the arguments on that issue. Frankly, I would prefer to have that kind of debate during the time we take in committee to examine the precise wording. It obviously is more appropriate at that time. My contention is basically that any manager or employer's representative who chooses to get rid of any employee in their organization — this list of organizations included on the back page of the bill — can use this act, as it's amended, and if it passes, as a basis for firing an individual that he wants to get rid of, even though the personnel file may be empty. In our society, that to me is a travesty. Each one of us who has been involved in management or pseudo-management roles — and I have been on several occasions — recognizes the reality that on occasion you have employees who you don't really want working for you. That's a reality. We don't like to talk about it very much, but it's true. There are occasions when an individual may not fit into the framework of the operation, for a variety of reasons; but under modern democratic rules in our society, as developed through labour legislation and through many trials in the courts of our land, you don't fire that individual or those people without very good reason.

Occasionally, very good reason includes the fact that you've got no more money to pay them. That's a very good reason. And occasionally, very good reason means that the efforts of that particular employee are running directly counter to the specific goals of the employer. There are circumstances and ways in which you then can develop a method, a procedure, and a file; and when you've got sufficient evidence and sufficient reason — just cause, in so many words — you then can dismiss that employee. If your reasons are economic, you obviously have other alternatives as well; you have the alternative of attrition. We've seen evidence in this province that the stated goal of a 25 percent reduction of the public service — when I say that, I'm talking about only a small portion of the people covered by this bill — can be, and will be if events are allowed to take their course, achieved through a natural process of attrition. So why the draconian measures in this bill? I think because we go back to the reverse of the Tony Tozer situation. There are people who are committed to their jobs, committed to the services that they provide, whether it's the provision of enforcement of the Human Rights Code or whether it's the provision of child support, family support, or a whole range of other services. Those people are emotionally involved in a very positive way — a positive sense of the words "emotionally involved" — in what they're doing and believe in those programs that have been developed, and the government doesn't believe in those programs. The government feels somehow those people are out to get the government or the government's philosophy. Therefore they need to be dismissed. There is no question in my mind. If we need any evidence of it, it's the fact that virtually all the field staff and some of the head office staff of the human rights branch have been dismissed summarily — effective, granted, on October 31, but nevertheless dismissed summarily — in early July, despite the fact that the law is still on the books. Those were political firings in the same way that Tony Tozer is a political hiring.

I submit that we are only at the beginning of those kinds of actions and those kinds of decisions in this province, and it scares me, quite frankly. But it doesn't just scare me — I have obviously got a political axe to grind; no bones about that — it scares other people as well. The Leader of the Opposition the other day, or the other night, or at some recent time, quoted from a paper that I think is quite magnificent. I say that not from a partisan political point of view, but rather from a public policy point of view. That's the paper that is becoming more and more famous each day now. It's written by A. R. Dobell of the University of Victoria.

I think that if anything is mandatory reading for people involved in the public service of the province at the political level, the leadership level, whether or not it is entirely accurate or whether everyone agrees with everything that Dr. Dobell has presented.... It really doesn't matter. There are things in here that I don't agree with entirely. There is the odd statement, in my view, that isn't quite accurate: references, for example, to the salmonid enhancement program being provincial, when in fact it's federal; little things like that. I'm not presenting this as any perfect document, but it comes as close as anything I've read in public policy administration to setting out some goals and, in fact, some criticisms of the way Bill 3 and its related legislation have been introduced in this province.

I want to read some excerpts for the record. Future historians and members of the public will no doubt have access to documents like this, but I think that those people who keep copies of Hansard in their libraries should also have access to parts of the document. Unlike the American congressional system, it's not possible for us in effect to read the whole document for reprinting in the record, but I do want to quote some sections of it. With the House's indulgence, I'll do that.

I like the style of the paper as well, because he does the thing that I appreciate so much, and that is to put his conclusions first and then develop his arguments. So often you read a paper and then get to the conclusions, and you haven't quite understood the process that led to those conclusions. Nevertheless, the first of his conclusions — and that's the only one of the conclusions I intend to read — is: "...that the 'public service downsizing' component of the program is tragically flawed by the classic failure: impatience for results, leading to an unwillingness to invest in the slow process of building trust in an open, consultative undertaking." These are very few words, but very well chosen words; words that I think by themselves state the entire tragedy of these last few months most effectively.

Later on in his arguments, Dr. Dobell makes reference to, without being specific, Bill 3 or the intent contained in Bill 3. I want to read at some length from this paper on that subject.

"No coherent action to develop a reasoned process of reassignment of activities and redeployment of people is evident in the process of restrainr. (Nor is

[ Page 1765 ]

there any real evidence that the consultative mechanisms previously advocated by the union for preplanning redeployment and reassignment would not have achieved — with much less pain and cost — almost as much downsizing as the present program). "The issue is not one of tenure for public servants" — that's a very important statement. "Few people are arguing for permanent security in existing jobs. Demonstrations are not motivated by the fact of layoffs as such in the public service. But reasonable security in career development is a reasonable goal for people and organizations. No one can argue for permanent tenure in a specific job in a rigid organizational structure." I might say, Mr. Speaker, that no one has, to my knowledge. Certainly none of us have in this debate, and I haven't heard members of any organization arguing for what Dr. Dobell calls "permanent tenure in a specific job in a rigid organizational structure."

He goes on:

"But in the fluid organizational forms appropriate to a changing environment, it is still possible to offer prospects of reasonable security in a career which moves from role to role within the enterprise of government as a whole.

"It is also reasonable to expect that dismissal will not be arbitrary, capricious, or reflect simply a falling from favour with political masters."

I remind the House that this was not written by anyone involved in any of the partisan debate which rages on in this province at this time.

"Tenure in a continuing job should not be 'at pleasure,' but based on continuing competence in the performance of the tasks involved. The private sector does not operate on the principle that jobs are continuously in jeopardy as long as there are potentially more capable contenders for them."

I'll read that again, because it is an important statement in the context of the debate on Bill 3.

"The private sector does not operate on the principle that jobs are continuously in jeopardy as long as there are any potentially more capable contenders for them. Loyalty, experience, and past service create not only a presumptive claim to a job so long as it continues, but also a claim to priority in consideration for other positions if the old job disappears.

"It is not so much its attack on 'no-layoff' provisions as its failure to honour an organizational obligation to search diligently, openly, and cooperatively for transfer and redeployment opportunities that condemns the B.C. government's downsizing policies as badly managed."

One only needs to read the agreement between the province of British Columbia and its major union, the BCGEU, to see that those principles — the principles "to search diligently, openly and cooperatively for transfer and redeployment opportunities" — have been well developed and agreed to over some years, as reflected in the wording in several sections of this particular collective agreement. It demonstrates an understanding on the part not only of the employees that there would be times when entire programs would be eliminated.... Reference is made to that in this contract, that there would be times when there would be an inappropriate number of people working in a particular endeavour within government, and redeployment would have to occur. Sensible, democratic and consultative mechanisms were developed in cooperation between a more intelligent — at that time — government and its major union. It worked well.

[2:15]

The simple fact is that transfers have occurred in virtually every sector of provincial government employment; redeployment has occurred. A sensible, intelligent approach to the problems of management in this modern area had been developed and has been absolutely ignored and, in fact, destroyed by this particular legislation.

No person who lives in this modern world and pays any attention to what's going on around them can fail to recognize that jobs don't exist and last as they once did. We no longer live in an age where at age 14 you become a shoemaker, a cowboy, a farmer or whatever else, and you do that until you pass on. We recognize that those days are gone. Most of us tell our kids that they need to be prepared, educationally and psychologically, for the fact that they will do a variety of jobs in their lifetime. We all recognize that, and the obvious implications of that are that jobs don't always continue forever, and there need to be mechanisms developed to allow for movement of people.

The government, until this year, has recognized that. Its unions have recognized that in the contract language. The initial justification presented by the Provincial Secretary for the introduction of this bill was that the government could not achieve its goals of downsizing and redeployment without this legislation. Leaving aside whatever we think of them or of the downsizing or abolition of certain programs, he argued that the government couldn't achieve those goals without this legislation. Yet all of the evidence recently, including evidence presented by senior Finance ministry officials in an anonymous but open way to members of the media, is that in fact the goal of 25 percent reduction in the public service had almost been achieved, or would have been achieved within a year or so. So why the need? The need obviously does not exist for the Crown corporations or the government agencies mentioned on the back page of this legislation, because those corporations and agencies, for the most part, operate, as do private sector unions, under the Labour Code and under their own collective agreements.

That's very distracting, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a ruling in this chamber about electronic devices being used by members, and I would draw your attention to the fact that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), although he's being pacified by the device.... Perhaps I should not have raised this; nonetheless, it is an offence against the rules of the House.

On second thought....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his observations.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, as I was speaking I was contemplating whether I would raise the same point myself, but with the record of the Minister of Forests over the last number of days in this House, I felt that if he could be otherwise occupied by listening to electronic devices we might all be better served.

[ Page 1766 ]

To attempt to reconnect with my train of thought, I had been talking about the government's express desire for downsizing of 25 percent, which, as I said, appeared to be within reach within a reasonable period of time by normal processes in the public service, and is available in the public corporations named in the legislation through the normal course of relations with their employees, as governed by their collective agreements. B.C. Rail has no difficulty if it needs or wants to downsize by 25 percent; there's no need for this kind of legislation to do that. It has provisions in the agreements it has with its various unions, and similarly with B.C. Hydro and various other Crown corporations. I don't believe, quite frankly, that it has been the intention of the government to downsize by 25 percent. I don't believe it is their intention to fire 60,000 people as a result of this legislation. But even if they wanted to, and this is my point, they have the ability without the legislation.

It's curious why this kind of legislation would be introduced when it's apparently not needed, unless there is a decision to get rid of certain kinds of employees who may not vote for the government or who may not be political supporters of the government. There can be no other reason for the introduction of this legislation.

I'm going to go back to Dr. Dobell's paper. He says:

"The attempt to move from salaried continuing personnel to contract personnel likewise has considerable drawbacks" — so-called privatization. "By shifting all the risks of an uncertain environment onto contract employees, one militates against the development of an experienced and loyal cadre of individuals with a sense of association with the organization. It is true that such a shift serves to reduce the apparent size of the establishment; it reduces the power of any union to organize or represent the workers in question...."

If I may digress again, that, in my view, is the primary objective of the so-called privatization and the attempt to allow for firing under this bill. It is so that the government can escape its obligations for union contracts.

If you fire all of the BCGEU members who might at one time have cleaned this building and replace them with a non-union janitorial firm, you have denied the rights for those people to have a union organization with a union protection and union wages. You no longer have a bargaining unit within the employees of the contractor who cleans this building, because they work for a larger group. So those employees of that contractor who happen to be cleaning these parliament buildings will not have the same rights to apply for trade union representation using this as their place of employment, because this isn't their place of employment, nor is it the full bargaining unit.

While Dr. Dobell lists this as only one of a variety of problems, or perhaps solutions, that the bill contains, it is my view that this, together with the desire to fire politically active employees, is the main objective of the government — that is to eliminate the protection that so many workers in this province have of union organization.

As I said, Dr. Dobell says: "...it reduces the power of any union to organize or represent the workers in question; it enables politicians more directly to control the largess, to reward friends and penalize doubters; it creates an overwhelming incentive for those on contracts to act as unquestioningly obedient servants of the party in power." Those of us who wander through the public service in the course of our daily business representing our constituents have seen evidence, every day and every way, of public servants who have been terrorized by this legislation.

The open discussions that I have been able to have with public servants at various levels over the years in attempting to find answers and solutions and to solve problems for constituents are gone. The days of that easy access no longer occur. I'm more often than not told: "Sorry, you're going to have to talk to someone in the minister's office." That is a result of the reign of terror that has been imposed by this government though this kind of legislation.

Continuing with Dr. Dobell:

"But all these advantages for the party in power have corresponding costs. Because the risks are all shifted to the individual, there can be no pooling of risks and costs across the organization. Budgetary costs may well in the end turn out to be higher rather than lower. Because the politicians will be dispensing largess to friendly law firms rather than paying salaries to continuing public servants, both the billings and the abuse will almost certainly be greater — and legislative scrutiny more difficult.

"On balance, this sudden shift in the 'lease or buy' balance — the privatization of court services, for example, forcing each court reporter to become a little firm selling services to the government — seems likely to be more disruptive than efficient. At a time when all the conventional wisdom suggests that we will need better consultative processes and more durable intragenerational and intergenerational contracts to respond to changing problems — not least the pressures on social services arising from an aging society — the personnel practices embodied in this latest round of actions by the B.C. government have to be judged contrary to everything one teaches about the management of restraint. The longer term costs of the process are incalculable.

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

"The central theme in all the literature on cutback management — or Japanese management or excellent management or productivity management or almost any other kind of management — and the key prerequisite to organizational effectiveness, is open, participatory, cooperative preplanning of organizational changes, especially those necessary to absorb fiscal restraint. Having assaulted its own managers and employees, destroyed any basis for trust or negotiation in good faith, the government is calling in private sector expertise to set everything right in the process of organizational downsizing in the public service. They apparently hope to achieve downsizing by an exclusively 'top down' process.

"As an exercise in cutback management, therefore, the B.C. government's moves in the direction of downsizing have to be judged as falling into the classic trap. In their haste to get results, those responsible for this program undercut any basis for cooperative employee involvement. Unwilling to continue with

[ Page 1767 ]

the painstaking task of investing in a joint process with agreed ground rules, mutual acceptance and some assurance of forthright disclosure, they have destroyed the preconditions for any effective organizational change or productivity improvement."

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 44, I'm going to decline to put the question.

[2:30]

MR. BARRETT: You are making a ruling to that effect?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: I challenge your ruling.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.)

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 6

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity of participating in this debate at the great moment, as defined by this government, of tremendous provincial crisis that demands that through the third night in a row we sit in this chamber and get on with the public business even though the government didn't call the bill that we're debating, or the amendments to it, for over a month.

Last night there was a full moon, and now I know the explanation of this bill being called after a month's delay. They have been formulating policy by reading horoscopes, and waited, indeed, until there was a full moon so that they could communicate with their essential soulmates at full-moon time to go through night sittings so we could have rational debate corresponding with their own horoscope results. We sit through the night and have semi-intelligent debate, occasionally interrupted by witticisms spawned from the depths of the high-level research done by the obviously superabundant, intelligent members of the government.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

I want to address my remarks on this amendment to some factual research. Of course this will only draw the attention of two members of this House who have an academic background; that is the raison d'etre for their participation here in this august chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: Passarell and Bill Reid.

MR. BARRETT: To avoid any unnecessary speculation, my remarks are not addressed to the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), who, although he aspires to be considered one of those academic generals of the New Right and the forces they represent, I'm afraid I must define my appeal to those who actually have pieces of paper that are used on occasion during election campaigns to focus attention on their particular academic achievements, albeit those academic achievements were received when they were members of different political parties. Nonetheless, those academic achievements have never been a handicap to political opportunism. As a result, they now sit as Socreds.

But the two whom I appeal to on a research basis, Mr. Speaker, are none other than that member from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who three days ago made one of the most eloquent three-minute speeches demanding his right to speak, and has gone through 72 hours of activity in this chamber never claiming his right, once having achieved that right, in voting me out of the House. Some untutored person might suggest during daylight hours that that member was being hypocritical in voting that way, but not I, because I have unlimited faith in the ability of certain people to come forward on their stated position and actually speak because they want to. So we wait for the words of the papered academic background achievers of the government side.

The other member, of course, is my good friend and my erstwhile colleague, who has shared many years at the university in non-productive public welfare work, the member from West Vancouver — no, not West Vancouver; we've forgotten him already.... He got rewarded for being a Liberal, but he's forgotten already. What was his name?

MR. SKELLY: Allan somebody.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Allan Williams.

The last of the pioneering troup, the academic member who has been a public servant all of his life, never having done 24 hours in the private sector, which has been the reason for his psychological isolation from the rest of the toiling minions of the government benches who have raised themselves by their bootstraps to this level of intelligent debate. Therefore I address myself to that one resident academic the group has, whose only taint as a member of that group is that he doesn't work for the Fraser Institute – which doesn't pay taxes, by the way — but is actually on the public payroll.

[2:45]

So it is best that we discuss this at a full moon, in the dark of night except when the moon shines through, because if the public learned that their academic guru — the advanced intellectual analyzing the public sector and the need to downsize — was actually at the public trough for his own salary, it would come as a shock to the body politic. The body politic can hardly afford any more shocks.

Between you and me, Mr. Speaker, we are now going to deal with some factual research related to this particular

[ Page 1768 ]

amendment on this bill which questions the arbitrary dismissal of public servants. Do you know of any business that operates on an annual budget of over $8 billion and makes arbitrary decisions on expenditures without any research? I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: The U.S. Army.

MR. BARRETT: There's probably two. It's not the U.S. Army. It might be the Soviet Union and their military forces. It is the Social Credit administration of British Columbia. Yes. To this moment they have not laid before this chamber — to the overwhelming immediate attention of every citizen of this province — one shred of researched evidence to indicate that the policy they are pursuing has been carefully thought out and tested in an empirical, scientific manner.

MR. SKELLY: Let's call Milton Friedman to the bar of the House.

MR. BARRETT: No, my dear friend, not even calling Milton Friedman to the bar has been advanced as a possibility. On occasion we have seen walking hand in hand — figuratively speaking — the Premier and Mr. Michael Walker, but that is a spiritual figurative walking hand in hand, and it has not communicated any research or documentation as to the approach the government should take.

So what was necessary for me to do, Mr. Speaker, was to go to the library — the L-I-B-R-A-R-Y. That is where books are kept. I don't want to give too much overwhelming, complicated direction to the scions of power in this province; nonetheless, a library is where books are kept. I know that may be threatening to some of the more alert members of the Social Credit group, but it has come to my attention that on more than one occasion Socreds have actually gone into libraries for more purposes than just to burn books. That was before the Keegstra incident. It is not a place for bonfires, for those who have not been acquainted with those chambers before. Buried in the bowels of this library is a report done by two universities, by qualified academics, on the effect of massive layoffs in the public sector as compared to using the process of attrition, with the motivation of a simple equation of trying to find out how much money they could save the taxpayers by lopping off people from the public trough.

Before I go too far, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be overly threatening. At no time did these burghers in New York state ever threaten to lay off anyone in the academic community. It is always: "How many janitors can we get rid of? How many clerks can we get rid of? How many minions of ordinary toil can we get rid of so we can tell the taxpayers we're saving them money?" If you can't declare war eight months before an election, to get votes, the next best thing is to bomb a few civil servants. It's always good for votes. Just ask me. My whole career was launched as being a bombed civil servant, if I may put it that way, Mr. Speaker. I was fired! And what was I fired for after this government recruited me from the great State of Missouri? I was fired for being political. And at the same time I was being fired for being political, one of my opponents, as a candidate, was encouraged to continue with his job because he was a Social Crediter. Do you believe that, Mr. Member? I was shocked. I was a 29-year-old ingénue. I actually believed that people in governments were fair — that if you were a CCFer and active in politics, you could keep your job the same as a Socred. You know what? I found out it wasn't so. As a result of that, when we formed a government we passed legislation to protect the rights of citizens who work for government.

To continue making this point that I know has seized the attention of the cabinet benches and the surrounding members who have aspirations to join those benches.... Now that I have their overwhelming and undivided attention, although I find that hard to believe when one member has a finger in his eye, but as long as it's not in his ear, Mr. Speaker, I know that I've got a fifty-fifty chance of reaching through some orifice to gain his attention.... In the library, paid for by the taxpayers of this province, is a study done by Dr. Leonard Greenhalgh, assistant professor of business administration at Amos Tuck School, Dartmouth College.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Not Tuktoyaktuk, Mr. Member. It is in the United States, not next to Inuvik. Additional copies of this report are available, if one chooses not to use a government photostat machine, through writing the Continuity of Employment Committee, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

May I introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, since I have your attention, a precis of the abstract of this particular study. It is, through you, Mr. Speaker, a detailed analysis of how much money you can save if you want to downsize government by laying off staff or by firing them or by having them leave by attrition. Since I have only a limited time, and to stop the House from collapsing in overwhelming suspense, let me tell you at the outset that the results of this particular in-depth study prove conclusively that you can save more money as a government if you want to have less staff by keeping your mouth shut, letting people quit — at the lowest level around 4 percent a year — and through attrition save more money than by laying off people, particularly in the middle management level, or by firing them. Yes, scientific, academic, economic studies show that the route this government is going to save money is actually going to cost money. Before I go any further, I challenge them to present to me any comparable study to this one done by Dartmouth and Cornell, to be an argument against their factual, empirical evaluation of this particular problem as experienced by that humble, little, small state of New York. What they discovered in this study, and I quote from the abstract: "In a number of instances...."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The abstract, actually, is a precis. I notice too that this is a strange structural format, Mr. Speaker. Since this report has been prepared by politicians, the acknowledgments are right at the front. You might as well have the acknowledgments right at the front, because most politicians wouldn't read past page 3, since it encourages participation in absorbing factual material.

The abstract says:

"In a number of instances governments" — in this case, New York — "have chosen to reduce their workforces through layoffs. Doing so has resulted in immediate apparent savings but has also resulted in costly side effects, which have not been fully counted and are thus not fully heeded in decision-making. These include the costs of insecurity-induced quitting

[ Page 1769 ]

of valuable employees, lower productivity which accompanies layoff anxiety, unemployment compensation chargebacks" — in British Columbia, that would end up being additional people on welfare — "and lost state tax revenues...."

That means, Mr. Speaker, when people have less money in their pockets, they are not able to spend. If they don't have income, they can't send the money back to the state through income tax or by buying booze — either to be joyous over the fact that they are still working for this government or to drown their sorrows because they were canned. Either way, you make money.

You know how a government makes money? When people have jobs, they spend and pay taxes. I'm glad to share that simple economic truth with you in the middle of the night. Should the population out there discover that it is their money we are spending, and we get it off them when they are working, perhaps they would voluntarily quit work and leave us starve in this chamber. Should that ever become a serious threat, it would be the anarchy of freedom of choice, of not doing anything. Can you imagine what would happen then? Suppose citizens cautiously thought out the fact that governments were actually supported by their labour and their taxes. Imagine what would happen. Those millions would lay down their brooms, and ministers' offices would never be swept. Those electricians would never connect wires and our voices would never be recorded by Hansard. Imagine the psychological damage done to a politician, knowing that his narcissistic needs would not be met by the electronic age simply because some anarchist said: "I'm not working any more, because my money goes to the state."

[3:00]

It is true. It defies imagination. That is why it is essential to have this debate in the middle of the night while those workers are working, because should they hear that they pay for the state, they might not like it any more. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, you and I shall keep that secret between ourselves. Let us not allow the ordinary working people of the province to understand that they actually pay for this. They pay to subsidize the giving away of resources; they pay for building railroads to make large corporations that are rich even richer; and they provide welfare for their fellow workers who are laid off. If the working people ever discover that they pay for government, we're going to have more people participating in politics. Imagine what could happen — some intelligent people may run for the government party. What a shock that would be for the aspiring back-benchers.

To go back to this particular document:

"Planned attrition programs...represent one way of eliminating many of the costs of these side effects, while maintaining most of the savings of layoffs." This study explores the hypothesis that the attrition strategy can be more cost-effective than the layoff strategy.

I have just used some very important psychological trigger words for right-wingers. It was when these words slipped from my lips that I drew the immediate attention of the salivating penny-pinchers on the government side, who are waiting to discover how to save some money. The magic words are: "This study explores the hypothesis that the attrition strategy can be more cost-effective than the layoff strategy." That means that perhaps you don't have to fire people to save money. My goodness!

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

Let's go on past the acknowledgments, which are generally self-serving, into the bowels of this study, and begin reading these scientific researchers, who are, incidentally, the product of taxpayers' dollars. We actually send people to university to produce factual information for us. We provide engineers to build bridges, we provide lawyers to decide who has to pay for them if they're built improperly, we have doctors. We have all kinds of professionals, and occasionally we even have preachers who are instructed at university how to pray for those professionals.

AN HON. MEMBER: And how to set up their own universities.

MR. BARRETT: And how to set up their own universities. That's right.

Nonetheless, that is the nature of our highly complex society: everybody has a role to play. But none of those professionals seems to be given much attention by this government. Here's a chance for the government to make money and not cause all this trouble. Here is a document that demonstrates that if you wait for attrition and put on a hiring freeze, you can actually save more money — that is, of course, if the motivation of the bill we're discussing is really a desire to save money. There are some who are sceptical about that. One or two newer members of the opposition have come to this chamber with a sense of cynicism about Social Credit; but those of us who have learned to live with it, and learned to love it, understand that there has never been any cynical motive by this government — some stupid ones, but rarely cynical.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that public sector policymakers have recently "used layoffs extensively as a cost-saving strategy," to quote from this study. I know I have the unremitting attention of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who has always cogently focused his articulate arguments with an academic overview, with studies by people who are above the crass exchange of insults in politics. I may even crank up my IQ should I have a chance on a test to reach that sublime level of overview above politics. The most dangerous atmosphere in which to debate anything is when they come up to you and say: "Now let's put politics aside." Beware! Nonetheless, let us make an attempt.

Public sector policymakers have recently "used layoffs extensively as a cost-saving strategy." There are two fairly simple reasons for this that should be very attractive to Social Credit: "The popularity of the layoff strategy...."Now isn't that interesting? "It is a highly visible way to cut costs, especially when there are political pressures to do so. Second, the benefits are easy to measure," the oft cited rule of thumb being: "if you lay off a hundred workers you save a million dollars." The first point is undeniable. Public sector layoffs receive a lot of press and "seem to be, for the most part, accepted by the general public as evidence that something visible is being done to reduce the expenditure of tax moneys."

Wow! Here it was free for Social Credit. I'll bet you they spent at least $75,000 of taxpayers' money for a poll to discover that people like firing civil servants. They could have saved the $75,000 to get that conclusion by going to the library.

[ Page 1770 ]

There was an old adage in this country for politicians to measure their actions by: "When in trouble, kick the CPR." That's changed. The CPR now takes out nice big ads in newspapers and tells us how wonderful they were to take away all that property from us. It was so kind of them to relieve us of all that property across this country when they built the railroad. What would we have done had we been burdened with that property in public trust? We're so happy to give it to the CPR. They're so kind. So the next thing, if we don't have the CPR to kick around, is to kick civil servants. It's good politics. I want every civil servant to understand that when you're being kicked it's nothing personal. Don't take it badly that you can't pay your mortgage. Don't get upset that you lost a chance to pay for your child's education through university. It's nothing personal. It's just politics. They have to have somebody to kick around.

Public sector layoffs receive a lot of press and "seem to be, for the most part, accepted by the general public as evidence that something visible is being done to reduce the expenditure of tax moneys." Listen to this, Mr. Speaker; this is a real zinger: "The public servant, often stereotyped as inefficient and performing job duties that are largely unnecessary, tends to receive little sympathy from the voting public. Thus the layoff strategy seems to have has some political appeal." This study was done in 1978, but somehow the Socreds discovered it.

Let us examine that particular line: "The public servant, often stereotyped as inefficient and performing job duties that are largely unnecessary...." One way of overcoming that stereotype would be to take a group of MLAs and ask them to do an eight-hour shift at a mental institution, incarcerating "bonkers" citizens who have to be locked up to protect us from them — or, depending on the stage of the moon, them from us. Is there one MLA on the government side who would like to be a prison guard for eight hours? Is there one government member who would like the onerous task of locking up insane people eight hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, 35 years in public service, protecting us from these mad people, none of whom have been employed in this chamber? Nonetheless, it is a challenging task.

We never hear of those stereotypes, Mr. Speaker. We never hear of a stereotype of those people who serve us in prisons, in hospitals and in mental institutions; who take the dirt and the c-r-a-p of a job that is demeaning and dehumanizing but that is absolutely essential to protect us in our day-to-day standards. No, we perpetuate the stereotype that the civil servant is lazy, unproductive, and does unnecessary jobs. If that's the case, close the prisons down and let the prisoners out. There would only be one qualification from Social Credit. They'd check to see how they vote before they got a parole. Nonetheless, prisoners are very wise.

It is the second point — and I go back to the document, Mr. Speaker — that merits closer investigation. The rule of thumb cited above turns out to be partly fallacious. For those who have been stimulated to active participation in this debate by my dulcet tones, fallacious means false, a word that is most familiar to Social Credit braintrusters. There is a difference between "outcomes and the processes by which they occur. A reduction in force is an outcome, and a layoff is just one process by which that reduction can be accomplished." The rule of thumb is fallacious because it blurs the distinction between layoffs as an administrative strategy, i.e. a process, and a reduction of force as an outcome of some program designed to arrive at a smaller workforce.

Now I know that that is complex, so I must give an example. I would like to take an example of this particular process as introduced in the House by the former Minister of Health. As a custodian of taxpayers' dollars, with the necessity of applying those dollars to a particular problem, that minister came to this chamber and announced that he had a drug treatment program that was going to cure heroin addicts of their insatiable desire for heroin. It was a reflex-training program that included guitar lessons as a means of persuading a drug-crazed heroin addict to not go to his needle, but to pick up his guitar instead. I do not jest, Mr. Speaker. That indeed was part of the treatment program outlined by the minister who is the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland). Twenty million dollars of taxpayers' money was spent on that program without one penny of independent corroborative research being done, simply because the problem — heroin addiction — had the public's attention and the government had to be seen to be doing something about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a lot of guitar lessons.

MR. BARRETT: Nonetheless, $20 million was wasted by this government in a heroin treatment program that was a failure. Had the minister walked into the library and looked under "heroin treatment" and other jurisdictions having had the same problem experimenting with programs, he would have discovered that a similar attempt was made at Lexington, Kentucky. It was a program financed by the U.S. government. It lasted for 25 years and was administered by a Dr. Kolb. After 25 years of research they turned the program down at an expenditure of accumulated annual budgets of $65 million, and he concluded his life work by saying: "We now know two things about heroin addicts. They like chocolate cake and they have an insatiable desire for heroin." Having had that overwhelming evidence available, a minister of the Crown decided that he'd try guitar lessons as a substitute for chocolate cake and discovered, after $20 million down the tube, up at Nanaimo, British Columbia, that his idea was cuckoo — not the minister; the idea was cuckoo.

[3:15]

How does a minister get cuckoo ideas into the expenditure column? Why that, Mr. Speaker, is the magic of politics. The magic of politics demands that you level your expectations of public perception to the lowest common denominator, i.e., one of the back-bench. Then ply that member with the attractiveness of a particularly overly simplified program, such as giving guitar lessons to heroin-crazed addicts, and if that back-bencher says, "That'll get us votes," whang! Do it! There was $20 million down the tube, the program was a failure, but it made for great speeches.

Now we have an analogy here with the study that proves conclusively that massive public sector layoffs cost more money than waiting for attrition. However, that strategy does not make for good speeches. So in updating the same cuckoo-land strategy of dealing with heroin addicts, we have now come up with the vote-gatherer of laying off civil servants to save money. Why? Because people believe that laying off civil servants saves money, and if people believe it, let's prove it. So instead of speakers going around saying, "We're going to give heroin addicts guitar lessons," we now have speeches from the government — i.e., three-flag performances — saying: "Let us can them and save you money." People on the streets say: "Oh, boy! They're gonna save us money. They're gonna fire civil servants." Who are the first people to respond

[ Page 1771 ]

to this approach, as evidenced by this study? The small businessman.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, shall leave be granted for me to continue? Aye? Thank you very much. I see some noes, but I haven't heard anything.

I have only got to page 6 and am warming up to the excitement of the burden of my argument, which now must be simply reduced to a couple of minutes. The fact is, you don't have a shred of evidence of the program you're going to bring in. Anything that I've found that's available in this kind of program proves conclusively that the direction you're going in will cost taxpayers more money. Yes, it will. Unless you can prove to me through a study that this government has done.... I'd like to see such a study tabled here in the House. Is there anyone who would believe that a government would spend $8 billion without having done a study to see where some of that money is being spent? No university scholar would associate himself with a government that would spend money without checking out first where it's going. I know that for a fact.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Here we have academic evidence that governments that go in the direction of massive layoffs actually cost the taxpayers more money, rather than waiting for attrition. I take the word of Cornell and of Dartmouth before I take the word of McClelland or Bennett. The former Minister of Health sold us on guitar lessons for heroin addicts. That cost $20 million. This outfit is trying to sell us on laying off thousands of people; that'll save money. Ask those businessmen in Victoria who are now going broke, and who just some weeks ago applauded this program and have discovered that by laying off civil servants, they aren't coming in and buying goods in their stores any more. Bong! That's elementary economy 1. If they haven't got the money to spend in your store, you're not going to have any customers. It's finally hit the chamber of commerce. They want a second look, but it's too late. The next look they're getting is at the other end of a receiver, which is another business this government has encouraged, by the way. There's a whole new secondary business in British Columbia: expertise in receivership and bankruptcies. But that's enough for another speech on another bill.

Let me wind up my overwhelming evidence on the remarks I've made, which obviously have had an impact on the government members and roused them to the sense of rage demonstrated by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), who is at this moment ready and incensed to take on, through some intense debate, some questions of the Minister of Finance, should he be here, about the question of taxpayers' money.... On the evidence of the impact I've had on that member, I'll stop at this point. That evidence should be weighed and tested by other members in this House as well, so I move adjournment of this debate till the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, time allowed under standing orders has expired, and it would be impossible for the Chair to entertain a motion after the time allotted to the member has expired.

MR. BARRETT: Is that correct? Are you making that as a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, that's an observation.

MR. BARRETT: Then I'd like it as a ruling. Is that a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the time under standing orders has expired. The member has asked, and the motion cannot be put.

MR. BARRETT: Is that a ruling of the Chair?

MR. SPEAKER: It is a statement to the member regarding....

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. However, is a statement a ruling or just a statement?

MR. SPEAKER: A statement, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: It must, therefore, be a ruling. I challenge your statement, i.e., ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: A statement is not challengeable. We will continue, hon. member, the debate....

MR. BARRETT: There is nothing under standing orders that allows us to maintain order in the chamber by opinions or statements. They are either rulings or not rulings. If I have been given a ruling, I accept it. But if that is your ruling, I want to know. Statements have no category in standing orders that I'm aware of. Would you quote to me, under standing orders, where statements become orders?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members are familiar with the rules of the House, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, who knows that once his time has expired, the red indicator light is on. He must conclude his remarks.

MR. BARRETT: Is that a ruling, sir?

MR. SPEAKER: To attempt to make a motion after that, the member knows that he's in violation of the rules of the House and simply would take his place at his seat and allow the debate to continue.

MR. BARRETT: I have no doubt that you have a basis on which to make that statement. That statement must come from a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair declines to put the motion.

MR. BARRETT: I understand that, and I challenge your ruling on that declining.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair declines to put the motion. That's not a ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Then under what rule do you declare that?

[ Page 1772 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The member is familiar with the standing orders, particularly standing order 44.

MR. BARRETT: Under standing order 44 you're making a ruling. I challenge the ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not making a ruling. I am declining...

MR. BARRETT: Oh, well, then I'm not going to sit down unless you make a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: ...to put the motion.

MR. BARRETT: Then I challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly....

MR. BARRETT: I have a right to challenge a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: A ruling was not made, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Well, then, I'll continue speaking, if there's no ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly, at this time, hon. members, the Leader of the Opposition is abusing the rules of the House. Failure to....

MR. BARRETT: I want to know what rule I'm abusing.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time rule. The time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. Now you're making a ruling that I'm abusing a ruling. Is that it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the time limit available to the member has expired...

MR. BARRETT: Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

MR. SPEAKER: ...and the member must now take his place.

MR. BARRETT: Is that a ruling?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a fact of life.

MR. BARRETT: Well, there are no such orders as facts of life. Is it a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the standing orders of the House are clear that the member has passed the allocated time available to him....

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will take his place, and we will proceed to the next order of business.

MR. BARRETT: Of course. Under what ruling do I take my place — not by advice from the Chair, sir, but a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the member is aware that the time allotted to him under standing orders has expired, and the member must now take his place.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. I am aware, through your ruling, that my time has expired. You have ruled that my time has expired. Is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: It is correct, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I challenge that ruling.

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

MR. BARRETT: I have a right to challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a blatant abuse of the rules of the House, and....

MR. BARRETT: Is that a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair must ask the hon. member.... In view of the fact that the 40 minutes available to him have expired, he must now take his place.

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time under standing orders has elapsed. The member must now take his place, according to the standing orders.

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling, under standing orders?

MR. SPEAKER: It's an observation, and...

MR. BARRETT: I have to have a direction.

MR. SPEAKER: ...the member is instructed to take his place.

MR. BARRETT: Is that a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: I am instructing the member to take his place, and we will proceed with....

MR. BARRETT: I am asking a question, and I have a right to ask that question. Is that a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: It is an order, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. I challenge that order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly it is not possible for a member to challenge an order. Either the member takes his place or he will clearly be in contempt of the rules of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to be in contempt of the rules of the House. It is the rules that I'm

[ Page 1773 ]

asking be applied. It is the Chair's observation, which I have no intention of quarrelling with, that my time has expired. There is a rule that deals with the expiration of that time. I am asking the Chair if you are invoking that rule. That is what I'm asking.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am ordering the member to take his place. That is an order. There is a difference between an order and a ruling, and anyone who violates an order of the House is in contempt of the House and will be dealt with accordingly. Now the Chair has now instructed clearly, and ordered, the member to take his place.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to challenge the Chair. I wish to be fully informed on how the rule applies so that when I take my place I feel sure that we are abiding by the rules of the chamber. Rulings are what govern this chamber. I'm asking if you are making such a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On the same point, the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point, there are two citations in May. I happen to have the nineteenth edition; it's not the one I like the best, but it's still the only one I've got. At page 377 it says: "Restrictions on motions for adjourning the House and the debate." I believe that this applies, although I'm not quite sure. "Furthermore Mr. Speaker has power under S.O. no 28" — standing order 28 in the House of Commons — "if he believes that any dilatory motion is an abuse of the rules, to decline to propose the question on it to the House." Further reference says that "the Speaker, or the Chairman, if he be of the opinion that such dilatory motions are an abuse of the rules of the House, is empowered to put forthwith the question thereon from the Chair or to decline to propose the question thereon to the House." Perhaps that might assist you.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, hon. members, that is virtually the exact wording of our standing order 44, which is applicable now.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am clearly, at this stage, not about to enter into a debate on the subject. I have ordered the Leader of the Opposition to take his place so we may proceed with the business. If the Leader of the Opposition persists in disregarding the orders of the Chair, then the Chair will have no alternative but to either name him or ask him to leave.

Hon. members, the matter is concluded. I am not entertaining further debate on the issue. The matter now rests in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition, who decides....

[3:30]

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I am instructing the Leader of the Opposition to take his place. It is not a ruling, hon. member; it is an instruction and an order to the member to take his place.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to take my place under the rules of this House. I am not looking for a confrontation, but it has not been clearly explained to me how an order to take my place can be made without a reference to a specific standing order of this chamber. That, sir, is what I am seeking: a ruling on a specific standing order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I will give the member references and I will refer the member to the standing orders dealing with the time limit, which is clearly spelled out in our standing order. I will also refer the member to standing order 44. Having made both those points available to the member I will also call to his attention standing order 19 and 20, which deal with abuse of the rules of the House.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order raised by the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), with the greatest deference and respect I think that we're dealing with two separate things here: one was the decision of Your Honour to not put the House adjournment motion; and the second is your order to the member for Vancouver East to take his place. I'm not making a point of order specifically about your order to the member for Vancouver East, but regarding your decision to not put the adjournment question, I wish to challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, firstly under standing order 44, it is not challengeable. Hon. members we are clearly entering into the spirit of debate. The instruction to the Leader of the Opposition has been given and at this time I have two options available to me, neither one of which I particularly want to invoke. One is to put the question thereupon, which is the last thing that anyone wants to have done; and, second, I could propose that the member....

But anyway the member has taken his seat and we will proceed, hon. members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I ask for an interpretation of 44, of which the last line reads: "...he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the Chair, or he may decline to propose the question to the House." Mr. Speaker has declined to put the question to the House. It is on that basis that a ruling has been made on standing order 44. It is that ruling that I wish to challenge, not anything else, Mr. Speaker. Nor do I seek to be asked to leave the chamber. I am not seeking that, but I want my right to challenge a ruling in our standing orders, which is clearly spelled out as a ruling.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, you may wish to consider the fact that standing order 44 is the ruling, and I see you attempting to simply make application of a ruling that already exists. This is not a new ruling. This is not something upon which the rules are silent or on which we have had to put our collective minds together, but 44 is the ruling. I don't see Mr. Speaker making any ruling at all: he is simply applying the rules that exist.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly my point under standing order 44. If the Chair is invoking a standing order, there is no debate. The former Speaker has made the case more adequately than I. All I'm asking for, if that is the

[ Page 1774 ]

ruling, is my right to challenge that ruling. Otherwise, how can we have a record of standing orders?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there is no right to challenge the interpreting of standing order 44. It is not a right of a member to challenge. Clearly, hon. member, at this point the Chair is bound to do one of two things, the outcome of which is in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the ruling that the Chair has no right to be challenged on that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. That is an abuse of the rules of the House, and at this time I am instructing the Leader of the Opposition to take his place.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, do I not have a right to challenge?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member! No member has the right to abuse the rules of this House, whether he be on one side of the House or the other. The Chair is here to ensure that the rules of this House are not abused.

Hon. members at this time we proceed to the reasoned amendment on Bill 3.

MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, please. Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking forceful ejection from the chamber; I'm only asking direction from the Chair. Is it not an accepted practice of the House that if a ruling is made on anything — i.e., a ruling is made that I can't challenge that ruling — then I can challenge the ruling?

I intend to take my seat, and I don't intend to make this a crisis, but I ask the Chair if it would undertake to inform me in writing at some future date an exact interpretation of this. I don't wish to press the matter. On the other hand, I don't want to leave it with my questions unanswered.

MR. SPEAKER: That's a fair opportunity for the parties to resolve the matter, hon. member.

Are there any further speakers on the reasoned amendment?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS 6

NAYS 27

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

On the motion.

[3:45]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking against the second reading of this bill, Public Sector Restraint Act. To begin with, it is a political camouflage. It's very unfair to the public sector employees throughout the province of British Columbia, and there are many of them. It states in the explanatory note that the purpose of this act is to permit public sector employers to terminate employees for the purpose of decreasing the size and complexity of public sector operations and increase their efficiency and effectiveness in providing services to the public.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The first thing you have to think about in reading that purpose of the bill is why it could not be done without this little piece of paper. Are we going through some kind of farce in passing this legislation? In the public sector you have various collective agreements, and that means that the employees have been recognized as trade unions. They have bargained with the government — whatever the public sector employer happened to be — and they have concluded agreements, and all of those agreements enabled the public sector employer to lay off and terminate employees.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) shakes his head, but they do. I don't want to take the time of the House to read what everybody knows. There were regular layoff procedures in those collective agreements which protected the public sector employer if he wanted to go in the direction of reducing the workforce as he saw it and speeding up and making a leaner civil service or school board or whatever it might happen to be. So you wonder why the government would want to pass special legislation to do what could be done by normal layoff provisions, which vouchsafe to the people concerned who were being thrown into unemployment — which I hoped would be temporary, but might not be — some feeling that they were treated fairly. And the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who is not present, has that kind of obligation in terms of the private sector. In the past year and a half there have been massive layoffs by private sector employers, and they didn't require special legislation. They did not require a Bill 3 to effect those layoffs.

At one time in the past year and a half, almost half of the employees in plywoods, logging camps and sawmills were laid off. They were laid off under union agreements. There was nothing to save their jobs for them if their jobs were not required by their employer for the purpose of making products to sell on the market. They were not protected if the employer, in the interests of efficiency, decided to reduce, say, the logging crew in the woods from 30 men and eliminate until two hook-tenders were out there and you only needed one. Under the layoff provisions in the IWA master agreement, the employer could lay them off. He did not need special legislation to accomplish the purpose that I've read out as being supposedly the purpose of Bill 3.

So why does the government require this special legislation with respect to the public sector? The answer is that there was no requirement in terms of restraint, if that's the way you want to go. There was no requirement in terms of the efficiency of operations, if that's the way the government wants to go and thinks it can accomplish that by reducing the

[ Page 1775 ]

workforce in the public sector. It's sort of an enigma that they would want to bring in special legislation, as if the government, always listening to their polls — the Goldfarbs and all these other people — had decided to make victims of the public sector employees by signalling that they were the tough guys and that they could handle these recalcitrant public sector employees. By means of special legislation rammed through this Legislature, they would dispose of their recalcitrance and bring them to time and force them into the unemployment that the government wanted. But they didn't need the legislation.

When the legislation originated, Mr. Speaker, it had some words in it that said that they could fire anybody "without cause." Now the minister has put an amendment on the order paper that he will move if this bill reaches committee, and it will eliminate those words. Why were they there in the first place? They surely indicated the true intentions of the government with respect to their own public sector employees. They indicated that they wanted to use a big stick and have that big stick hovering over the heads of everyone who works in the public service of British Columbia. It was not something that was needed, as I pointed out. It wasn't needed in the private sector, and it's not needed in the public sector. But there it was, a club of intimidation to be held over the heads of all the employees who were in the public sector in British Columbia. It is as if the government, in terms of spite or revenge, had decided that they would bring their public employees to task. When kudos from the general public, who did not understand the issue.... When the question was posed to them by the political pollsters, they said: "Oh yes, we've got a fat, lazy and overpaid public service." They would show themselves as being real Reaganites and Thatcherites, and fly the flag of the radical right-wing revolution that is sweeping North America — or has up to this point; I think the tide is beginning to turn and will turn undoubtedly in the future. But they were the tough guys, the government of British Columbia. But it's terribly unfair to people, Mr. Speaker.

You know those original words. The minister said: "I will remove those words," but the intent of this legislation, which is not required by anything under the laws of the province of British Columbia, is exactly the same. Nothing whatever has changed. Mr. Minister, you were seeking to bring public sector employees to heel by intimidation, to say to them: "If you step out of line in any way in which the government of British Columbia does not approve, we have the power to fire you arbitrarily, capriciously — it doesn't matter — without cause." Are you not doing exactly the same thing in this bill?

HON. MR. CHABOT: With cause?

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you have repented of your evil ways — and they were evil ways — and you say you no longer have that guilty intention to hold over people the threat of dismissal without cause. You say you have repented of that course, and this bill is now sunshine and light. I cannot accept that for one minute. I do not think there has been any change whatsoever in the intention of this government to bring to heel the public sector employees in British Columbia.

Their polls have told them that that's good politics. And in a superficial sense it is, because there's a long tradition in Canada that a public sector employee has a cushy job, a good salary, security in his job, is not subject to the same layoffs as employees in the private sector. That's the kind of sentiment that has been appealed to by this government. It had something to do with the re-election of the government, I guess, in the last election on May 5. But it isn't, in my experience, a fair comment whatsoever in terms of the public sector employees. They are a very wide segment. They run from nurses to police officers to school teachers to civil servants to people in the land registry offices, which I sometimes have something to do with. They do a very efficient job, and work very hard in the course of their employment.

On one occasion the Premier kind of let things out of the bag, because he was asked about this bill two or three months ago, and he came right out and talked about people in the public service who were not doing their jobs. Well, if they were not doing their jobs, he had the power to lay them off. He had the power to demote them or lay them off. And then we said: "Will you tell us who it is? Is it the people in the motor vehicle inspection service, the land registry or the school? Who is it? Who are the people who are not doing their jobs?" Of course, he backed down. He was not prepared to say. He said: "Oh, I really didn't mean that," or didn't say that, and so forth. So really we have a political charade going on here in terms of this legislation.

You had general laws of application which were fair. They might be tough on somebody. The government, notwithstanding the Public Service Labour Relations Act or the Labour Code of British Columbia, might decide that something like the Human Rights Commission should be abolished. They could do that. They don't need this bill. It would mean that the employees in that operation might be able to exercise transfer rights in accordance with the normal rules of seniority and still keep employment within the public service, or they might not be able to. It was tough on people, but that's a legitimate right of government to change direction in terms of programs. I remember a long time ago as the government we did it in terms of the old Public Utilities Commission. We set up the Energy Commission, and people who were on the old commission found that unless they could relocate, their jobs had disappeared. Well, okay, that's part of the fortunes of working for a private employer or a public employer. But why were the normal rules not followed? What was the requirement of this legislation?

I'm told, Mr. Speaker, that some 5,000 or 6,000 employees in the public sector have already lost their jobs, some through attrition, some through being terminated and a lot from special commissions like human rights and the rest. Was this legislation necessary to terminate those jobs? Have they been illegally terminated until this Legislature passes this legislation? Have they, Mr. Minister? If so, why did the government not wait until the legislation was passed by this House before the terminations took place? I suppose a lot of them, you might say, were October 1. And the minister might get up and say: "I need this legislation to discontinue, say, some of the activities of the Human Rights Commission" — the commission itself. But you know perfectly well you didn't need this bill to do that.

[4:00]

So what, then, is the purpose of departing from the general laws that apply to employees and give them some sense of dignity and a feeling that if they have to be terminated, at least they're terminated in accordance with the laws of fair play? What was the necessity for this special legislation? There is no necessity whatsoever for this special legislation. In terms of terminations, under this legislation the government can do pretty well what it likes. What it is

[ Page 1776 ]

generally saying in terms of all of the people who work for the public service of the province of British Columbia is: "We can terminate you if there's not enough money in any particular branch" — and the money can be shifted around in the budget, and you can take it out of this division or branch or department of government and say that it no longer has the money and therefore all its employees are terminated and have no rights between Bills 3 and 2 for transfer and protection. Or you can say: "We've terminated them because we've reorganized," which is a nice broad term and very easy to apply to any particular group of employers or employees — or employee — the government wants to get rid of. Let's say the employee is kind of active in the B.C. Government Employees' Union and is working in a particular branch of government. The government comes along and says: "Well, it's easy enough for us to reorganize that branch you're working in, or that particular activity, and when we've reorganized, it just happens you're without a job." That's very nice and convenient, isn't it? It means that you have, by that kind of process, the right to terminate practically everybody.

So you've struck fear into the hearts of just about everyone in the public service, who say to themselves: "Under this Bill 3, what I'm doing could be reorganized, and I could be the victim of the reorganization. Or it could be underfunded, or the funds allotted to it by a budget passed by the Legislature could be transferred into another budgetary vote" — which is always possible — "and as a result of these factors I'm without a job." There's no doubt you've created your wave of fear and apprehension throughout the public service of the province of B.C. These people who are protesting — both protesting and being kind of afraid about protesting — in terms of this government, in a free and democratic way, are saying to themselves: "I could be a victim."

There are regulations that the government promises. They say: "Well, notwithstanding these things, where we can say some work is underfunded, or we have to reorganize it and get rid of you, we're going to pass regulations that will be fair." This is what the Provincial Secretary has said: "Just wait for our fair regulations." And we wait and wait and wait, and everyone out there in the public service says to themselves: "Regulations? They can be changed by the whim of the cabinet, even if they are fair when they come down. Who knows?" In spite of the protestations of the Provincial Secretary, how many months is it now since this legislation...? I think it was introduced July 7, 1983. How many months have we had, then, to bring down those regulations? Is the Provincial Secretary so inefficient that he could not present the regulations before this bill has passed into law?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, yes, but nobody....

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You're not even empowered to make regulations until the bill is passed. What are you talking about?

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, there are some things...but not affecting the livelihood of people, not giving yourselves broad general powers to hold over the heads of employees and threaten their livelihoods, and then say, "Give us these broad general powers over their very lifestuff and the welfare of their families, and don't put the safeguards into the legislation," but say: "Trust us. Trust Premier Bennett to be fair in terms of regulations that are to come down." What kind of Legislature would ever accept that kind of proposition? Even the regulations, if they're fair and fill in the gaps and do what the legislation should be doing.... If you need it at all — and you didn't.... You had good, fair legislation that applied broadly and fairly before this legislation was even introduced. But even if your regulations are fair, they can be changed.

So you sent a message of fear through the public service of the province of British Columbia. I think that sense of fear applies right through a great number of areas, more than are covered in this particular bill. I know that this bill is the.... Well, I suppose it covers pretty well all of them. It covers the universities, the police forces, the nurses, municipal employees, major Crown corporations, libraries. You sent a message of fear out to those employees. Is that going to mean increased productivity? They're going to move their backsides all the more because they've got this threat? They're not going to sit down and sharpen pencils? They're really going to work? The policeman out on the beat is going to be very careful and do his job properly, because this sense of fear is out there. Nonsense! That's not the way to appeal to human beings to get an effective, productive job done. They have some sense of pride. Appeal to that. A lot of them are doing a good job right now. Why cast a pall of fear over those people, in terms of this legislation which can be applied in so many different ways, in terms of threatening their livelihood? That's what you're doing.

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) came into the chamber and said, when it applied to the universities and their tenure: "Not as long as I am the Minister of Universities will the bill be allowed to apply in my domain." That's what he said. What kind of a cop-out was that? Why then was it necessary, if it's not to be applied, to put universities into the bill? A university is defined in the University Act. You know, that is the ultimate pusillanimity by a cabinet minister — to allow the legislation to go through and approve it, and then say: "It won't apply as long as I'm minister, although it has the force of law." I don't know how the minister will be greeted by the university community in terms of that kind of a defence, but I think he will be greeted with derision. Those people will say: "Why would the law be passed with your approval and you say to us that it won't apply in the universities?"

What we have here is the abandonment of the general protections of broad legislation that treats everybody fairly in the public and private sectors. If the government were coming in here and saying to the public service: "You will have no more rights in terms of the security of your employment than prevail in the lumber industry of the province of British Columbia, or the steel fabricating industry, or the grain elevators. You will be bound by the same laws that are set out in the Labour Code. If you are unproductive or if you're guilty of absenteeism or even inefficiency on the job, then you may be demoted and in time you may be discharged because of those factors...." But what is this picking out of the public service to make them scapegoats under particular legislation in terms of these terminations? We're dealing with discriminatory, capricious legislation which should not be approved by a democratic legislature.

In terms of the general thing, this is said to be a bill relating to restraint. It is said that British Columbia is in financial difficulties, and we have to tuck in our belts. I agree with that. I have no doubt that the general income of the

[ Page 1777 ]

province of British Columbia, to a very major extent, depends upon the raw costs of the commodities that we sell in the markets of the world, be those commodities coal or lumber or even grain, which we only handle — clean and sort — through our ports, or the various minerals. That's where our real wealth originates to a substantial extent. So if the government came in and said, in terms of these difficulties, we want some kind of general restraint that will apply fairly to all the people of British Columbia in terms of incomes, I think we would have to take a serious look at a proposal of that kind. That proposal would have evoked the cooperation of organized labour and the support of the public. But we have nothing of that kind of fairness in this kind of legislation, which only picks out the public sector as a particular victim.

There's no way that you can roll back the forces of inflation by picking out only the public sector employees, leaving the other inflationary factors to roll on and leaving that sense of unfairness that is and ought to be out there in the community, where all kinds of excessive profits, real estate speculations, stock market scams and all of the other things that go on — the managed prices of international conglomerates that own Safeway, Dominion Stores and all the rest of it — are allowed to go ahead. Only the employees in the public service of British Columbia are picked out for special treatment. "We'll use you to fight inflation." There's no responsible economist anywhere in the world who could say you would pick out one group like that and control the kind of inflation that we've had in Canada and the province of British Columbia. Yet in this bill you pick out the public sector, and you say to them: "We're going to be tough. We're going to win elections by making scapegoats and victims of the public sector employees in the province of British Columbia. We're going to bring them to heel. We're going to punish them for the political opposition that some of them have indicated against the Social Credit Party." This is legislation of spite and revenge, not restraint.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: And the minister says no, no, no. I've made the argument that the ordinary lay-off-for-incompetence provisions that apply throughout the collective agreements in the private sector should apply to our own employees in the public sector, and in the universities. Does the minister agree with that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Certainly.

MR. MACDONALD: All right. Then why this special legislation? You didn't use that for the IWA workers: you didn't have to. Come on! We're not dealing with fairness here. We're dealing with political spite and revenge. We're dealing with the proposition that the government of British Columbia wants to cast some fear into the hearts of public sector employees so they will not step out of line. They won't support you in their hearts. But I suppose, Mr. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, that a lot of the people out in the universities will be very careful about writing anything critical of your conversion to Social Credit, or anything critical of the economic or other programs of the government of British Columbia. This is the kind of subtle dictatorship, control and capricious treatment of individuals that has no place on the statute books of the province of British Columbia.

[4:15]

In this legislation there are so many features that are sort of contrary to what we've considered to be a rule of law and natural justice that I can't help but refer to some of them. For example, we have the proposition that a trade union can bargain collectively and make an agreement in the public sector. Then in terms of the basic provisions of job security in that collective agreement you can go on bended knee to Mr. Edward Peck, the stabilization commissioner, and say: "Will you please recognize this collective agreement and exempt it from the provisions of Bill 3?" Well, you say, that's a pretty enlightened thing. You haven't wiped out the collective agreement, the kind of thing that applies throughout the private sector and is in effect in the public sector. You said: "You can go to a commissioner that the government has appointed" — a grand panjandrum — "and say to him: 'Look, we've been pretty fair about our agreement. Will you please accept that as a valid agreement?'" So they could go. And if they're very good boys and girls, I suppose Mr. Peck might say: "All right. We'll let that go. You've got your agreement." But this kind of arbitrary power, without appeal to courts, vested in the hands of one man, Mr. Peck, is surely something that is outrageous in terms of fair play.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There's nothing like that in the private sector under the Labour Code of the province of British Columbia. If you have an agreement, it has to conform to that Labour Code. But that's it. It’s a law of general application. You don’t have to go to some public official and say, having concluded an agreement in the private sector: "Will you please recognize that as an agreement that can be allowed to be binding?"

There's also an appeal in this legislation, which I think is sheer camouflage — an appeal for one who was terminated to go to the courts. It says the court could order him to be reinstated. But what are the guidelines? You've reorganized a department to get rid of somebody. So this person is terminated and he goes to court, and the court says: "What were the guidelines?" You've given yourself the power to underfund divisions and departments; you've given yourself the power to reorganize and terminate. You said someone can be terminated in accordance with your regulations. What is the guy going to fight with in court?

It's the strangest kind of appeal to court because it's not under any kind of certain law. Nobody can say under this kind of legislation what sort of an appeal you've got. You might say: "I'm appealing to a court or an arbitration board because I was competent and should have been able to maintain my job because I had some seniority in that job." Or "I'm a university instructor and I've had so many years, I’ve got tenure and I've got a contract, and I haven't been incompetent and I'm doing my job." A judge can understand that. A judge can either then uphold the appeal.... I suppose it would be arbitration in that case, and the arbitrator could uphold it or not. There's certain known law there. But here's the strangest kind of right to appeal to a court subject to regulations and vague terms like underfunding this or that and reorganization. This appeal to the courts is a camouflage.

I don't doubt there will be appeals taken in the event this legislation is used to terminate people, but I have the gravest doubts as to whether people will really be terminated under it. I really think this is just a club. Is it really going to be used to terminate public sector employees? I doubt it. There may

[ Page 1778 ]

be some, but I doubt it very much, because you don't need it. You haven't needed it so far and you won't need it in the future. You can lay them off, you can reorganize, you can abolish the Human Rights Commission. You're using it to cast a pall of fear and intimidation over the public sector employees of the province of British Columbia and bring them to heel. The original words "without cause" — to fire somebody without cause — which were certainly intimidating for everybody who worked for a public sector employer, are out of here. But have they really changed the intent or the spirit of this legislation? I doubt it very much.

There's nobody in the public service right now who can't be terminated for incompetence.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister says: "Augh!" If somebody is incompetent and can't do the job and the government has not got the backbone to do something about it — to demote or to transfer, so the person is making a worthwhile contribution and earning his keep — then that's the government's fault.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Of course you have the right to terminate for incompetence — right now. The minister says: "Augh, we can't. We need this legislation."

HON. MR. CHABOT: The minister didn't say that. You're just twisting and turning. You're not addressing restraint at all, are you? Incompetence! That's common knowledge.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm not addressing restraint, because I don't think this is a restraint bill in any sense of the word. I don't think it's a restraint bill at all. I don't think it's going to be used to cut back your public service by the 25 percent you talk about. I don't think it's been used to date and I don't think it'll be used in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by referring to those strange provisions, because we're talking about casting a pall of fear. This directive that comes out from the minister to a school board, to a city council or to any public sector employee, saying: "I'm going to cut the salary of Mr. X because we don't like him," or for any other reason....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, no!

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, you have that power. If the body then debates your directive, and by a vote of four to three decides that they would save money in another way or they don't want to carry it out, you're going to fine the four up to $2,000. What does this mean? It says you can direct by a directive, not a regulation that applies to anybody — pick anybody out in the province of British Columbia. It's the worst kind of arbitrary, capricious discrimination I've ever read.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It will be done in a rational way. It'll be salary categorization, and you know that.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, then, you don't know anything. Where are your legislative draftsmen? If that's what you mean, why don't you say it in there? You give the power to issue a direction to cut the salary of the school superintendent or anybody in British Columbia — in other words, cut their feet from under them — and then when the school board or something says you're wrong and backs you up, you can fine the school board. Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous, in legislative terms, throughout the province of British Columbia? This kind of legislation should be laughed out of a responsible Legislature.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You've got to have cooperation. You know that.

MR. MACDONALD: You've got to have cooperation. Well, why do you need this? Why do you have that power of direction? Why is it exactly like Bill 6, where the minister can issue direction? Centralize. Arrogate all power into the centre. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is just a camouflage to intimidate a large part of the public sector employees of the province of British Columbia. This kind of legislation would be laughed out of any proper Legislature, and it should be laughed out of this one.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Time's up.

MR. MACDONALD: My time's up, and the time of this government will be up. I give you three years, and then you will be laughed out of the province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are on the second reading, and.... The Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 3. I rise to support it not because I or this government, any more than employers in the private sector, want to lay off people or terminate positions, but we have a responsibility as the government to try to manage their money and their services within the means of their ability to pay.

We haven't asked in this bill for any terms or conditions that are different from those that are available and presently exist in the private sector. Our public sector employees will be treated fairly and equitably and there will be terms of compensation where jobs have been terminated, not because we want to terminate them. The toughest thing anyone in a management position has to do in this life is to go up to a good person and tell them that because of economic reasons they no longer have a job.

If you have to fire anyone, I guess the easiest thing to do is fire someone who's incompetent or who has not been performing their job, but it has been pretty tough these last two years when one in every three of our construction workers lost their job. They weren't incompetent. They were good people. They worked hard. I don't think it was easy for the employers of those workers to have to go and say to them: "There's an international recession; we don't have the work; we don't have the finances; we have to terminate your job." That's pretty tough when they're good workers. We've got good workers in this government, just as there are good workers in the private sector.

I don't think that the managers and employers in our resource industries, in which one of every four workers have been laid off in the last period of time during the recession, found it easy. These were good workers. These were people who had homes, mortgage payments and car payments; they

[ Page 1779 ]

worked in our forests and in our mines; they've lost their jobs; they've been laid off. I don't think anyone found that easy. Many of them are still looking for work; they're still laid off; they still have children; and they are the ones we call upon not only to pay for public services on a continuing basis, employed or unemployed, but also to be a part of building our economy.

One in every five of those who work in manufacturing have lost their jobs. They were good workers. They had mortgage payments, car payments, payments, maybe, to their lawyers. They didn't want to be laid off, and neither did those who employed them want to lose them. They were good workers.

We've been hit by an international recession that has hit not only British Columbia and Canada but all of the industrialized world. In an international recession, good people suffer. Good people lose their jobs. Good people lose their businesses. Good people lose their life savings. People who have built up family businesses have lost their equity today because of the recession. It's not just that they have no profits this year, but they've lost the profits and equity that they ploughed back into their businesses for years and years and years. This recession struck swiftly and hard and has cut deep. There's not a member of our society that hasn't felt its sting and hasn't been hurt. There isn't a member of our society or a part of our industrial community who won't spend many years building and fighting their way, if they can, back to the position they were in 1979 and 1980. It will not be an easy way back. People have been hurt. It has been a difficult time.

[4:30]

One in every three construction workers lost their jobs, one in every four resource workers lost their jobs and one in every five in manufacturing. It's an interesting fact that during that same period for those who worked in the public service — education and municipal and provincial government — employment hasn't dropped but has increased by 1 percent. It's time, then, that those who work on the public side respond to the same market conditions and difficult times. They should not be penalized, but they should have a part in facing the responsibility and challenge of these difficult times, as those who work in either the non-union or the unionized sector in British Columbia have had to.

Government belongs to the people. It should reflect the terms and conditions that affect all of our people, whether it's those that work in construction or for the government. There should be equitable terms and conditions that cover all of them. One thing I've heard as I have been around the province is that people understand this condition. They want government to manage. They want government which is theirs. The money comes out of their pockets for services or else we have to use their Chargex cards and create a burden of debt on them for the future. They want us to cut the cost of government because they can't afford it, particularly those who have been unemployed, hard-hit and bankrupt. Rather than grow during these difficult times, they expect government to face the same terms, conditions and market factors — not to be punitive but to be realistic and face up to the times.

It's not an easy task, then, for our government to respond to what will be a slower-growth economy. Even with the growth rates that we hope to have this year and next year, the economy of British Columbia and Canada will still be below the levels of the economy, in terms of gross national or gross provincial product, that we had in 1980 and 1981. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it's important that we have the same opportunity to manage that there was in the private sector in order to bring about efficiency, preserve essential services and be able to trim down the size of government and reduce the cost. Unfortunately, there's no easy way. When you trim down the size of government, you do it by eliminating functions. Unfortunately, when you eliminate functions you have to provide for termination of those who provided those functions. They're good people. It's tough. But it will be done fairly, Mr. Speaker, and that's what Bill 3 is all about.

If we're to meet our commitment to have a cost of government that relates to the people's ability to pay on a slower-growth economy, the managers in government — British Columbians as well — must have the same tools to manage and be able to effect these savings as are there in the private sector. We're not in the heyday of the sixties and the seventies when rising expectations, inflation and rising revenues allowed governments to keep increasing their programs and hiring people and spending. Today we're in a declining economy. We're not sure yet that it’s one from which we will recover. The recovery is fragile. Today the economic indicators are not as strong as we would like; they do not yet indicate that we're on the full road, even slowly, to recovery. It's even more important that we are able to trim the cost of government, to have the same opportunities to do so as the citizens of British Columbia who pay the bills.

Bill 3 provides the same language as is found in private sector contracts for termination.

MR. MACDONALD: No!

HON. MR. BENNETT: The second member for Vancouver East shouts: "No, no, no!" I wonder if he know, know, knows that if you were in the forest industry these last two years — and I didn't see him out there marching for them — you could go under layoff provisions; after six months your job could be gone and the employer would not even have to consider compensation. Does he know that? What we are considering here is for each and every employee, where the job is gone and the money is not there....

It's not a matter of juggling money from this or that pocket. It is a fact that the taxpayer's pocket is empty, and the taxpayer's pocket will be empty for some time. We have the responsibility to bring to government that market factor that's out there in the private sector. Government should not be immune from the recession, immune from the market factor that affects the pocketbooks of our people, be they employee, employer, manager or professional. Government must respond in the same way. Government never has. Government, mostly because of the attitudes expressed by the New Democratic Party opposition, particularly that member for Vancouver East, has always been willing to spend the public's money, and say it shows how big their heart is. They try to buy their own conscience with someone else's money, and go around saying: "See how much we care." They never would face up to the fact that when you're in government you have a responsibility, and that responsibility is not to buy your own conscience or build your own ego with someone else's money or credit. That's the easiest thing in the world to do; and it's something we could have considered, and then left the mess for someone else.

This government has faced its responsibility, because the actions we take today will help to preserve the future integrity

[ Page 1780 ]

of government services. If we're able to continue on the path to downsizing government, lowering the cost and making it affordable to our taxpayers, bringing it within their ability to pay. It means that down the road our young people, our seniors, those who need services, those who would work in the public service, will have those services and will be more secure in their employment. But if we go on not facng the reality, not cutting the size of government under fair provisions, we'll continue to build up a burden of debt that will take away our ability to pay in the future, and our ability to provide services and employment. There would be no employment security then as government increasingly had to face debt charges, interest rates and debt repayment, to the detriment in the future of providing services and employment.

It is better that today we face the facts. In these difficult times we're trying to survive. It's not a matter of anything else but trying to survive, trying to make some tough choices on what services are essential. That's been very difficult. It's even more difficult when it involves removing services and having to effect layoffs and job terminations, which is even more difficult when you have people playing politics with the situation, tossing out their old slogans.

Usually those people spray them on walls in the middle of the night. Sometimes in the comfort after election, they say them in public or in legislatures. Those slogans don't provide answers. They are glib statements, catering politically to those who don't think much about the future but only of today, and who aren't making our job any easier.

The time that the New Democratic Party has taken in second reading, in hoist motions and in amendments has not provided any solutions. It has been repetitive and negative, and it is a symptom of why we have this problem in this country, of why governments generally are afraid to manage and meet their responsibilities. There are always those who, when you have to do the tough things, as tough as they are, will trot out those slogans and glib phrases and try to play politics with the misery and the difficulties of our people. Yet their difficulties would be many times more if we didn't take strong management action now and face our responsibilities. We're doing nothing more than what's been going on in the private sector for many years.

What we're doing is facing the harsh reality that struck our land and hurt our people, and it's for them that we take this action. The political thing to do, I guess, would be to do nothing, like the New Democratic Party, but that isn't the reason most of us went into politics. We went in because.... Our obligation is not to buy votes at the moment; it's to provide and build a province and a country, to prepare for the future. In these difficult times, when people are unemployed and our economy is much lower than it was, all of us have to play some part, not only in trying to build the recovery but to get through these difficult times. In education it means that over the next few years teachers will have to teach a few more students, because they've got to be part of providing the same education but with less money than we had before. It means that government, in the provincial sphere, has to provide help and services in the areas that we do — in assisting our forest industry and our public health services, in assisting those less fortunate, in meeting the needs of all of the areas in which the government provides services — in a leaner and better way. We have to make some choices on services and, in doing that, and in lowering the cost on a continuing basis — not just for this year but so that it will be affordable in a slower growth economy — we will have to lay off some people.

Mr. Speaker, restraint didn't start just today in this province; it started when we saw the extent of the recession in 1982. We brought in the compensation stabilization program and it too was attacked by that opposition — attacked very severely. They raised all sorts of concerns that the regulations to be brought in later would somehow not meet the spirit of the bill. Yet in retrospect, as we see the measures that other governments have or have not taken, we find that the compensation stabilization program is the fairest in the country. The program, which deals with people who work in the public service, last year saved the people about $60 million to $80 million in budgetary expense. That saving compounds over the years and helps us to make government more affordable. This too is an extension of restraint as the recession has deepened, and this government has got to prepare for the rest of the 1980s and the 1990s, which most economists predict will be slower growth decades. We will not have the 6 percent growth of the sixties and seventies. Therefore those who try to apply 1960s and 1970s solutions are irrelevant and can't be part of curing the problem. Trying to solve it with 1930 slogans and solutions is even less applicable today.

[4:45]

Last year we decided that we had to face our responsibility, as difficult as it was, and go against the traditional wisdom of politics that you keep spending more, pretending that the money will come from somewhere someday, and falling into the argument that the New Democratic Party advanced even in those good years when we were building surpluses — surpluses that helped to ward off and at least make a little easier these difficult times. When we were building up surpluses, even then they were advocating deficit financing. They said the new modern tool to finance governments was to go into debt. We rejected all that, Mr. Speaker. Those words are well back in the political history of this province and even of this Legislature. It's a good thing we've got Hansard to assist those members who sometimes selectively forget the things they've said in the heat of debate and the ease of the moment. It is like selectively forgetting when rules were changed in this House.

Supporting this bill is a necessity. It will bring equity and fairness, and public sector workers will be on a par with those who work under collective agreements in the private sector. But we will be fair and equitable. There are those who have said there will be no terms of compensation on termination. That is wrong; we will be fair. In fact, we'll be more than fair. In the private sector, notice can be given and layoff and termination can be swift. In the case of the government, termination notices have been given, as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has done, three and a half months in advance; for some, many months more. That allows them to start making their plans to seek other employment without having to face an immediate, or a two-week or three-week notice, as takes place elsewhere.

The government is trying to be fair, and is being fair, and I think the public out there support us. In fact, I know they do. You know something? Those who work in the public service, deep down, know that as we work through this time, their employment will be more secure because we will be leaner, more efficient. It will be affordable within the economy. That's the one thing that will give the greatest security to the private sector: having an economy that can buy the goods your employer produces. Then they can employ you, and if

[ Page 1781 ]

you have a strong, financially sound employer they can continue your employment. That applies to the public sector as well.

We're an extension of every family's budget, and we've been the last to cut down. For two years families have been cutting back. It's more than not taking trips. It's more than not buying a new car. They've had to cut back on a number of things because their income had dropped, their job security was not the same and the recession eroded their savings. It's part of their family income and part of their family budget. Although our government acted more quickly than most, starting in 1982, government still is the last to respond in effecting the savings for them, as an extension of their budget, that they've already voluntarily done. That's because government has forgotten, as we've taken more and more of the people's money over the years, that we have the same responsibility to manage it as the person we took it from and the person who earned it. In 1950 governments only took 20 percent of the total economy away from people in taxes. They used to be able to spend the other 80 percent as they chose. Today government is costing over 50 percent of the gross national product, and somehow the people are managing their 50 percent a heck of a lot better than the politicians.

This bill is fair, it's equitable, and it is in tune with the times. It treats our employees fairly. It provides the same opportunities for them as for those in the private sector. It brings them together into the fight to get through the recession and to help build the future. It will provide an opportunity for all people to work together without some being cushioned or protected from the effects of the recession, as harsh as that is, so that everybody feels it equally, fights it equally, and helps us respond to building through these difficult times.

I not only support Bill 3, but Bill 3 is a cornerstone that will help us manage and help us to build that future. Bill 3 is an essential part of bringing equity and fairness during these difficult times that wasn't there before. Those who argue for maintaining the status quo are saying to every other British Columbian: "You can lose your job, but we'll protect those.... There are those in this society who will not lose their jobs while you lose yours, and your business, and we're going to make you pay for it."

So if you say that what we're doing is picking on a small group of people, which we're not, consider your position, because the position you've advanced in this Legislature has been picking on every other British Columbian. We're the government for everyone, not just a few.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Provincial Secretary concludes the debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I thought the day would never arrive, Mr. Speaker, that I'd have the opportunity, with all the filibuster that I've seen across the way, and the spurious amendments to the bill, and the swapping of troops, and the changing of the guard that has taken place in this House in the last couple of days.... It is something that I never thought I would witness from that opposition, an opposition that has dedicated themselves, by following the orders of Mr. Kube of the B.C. Federation of Labour and saying that they would fight Bill 3 to the death and that they would be here for months and months on Bill 3.... They collapsed pretty quickly when the reality of night arrived. These people love to sleep. They hate missing meals. That's why we only have three of them in the House here tonight. On divisions, during the session, we've had as few as six. The other 16 are at home having their rest. These people need their rest. They're tired. Mr. Kube won't like that; I want you to know that.

We've had a lot of abuse heaped on us from the NDP in this debate. We've been called extremists and irrational people for having introduced this kind of legislation. We've heard words such as blitzkrieg; we've been compared to the Nazis of Germany; we've heard ourselves being called fascists by those socialists across the way. We've heard a lot of abuse from those socialists. We've heard statements such as "tyranny of the right" and "rule of terror." That's what they say when they talk about the legislation that's being brought in in a free, democratic society, because the government wants to face up to its responsibilities to the people of this province.

We've been compared to countries like Chile, Poland and Russia by those socialists across the way.

Interjection,

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) admits that it is so. I think it's absolutely disgraceful that those kinds of comparisons can be made here in British Columbia, when this bill merely addresses the question of restraint in the public sector, an issue which this party campaigned on in the election of May 5.

Mr. Speaker, those members across the way will never admit to themselves that they were defeated by the people of British Columbia on May 5. They have some difficulty realizing that. The ballots have been all counted. It's all over. You lost. You lost. You lost.

Mr. Speaker, it was common knowledge that we had an objective to reduce the public service here in British Columbia long before the election. Statements were made to the effect that we intended to reduce the public service by 25 percent, and that was common knowledge. Certainly we wanted to reduce the public service by attrition. That's the most reasonable way to do it. But when we faced this massive deficit that British Columbians are facing today, I want to say that we had no alternative but to change the determination from attrition to this piece of legislation. I think this legislation is required, because you have to realize that unlike the private sector, the public service has lifetime job security. The only way that you can reduce the workforce in the public service is by this legislation, because this legislation does address lifetime job security. This legislation does address the question of tenure.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Vancouver East makes light and says: "Oh, you have the ability to remove people from the public service." Certainly if they're incompetent they can be removed. We're not dealing with incompetency with this legislation, and you know that. You know about the inability of the government to reduce its public service.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I don't.

HON. MR. CHABOT: If you don't know that, you don't know very much about government.

[ Page 1782 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a bunch of nonsense.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that immediately on the introduction of this legislation in the House, I set up a consultative process to discuss the bill with parties that are affected and parties that have an interest. All British Columbians had an opportunity of having input into this legislation with a view to giving ideas to the government with a possibility of making changes.

My first invitation was to the B.C. Government Employees' Union and their leaders, as well as to other public sector and public service unions. I had a meeting in my office that lasted probably 15 minutes, in which they came in to read a brief to me. They weren't prepared to discuss the ramifications of Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act, and how it would impact on their union members. They're more interested in playing politics with the issue, more interested in having a media event and in being in front of the TV cameras than in discussing their concerns about Bill 3. I guess their major concern was that Bill 3 be removed. But having told them that Bill 3 was going to stay in place, I wanted to discuss with them what should be contained in the regulations or how the bill could be changed within the parameters of what we're attempting to achieve. I got no suggestions from them. I indicated my door would continue to be open to them, but I haven't heard from them since. They came there for a media event.

I also had the opportunity of meeting with two employer groups — the Employers' Council of B.C. and the public sector employers group — as well. I met with other union leaders in the province to discuss this legislation.

I also met with the representative of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Mr. Kube, in Vancouver. Mr. Kube made two points. He expressed two concerns about this legislation. He said: "Mr. Minister, the words 'without cause' should be removed from this legislation." We've addressed that issue now.

[5:00]

The other issue he addressed in our meeting was the question of seniority. I've indicated publicly that some recognition of seniority will be contained in the regulations.

So we've addressed, essentially, the only two concerns that were expressed to me by Mr. Kube. Now that he knows that those two issues have been addressed, he still intends to oppose the legislation. So I wonder really where he stands. Because he had two concerns which have been addressed, yet he continues to oppose the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the meeting he said he never met you at?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, that's the meeting at which he denied having met me. However, eventually he had to own up to having met with me on this legislation.

As the Premier has outlined, the regulations will be comprehensive and fair. The regulations will address the matters of relocation for public servants, retraining and compensation for severance, and also will have a provision for benefits for early retirement. So the regulations which will address the matter of terminations will be fair to the public servants of the province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You promised us you would have those regulations six weeks ago.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Mackenzie doesn't really understand how regulations flow. The regulations will appear in due course.

Now I just want to comment on the long-winded, poorly read speech from the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). He suggested, and it's a matter that I will never do, that you have the ability now to downsize government by firing the auxiliaries — or words to that effect. He's saying that the auxiliaries can be removed and then everything's fine, you've achieved your downsizing. Some of the auxiliaries have worked in the public service for many, many years. About 80 percent are female. I resent that we should mistreat the auxiliaries because the NDP want to placate the B.C. Government Employees' Union. I think that all the employees of the provincial government should be treated fairly.

There have been suggestions here that we intend to fire 250,000 people in the public sector. In other words, that's what's contained in the public sector. They're saying we should shut down all the prisons in British Columbia, all the hospitals, all the schools, all the fire departments, all the municipal governments, and the police forces as well. That's nonsensical. I know if the NDP will just pause for a moment and reflect on what they have said regarding the 250,000 people in the public sector, they'll realize how foolish their statements are.

Also, they have to take into consideration the fact that on the order paper there is an exemption order whereby those public sector unions that have the ability to downsize, to practise restraint, now contained within their collective agreement can get an exemption order and not be subject to this legislation. That's there; you have to recognize that. I've listened to some of your members say that B.C. Hydro has the ability of downsizing its workforce and has been doing so. Well, under those circumstances they can get an exemption order and not be subject to the conditions of this legislation. That applies to all the public sector groups out there in British Columbia. However, we're saying that those that are not prepared to practise restraint, and have no provision, and aren't prepared to incorporate provisions within their collective agreements, will be subject to the terms and conditions of the legislation.

The Premier also mentioned a few moments ago that it would be easier for government to do nothing. But it wouldn't be the responsible thing. Governments could curry favour with the people by not taking measures that displease certain groups in society, but governments have to be responsible, and that's what we're attempting to do by introduction of this legislation.

What we're attempting to do is face up to our deficit — the only government in Canada and probably in the free world addressing the deficit to the degree we are here in British Columbia. I want to say that in Canada the deficit we're facing at the federal level — $1,500 annually for every man, woman and child; a $32 billion deficit — is absolutely disgraceful. There is no restraint at the national level in this country.

The United States is also in a very serious financial problem, with the massive deficit they have there. If they're ever going to have recovery, they have to address their deficit as well. I want to say that I'm pleased that we're the first government to take this initiative of addressing a very serious

[ Page 1783 ]

problem. Canada, unless it faces its deficit, will be bankrupt. It'll be another Venezuela, Mexico or Brazil. And so will the United States; unless they take the initiatives that have been taken by this government, they'll go bankrupt and be controlled by the International Monetary Fund. That's where we're heading in the free world. I think it's a sad situation. And I think there are going to be — there have to be — more substantial and harsher measures than we've introduced here by the federal government, and by the United States government as well, if this country and that country are not to go broke.

Mr. Speaker, we're attempting to control the costs of government. That's what this bill is all about. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 11

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

Bill 3, Public Sector Restraint Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:16 a.m.