1991 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

11795 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

White Paper on heritage legislation. Hon. L. Hanson –– 11795

Mr. G. Hanson

Oral Questions

Export of water. Mr. Gabelmann –– 11796

Pulp mill pollution limits. Ms. Cull –– 11797

Sale of Fletcher Challenge Sawmills. Mr. Chalmers –– 11797

Sewage treatment In Victoria. Mr. Sihota –– 11797

Ministerial Statements

"Buy B.C. First" program. Hon. Mr. De Jong 11798

Mr. Barlee

Takla Agreement. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11799

Mr. Miller

Compensation Fairness Act (Bill 82). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 11800

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Perry

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Peterson

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Cull

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, I'm very privileged today to have the opportunity of

introducing to you three very nice people from Sidney: Mr. Phil Perry

and his wife Gwen, and Mr. Irv Lang. Would you please all give them a

warm welcome.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, I have the

honour of introducing back to this House a member for many years, the

previous Attorney-General, Alec Macdonald, QC.

HON. L. HANSON :

I would like to draw the House's attention to the gallery where members

of our heritage community have gathered for an announcement today. Will

the House please welcome: Mary Liz Bayer, chairman of Heritage

Canada; Don Mitchell, director of the Heritage Trust; Martin Segger, an

alderman for the city of Victoria; and Wilma Wood, president of the

Heritage Society of B.C.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the first member for Dewdney and myself, I'd like

the House to welcome a good constituent, a very good friend, Mr. Gordon

Gardner.

Ministerial Statement

WHITE PAPER ON

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

HON. L. HANSON :

I have the privilege today of introducing a significant initiative on

behalf of our provincial heritage. I offer for the perusal of this

Legislature and all British Columbians a White Paper on the future

direction of heritage legislation in this province.

The

proposed legislation is the product of a long and exhaustive process of

public consultation and involvement. I'm pleased to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that more than 75 percent of the recommendations made by the

1987 Project Pride Task Force are incorporated into this proposed

legislation. I'm also pleased to say that this White Paper is the last

step in the process, the final look before legislation is introduced.

The

legislation we're proposing makes three important changes. It contains

a community heritage tool kit for municipalities, which will help local

governments manage and conserve heritage resources through proposed

amendments to the Municipal Act. There's increased protection for the

heritage sites important to native peoples and a foundation for a

closer working relationship between the province and the native

community. And there are new provisions to protect the rights of owners

of heritage property.

Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the

proposed legislation strikes a fair balance between individuals,

property rights and the province's need to preserve our shared heritage.

There

are compelling reasons to introduce this White Paper today. B.C. is

experiencing change at an accelerating pace. The pressure on heritage

sites is going to mount, and it is high time we created a legislative

framework that recognizes these values and furthers the conservation

and development of the heritage resource.

British

Columbians will agree that the proposed legislation goes a long way

toward achieving that goal. I want to stress that this is a discussion

paper, and with continued consultation and input, I hope we will create

legislation that will guard our heritage resources and develop them

into the next century. In this spirit, please accept the draft heritage

legislation and the interpretative material accompanying it.

For anyone who would like to see a copy, we have numerous copies in my office.

MR. SPEAKER :

Standing orders don't provide for a particular process during the

introduction of a White Paper, so the Chair is going to view this as a

ministerial statement in conjunction with the introduction of a White

Paper. Therefore a response will be allowed.

MR. G. HANSON :

This side welcomes this initiative. We understand it's a White Paper or

a draft document that will ultimately form legislation in this House.

All members of this House are aware that there was not a written history of the heritage of British Columbia — the 10,000 —

year heritage prior to European and Asian contact. Those particular

materials, evidence and cultural assets of this province are largely

destroyed. Ten percent of the archaeological sites of the province of

British Columbia are partly or completely intact. The other 90 percent

are destroyed because of the transportation corridors and the townsites

that have been developed in areas where prior occupation existed. So

that particular part of B.C.'s history is extremely valuable, extremely

scarce and being damaged and destroyed at an alarming rate.

With respect to the non-native heritage, it is very important that those sites, the early settlements of British Columbia — Quesnel Forks in the Barkerville area — early heritage buildings and the history of this province be preserved and protected.

Many other jurisdictions have extremely strong legislation to protect their heritage —

Japan, for example. In the city of Tokyo, when buildings are going to

be replaced or reconstructed, there is a proper heritage inventory,

archaeological work is often done, and particular types of studies take

place rather than obliterating it. We've been wasting our heritage, Mr.

Speaker. Therefore we applaud any steps that will be taken that will

improve this and safeguard our heritage for future generations.

[ Page 11796 ]

Oral Questions

EXPORT OF WATER

MR. GABELMANN :

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Last Thursday the

minister indicated that no water licences would be granted until a full

review, as outlined by the Minister of International Business the same

day, was completed by the government. Yet reports circulate in both

British Columbia and in California that correspondence has in fact been

sent by the government of British Columbia to California saying that a

favourable decision will be made concerning water exports. Can the

minister tell us whether he or the Premier has in fact communicated

with principals in California saying that a favourable decision will be

granted?

HON. MR. SERWA : It's apparent to me that,

with perhaps the best research staff that money can buy in the

opposition caucus, the research for the questions is being done by the

hon. members on the opposite side by themselves. If they would care to

expand their research beyond what they read in the headlines and in the

stories in the local newspapers, perhaps they could ask more

appropriate questions.

I answered that specific question the other day in the House, and my answer stands.

MR. GABELMANN :

My question, then, is to the Premier. Given that the Minister of

Environment indicates that no such correspondence or indication has

been given to Sun Belt Water, the Coleta water board or any other

principals in California, has the Premier or anyone in his government

given any indication to people in California that a favourable decision

could be expected?

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER :

The question "Has the Premier..." is in order. The question "Has anyone

in his government..." is beyond the scope of asking one member to do

it, unless that authority is there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

First of all, again, the question is based upon newspaper reports, and

that's unfortunate. I think the opposition should do a little more

research, as the Minister of Environment said, and get all of the

information on the question based upon what they might have received

firsthand.

However, again let me say that I do see an opportunity for this resource in

future. Obviously, some further work might need to be done, and the Minister

of Environment is very involved in this work. But it could well be that there

is an opportunity for all the people, including native people, to utilize this

resource very effectively — not just to provide a much-needed commodity for those

in dire need of it south of us, but also as a means of creating employment and

export opportunities, with revenues to government, which will help provide social

programs and the like, in which we've done extremely well in this province

and will continue to do so but for which we need the resources.

don't know exactly what the contents of that letter might have been or

the exact contents of letters that have been sent, but we do correspond

with people who make inquiries about the province and about what they

may do by way of seeking business opportunities for us and for

themselves. We're always courteous and kind; we always encourage all

opportunities and do so in a very nice, effective manner.

MR. GABELMANN :

I gather from that admission that a letter does exist. Given that there

have been press reports in Santa Barbara and in British Columbia and

comments indicating what might be in it made by individuals who have

seen the correspondence, I wonder if the Premier would agree to table

that particular correspondence.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Obviously there is much correspondence. It comes from government to

various people who make inquiries about the province and the

opportunities that exist here. I don't think every bit of

correspondence provided someone, or every piece of information provided

to anyone, needs to become something that necessarily makes for some

public issue. I think this would make it very difficult for people to

do business with the province or to make inquiries about opportunities

as they exist here. That would be a wrong approach, and I think we as a

government — familiar with proper business practices — would

keep that in mind. Perhaps the same might not apply to the socialist

New Democratic Party. But for us, I think we give recognition to proper

business practices in our dealings with people from all over the world

who are seeking to create jobs and business opportunities in this

province.

I will, however, consider the request.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Speaker, I'll ask a question of the Minister of International

Business and Minister of Finance. Given that he indicated to the House

on Thursday that no decisions would be made until a full review — I think he referred to a nine-ministry committee —

of this important issue was held, and given that the Premier has just

admitted to the House that in fact decisions and commitments have been

made, can the minister tell us what the status of that review is now?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

On a point of order, I realize this is a common practice from some

members opposite, but I do not intend to have that member put words in

my mouth that I have not spoken. Therefore I would suggest to the

member of whom he has asked the question that he ignore the question or

the contents of it, because it's fabrication.

MR. SPEAKER : Hansard will be the final test.

[ Page

11797 ]

PULP MILL POLLUTION LIMITS

MS. CULL :

Last week the Minister of Environment said that he was comfortable with

the new pulp mill regulations that allowed 11 mills to legally dump

levels of pollution that would have been illegal just one year ago. He

also said that raising the legal pollution limits for the 11 mills was

"only legalizing it so we won't fine them repetitively." Will the

minister agree that this government has simply converted an illegality

to a legality?

HON. MR. SERWA : Mr. Speaker, I assume that there was a question there.

Again, I answered the question on that very topic with respect to the interim

standards. I said that the interim standards that were reached do not represent

any change in the actual discharge levels of pulp mill emissions. The interim

standards were put in for a specific purpose: to allow the mills to upgrade — to put in secondary treatment facilities to reduce the emissions, the biochemical

oxygen demand, the total suspended solids and the organochlorines. That tremendous

capital investment by the pulp mill industry, which was over $1 billion, required

a certain amount of time to plan, to actually construct and to take place.

There are some mills — Skeena is lone, in the riding of the hon. member sitting

next to you — that have actually completed their construction program.

They are working on a test basis right now. Their compliance order expires

on June 30 of this year. So that's the type of action and activity that

has been inspired by the reasonable nature of good Social Credit government.

am very proud of that, hon. member. We are succeeding. We're tending to

the environmental concerns, and we've created jobs as well at the

present time. We've kept British Columbians working. That's different

than your solution, hon. member.

MS. CULL . Mr. Minister, your actions in raising the legal levels of

discharge make about as much sense as raising the legal blood alcohol limit

so we won't fine as many drunk drivers. Is it the minister's policy

that the right to pollute supersedes the public's right to a clean environment?

MR. SPEAKER :

The scope of the question sounds to me more like something better put

during estimates, because it will certainly take the time of question

period. I'd ask the minister to give a brief reply, because there are

other people who wish to ask questions.

HON. MR. SERWA : Again, I have difficulty reaching that hon.

member. For clarity, the recent emissions under the interim standards

do not exceed the capability of the present plants at the present time

and do not exceed what has been happening in the past. The interim

standards were required in order to leverage over $1 billion of capital

investment. That's what we have accomplished, and that is the situation.

Do you understand, hon. member, that we have not exceeded the status quo on

the pulp mill emissions? There has been no increase. We have only legalized

what has existed to the capability....

Interjections.

HON. MR. SERWA :

I hope all of British Columbia is watching and listening to the antics

and activities of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, who would like to see

everything shut down in the province. It would be as repugnant to this

side of the House to cause all of those thousands of men and women

their jobs....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

I recognize the second member for Okanagan South.

SALE OF FLETCHER CHALLENGE SAWMILLS

MR. CHALMERS :

My question is to the Minister of Forests. Fletcher Challenge has just

put six sawmills on the market, employing over 2,000 workers in places

like Kelowna, Armstrong, Boston Bar, Williams Lake, Fraser Mills and

others. What action has the minister decided to take to ensure

continued employment for these workers?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Fletcher Challenge finds itself in a position of being short of cash to

complete some of the programs it has entered into, one being in the

neighbourhood of $400 million to clean up the pollution standards in

its pulp mills. They have already invested in the neighbourhood of $400

million. They find they're having to divest themselves of some

properties, one in Quebec. They are seeking an equity partner in their

Crofton mill and they have decided to put some of the solid wood side

of their business on the market.

Mr. Speaker, this is an

opportunity for many people in British Columbia to get into the solid

wood side of the business. In fact, it goes against some of the fears

people have of corporate concentration.

I don't see this as

a bad-news announcement in any way. There is no intention to close any

sawmills down. Should that situation arise, then we will deal with it

as per government policy, which is to tie the resource to the

communities involved. I see it as a great opportunity for investors in

British Columbia to get into the solid wood side of the forest industry.

SEWAGE TREATMENT IN VICTORIA

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the Minister of Environment dealing with sewage

treatment in the Western Communities. On September 4, your predecessor

announced there would be an innovative funding formula for sewage

treatment here in the greater Victoria area by the end of October. On

November 28, he gave details saying that the program would cost

homeowners between $200 and $250 a year per household. On December 17,

he indicated

[ Page 11798 ]

had gained cabinet approval. Could the minister advise the House

whether or not a funding formula, which would cost homeowners between

$200 and $250 a year, has been put in place by the minister, or was the

former minister just mistaken?

HON. MR. SERWA : No, I

cannot advise the member whether this has in fact taken place. I can

advise the member that the Ministry of Environment, in conjunction with

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, is certainly looking at the type of

funding that is necessary to implement the objective of this government

with respect to the secondary treatment of sewage throughout the

province. The objective of this government, which cares about the

environment as well as the economy, is to strive to have secondary

treatment established throughout all areas of the province by the year

MR. SIHOTA: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that either the minister doesn't

know what is going on in his own ministry or the previous Minister of Environment

was mistaken — or, shall I say, fibbing.

The

question to the minister is this: on December 19, 1990, government

officials indicated that they were basically "dotting the i's and

crossing the t's for a program" under your ministry that would allow

for funding for sewage treatment in the Western Communities. On January

30, 1991, you indicated that you did not know of any such program.

Could you advise the House now whether you know what's going on in your

ministry? Is there or is there not a program in place? Was your

predecessor fibbing, or are your officials wrong?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : I have to ask the member to withdraw the offensive word.

MR. SIHOTA : Instead of "fibbing," I'll say "mistaken," Mr. Minister.

MR. SPEAKER : That's acceptable.

Interjections,

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, before we proceed to the next order of business,

it would seem to me that question period has degenerated somewhat into statements

with a little question, and a small answer with a ministerial statement — in some

cases no answer, but a ministerial statement. It's only fifteen minutes.

I don't think we're going to be here too much longer, so perhaps we

could review the process. I see some doubt being expressed by members

on the government benches. The Chair is happy to sit here as long as members

wish to, but question period will be more strictly enforced.

Ministerial Statements

"BUY B.C. FIRST" PROGRAM

HON. MR. DE JONG :

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honour today to address the House on

behalf of this province's agriculture, fisheries and food industries.

This morning in Vancouver I launched "Buy B.C. First," an initiative

designed to create a new level of awareness of the tremendous

importance of British Columbia's agrifood industry.

Agriculture

in British Columbia has been showing steady and even remarkable growth,

despite dramatic declines in most other provinces. Fisheries have

always been a mainstay of the British Columbia economy, and I'm happy

to report that the wholesale value of the 1990 catch exceeded $1

billion.

It is time that all British Columbians recognize

the true value of the agrifood industry. British Columbians need to

know that when they support British Columbia agriculture, they are

supporting the economic well-being of the entire province.

Seventy-five

percent of the population of British Columbia lives within 50 miles of

the U.S. border, and I worry when I hear that the border crossings are

considering express lanes to move traffic through more quickly. That

means that British Columbia's earned dollars are supporting the U.S.

economy at an alarming rate. The numbers are already damaging

enough — a 400 percent increase in across-the-border shopping

trips. Perhaps as many as 1,200 jobs a year are lost to British

Columbians due to across-the-border purchases of agricultural products,

tobacco and liquor. That is what "Buy B.C. First" is all about — British Columbians making a conscious decision to purchase food products grown and processed in this province.

[2:30]

I want the best for my family as well. British Columbia food

products are the best. No other Canadian province can match British

Columbia's diversity in agriculture. British Columbia produces 130

basic commodities. They are used in over 4,000 items found in grocery

stores throughout the province, and British Columbia's standards for

quality and freshness are world-class.

Consumers tell us of

their concerns for the environment. Food producers share their concerns

and have shown that they are prepared to do something about them.

British Columbia's agriculture leads the world in its efforts to reduce

and possibly eliminate the use of pesticides.

I would like

to remind the House that British Columbia's agriculture, hospitality

and food-processing sectors do more than feed us and earn millions of

export dollars; they also feed the economy. There are 210,000 British

Columbians employed in the agriculture, fisheries and food industries.

That's a lot of jobs and a lot of paycheques, and those jobs aren't

confined to rural British Columbia; they are in urban processing

plants, transportation networks, equipment— manufacturing centres and retail outlets.

[ Page

11799 ]

Annual sales in the food sector of British Columbia's economy total over

$10 billion, including a $4 billion processing sector. An additional $1.3 billion

in food products are exported to over 100 countries.

This generates a full $300 million in tax revenue toward the support of

schools, hospitals, road systems and generally the quality of life we've

all come to enjoy.

believe that this government has provided the industry with the

business environment for growth, and we continue to develop frameworks

to support and enhance that growth. "Buy B.C. First" is one of those

supports.

Over the next two weeks, 1.27 million British

Columbia households will be receiving the "Buy B.C. First" information

piece. It communicates the scope and impact of our agriculture,

fisheries and food industries. Commercials on provincewide radio will

reinforce the "Buy B.C. First" message, and billboards at 15 U.S.

border crossings will encourage and remind Canadians to shop at home.

To assist shoppers in identifying a locally grown or processed product,

we have developed a "Buy B.C. First" symbol. It will be available for

use by companies whose products meet the criterion as B.C. products.

Mr.

Speaker, agriculture and fisheries play an important role in the

development of this fine province. The industry is part of our cultural

and economic heritage, and it's up to each one of us to ensure that it

is part of our future; "Buy B.C. First."

MR. BARLEE :

I think that the minister is concerned and sincere about this

legislation, but I think it's a little too late. I think we're all

concerned about it.

We applaud the principle of a "Buy

B.C." campaign. I think, however, that it may be a bit of a knee-jerk

response. This has been going on for some time now. In my own

particular riding, the border crossings have increased up to 800

percent. In Osoyoos, two-thirds of a million people cross the border.

The American traffic is one-quarter of that. We're all aware that $800

million is spent by British Columbians in Washington State. These are

one-way dollars. There are several reasons for that. Most of those

reasons lie on the side of the government.

First, the government applauded the free trade deal. This is part of the free

trade deal, and it has been very hard on our small businessmen who, in some

instances, were members of your party. They are having second thoughts about

this. Second, the very high taxes in British Columbia have also led to this.

And third, the initial attraction to Washington State was the price of gasoline.

The price of gasoline is disastrous in British Columbia; 25 percent of the price

of gasoline is taxes placed by the government of British Columbia — the second-highest

taxation in Canada and only exceeded by Quebec. We're even higher than

Newfoundland.

You individuals have done quite a good job....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. We're listening to a response to a ministerial statement about agriculture.

I'm

not sure how we got into gasoline prices. Perhaps the Chair could....

Order, please. If the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale could

restrain himself.... It would help the Chair if during these

ministerial statements, there was a little less of this cross-court

banter. Maybe they could be viewed a little more seriously.

MR. BARLEE : I hardly think that the billboards at the border are going

to dissuade people already there. I very much doubt that they are going to turn

around and drive back to Vancouver or Penticton. They've already made up

their minds, so the flow will continue.

You

can thank your government for much of that. The flow has increased

dramatically since the free trade deal. I'm sure all the small

businessmen in British Columbia are going to thank you. Certainly the

farmers will thank you during the next election.

TAKLA AGREEMENT

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'm pleased to advise the House that yesterday a historic event

occurred at Takla Landing, located approximately 150 miles north of

Fort St. James in the province's central interior. My colleague the

Minister of Native Affairs and I were at Takla Landing, where Chief Roy

French, other band councillors, the Minister of Native Affairs and I

signed a historic agreement.

This agreement is between the

British Columbia Forest Service, the Takla band and the Takla

Development Corp., which is owned by the band. This agreement will

increase the band's participation in the forest sector, it will provide

economic and employment opportunities for band members; and it will

also foster cooperation and help to increase native involvement in

forest management.

The agreement is the result of

discussions over the past six months with representatives of the band,

forest licensees operating in the Prince George timber supply area, the

Takla Development Corp. and the Forest Service. A key goal was to

identify opportunities within existing forest programs and the Forest

Service's legislative mandate while not prejudicing the land claims of

the Takla Indian band or the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, nor the

provincial government's position on the land claims.

Under

the agreement the band will have an opportunity to acquire through

competition a forest licence to harvest timber. Native employment will

be a key factor in the Forest Service's evaluation of any proposals.

The forest licence will have clauses requiring that there be no

blockades of industrial activity during its term, and B.C. Rail will be

used to transport forest products from the licence area. The band will

get for its members jobs and experience in forest management and

contracting by bidding for and successfully completing silviculture,

forest protection and other contracts advertised by the Forest Service

and forest licensees. An improved inventory of the band's hunting,

trapping and herb-gathering

[ Page 11800 ]

interests will be considered in integrated resource-use planning at all levels.

am confident that this agreement will establish an atmosphere of

cooperation and mutual trust in the development of more native

involvement in our number one industry.

MR. MILLER :

Of course we welcome the announcement by the minister that there will

be more involvement. I know from my own experience that this native

band and the tribal council have had a fair amount of experience in

forestry matters. I am confident that their involvement in this

particular process will prove to be successful.

I would

just take a moment to elaborate on what I think needs to be done to

expand this opportunity to far more native bands and tribal councils in

the province. Last year I discussed with the Minister of Native Affairs

the need to have an ongoing program such as was contained in the

initial forest resource development agreement. There was a native land

component attached to that agreement which provided a modest amount of

money, but that money was used fairly effectively in providing an

extensive training program for native Indians who wanted to learn more

about forestry, who were in a position in British Columbia where they

could avail themselves of economic opportunities in the forest

industry. As we all know, there is a need for training and development

to take place so that those ventures succeed. Once we put people in

those kinds of positions, we want those ventures to succeed.

Unfortunately no new program has come about to replace that existing

program under FRDA I.

I am aware of the task force that

currently is looking at this issue, and of the members appointed within

British Columbia. It's my hope that they would bring back

recommendations that not only allow increased participation by native

Indians in the forest industry of this province, but also identify and

establish some money so we can do the kind of training and work that

will ensure that those ventures are successful and that native Indians

break down the barrier of economic alienation and take a more

meaningful role in the economic lifeblood of this province. So we

welcome the announcement, and we hope there will be many more to come.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 82.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have leave to make a brief introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH : With us today in the members' gallery are two young

people from North Vancouver, one has previously lived in Victoria and the other

is visiting for the first time. Will the House please join, me in welcoming

Steve Mair and Jan Simpson.

section 1.

MR. CLARK : I'd like to begin this debate by asking a few questions about

section 1 —

the definition section. At the very beginning it defines ability to

pay, and I understand that this is the first time an attempt has been

made to define ability to pay in legislation.

Maybe the minister could first indicate to the House whether all the guidelines that have been distributed — including those that deal with pay equity, productivity or skill shortages —

are subject to the ability to pay. In other words, the guidelines say

that there are certain exemptions for certain things. If there is a

certain productivity and improvements can be measured, then a larger

pay increase may be afforded that group of employees — and so on

down the line. Pay equity appears to be in the guidelines. If there are

pay equity plans, there may be a different view of agreements by the

commissioner. Could he confirm for the House that those exemptions in

the guidelines are all subject to the ability to pay as defined in

section 1?

[2:45]

HON. MR. VEITCH : All compensation is subject to ability to pay. However,

the hon. member will note that enough flexibility has been built into the plan

to provide for certain exemptions, such as pay equity and the like.

MR. CLARK : It seems to me difficult for the minister to say that there

is flexibility in the plan if it's still subject to the same parameters.

In other words, if someone were to negotiate a pay increase of 10 percent, and

if that were to be submitted to the commissioner, certainly the ability to pay

would be defined by the commissioner, and it may or may not be rolled back.

The bill contemplates that there be bonuses — sort of —

so that if there are productivity improvements, slightly more could be

paid. If there is a pay equity plan, slightly more could be paid. If

it's all governed by the same ability-to-pay section, then presumably

any of those improvements have to come out of the same pool of money.

In other words, it's as American economist Lester Thurow points out: a

zero-sum game. Any improvements in pay equity in legislation have to

come out of other areas that might have been improved. In other words,

it all comes out of the same pot. Therefore all of the flexibility

built into the legislation isn't really flexibility in the sense that

they can pay more; it's all governed by exactly the same ability-to-pay

definition. Is that correct?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Yes, the act has to deal with ability to pay. It also has to deal with the ability of

[ Page

11801 ]

the taxpayer to pay. That's where our funding comes from, as the hon. member

is very well aware. However, if productivity gains can be established, it means

you have completed more work within a particular unit and done more things. A

couple of examples of this might be class size in certain areas or hours of

work in certain areas. If this effects an efficiency, then individuals within

that unit have the ability to receive a bonus, as you so correctly pointed out.

MR. CLARK :

The minister has made an argument. Clearly there are savings somewhere;

therefore more money can be included in the pay package. That's what

the minister is saying. I understand that.

But I don't see how you could make the same argument with respect to

skill shortages or pay equity. In other words, if the ability to pay is X, and

if it's an objective fact that a school board or a library board has a certain

ability to pay, if you can demonstrate that there's a skill shortage

and therefore the public sector employer wants to pay more because it's

trying to attract that skill, which is in short supply — which is quite commonly

the case — how can you do that if the ability to pay is defined in advance of

those decisions?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The whole act is tied to ability to pay. First, the taxpayer's ability

to provide funding to the particular government entity that pays it....

Within this particular act, you may very well have a specialization

that is in short supply. You still have to have an ability to pay for

that. You may have to find, within the total scope — the total money available to you — a way of paying more to that particular specialist discipline that is in short supply.

MR. CLARK : If there is a skill shortage in a certain area, and the public

sector employer wishes to pay what would be perceived, generally, as beyond

the prevailing rate of the day, is it correct to say then that that extra money

to pay to that group of employees has to come out of the pay of other employees

in the same bargaining unit?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Again, we have to go back to the ability to pay within the amount of

money given to the particular government entity by the taxpayer,

through a budgetary process or whatever. The commissioner does have

enough flexibility within this act to allow extra payment or a bonus or

whatever to a particular discipline that is required or is in short

supply. So flexibility does exist within that act.

general, the ability to pay is defined in the act as the taxpayer's

ability to pay the amount of money given to any particular unit from

all sources — whether it's a school board, Crown corporation or

whatever. They cannot exceed that ability to pay. If they do, the

contract will be returned by the commissioner.

MR. CLARK : Maybe the minister could just answer the question that I

tried to pose fairly clearly: if a public sector employer decides to pay more

to a group of employees who legitimately should get more because of skill shortage,

in order to attract them, does that extra money have to come out of the same

envelope? In other words, does it have to come out of the pay of the other employees?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

No, Mr. Chairman. There is an ability to pay more money. The government

can pay more money. The municipality, the corporation or whoever it is

can pay more money. It doesn't come out of the pockets of the remaining

employees.

MR. CLARK : Does that mean that the ability to pay is a floating definition?

Let me give you a concrete example. Say a school board received from the provincial

government 5 percent, and the school board decides to pay 10 percent. The school

board has no taxing authority. They give their employees 10 percent, and then

make an argument with the government that we have to pay that because there's

a serious skill shortage and they need to pay more to attract people. Say it

was Fort Nelson or Fort St. John, and they were having difficulty attracting

teachers because of the climate and the like. Even though the government has

given 5 percent, they decide that they're giving 10 percent. They make an

argument. And the commissioner, just to keep the logic, says"Yes, that's

a reasonable thing to do." Does the government then give more money to

that school district? Is that what's contemplated by this legislation?

HON. MR. VEITCH : What we're contemplating here are exceptional cases.

It may be in nursing, a special discipline in a hospital, a Crown corporation,

post-secondary education or elsewhere. But we're not contemplating groups

or classes of people receiving more than the next class of people down the line.

course, there is one way that a school board can increase its ability

to pay, and that is to have the taxpayers in a particular area accept a

referendum. That legislation is in place now and is available to any

school board in the province that wishes to exercise it.

MR. SIHOTA : Further to what my colleague from Vancouver East has put

forward, let me put it to the minister this way. Let's say a hospital gets

a budget of $100. It then gets an increase of 5 percent, so it has $105. It

then goes and negotiates with the nurses and realizes that there is a nursing

shortage. It wants to pay its nurses more to attract more nurses, and the cost

comes out to be, say, $117. For the difference between $117, which is what they

negotiate to be their cost, and $105, which is their budget, (

a) does it fall

within the definition of ability to pay, and (

b) is that additional $12 to be

made up by the government giving it to the hospital, or does the hospital have

to make it up within the pool of money that it's got — in other words, $105?

[ Page 11802 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In any area, if there is a request to go beyond the ability to pay, it

would require special consideration of the reason, of course, for the

request for the additional compensation. It would have to be carefully

examined by the commissioner and the government, and if the

commissioner felt it was correct, additional funding would have to be

found. If there was a skill shortage in a particular area, no matter

what it was, there is flexibility within the act whereby the

commissioner can recommend that the guidelines be exceeded.

MR. SIHOTA :

So in the example I just cited to the minister, the commissioner would

say: "There is a skill shortage here. You are entitled to $117 instead

of $105." Would the government provide that additional money outside

the envelope of money the hospital would have gotten in the first

place? Would you provide extra money — an additional $12? I see

the minister is being talked to by his advisers. I want a clear answer

from him. We'll see if he can now answer the question.

HON. MR. VEITCH : If the employer did not have the ability to pay and required some special assistance for a specific area — it would be the exception, certainly, and not the rule — then

that employer would have to find that ability to pay, whether it was

from the government or, in the case of a school board, through a

referendum. But in the event that the only revenue to the particular

entity you're speaking of — or to a municipal government, a hospital board or whatever — comes

from the provincial government, then they would have to make a special

case that they don't have the ability to pay. They would say: "We do

not have the ability to pay more, yet we still need this particular

specialist. We need more money for that." They would make a special

case to the commissioner to find that ability to pay.

MR. SIHOTA : But the question the minister is not answering is: would that money come from its existing envelope — in other words, the $105 — or would it come directly from the provincial government? That additional $12 would take you to $117.

Hospital

boards, for example, don't have the ability to go to referenda, so put

that example aside. Just tell us, Mr. Minister, where the money would

come from. Would it have to come from within the existing budget of the

hospital or, once Mr. Lien has made the approval and said that the

skill shortage is legitimate and you have to come up with additional

money, would that additional money come from outside the envelope,

directly from your ministry?

[3:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH : We have school boards in place, and we have hospital

boards in place. They're there to manage the operations and to give policy

guidance to the operations of the particular entity, whatever it may be. Now

it may be that a hospital board has to find some efficiencies in one area in

order to pay more in another. I don't think there's anything wrong with

exercising good management, whether it be within the educational system, the

hospital system or indeed in a Crown corporation. Those are the avenues that

would have to be explored first before any other consideration would be given.

Many

times, with a little reordering of priorities, a little tightening up

in a certain area, they can find the ability to pay if they need a

certain specialist or if they need to pay someone.... So it may come

from within the amount of money that has been allotted to that

particular entity. Indeed, in the case of school boards, it may come

from without, through referenda. Again, in certain very exceptional

cases, they may make a special case.

MR. SIHOTA : I

heard the Premier say to the Minister of Finance: "Take a hard line."

It's obvious that the Minister of Finance is trying to do that. But if

you follow the logic of what he is saying, Mr. Chairman, it's this. It

is recognized by the commissioner that there is a skill shortage. For

example, in the case of nurses — let's stick with the hospital example — it

is recognized by the commissioner that to attend to that skill

shortage, the hospital is entitled to pay its nurses more to lure them

into employment. What the Minister of Finance is saying is that in

order to make up for that money you're going to be paying nurses to get

them to work, you're going to have to close hospital beds to make up

the money from within your own budget. That's the logic if you

accept....

HON. MR. VEITCH : That may be your logic.

MR. SIHOTA :

If I am wrong, Mr. Minister, then tell me that the system is not fixed,

that the envelope is not fixed, that the government will give money to

hospitals outside their defined budgets in light of a finding of skill

shortages.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Chairman, that's the

difference between socialism and free enterprise. We on this side of

the House realize that there is only one taxpayer, and from that

taxpayer comes the money that goes to Ottawa, to Victoria and to the

municipalities. There's only one taxpayer; there's no magic pot of

money. Right now a lot of those taxpayers, hon. member, whether you

know it or not.... Don't sit there smirking. Whether you know it or

not, these taxpayers are hurting. Small business doesn't have the

ability to pay; a lot of people in the forest industry are being laid

off.

Everybody has to take a little bit of this burden to

ensure that we don't get into the same sort of straitjacket they're

getting into in Ontario, where they're predicting somewhere between a

$10 billion and $15 billion deficit next year. We don't intend to go

down that road in this province. We're heading this thing off at the

pass. With better management most institutions, most entities, can find

the money they need to do special projects — or indeed to pay a specialist. You're talking about hospital beds and everything else. That's the same sort of garbage

[ Page

11803 ]

rhetoric that we've seen time after time in election after election. It hasn't worked, and it won't work now.

Our

payments to medical care this year have been the highest they've ever

been. We've done more for education, more for health care and more for

social services. We've spent a full 80 percent of our budget in that

area. It's going to take a little more management during tough times,

during these times when the taxpayer has no money to send to Victoria

so that they can send it to the school boards, to hospital boards or to

Crown corporations. Everybody's going to have to tighten that belt just

a little more and do a little better job.

We ask a little

more of management to manage more effectively. There's nothing wrong

with that. There is no government tap that you can just turn on

somewhere and get money from — unless you borrow it on the

international marketplace. And then you put not only yourself in

jeopardy, but your children and your children's children. If that's the

socialist way, that's fine. It is not the Social Credit way.

MR. SIHOTA : I don't think the minister understands what I'm

saying. In the example of skill shortages, if you are working within a fixed

budget, then the choice is either you increase the stipend paid to nurses to

attract more nurses and then make up the money within that envelope and close

hospital beds.... Now is the financial pressure going to be on the hospital,

or is it going to be on you? If, for example, the decision means that it's

going to cost the government $30 million more, are they going to have to make

a choice between cutting their TV advertising program and funding those hospitals?

So it's a question of priorities. And it's a question of where the financial

pressure is going to be.

Is the financial pressure going to be placed on you, the Minister of Finance, to cut those kinds of programs — $50 million in TV ads, $25 million to doctors, $7 million for the jet for the Premier —

or is it going to be on hospitals within their budget to cut and close

the hospital floors? What's it going to be? Close hospital floors or

cut the double standard of this administration? That's the choice. It

seems to me, from this side of the House, that you ought to put an end

to your double standards. You're not prepared to take the financial

heat to get rid of the advertising program, but you're quite prepared

to say to hospitals that they have to close their floors. That's what

wrong, Mr. Minister. Your spending priorities are out of touch with the

priorities of British Columbians.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Well, it's interesting that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, of

all people, should talk about double standards. I wonder sometimes

whether you even have a single standard.

MR. SIHOTA : Answer the question.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I'll answer the question, hon. member. There are

spreads in administration — at top administration levels — where some hospital

administrators in this province are receiving $150,000 a year plus benefits.

There are other areas where hospital administrators are receiving $250,000

a year. Over time, the legislation provided here will bring equity across the

board for those people.

You

sit there and wag your head. I don't know how.... You're do quite well

being smug, but don't lecture me about double standards — you of all people.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue this whole question of fairness and

equity, and go back to some comments that the minister made a moment

ago in respect to school districts. He noted that school districts have

an option to go to referendum to provide essential services for

children in the province.

I want to put this in the context

of skill shortages and of two British Columbias: lower mainland British

Columbia; and the north and the interior, where there exist, and where

we know there will be more, teacher shortages. What I hear the minister

saying about ability to pay is that those districts will have to find

an ability to pay through referenda rather than through those school

boards being treated fairly by this government and this minister. In

defining ability to pay — in relation to those boards and their needs —

the minister clearly stated that if the boards do not receive in their

envelope an amount of money that enables them to attract teachers into

their district, those small towns of British Columbia, which are being

hit at this stage of the game by layoffs and cutbacks, will be asked to

dig deeper.

We're not talking about a water-bed, where

there may be more to the north and less to the south; we're talking in

fact about those boards having to take specific initiatives, which will

mean that there isn't equity and fairness for the children and the

families of the north. The minister clearly said that they have a

choice of referenda, rather than this government treating them

fairly — another example of a double standard, which is the hallmark of this legislation.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Thank you very much, member for New Westminster. We in fact do pay more

now to teachers in, say, Bella Bella and the northern communities in

British Columbia. Higher rates have been negotiated because a lot of

people do not want to live in Bella Bella. They might rather live and

teach in downtown New Westminster, so they are paid more than other

teachers. What we're talking about here is wages. We're not talking

about general skill shortages for teachers, because there is just

simply not a general skill shortage for teachers in British Columbia.

a board knowingly has made the decision not to go to a referendum, is

not going to raise money that way and knows that the aggregate amount

of money they have on hand from municipal taxation and from the

provincial government is exceeded by the amount that they have settled

for, I don't think that board is being fiscally responsible. They're

not being responsi-

[ Page 11804 ]

ble in managing the affairs of that particular school district — if they understand that.

There

is higher compensation and there are bonuses paid for people who teach

in the north. They receive higher wages at the present time. That scale

will continue, hon. member. This is all about fairness: in

compensation; in the amount of money they receive in their paycheques;

in comparison to a teacher's duties and responsibilities at certain

levels; and, of course, fairness in comparison to what teachers at that

particular level may receive in other parts of the country. All of

these things are taken into consideration.

MS. A. HAGEN :

The minister has just confirmed what I stated, that districts have only

one option in dealing with the needs of their community: to go to

referendum if the "ability to pay" argument is defined by government.

In many communities of the province, where we do already have teacher

skill shortages and difficulty in terms of them meeting the needs of

those communities, it's going to mean that those communities are

unfairly treated by this particular legislation. There are other

aspects of this legislation that we will come to as we go through the

bill which will clearly put those boards at a disadvantage. The idea

that referendum is a means by which we will rectify that, I think,

simply points out the basic unfairness of the bill.

We are

dealing with a whole variety of ways in which the minister says this

government will make decisions: we'll have special cases, we have

referendums and we may have this approach or that approach. Instead of

letting the boards— hospital boards, community boards — manage, this

government is attempting to tinker with something that it is refusing

to define. It's refusing to define "ability to pay," except as some

kind of package which you, sir, in your infinite wisdom, have defined.

don't have a budget in this House. We don't have any indication

whatsoever of the basis for the argument that you are making about

ability to pay. That is the reason that this legislation is, in fact,

double-standard legislation that will be perceived by people all over

the province as unfair, inequitable, and as producing unfairness and

inequities as it is implemented.

[3:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH : Would it not be a double standard if we expected that

the public service would receive 3, 4, 5 or 6 percentage points higher than

the private sector, which, after all, is paying all of these bills in the first

place? If we're settling at 4 percent in the wood sector, for instance,

and that's all they can pay — and they are the people, in the final analysis,

who are paying your wages, my wages and the wages of everyone else in government

— would it not be a double standard to expect to pay teachers 7 percent or 8

percent? Why in the world would someone in the public sector, during austere

times, expect to get more than their peers who are earning the money and paying

their wages in the first place, and they don't have the ability to pay it?

What

do we do? Do we do it as Ontario does and go out to the marketplace all

over the world and borrow and borrow to pay for our daily needs, until

we get ourselves into the same kind of situation that the NDP is

rapidly getting itself into in Ontario and which Ottawa has already

arrived at? That is what's wrong with this country: we've exceeded our

ability to pay for years and years in government.

I see no

reason.... I believe you are right: there would be a double standard.

If the public sector expects to receive more compensation than the

private sector that pays them the money in the first place, there is

something wrong with that kind of expectation.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I believe what the public sector expects is fairness. I would just note

to the minister that, as he well knows, the relationship between public

and private sector increments is very close at this stage of the game.

It is something that, over a cycle, has tracked very remarkably.

are talking about interference with that very effective means by which

compensation has been determined. I think it's quite clear to all of us

that we should not be introducing legislation that would attempt to

undermine the success of collective bargaining and those compensation

factors that all of us can see in the charts as being fair to both

public and private sector workers in the province.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I know the hon. member understands that it's the nature of the public

sector. Indeed, this bill is designed to provide permanence of

employment within the public sector. It's always been the nature of the

public sector not to feel the same pressures when the economy turns

down, but they are always there with the wage increases when the

economy rises on the other side of the cycle.

What about

the unemployed sawmill worker? What about fairness for that particular

individual? Would fairness for that individual not mean simply having a

job? Shouldn't you share some of your ability with that individual?

There's a person who for years has been paying the public sector's

wages, and finally finds himself or herself out of a job, and yet the

public sector must go on. Surely that person would ask government that

we not borrow against his future or against the future of his children

and cause that greatest tax of all upon that person — that's

inflation, that's borrowing and that's paying interest rates. We're not

going to let ourselves get into the position that your NDP government

is getting itself into in the province of Ontario. They are going down

an economic rathole. That is not the kind of policy this government

espouses.

This bill is designed for fairness, hon. member.

It is designed to provide fairness for the public sector. It is

designed, wherever possible, to provide job protection for the public

sector. But it also takes into consideration the ability of the private

sector to pay those wages. It is the generator of wealth in this

[ Page

11805 ]

province the same as it is the generator of wealth in Canada or in Ontario —

although the governments in Ottawa and Queen's Park don't seem to

realize that. One day the chickens will come home to roost; that will

be a few years down the road. And I can tell you, they will be thrown

out just as quickly as they came in.

MR. PERRY :

Sometimes I begin to wonder if I'm actually in Toronto, you hear so

much discussion about Ontario. The last I checked, the Premier of

Ontario still warrants a 65 percent approval rating in the public

opinion polls. When I came over here from Vancouver this morning, I

thought I was coming to Victoria. I thought we were still in the

province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I've been

listening very carefully to the Minister of Finance. I admit to being

slightly troubled by his sanctimony, as if he were the only British

Columbian who was concerned about the pockets of the taxpayer. I'm a

taxpayer myself; my wife is a taxpayer; my parents, my brother, the

vast majority of my constituents are taxpayers. I know my colleague the

first member for Vancouver–Point Grey and I feel that we work very hard

and attempt to give the taxpayers good value for what they put into our

salaries. And I think most of them recognize that; I certainly hope so.

But we take their concerns every bit as seriously as the members

opposite — perhaps more so.

I find myself reflecting a

little bit on the sanctimony of the Minister of Finance. I see him

smiling now. I find myself reflecting once in a while when I think of

the abuse of the government jet service and how the members opposite

ran up $1.2 million extra last year on the provincial ambulance bill

just so they could gadfly around the province attending various

functions, some of them flying one person to the jet.

As a

taxpayer, I find it offensive to sit here in this Legislature and think

that somehow the members opposite are concerned about the taxpayers'

pocket and we aren't. We are at least as concerned. If we occupy those

benches opposite, I hope we will present a more favourable record with

regard to the taxpayer.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

listened very carefully to the discerning line of questioning pursued

by my colleague the second member for Vancouver East and my colleague

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. They were onto a very important

issue. As I listened, I thought back to the Sallis case. I know that

the minister can not be expected to comment publicly, but nothing

precludes me from speaking in this Legislature about the Sallis case.

Just

under a year ago, a woman named Mary Sallis from Langley died a

preventable death in Vancouver General Hospital. She was denied timely

heart surgery for a very rapidly deteriorating heart condition. She

required the replacement of a heart valve....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair has been very lenient with your

straying from the principles of

section 1. Possibly you could get back

to the principles.

MR. PERRY : I think I'll make clear momentarily the connection to

section 1(b).

HON. MR. VEITCH : You're circling the field now; you're going to land any moment.

MR. PERRY : The minister says I'm circling the field and about to land; I think the vultures are circling over his head.

Mr.

Chairman, Mrs. Sallis was denied timely surgery in the Vancouver

General Hospital. The surgeon who requested that she be booked for

surgery told me personally over the telephone last year that the

immediate reason she could not receive her surgery in time to save her

life was that there weren't enough nurses staffing a stepdown ward in

the Vancouver General Hospital.

As it turned out, she

eventually got surgery, but only when she was already moribund, and the

hospital presided over her death rather than attempting to save her

life.

This was a disgrace to the province. That case has

gone to the court, and the provincial government is now facing a

lawsuit from the aggrieved husband of Mrs. Sallis, as I think we all

know.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY : That case is still in court, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. You're discussing something that is sub judice.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Chairman, the relevance is to the points raised previously by my

two colleagues. How in this province are we going to meet the

needs — as subsection (

b) refers to — and levels of public service required by our public?

We know — and it has been well recognized in this House in the past —

that although we have a public health system in this province for very

good reasons, we compete with private health systems elsewhere in a

global market for labour. In this case, for example, it is the global

market for nursing skills. We compete with the private sector in the

United States and in many other countries. We must remain competitive.

Clearly, we must also respect the ability of the taxpayers to pay for

necessary health services, but there are times when the world market

for skills — in a highly competitive field such as nursing or other health disciplines —

suggests that occasionally the price must rise. In fact, that's what

happened consequent to the nursing strikes in 1989 and 1990. We know

that the former Minister of Health stood in this House and predicted

that. Had we listened to his advice, we could have avoided those

strikes and all of the unfortunate consequences.

[ Page 11806 ]

But

as I listened to the minister's responses to my colleagues the second

member for Vancouver East and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I

heard the same simplistic answers to their questions that I've heard

for the last two years: if the hospital finds it necessary to negotiate

a wage increase in an area of labour shortage, it will have to find

resources elsewhere in the hospital budget. Naturally, all of us would

agree that that goal is admirable. We want to see the maximum

efficiency in our health care system, just as in all public services in

this province.

But what happens when there is nothing left

in that budget that can be cut without sacrificing another service?

What happens if it's the case of Burnaby General Hospital, where a

necessary standard program — such as an out-patient chemotherapy program for people suffering cancer —

is forgone because there is no money in the budget? People from Burnaby

must traverse the Second Narrows Bridge to the Lions Gate Hospital in

your riding, Mr. Chairman, for a service that ought to be provided

close to their home.

What happens in the case of a problem

raised by a constituent of the second member for Cariboo, who recently

wrote and described a wait of six months for neurosurgery on an

initially failed neurosurgical procedure? This man has an unstable

neck. I couldn't help but think of him when the minister spoke so

sanctimoniously of unemployed forest workers. This man has been

unemployed for over a year due to an injury to his neck. He has an

unstable vertebral column in his neck, and he lives in fear — perhaps exaggerated, but nevertheless real to that individual —

that he may snap his neck and become paralyzed from the neck down. That

man has been waiting six months for an operation at Vancouver General

Hospital. When I consulted with the neurosurgeon involved, I was told

that the hours of operation for that surgeon had been cut from ten

hours to seven hours per week. The ability is there within the system

to look after this man from Williams Lake properly, but he is not

looked after.

How can any of us seriously as members of

this House stand here and admit that we would, quietly and patiently,

wait six months with an unstable neck for necessary surgery? Of course

we wouldn't, we know that's wrong. We know the hospital must find the

resources to deal with the problem. Yet when I listened to the

minister's answers, I found it very difficult to discern any

sensitivity to the hospital's dilemma.

I think I've outlined the problem for the minister, and I would be interested to hear his response.

HON. MR. VEITCH : At the outset the hon. member was talking about what

he found offensive in the way this government operates. He said he found it

offensive that sometimes cabinet ministers would fly on jets. Well, I found

it very offensive that at one time during the NDP administration a seaplane

actually used to land right in front of the minister's home. It used to

take him home; he used it like a shuttle service.

I found

it offensive that you took $97 million, I think it was, in dollars of

that day, back in 1972, and turned it into a deficit of over $500

million, because you hired every hack you could from Ontario. You hired

every socialist hack you could find. You folks literally turned ore

into rock in this province. I found that so offensive that I went into

politics to beat you, and we're going to do it again. That's why I'm in

politics.

[3:30]

I want to tell the hon. member that in an ideal world you'd have everything

you wanted in every given situation. This is not an ideal world. There are times

whet there are economic pressures upon society that need to be borne by all

of society — the private sector and the public sector alike. You can't separate

these two things.

What we're talking about here is wages —

salaries for people. When you really boil it down, you're talking about

an amount of increase for a class of people or a group of individuals,

or for an individual. If you would look to

section 21 of the labour

market guideline of the draft regulations, you would find that it says:

"A group is permitted a level of compensation based on (

a) demonstrable

or measurable increases in productivity, (

b) settlements or awards in

the provincial private sector, (

c) the ability of the public sector

employer to recruit and retain employees in areas of demonstrable

shortages of critical skills." Where these are demonstrated, there is

flexibility within the act and within the regulations to deal with them.

That's what this act is all about —

fairness. It's maintaining employment levels within the public sector

while realizing that there is only a certain finite amount of money out

there in the private sector to pay for it.

There is a

difference, hon. member. You happen to have been in the medical

profession for most of your life, where you have received funding

indirectly from the private sector, and you are comparing yourself with

the first member for Point Grey in saying that you give value. Well, I

guess that's an open question whether you give value to this

Legislature. I don't know whose standards you apply.

I can

tell you that this act does provide for flexibility; the drafts provide

for flexibility. This act is fair to the public sector, and we're

asking them to bear a bit of the economic downturn that the private

sector is experiencing at this time, so that we don't have to go so far

into the hole to mortgage future generations.

I know

that that would be the easy way out. It would be a lot easier in an

ideal world for me to stand up here and bring in a borrowing bill that

would borrow vast sums of money from goodness knows where in the world

and pay for whatever you wanted. But that's not the way things work.

Some day someone has to pay the bills.

Ottawa is finding

that out now. They'll find out at long last, after profligate spending

for years and years, that the chickens have come home to roost. They're

now trying to deal with their deficit prob-

[ Page

11807 ]

lems in a host of ways, but they haven't had the

courage, like we had here in 1983, to reduce the size and scope of

government. We'll never solve this problem of overspending in Canada

until someone at the federal level, someone in that large province of

Ontario, musters up the intestinal fortitude to get government down to

the size that 27 million people in this country can afford.

We've

just got too darned much government at all levels. Everybody is going

to have to pay and to experience some of this recession. If we do that,

if we work our way through it, we'll be all right.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The members of this House are the people who brought in

the relevancy

section of our orders here, and possibly the members could remember

that. I think we should have more relevancy on

section 1, which is an

interpretation

section. The debate that this member has listened to in the chair since coming

in here has been second reading debate and not committee debate. Could the members

please address themselves to the relevancy of the particular

section under debate.

MR. CLARK : The minister has been making speeches, of course. We'd never accuse members on our side of doing that.

However,

because of committee stage debate, I really want to ask how this works.

On the question of ability to pay, it seems to me that either the

ability to pay is a fixed cap and therefore any change or special

treatment to any group of employees as a result of the guidelines must

come out of the pay of the other employees; or the ability to pay is

itself a flexible concept — a kind of arbitrary concept that can move as a result of the guidelines.

Mr.

Chairman, I just want to make clear what I'm saying. It's either a

fixed cap, like the hospital board has a fixed budget.... Therefore any

use of the guidelines with respect to pay equity or productivity

improvements.... Essentially it has to come off the pay or the cost of

something else. It's a fixed cap and then you can only deal with wages

within that fixed cap; or the cap itself. In other words, the

ability-to-pay question.... That's movable, depending upon the

arguments made by the union or by the compensation commissioner. So

that if a decision is made to pay the nurses more money than is

contemplated by a plain reading of the regulations, but the argument is

made that we must do that because of skill shortages, and the

commissioner agrees, then the ability to pay is redefined in light of

that new reality — if I can use that term. It seems to me it's either one or the other.

The Premier, I think, in his banter was very clear that in fact there is a

fixed cap on hospital boards, school boards and library boards; that the ability

to pay is an objective, definable term; and therefore the guidelines which

allow more money for certain things.... Any extra money to be given for skill

shortages or productivity improvements or pay equity had to come out of some

other aspect of the budget. That seemed to be very clearly what the Premier

was indicating in his banter and in his remarks, and I'm trying to find

out just what it is. Is it a fixed cap, and any money paid for skill shortages

or other things has to come underneath that fixed cap — in other words, they

have to take it off somewhere else, whether it's efficiencies or something

else? Or is it not a fixed cap, but the ability to pay is a variable that can

be arbitrarily changed by government to meet the challenges of skill shortages

or pay equity? Could the minister explain which one it is?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Within a particular bargaining unit — and I think that's what you are speaking of —

if it was a unionized unit, there would be an ability to pay. It would

be equal across the board, but in exceptional cases where management

made a proper case that they required a certain level of skills and

they had to pay a higher compensation to receive the extra skills, they

could do two or three things. They could look for efficiencies within

their own administration. And efficiencies aren't always people

working; they aren't people's wages. They could be the way they're

managing something. It could be a procedure. It could even be the way

they're getting rid of their garbage. Goodness knows what. Especially

if you're looking at hospitals. They may have to restructure the

financial and management affairs of the particular unit. Failing all

else, if they still required money in exceptional cases — for a specific case where a specific talent or discipline was required —

they would then have to approach government. They would have to find an

extra ability to pay those individuals or that class of individuals or

that particular individual. The draft regulations and the bill allow

for that eventuality.

MR. CLARK : We're getting closer to understanding the section. I appreciate the minister's remarks.

seems to me that what you're saying is that the flexibility

contemplated in the guidelines is fettered or tempered by the overall

ability to pay, and that in fact it will be the government's contention

that efficiencies or cuts in other areas.... The minister is quite

correct. Obviously it doesn't have to be in other employees' wages, but

in other efficiencies....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK :

The minister says it never will be another employee's wages. Okay. So

let me get this right now. The nurses are bargaining. They negotiate a

settlement which is roughly, say, double the private sector — I'm just making this up —

a large increase. It's clearly beyond the guidelines. The nurses and

the hospitals go to Mr. Lien, the commissioner, and say: "We realize

it's double the prevailing wage increase; however, there clearly is a

problem in terms of skill shortages that we have to address. We want

your permission to pay double the prevailing rate because of these

sections of the guidelines." The question is, of course: where does the

money come from to pay for that?

[ Page 11808 ]

You

are saying that the first obligation would be for the hospital to find

the money itself. It would be unlikely for government to give extra

money. Let me ask that question. If the commissioner says that the

hospitals are correct, that they really do need to pay this because

there clearly is a skill shortage.... The commissioner, hospitals and

nurses come together to government with a wage settlement which is

beyond — double, perhaps — the prevailing wage increases of

the day, but make the argument successfully. Then the government would

look favourably upon that to provide the extra funding required. Is

that what is contemplated by these guidelines?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I doubt very much it would be within the commissioner's capacity to

determine whether or not there was a skill shortage in any given area.

It's only within his capacity or, indeed, within his purview to

determine the ability to pay.

I would think that were a

school or hospital board or anyone else to double the wages and be way

out beyond what the norm was in the private sector or in comparison to

other units, hospitals or school boards, they would know right away

that they would have their contract returned to them by the

commissioner. You are quite correct. If they wanted to find a greater

ability to pay, they would have to look to efficiencies within their

own departments first.

Secondly, of course, what you would be looking at is a specific skill shortage and maybe a small class of people — not

a large one. That would be generally what would happen. If they

couldn't find efficiencies within their particular unit or entity — they just weren't there, and it was determined there was no ability to pay —

then they could make a case. Government would realize that if you can't

find a particular medical discipline or whatever it is — someone who practises a particular medical discipline, or a particular type of nurse or whatever —

then

section 21 of the act allows for these special circumstances. We

would expect it would be the exception rather than the rule.

MR. CLARK :

The minister said something interesting there. He said that whether or

not there is a skill shortage is beyond the commissioner's ability to

determine.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK : Okay. The minister is heckling at me that it's the employer's

job. This is an interesting question. Is it the commissioner's mandate

to look solely at the ability to pay, and those guidelines are for public sector

employers and unions to use to negotiate? But if the union and employer agree

that skill shortage should result in increased pay for certain people, that

productivity improvement should result in increased pay for certain other people

and that there's a pay equity program, that they will automatically be returned....

The commissioner has no mandate to review all of those arrangements. He really

only has a mandate to review whether in fact there is the ability to pay. It's

quite a distinction here. I'm trying to get at it.

[3:45]

If the union and the employer agree that there is a skill shortage

that should result in a mutually agreeable significant pay increase for

a certain group of employees, will the commissioner review the question

as to whether or not the public sector employer and employee are being

reasonable? Will the commissioner then review and say: "Is that a

reasonable argument that the union and employer are making with respect

to a skill shortage?" Does he have the power to review that question,

or does he simply look at the ability to pay, first and foremost, when

making a decision on a contract?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The argument may be reasonable and the case may be made, such as

the hon. member has pointed out, but he commissioner still has to be

convinced that the employer has an ability to pay or knows how to find

a way to increase its ability to pay. They have to find a way of

paying. They have to first of all make the argument to the commissioner

that, yes, there is a skill shortage; yes, we have done all of these

things; no, there is no other way of finding any other money; and it's

imperative that we have it. Then the commissioner could make a

recommendation that funding in certain specific cases may be increased.

would find that normally, I would think, to be the exception rather

than the rule. They would still have to make the argument that they

have an ability to pay, and they would have to have a plan to show the

commissioner they had that ability to pay. That's management. That's

not too much to expect of management.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Possibly both members would like to make their comments through the

Chair, which should then allow for the complete debate to enter into Hansard . Hansard

may not be picking up answers now that are coming from the other side

when you direct your comments to the other side. If you direct them

through the Chair, Hansard ....

MR. CLARK : No, no. They'll know, Mr. Chairman, who is answering and who is asking the question.

want to make it clear that the guidelines are more than

window-dressing. The guidelines themselves are subject.... The minister

comes back to this all the time. All of the nice language in the

guidelines that refers to pay equity and to bonuses for skill

shortages, and that says that more money may be forthcoming as a result

of productivity improvements, is subject to the overarching definition

in this clause of ability to pay. Therefore it's really rather

meaningless. The flexibility is within very tight bounds. It isn't that

you can have a pay equity program over and above a wage settlement

which might be the same as the private sector; any pay equity program,

any skill shortage argument, essentially comes out of the same pay

packet, so the rest of the employees would take less. That's essentially

[ Page

11809 ]

what the minister is saying. I'm glad he said it, because it's now clear for the record.

I'd like to move on a little bit in this section. Subsection 1(

b) defines ability to pay....

HON. MR. VEITCH : I'll answer your question.

MR. CLARK : Okay. I'll let the minister respond.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

As the public's ability to pay improves.... In other words, when the

private sector does better, when they're able to export their softwood

lumber, when the sawmill workers are back working in the sawmills, when

the loggers are back working in the forests, when people are back

repairing automobiles and doing all of the things that they do, the

public's ability to pay will increase. That will then be passed to the

public sector as well.

We're not going to continually

borrow and borrow like you would, hon. member. I want to make that very

clear. It's the ability to pay. The people out there who provide the

money for you and me and every other public servant have to have the

ability to pay. Some of them are hurting right now; many of them are

unemployed. They don't have the ability to pay. Everybody has to share

equally in this problem in order to find a solution. You agree with me,

don't you? That's very good. You're becoming a closet conservative; I

can see it right now.

MR. CLARK : The only problem

with the minister's remarks is that there is a whole set of guidelines

that refer to things like pay equity and say that we're going to exempt

pay equity from the wage controls. The government likes to make the

argument that we're going to exempt skill shortages from wage controls.

But the minister's last speech made the point, and made it very well:

essentially, this is the same as the previous legislation, the

compensation stabilization program; this is wage controls. All of the

stuff they put in the guidelines gives.... The minister says

"flexibility," but I would suggest from his remarks today that the

flexibility is extremely limited, subject to the ability to pay.

I'd

like, if I could, to move to the next question, which is how the

ability to pay is defined. It says in (a): "...any fiscal or financial

policies to which the public sector employer is subject...." What I

want the minister to confirm for me is that that means the government

can determine, through its policies, what the ability to pay is. In

other words, to take hospitals again, the government, through its

normal course of business, assigns a budget to a hospital. As I read

this, the government may say: "We believe hospitals should only get 4

percent more" — or, being generous, 10 percent more. That will

then constrain and give guidance to the commissioner in terms of his

interpretation of any agreements which arise out of it.

In other words, it could be — at least it seems to be contemplated by this —

that cabinet or the ministry can direct public sector employers, whether they

be hospitals, library boards or others, and, by their financial policies, give

guidance to the commissioner and therefore define for him at least a large measure

of the public's ability to pay. Is that correct?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. VEITCH :

On this very narrow point, as you well know, hospitals receive most of

the funding from the public purse in one way or another. Oh, they

receive some extra funding perhaps from Workers' Compensation cases,

ICBC cases, or people from other jurisdictions who have to pay

cash — sure. But by and large, where government pays the whole

shot, they ought to have some ability to control as well where that

money is spent, and this is the case in hospitals. But it isn't

necessarily true when it comes to certain types of Crown corporations.

They may find efficiencies of scale. They may find ways of increasing

their production or doing things more efficiently and thus increase

their ability to pay. And that should be shared with and passed on to

their workers. That's the difference between this bill and the previous

legislation. There is a flexibility within this act that did not exist

within the previous legislation.

MR. G. HANSON : I

can't resist the opportunity to say a few words on this section,

because as members know, the greater Victoria area has many public

employees, people who do good work on behalf of the citizens of the

province, keeping the Medical Services Plan going, working in

educational institutions, health, safety and all manner of projects.

And you know, Mr. Chairman, when we look in context, here we have the

twilight of a five-year mandate expiring, and now we have the revival

of a 1982 program that's being desperately resuscitated by Social

Credit who hope that their political fortunes somehow will turn upward.

What

I wanted to talk about, Mr. Chairman, is the narrowness of the

definition of ability to pay, because ability to pay is used by this

minister as the ability to pay our own public employees but was never

utilized for the public's ability to pay to clean up the Expo lands

after we got a poor deal from this cabinet in negotiating with Li

Ka-shing — the hundreds of millions of dollars involved to clean that up. We never once heard "ability to pay."

What

about the overruns on the Coquihalla? Did we ever hear from the cabinet

about the ability to pay and the ability of the province's citizens to

cover massive overruns?

Mr. Chairman, the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation — not

once in this session have I heard the cabinet on the Social Credit side

beating their chests about BCRIC. Does that minister still have his

five free shares? What about the citizens' ability to pay for that

massive boondoggle expenditure of funds down a very black hole? Some

people argued it was even in the wrong place.

So now, at

the twilight of an emerging provincial election we get a bill where you

look at the polls and say: "Who can we try and earn some political kudos

[ Page 11810 ]

on the backs of? Let's go to the old standby — our

own employees." You can't have it both ways, Mr. Minister. You can't on

the one hand say, "We've got great public employees doing wonderful

work for the province," and on the other hand make them the

whipping-persons for the next provincial election. That's a rather

foolish — and cowardly — way of doing the public's business.

when you're'talking about the people's ability to pay, you should talk

about restoring those Crown lands over at Expo to some kind of

health — all the toxic wastes and so on. The public has to pay.

Was the ability to pay taken into that equation when the sale of those

Expo lands was made, when the overruns of the Coquihalla and SkyTrain

were made, when there were massive public investments into BCRIC? Not

once was the term "ability to pay" ever used.

You know, the

failures of this government are not lauded in this assembly. We don't

hear about the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation anymore, and we

heard about it prior to previous elections. We heard about Expo lands

and so on, We don't hear about them anymore, because the province got a

poor deal. What was the people's ability to pay? Li Ka-shing is going

to make a billion dollars off that deal. Do you think the public had

the ability to absorb that, when we had an opportunity to generate

capital by longterm leases by selling those parcels in small pieces and

having a development that made sense? Instead there was a large block

sale where he recouped the amount that went back into the province in

no time and is now building his profit based on the citizens' own Crown

assets.

I'd like to ask you: where was the province's

ability to pay in the restoration of those Expo lands and the

rehabilitation of those lands? That's a specific question. Where was

that in the equation?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Well, the

first member for Victoria goes on in a whole long litany about ability

to pay and, of course, I hope you will allow me the same relevance — or lack of relevance — to this

section that is being afforded to that man.

You

know, your leader, the fellow who sits over there, who flies all over

this province at government expense, because you pool all of your

tickets, and doesn't do one whit of government business as he's not in

the government, isn't in the House half the time, doesn't have to abide

by the same rules as anybody else and is living right out of the public

trough, flying all over the place at....

[4:00]

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to ask that minister to come to order.

The Leader of the Opposition does the public business all over this

province and serves this province very well as Leader of the

Opposition, and is going to serve this province very well....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you, hon. member. I think we should bring the debate

back to the

section that we're dealing with:

section 1 of Bill 82. I was

listening to the debate when I was out for a moment and certainly anything could

be relevant if you stretched your imagination enough on this one. But I trust

that the minister was not impugning any motives; I'm sure he wasn't.

But let's just discuss

section 1 of Bill 82 and this particular portion

that seems to be most interesting to the largest number of people this afternoon,

and that is "ability to pay."

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Chairman, I'm not impugning any motives at all, and I realize that

this Legislature has the ability to pay the Leader of the Opposition,

when he has his snout in the public trough, flying all over this

province....

MR. CHAIRMAN . Hon. minister! Would you withdraw that most offensive

word, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Chairman, what do you want me to withdraw?

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Minister, what I'm trying....

HON. MR. VEITCH : Withdraw the phrase that "the Leader of the Opposition has his snout in the public trough"?

MR. CHAIRMAN . Yes, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Or "flying around at the people's expense"? Which one?

MR. CHAIRMAN : No, that was the one, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will withdraw "flying around at the people's expense."

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Minister, I'm sorry, that is not.... You understand what the Chair has

requested. It had nothing to do with "flying around at the people's

expense." It was this "government trough" and the use of the word

"snout."

HON. MR. VEITCH : Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN : That doesn't sound very parliamentary to me.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Sure. I'll withdraw "snout in the public trough" or anything else that offends the hon. members.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you. And we'll discuss "ability to pay."

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Ability to pay. We talked about ability to pay. The first member for

Victoria talked about the Coquihalla. He doesn't want the Coquihalla.

Does he know that traffic on the Coquihalla is up 78 percent this year

and that this is increasing the people of the province's ability to pay

in the interior?

[ Page

11811 ]

There are other places in this province outside Victoria and

Vancouver. We're building transportation systems all over this province

so that people will have ability to pay, to work and to move their

goods and services to the marketplace. You live in a very privileged

place, hon. member. You live in Victoria, right here in the capital

city where you have a very, very stable workforce. But there are some

people living in Omineca and Stewart, and maybe in Skookumchuck or

Prince George, who don't have the ability to pay more to the people you

represent. You see, there are other folks around this country other

than those who work for the public service in Victoria or in Vancouver.

What we're talking about here is the taxpayer — the private sector's ability to send money to government.

This

is not an opportunity to hammer public sector workers. All we are

asking them to do is to share in the wealth as the economy moves upward

and to bear some of the burden when it goes into those inevitable

valleys of recession that are caused mostly by the governments of

Ontario and Canada. That is what we're talking about here when we talk

about ability to pay. It's the public's ability to pay.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, this bill is not about economics or public

administration. It is about politics. This bill is a desperate attempt

by the Social Credit government to get another term in office. The

people of this province want a change. They want a change of

administration and orientation, and they want a more consultative

approach to doing business. Even the chairman and president of the

Business Council of B.C., Mr. Matkin, indicated that this type of

legislation is not required. What is required is consultation between

government, between business and employer groups and trade unions, to

work on a strategic plan to maximize the God-given resources and

benefits and talents of this province— not this type of legislation two

or three weeks prior to an election. The public can see through it; we

can see through it. We're not naive. The minister knows very well that

when he defines so narrowly "ability to pay" with respect to paying

nurses, teachers and people performing public services in the

Medical Services Plan, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and

all over this province....

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the minister that government employees — federal, provincial or municipal — work all through this province in all those

small communities you talked about. They plow their paycheques into those local

small businesses and communities. You're constantly trying to characterize

public sector workers in the way that Social Credit does — trying to earn political

epaulets on the backs of their own employees, who take an oath of office to

perform their duties fairly and honorably. They're duty bound. They can't

publicly fight back when you abuse them publicly with your rhetoric and political

propaganda. They can't stand up and fight back, because they've taken

an oath of office not to do so. Doesn't that seem to be

an act of cowardice,

when you constantly try to present that and win political points on the backs

of your own employees?

Mr. Chairman, in this

section and other sections, I'm asking that the minister

broaden his definition of "ability to pay" to mean.... What is the public

impact of having to come in and clean up behind Social Credit mismanagement

for the last four years of this administration and the last 16 years that the

public has had to endure?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, this is beginning to sound more and more like second

reading debate, and we're in committee stage of this bill. I wonder if

it might be in the interest of making some progress — if we could get agreement from both sides — to set

section 1 to one side and go on to another.

We'll

get through it? All right, then. We're still dealing with

section 1.

The Chair is just trying to facilitate the passage of this bill.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Chairman, the first member for Victoria talked about political

cowardice. He said that we were cowards because we were bringing in

this legislation. It takes a lot more courage to bring in tough

legislation and to face the heat of that in tough times than to go out

and borrow, borrow, borrow and spend the legacy of future generations.

are being fair to the public sector employees. This piece of

legislation is designed to be fair, to be equitable and to protect the

jobs of the public sector employees in the province of British Columbia.

MR. PETERSON :

Mr. Chairman, under this clause "ability to pay," I'd like to explore

for my own understanding the meaning of "relevant factors including,

but not limited to, (

a) any fiscal or financial policies to which the

public sector employer is subject...."

I wonder if the

minister could explain it to me. Let's use for an example a school

district which has negotiated a contract in which class size has been

negotiated. Let us say that the class size has been reduced by one.

That could have a significant impact on the total cost to that

particular school district, but a very insignificant impact on the

level of education that the students in that school district would

receive.

I'd like to know if that is taken into

consideration in this bill. I'd like to elaborate further, if I'm on

the right track. Perhaps the minister could respond.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The hon. member for Langley is absolutely correct: that would be taken

into consideration. He gave the example of reducing class size by one

pupil. It probably would have no significant effect whatsoever on the

level or value of education received in that particular school

district, but....

MR. CLARK : You're an expert in that too, eh? Did you get a mail order degree in education?

HON. MR. VEITCH : How would you like to dry up for about two minutes?

[ Page 11812 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH : You'll get your chance....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Let the debate continue.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Yes, the hon. member is exactly correct. If class size were left at a

consistent level or increased by one, that would increase the ability

to pay. There's no question about that. Those values and the amount of

money could be spread among the school district.

MR. PETERSON : Mr. Chairman, can I also ask, when you're dealing

with senior management levels — let's say municipal administrators, hospital

administrators, school district administrators — and if their wage increases

appear excessive.... Don't forget, when we're talking about percentages,

the percentage of $100,000 per annum in dollar amounts is, of course, a lot

greater than, for instance, a teacher who may be making $45,000 to $50,000

per annum. But if that has an effect relative to the ability of the particular

organization or government function, it would appear to me that by controlling

that, in this economy we're in now, it would allow us to hire more people

who actually get the job done, such as nurses, teachers and the people in the

front lines who really provide the services. It would appear to me that this

particular bill provides that ability. Am I correct in my

interpretation there?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Yes, the hon. member is indeed correct.

MR. PETERSON :

Having established that, I have a lot of difficulty with the tack the

opposition members are taking. What the government is trying to do is

provide services the taxpayers can afford, maintain those levels of

service and perhaps even improve them under a downside economy. That

appears to me to be a responsible action by a responsible government. I

cannot understand why the opposition is taking the tack in this debate

that they are.

One other thing I can't understand. I

couldn't help, when listening to the second member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.... That's going to a pretty low level of politics when you start

using individuals' names who may be faced with personal tragedies for

your own political purpose. I would really ask that the opposition

members try to show a little responsibility and perhaps some

sensitivity. If they want to deal with items like that, fair enough.

But really, to me that shows a pretty low level of responsibility.

[4:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS : I would like to question the minister under "ability to pay" —

the (

b) section. It says here, basically: "...taking into

account...factors including...the impact of increased costs on the

levels of public service." It seems to me that there may be a

contradiction here, and I would like to question the minister as to

whether the direction he's been going with his statements is really

what we are to understand as the public of British Columbia.

I understand it, the minister is saying that increased costs are bad,

because they mean less service. If you have to cut back, you have to

cut back, right? If costs are increased, you have a certain level....

You are capped at a certain place. That's what the minister has been

saying, as I understand it. The minister has been saying that there is

a cap on what you can do. Unless there are very exceptional situations,

he says that the ability to pay is going to limit what we have to do.

He says that as costs increase — this is the reason for the legislation — we have to limit the amount we spend and therefore might have to cut the level of public service.

Interestingly

enough, this phrase says that we must consider the impact of increased

costs on the levels of public service. If that's the case, we are

considering the downgrading, I suppose, of the level of public service.

Is that the object of the legislation?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The NDP and the hon. member for Kootenay are equating level of pay to

type of service. I don't think that if the Board of Internal Economy,

or whoever increases wages around here, doubled your wages, you'd do

any better than you are doing right now. We're not talking about

decreasing services. All we're saying is that the public has a finite

ability to pay.

We're in a bit of a recession. It's heading

our way, mostly caused by eastern Canada, but it's still heading on our

way. We're not selling our lumber the way we used to. Our revenues are

down. We all have to share in that. Is it too much to expect a public

servant — whether it be a teacher, a nurse, a caretaker in a

school or an instructor in a post-secondary institution who was

promised continuation of work, who won't be laid off no matter what

happens — to bear some of the burden that the poor person in

Omineca has to bear when their sawmill is shut down and they are out of

work, or when their wages drop in a small business because they're

unable to sell products to a community town because the mill is shut

down in that particular town? Is it too much to expect people in the

public service to share some of that burden? Are you going to say: "No,

I'm not going to share that burden at all; I'm just not going to work

as hard, because that guy over there won't pay me. He can't pay me;

he's out of work"? Now that makes no sense. It may be your line of

reasoning from the socialist side, but I'll tell you it isn't the line

of reasoning from the public service side.

Yes, I have

worked in the public service and in post-secondary education; yes, I

have two teachers in my family who work in education; and, yes, my wife

served on school boards for six years. So I do

[ Page

11813 ]

understand a little bit about how the education

system works in British Columbia. I'll tell you, the teachers are not

going to work less, they're not going to cut their levels of service,

and they're not going to be worse teachers if they don't get a 10

percent increase because the public can only afford to pay them 4

percent or 5 percent. That doesn't make any sense. It may in the

socialist mentality, but it doesn't in the overall scheme of British

Columbians.

Your argument won't wash with the public, hon.

member. It has never washed before, and it won't wash now. You're

trying to throw out that old scare tactic again that unless you

continually open up the doors of the treasury, unless you continually

borrow no matter what ability the public has to pay, that somehow or

other the people are going to rebel and not work and do their jobs.

That is just pure nonsense, and you know it.

MS. EDWARDS :

The minister says that there will be no difference, whether the costs

are greater or not. If you don't have greater salary or greater pay, it

makes no difference whatsoever. If that's the case, my question to the

minister — through you, Mr. Chair — is what the impact would

be of increased costs on the level of public service. If the minister

thinks there would be no difference in the level of public service,

this clause would obviously not be in the bill. The minister obviously

must assume that there will be some impact of increased costs — which we are experiencing and which is the reason for the legislation —

on the level of public service. This is what the minister is saying,

interestingly enough, that we want to consider. I'm not sure. My

question is: does the minister want the level of public service to go

down?

MS. A. HAGEN : Mr. Chairman, I want to move to another one of the

definitions

section 1, the all-inclusive definition of "compensation." So our

readers or viewers can follow the debate, it says: "'compensation' means all forms of pay, benefits and perquisites paid

or provided, directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of an employer or

to or for the benefit of an employee."

had some discussion a little while ago in this wide-ranging look at the

interpretive parts of the bill about the flexibility there is in the

legislation vis--vis what the minister has said is inclusive in the

bill. I'd like to ask the minister if this definition of compensation

means that where pay equity provisions are being dealt with, often

through job evaluations or reclassifications — that's one of the methods by which pay equity decisions are made —

this comes under the classification of compensation; whether on-the-job

training or employer payment for training courses, the kinds of things

that might in fact increase the productivity of workers and make them

better able to deal with the needs of the workplace are included in

compensation; whether some of the fundamental kinds of benefits that

are a part of a package — paid holidays and overtime — are included.

For example, are we going to say that when nurses are called in — as they often are —

to work overtime in order to staff a hospital operating room, art

intensive-care unit or a special ward, the overtime that is paid

becomes a part of that compensation package? Are we to look at the

increments that young teachers in the north and the interior receive as

they move through their compensation up to maximum salaries for

teachers? Are they going to be included? How does all of this in fact

impact on fairness and equity if, as this definition suggests,

everything under the sun that might be part of a collective agreement

can, at the discretion of the commissioner, be costed as a part of that

agreement?

HON. MR. VEITCH : It's not at the

discretion of the commissioner; it's clearly spelled out in both the

bill and the guidelines. Compensation refers to the broader definition

of compensation, rather than just plain basic wages, and it includes

benefits. If you look in the guidelines, you will see what it includes.

Section

14 of this bill states that in establishing compensation plans for the

public sector, ability to pay shall be given "paramount consideration."

The definition provides for a broad range of considerations as to what

factors may be included. "Compensation" defines the parameters of the

direct and indirect cost items to which the bill applies. The intent is

to capture all forms of compensation.

It's easy to say: "We

don't want any increase in hourly wages this year, but we're going to

take two months' holiday instead of one month's holiday." That costs

money in the total package, so it is part of the compensation. If an

individual receives increased insurance benefits or increased

retirement benefits, that's part of the compensation. All of the

factors that make up the total benefits a unit of employment receives

are taken into consideration when we define compensation — everything.

MS. A. HAGEN ; We're back, then, to the waterbed theory of compensation,

and the waterbed theory, I would submit, Mr. Minister, is not a very effective

way to implement public policy. This government is supposedly on record as stating

that it is going to take action on the matter of pay equity, but this legislation

appears to constrain any credibility for that commitment.

The

government is on record as stating that it will indeed ensure that

health care is maintained. in the health care sector, we know that

overtime is a very major, but not very attractive, means by which

hospitals manage to deal with nursing skill shortages. In fact, it's

the way they keep their operating rooms going. What the minister is

saying, according to the waterbed theory, is that when those matters

come into the scheme of things, they're either going to be ignored or

they're going to be dealt with at a cost to every worker in the system.

colleague from Kootenay is making a fair case that what we're talking

about is not the maintenance of the public service or, in fact, a

movement toward the implementation of the kinds of policies that

[ Page 11814 ]

would

enhance both the ability of workers to do their jobs and fairness

within the system. We are dealing with a government that's saying over

and over again: "We have our definition of an ability-to-pay argument;

we have our definition of what comes into compensation. Trust us" — later on when we come to guidelines —

"because in our executive council we will determine, according to the

situation at the time, how we're going to operate." I don't think, Mr.

Chairman, that the minister has provided us with the kind of technical

information we need to understand how these various clauses will indeed

be implemented.

"Compensation" just takes us back to the ability-to-pay argument and

the fact that the minister is talking about the waterbed envelope and saying

that everything will be captured regardless of the effect on the public service,

regardless of promises around public policy that this government proposes to

implement. That clearly means that the minister, if I might be so bold, is talking

out of both sides of his charming, grinning mouth.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I don't know, hon. member for New Westminster, what kind of waterbed

you sleep in; it must be a rather old type. You must have got up on the

wrong side of it this morning as well.

This bill does not restrain pay equity.

believe the hon. member is not listening, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I could

get her attention for a moment; I think she wants some answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. minister, would you please address the Chair, and not the member.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I see that I have now regained the hon. member for New Westminster's

attention and that I have her undivided attention while I explain to

her that.... By the way, while you were talking to the member for

Vancouver East I was saying that you must be sleeping in a rather old

waterbed and that you must have got up on the wrong side of it this

morning.

[4:30]

This does not restrain pay equity. All of the items you discuss will

be taken into consideration when the employer files the compensation

package with the commissioner. It does not restrain the ability to have

pay equity. As a matter of fact, there is flexibility in this bill for

pay equity; there is flexibility in this bill where we find that there

are skill shortages. There is tremendous flexibility, but in the final

analysis, all of those things have to be based on the taxpayers'

ability to send money to the government with which to pay the public

service. It's as straightforward as that.

MS. A. HAGEN : For years in this province women have been paid less than

men. For years in this province women have been earning 60-cent dollars. What

I hear the minister now saying is that in order for us to bring women into a

fair pay package, the people who are going to pay for that are all the rest

of the public sector workers — not all of us. Clearly, if we are dealing with

a compensation package including pay equity along with everything else, it appears

to me that there's no other conclusion we can reach. Equality for women

is something that we are now going to pay for out of the total compensation

package for public sector workers, and there are no dollars that are going to

be earmarked for that as distinct from other compensation benefits. That simply

means that the unfairness is going to continue.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I'll agree with the hon. member in one thing. There are still several

groups of individuals in the public service who are underpaid. This

government has introduced a policy that is second to none of any

government in Canada. On January 1 we put $12 million into the pockets

of those people who are underpaid in order to bring them up — to bring up their scales — so we can provide pay equity.

This

bill provides for pay equity. It can be addressed, wherever we need pay

equity, in the compensation package. The rest of the workers in the

system will not be affected by it.

This government has done

more to bring about pay equity than any other Social Credit government

or any other government in Canada at any point in history up until now,

including governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

MR. CHAIRMA: It might be advisable to get back to

section 1 and be

relevant in debate.

MR. CLARK : The minister said that the government has moved on pay equity.

Of course, before this restraint bill has been brought before the House....

Clearly, from your remarks and from the bill, compensation is defined as all

forms of pay benefits and perks paid or provided directly or indirectly by the

provincial government. Therefore anything that's decided from the date of

this bill — January 30, or before that, according to the bill, but assuming from

the Premier's speech.... Any pay equity agreement agreed to by a public

sector employer and employee must be included as part of the compensation in

what will be a compensation plan.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK : The minister is agreeing with me, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Kind of agreeing.

MR. CLARK : Maybe he could....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. members, you should probably direct your remarks to the Chair. The

minister then would get up after your conclusion and make his comments;

in which case, as I indicated earlier, we would have them in Hansard and you wouldn't have to repeat them.

[ Page

11815 ]

MR. CLARK : Perhaps the minister could then, for the record,

agree with me that any pay equity agreement entered into, from the date

of the Premier's speech to today or beyond, that would be covered by

this bill must be included as part of the compensation listed in the

compensation plan to be reviewed by the compensation commissioner. Is

that correct?

HON. MR. VEITCH : The answer is yes.

MR. CLARK . The point is that the compensation plan and the ability of

the public sector employer to pay that compensation plan will be adjudicated

by the compensation commissioner. Pay equity, which costs money, will become

part of that compensation. The ability to pay of that public sector employer

will be reduced by the amount paid out in a pay equity program, and therefore

my colleague from New Westminster is absolutely correct: other employees may

have to take less, and other services may have to be cut.

The

minister has tried to say before the House, for political purposes,

that pay equity is exempt. In fact, it's not at all exempt. It's

absolutely clear from this definition of compensation that those pay

equity agreements must be included in the compensation plan that will

inevitably impact on the ability of the public sector employer to pay

wages to other employees. Is that correct?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

No, it's not correct. It's not true at all. Pay equity does not come

out of the agreement. It forms part of the compensation plan. It's all

part of the ability to pay. If a public sector employer does not have

the ability to pay— we'll have to go back over this one again, I can see —

they must look to find efficiencies or ways of improving their

operation; try to find some other way of improving their ability to

pay. Or indeed, if it's a case of skill shortages or some other areas

and they have exhausted all remedies, they would then come to the

commissioner with a plan and say, "We do not have this extra ability to

pay," and that will be taken into consideration. But it all forms part

of the ability to pay. It is not true that it comes out of the plan; it

is included in the total compensation plan.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Chairman, the minister is trying to argue a question

of semantics. The reality is.... Let's get this right. A public sector employer

agrees with its employees on a pay equity program. That means there is less

money for that employer to negotiate a collective agreement for all of the other

employees, including those employees who benefited by the pay equity plan. The

employer can use as an argument with the compensation commissioner that it does

not have the ability to pay certain wage increases because it has used up the

money in a pay equity program.

Very

clearly, Mr. Chairman, that's what this says. It says the public sector

employer can use the argument that it does not have the ability to pay

certain wage increases — maybe the prevailing rate — because

it has used up available funds in a pay equity program. Therefore it

comes out of the same envelope. Pay equity is not exempted by this

legislation, as you would have us believe. There's no reference to pay

equity, I might add, in the legislation — none whatsoever.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK : Maybe the minister could advise the House what

section of the bill deals with pay equity.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The Chair concurs in that and wonders why for the last half-hour we

have been discussing pay equity under

section 1, when it's not in

section 1. If we could get the debate onto

section 1, we may be able to

advance the bill.

HON. MR. VEITCH : We appear to be

debating the guidelines along with the bill. It's included in the

guidelines, which were filed with all members of the House when the

bill was filed, and the second member for Vancouver East understands

that.

I would think that any prudent public sector

employer, before going about increasing wages, or negotiating a wage

increase or — as the hon. member for New Westminster says — a

total compensation increase, would check its ability to pay. I would

say it would be irresponsible for a public sector employer, be it a

school board or anyone else, to negotiate a 7 or 8 percent increase in

teachers' salaries while knowing that it has only a 4 percent ability

to pay. Where do they think the rest of the money is coming from? This

is what this thing is all about. It's to keep public sector wages in

line with the private sector, and when the private sector produces more

wealth the public sector will get more wealth.

I think

that's eminently fair. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with this. I see

nothing wrong with people whose jobs are by and large protected having

to bear some of the burden in hard times and share some of that with

people whose jobs are not often protected, in the forest industry and

in certain types of industry or in other areas.

It's all

tied to ability to pay, and any prudent employers would check their

entities' ability to pay before signing labour agreements, I should

think.

MR. SIHOTA : Using the