1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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)

FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7589 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

section 9 –– 7589

Mr. King

Mr. Barber

Mr. Brummet

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mussallem,

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1892

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, it's a rare privilege for me today as the member for North

Okanagan to welcome to the House Rev. John Van Gulick, the Minister for

Trinity United Church, Vernon, B.C., who shared his thoughts and

blessing with us today. It's his first experience here, and I'd ask the

House to extend a very warm welcome.

I would also like you

to know that the churches are on the move in Vernon, because we have 12

students with their chaperones from the Vernon Christian School. The

students are: Becky Van Steensel, Diane Van Steensel, Joane Hooysma,

Robin Friedricks, Jeff Deters, Gail Worley, Arrissa Stel, Kelly

Kranenborg, Larry Plug, Alec Kolesnichenko, Hugh Vanderveen and Rosalie

Hoogendoom. They are with their chaperones, Rev. and Mrs. Plug and Mr.

John Hanson. This also is the first time that these students have

visited Victoria and the Legislature. I'd ask the House to extend a

very warm welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this a

day for United Church ministers. I have the pleasure of introducing to

the House a United Church minister from Kimberley, Rev. Don Duff, who

is coincidentally the New Democratic Party candidate for Columbia

River, I ask the House to welcome him.

MR. STRACHAN:

I'd ask all members to welcome Mr. Arie Van Leyenhorst, who is with

nine grade 10 students from Lakewood Junior Secondary School in Prince

George. Would the House please welcome these students.

MR. REE:

Later this morning we will be visited by a class of 26 grade 7 students

from the Upper Lynn Elementary School in North Vancouver. They are

under the guidance of Mr. Colin Nelson. On behalf of my colleague the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), I would the ask the

House to acknowledge their presence.

Yesterday, May 13, was

the seventy-fifth birthday of the city of North Vancouver. They are

conducting gala celebrations, which commenced yesterday, for the rest

of this week. I would ask this House to wish them a belated happy

birthday.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Touring the buildings

today is a group of ten Girl Guides from the First Willoughby Guide

Company in Langley with their group leader, Mrs. D. Bilodeau. I would

like the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 28.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 9.

MR. KING:

The Minister of Finance has had a good night's sleep, I trust, and

perhaps will be a bit more forthcoming in terms of answering some of

the questions we have for him on this particular section. I would like

to start off with a very easy question for the minister. Can the

minister tell the House whether or not the regulations which will be

promulgated under this

section will override any arbitrated settlement

in the public sector?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke refers to regulations. I take it that he means

guidelines, as in

section 9. As I've said on a number of occasions, the

guidelines are voluntary. That fundamental point was made when the

program was first announced in February, in second reading and on a

number of occasions in committee during debate of this section. These

guidelines are voluntary and flexible in their application. It is only

upon failure to observe them that we would move to the other side of

the program — that is, the legally binding compensation regulations.

Again, Mr. Chairman, we're on

section 9 in committee.

MR. KING:

I appreciate the minister's response. I'm not sure he quite understood

my question. I assumed that the guidelines provided for in

section 9

will be issued in the form of regulations. If that is not the case,

then how can people at the bargaining table, either on the management

side or the trade union side, know the parameters within which they are

expected to bargain collectively?

It may be instructive for

the minister to know that the chairman of Hospital Labour Relations,

Mr. McAllister, chief negotiator for the management side in the health

industry, has already indicated his confusion as to what the parameters

are for collective bargaining this year. Certainly if those people at

the bargaining table are confused, then it is going to render

impossible any opportunity for voluntary agreements. It's not good

enough to say that these are voluntary regulations under this

section

if they are backed up, as the minister indicated, by a big stick

wielded by the commissioner under this act. In other words, go ahead

and bargain collectively, but down the road, under this particular

bill, there is authority vested in the commissioner, Mr. Ed Peck, to

alter the agreement that the parties negotiated in good faith.

If there is going to be voluntary compliance, obviously the parties

to the collective bargaining have to know what the parameters are, and

therefore we have to know if any arbitrated settlement would be subject

to alteration by the commissioner. I'm not suggesting the commissioner

will be involved in the arbitration; I'm suggesting there may be a wage

settlement accomplished by the process of compulsory arbitration that

is provided for in the laws relating to a variety of public-sector

unions. I'm asking this simple question: will that arbitrated

settlement then be subject to alteration by the commissioner if the

regulations here, whatever they may be, are exceeded?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think it's important to point out to the committee, again, that from the outset.... While

[ Page 7590 ]

reference

has been made on a number of occasions by both sides in this debate, an

announcement was made by the Premier of the province on February 18.

Since that time a variety of material has been issued. I don't have one

immediately at hand, but there are compensation bulletins. I alluded

yesterday to the material we sought from interested British Columbians

as individuals or groups, and I think it's important to be reminded of

that. I would direct the member to the bulletins that have been issued

in anticipation of this legislation's being approved by the committee

and the House. I think the answer is well known to all who are

interested in this process.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might

point out to the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, without trying to

frustrate debate on

section 9, and realizing his concern, that

section

15 does deal with the commissioner.

MR. KING: I

appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but the sections are interrelated;

unless this program is to be totally uncoordinated, one

section has to

relate to another to some degree. However, my primary interest is in

section 9.

The minister has indicated that the opposition

should have a look at the bulletins issued before the introduction of

the bill, and I find that a most curious suggestion by the minister.

The bulletins that were issued have no legal status whatsoever. They

were simply informational bulletins, many of which contained

conflicting information. It appeared from those bulletins that the

government were attempting, through their bureaucrats, to develop

policy by the seat of their pants, on the basis of the Premier's

television announcement.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they lost their trousers.

MR. KING:

I think they have indeed lost their trousers, my friend. They're coming

out in a total state of confusion, to the extent that one of the main

employer bargaining units has said: "Look, we're confused. We don't

know what the parameters for bargaining are, because there was conflict

between the bulletins the minister refers to and the statute now before

the House for debate." Additionally, Mr. Chairman, there was great

conflict in the statements of policy issued by the Premier, which are

given effect by this statute; they are at great variance. The House is

at a disadvantage until we can learn which of the Premier's statements

are operative at this time.

Mr. Chairman, on February 18 he

said that the guideline was basically 10 percent with additional

flexibility provided for historic relationships and for productivity ––

2 percent each — providing for a maximum increase of 14 percent. That

was clear and unequivocal, whether one disagrees or not. At least the

guidelines were clear. But the Premier then introduced a change in

policy by stating just a few days ago that the level was 5 percent and

in some cases less, and indeed in some cases there would be no increase

at all but rather a cut. On the basis of that statement, it's not only

the opposition that is confused — the minister himself is confused, and

the people at the bargaining table are confused. The government, in its

confused state, should not ask the opposition to buy a pig in a poke.

We have a right to know what the standards are which will be set under

this particular section. Is it in accordance with the Premier's

statement of February 18, or is his last statement operative? Which one

of the Premier's statements was true, and which one was false? That's

what we must know.

MR. BARRETT: Ask Richard Nixon.

MR. KING: There appears to be an 18-minute gap in the tape. Which statement is operative?

The

minister who has custody of this bill apparently cannot answer the most

rudimentary questions about this bill. I suggest to him that if he is —

not competent to answer valid questions about the effectiveness and the

application in law of this particular bill, then he should either

withdraw the bill or turn it over to one of his colleagues who may have

the competence to explain it and to pilot it through the House with

some intelligence.

There's a very simple premise here, Mr.

Chairman. There are three groups in the public sector in this province

which have the unilateral right to opt for compulsory binding

arbitration; they are hospital workers, police and firefighters. One of

our interests is to learn if, in the event that they opt for compulsory

binding arbitration without knowing what the guidelines are.... Just

for an example, say their arbitrated settlement, compulsorily given,

were 15 percent. We're asking the Minister of Finance: does his statute

then override and render null and void the effect of that compulsory

arbitration? That's a very simple question, but it's one that has great

relevance in terms of this particular section. If the Minister of

Finance can't answer that simple question, I suggest that he withdraw

this bill until he gets his act together.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm making this introduction on behalf of the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) who is unavoidably detained today. I would like to introduce

the students from Booth Memorial Junior Secondary School to the House

today. They're in the gallery at the moment with their teachers, Darryl

Andersen and Kathy Gammon. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. BARBER:

One of the traditional criticisms that Social Credit has levelled

against the principle of rent control is that when you set a ceiling,

it becomes the floor. When, for instance, you say in rent controls that

the maximum allowable is 10 percent, then no one charges 8 percent;

they all charge 10 percent. Let's for a moment accept that that's a

fair criticism of a program that sets a percentage maximum increase

that may be awarded to one partner in a contract. Sure enough, the 10

percent you set on rent controls becomes the only figure that applies.

we accept that as a fair criticism, is it not also fair to ask about

the Premier's statement of the 10, 12 and 14 percent relationships? The

Premier may have thought on February 18 when he said; "Let me use the

figure 10 percent by way of example," that that would be considered

only a ceiling, and that there would be some unstated floor below that.

The problem with the Premier's judgment is that that's contrary to

human nature. The same party that suggested the problem with rent

controls is that when you set 10 percent that becomes the rule.... If

you can accept that argument, you

[ Page

7591 ]

must then also accept the argument and criticism implicit in what went wrong

with the Premier's statement of February 18.

What

went wrong is that it appears he believed that by naming the 10 percent

figure, people would presume that was only a ceiling and not a floor.

He discovered within two months that hospitals were shutting down beds,

schools were laying off teachers and social service programs for the

handicapped and retarded were laying off personnel in order to meet

budget cutbacks. They did not view the 10 percent figure as anything

other than that which was to be awarded — and more may be awarded on

top of that.

I guess the same problem now pertains to our

debate of this section. Rent controls, admittedly, ended up seeing the

10 percent as the constant. The Premier's statement of February 18 has

ended up being perceived as a statement that 10 percent would be the

constant, and that no one would get less than that, and people might in

fact get more — 12 percent and 14 percent. After that statement of

February 18 was made the Premier discovered that it was taken the wrong

way. He discovered, it would seem, that people didn't see that as a

ceiling at all, but as simultaneously floor and ceiling. He then came

into the House 72 hours ago and made another speech and in the corridor

subsequently yet another speech, during the course of which it was very

obvious that the Premier was beginning to try very hard to backpedal.

They've discovered that they're in the kind of fiscal box whose outcome

will presumably jeopardize some of the expenditure plans of this

government, and clearly will jeopardize some of its political plans as

well.

If the Premier hoped that his February 18 announcement

of wage controls would not result in layoffs and in the shutdowns of

hospitals, and if he hoped it would not result in major public

criticism of those shutdowns of hospitals and of the clear decline and

deterioration of health care, then he wasted his time. I suspect that

because of the ill-considered approach taken in the announcement of

February 18, the Premier was forced to start backtracking just 72 hours

ago; thus, it is hoped by the Premier, the statements of 10, 12 and 14

percent are no longer entirely operative. Rather, he is now attempting

to enforce his original intent by making what is a completely different

statement. Ordinarily the law would be the statement, would provide the

guideline. In most jurisdictions the law we now have on the table and

which we have been debating for the last three sittings would provide a

sufficient answer as to the real policy of the government, but in this

case the law does not.

Section 9 provides no information as to what the

bargaining guidelines are.

The gentleman who just spoke —

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke — is arguably possessed of the finest

reputation any minister of labour ever enjoyed in this province. He was

the primary author of the Labour Code of British Columbia and of

related statutes, which have, I think, been viewed by many people in

the field of the North American labour management climate as

authentically superb pieces of work and achievement. The Labour Code of

British Columbia has been copied — more than in part but considerably

in whole — by many other jurisdictions. The gentleman who just spoke is

more than demonstrably an authority on how to define, obtain and

sustain a competent and mature labour management collective bargaining

atmosphere; he is virtually indisputably acknowledged as one of the

fundamental experts in the field of British Columbia labour law.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On a point of order, if we are going to discuss or debate the Labour

Code I would like some time to prepare and perhaps participate in the

debate. This is way off the topic.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Standing order 61 says that speeches in the committee of the House must

be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. I would

ask that all members be relevant in speaking to

section 9, the

section

we are dealing with now.

MR. BARBER:

Section 9 has

the practical consequence of altering the spirit and considerably the

format of collective bargaining in British Columbia. There is no

dispute about that. That is obviously the purpose. If there were no

such purpose there would be no such bill. That much should be logical

and obvious even, I think, to a Socred. Precisely because the

government proposes to change the tools, the systems, the instruments,

the perceptions and the climate of collective bargaining between the

government and its employees, it is appropriate to consider for a

moment the advice offered by my colleague, the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, formerly a minister of labour in the government of

British Columbia. He is a man who has, if I may say it again — it

doesn't need repetition; it is self-evidently true — a superb

reputation as an outstanding minister of labour to have served in this

province. The questions he has asked are legitimate and fair and they

derive from the practical experience of a highly successful

administrator of public law and public policy. That policy is being

amended by this

section and that concerns us.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Was it him or was it Kinnaird?

MR. BARBER: Bill, come on, behave.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

That

climate, that system, is being amended in a very significant way by

this section. Were it not so, there would be no bill before us. We are

concerned that this government, in the haste of its announcement of

February 18, and in the problems associated with the backpedalling the

Premier has had to do starting three days ago, may not be fully aware

of what they are doing to the climate and to the system of collective

bargaining in this province. They propose a new system that will last

24 consecutive months governing any particular contract. The actual

calendar period of that whole governance may be as much as 48 months.

But that doesn't apply to the contract; that applies to the program.

This bill does not have a sunset clause in the sense that the bill

itself expires automatically at some time in the future. But given the

step-in and step-out provisions found in the 24 consecutive month

feature of the bill, it may well be here for some four years as a fact

of life in the collective bargaining climate of British Columbia.

Facts

of life in collective bargaining that endure for four years can have a

permanent effect. It's not like introducing a policy one day and

abandoning it four days later. This is a policy that may be around at

least four years and have a very profound impact on the new

architecture of labour management relations that was designed and had

prospered during the period of the New Democrat administration, and

which

[ Page 7592 ]

has

been maintained more or less without change. There will be some

changes, admittedly, and we've protested those, but it has been

fundamentally without basic change since the coalition came back to power in 1975.

don't know that the government really understands the consequences of

such a major change to that architecture. The Labour Code of British

Columbia works. It is respected. It is competent. It is provably

successful, and it is being impaired by this section.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On a point of order, on one occasion this morning and again now I think

it is important to observe that I didn't design the rules of this

committee or this House, nor did the member who has just taken his

seat. We are dealing particularly with

section 9 of Bill 28. The

hurried reference to

section 9, as the member concludes remarks which I

view as quite apart from

section 9, should not be sufficient to permit

the broad debate which more properly belonged, by the rules of this

House, in second reading.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member

makes a good point of order. I would commend all members to our

standing orders again. We sometimes seem to forget that speeches in

Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or

clause under consideration.

MR. KING: On a point of

order, I just want to point out that this

section is particularly

vague. In debating this

section surely members are entitled to forecast

and speculate on what the possible consequences of this particular

section would be. I think the first member for Victoria's remarks were

totally relevant to what our predicted consequences of this

section of

the bill would be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I

would commend to all members the wording of our standing orders, which

say, "strictly relevant." I'm sure that all members can bear that in

mind in their deliberations.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, with leave of the House may I introduce a group of students?

Leave granted.

MRS. DAILLY:

There is a group of students with their teacher Mr. Begg visiting the

House from Lochdale Community School. I welcome them here on behalf of

the House.

MR. BARBER:

Section 9 would allow the

executive council — which, for the benefit of the gallery, is the

cabinet — to issue compensation stabilization guidelines and to

stabilize the compensation plans of the public-sector employers and

public sector employees. That's what it does. It doesn't tell us how

those guidelines will be developed and, in particular, it does not

advise us of the fiscal restraints that the government proposes to

establish. I don't think it's irrelevant to ask what that deliberate

omission might do to a mature sophisticated and competent climate of

labour management; relations and free collective bargaining.

fully agree, Mr. Chairman, that we're not here to debate the Labour

Code of British Columbia; we are here in some measure to protect it

because it works. We're here to protect it because it's fair. We're

here to protect it because it is the law of the province, and it is

clearly being impaired by virtue of this section. I think that's a

legitimate debate. We're not debating the Labour Code of British

Columbia, but we are trying to guarantee its integrity. That integrity,

I think, is being undermined by this section.

There are some

students in the gallery, so let me offer another kind of illustration,

Mr. Chairman. You guys are required to pass. If you don't, you get in

trouble; you get kicked in the butt, you don't get the job you want and

you don't do what you want to do. Imagine what would happen if students

were told by a teacher at the beginning of the year that some of you

were going to get As, some of you were going to get Bs and some of you

were going to get Cs. You ask the teacher: "What do I have to do to get

an A?" The teacher says to you: "I won't tell you." You say: "Well,

what if I only want a B?" The teacher says: "I can't tell you how

you're going to get that either. "What if I'm going to be satisfied

with a C?" Once again the teacher refuses to advise how you are going

to be graded. You would not, I guess, think that was very fair. You

might believe you were entitled to know the rules so that according to

your own ability, your imagination, your skill, your intellect and your

energy you could go ahead and shoot for the highest that you wanted to

shoot for, as best you could.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What a ridiculous example! It doesn't make sense.

MR. BARBER: Bill, please behave yourself.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I hope you are aware that the people who are interrupting are Socreds.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I caution the member — and it has been brought to the

member's attention before — that in this House we address the Chair,

and under no circumstances whatsoever do we address our remarks to any

place other than the floor of this House. I would bring that most

strongly to the member's attention, and I hope for the last time.

At the same time I would advise other members that interruptions during debate are not permitted.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, let's pretend you're still in school — you, personally, as

you may well be after the next election. I don't know. Let's pretend

that the teacher says at the beginning of the year that you might get

an A, B, or a C. You go to the teacher and you say: "How do I qualify

for an A? How do I get that?" The teacher says: "I'm not going to tell

you; go away." You ask for a B, or you ask for a C, and once again the

teacher says: "Sorry, you are not entitled to know." You go to the rule

book and you try to find out how the teacher decides this thing, and

sure enough there's nothing in the rule book. All it says is that the

teacher may issue grades. It doesn't say how, or under what

circumstance. It doesn't describe the conditions, terms of reference or

the criteria of any basis whatever. It simply says the teacher may

issue guidelines.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's a passing mark?

MR. BARBER: What's a passing mark, sure.

[ Page 7593 ]

might say, for instance, the teacher shall issue education

stabilization guidelines to govern the education plans of the students

in Lochdale Community School. If you were one of the students you might

find that in the book. Well, if you were still a student, I think you

would find that unfair, unjust and unwise. If you're a student you are

entitled to know what the rules are; you're entitled to know how to get

the best grade you can and to shoot for that grade. That's fair. That's

a good public policy.

What are public servants entitled to,

Mr. Chairman — any less than students? Well, I don't think so. They're

entitled to know what the rules are. They're entitled to know how to

get the 10, 12, or the 14. They're entitled to know that, because

they're citizens and it is their right. They're entitled to know that

because they're hard-working employees and that is their entitlement.

They're entitled to know because it's a simple question of fair play.

This government refuses to say, and this

section doesn't answer and

neither does the Minister of Finance.

A teacher who refused

to answer would with any luck be hauled up before the superintendent of

schools for that district, because that teacher would be provably

incompetent. He would not be able to explain, and apparently not be

willing to explain, the criteria upon which he grades, and that's a

mark of incompetence. Any teacher who knows so little, or cares so

little, that he cannot be held accountable for his grading policy

deserves to get the boot. Similarly, Mr. Chairman, we feel that any

government which refuses to be held accountable for its compensation

policies also deserves to get the boot. The parallel is clear, simple,

easy and pretty understandable, even for those guys. The parallel is

obvious, and it has to do with the basic question of fairness. Is it

fair, Mr. Chairman, for the Premier on February 18 to stand up and say:

"Well, you can get 10 percent under some conditions, 12 under others,

and 14 yet again under more conditions, some of which are tied to

productivity"? How you measure productivity in a hospital I don't know.

Does that mean how many sick people you admit, or how many healthy

people you discharge? Maybe the maternity ward is the way to do it. But

that's usually decided elsewhere too. Gosh, I hope the government

doesn't interfere in that. They've screwed up enough things.

Mr.

Chairman, those guidelines are clearly arbitrary and measurably

artificial. The problem with that has been compounded by the

backtracking statement of the Premier three days ago. The public

service had enough difficulty, in the first place, understanding what

the 10, 12 and 14 percent rules were, just as students would have

difficulty understanding how to get an A, B or C unless they knew what

the rules were. But now the Premier has come storming in and said,

"Well, what I really meant was this, and began introducing some rubbish

about 5 percent or less or nothing."

Let's go back to the

parallel again, Mr. Chairman. You're a student in a school, and the

teacher has said a little bit about how you get an A, B or C. Then what

happens? The door comes smashing down, all the windows break, and the

principal storms in and says: "No, it ain't so. Here are the new rules,

kids." The principal stands there and flails about, like a windmill on

fire, and embarrasses the heck out of the teacher, and he says: "No.

What I really meant was that you can only get Ds and Es, and this is

how." Then he storms out again, breaking more windows.

That

is what's happened in this instance. It's obviously difficult for the

government to explain how they can sustain two contrary policies at the

same time. You can do that in the schizophrenic ward of a mental

hospital, I guess, but you can't do that in the Legislature of British

Columbia. It's not intellectually honest, it's not politically wise,

and it's certainly not good public administration.

They

propose a new system, a new scheme. We've had some experience before

with the new schemes of Social Credit — referring to them only in

passing, Mr. Chairman. I would remind the committee that this is the

government that cooked up the Ministry of Deregulation — and that's the

only reference I'll make to it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, on a point of order, I appreciate that the first member for

Victoria believes that the rules should apply to some but not to all. I

would draw your attention to standing order 61(2). It is not my rule,

Mr. Chairman; it is a rule established years ago and adhered to by most

members in their time in this House and in committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The minister makes a valid point of order. The member speaking will,

I'm sure, adhere to standing order 61(2), particularly the "strictly

relevant" phrase thereof.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I'm familiar with that. I've been here almost seven years,

and I have some experience with what is permissible in committee. I

appreciate the advice of the Chair. It is always permissible to draw

useful parallels. It's always permissible to ask the government whether

or not what they propose to do is practical — whether or not

section 9,

if implemented, is actually a practical feat. We're not sure it is, on

three counts.

First, there is the record of incompetence of

Social Credit. They're a very inept government, but I won't refer again

to the Ministry of Deregulation. Secondly, another reason we're

concerned as to the practicality of this section, were it to become

law, is that it is highly confusing in its present form. It's confusing

because the Premier said 10, 12 and 14, without releasing what the

rules were or how public servants could obtain those proposed

reimbursements. Then three days ago the Premier stormed in, like a

principal in a high school, and said that maybe some other rules apply,

and it might be 5 percent, a little more or a little less or nothing at

all. That's the second concern we have about this section. The third is

that regardless of those first two, which are legitimate concerns, the

policy is fundamentally unfair. It's simply unfair. An unfair policy is

never a wise policy, because it always falls apart in the long run.

British Columbians are fair people: they know what's just; they know

what's even-handed. They know what they don't like when they see

something unjust and not even-handed. On that basis, it lacks

practicality.

A fundamental test of public policy is whether

or not it's practical. The law is often not a good means of expressing

the ideal human condition. We have to deal with practical things.

Section 9 proposes to establish a practical method, whereby the

government, without indicating what its real intentions are, shall be

granted authority by this Legislature to issue, as they put it,

compensation stabilization guidelines. In short, that means how much

they and the people who act on their behalf in public agencies, Crown

corporations and so on are prepared to pay. That money comes out of the

public purse. The people who pay the money — which is not the

government; the government doesn't have money of its own; it only

[ Page 7594 ]

gets money from other people are entitled to ask what is going to be paid on their behalf to the people who work for all of us.

The

three criticisms still stand, and the minister has not yet been dealing

in a rational way with any of them. He's tried to deal with them in a

political way, but not very successfully. If he were winning this

debate, I give you my word, Mr. Chairman, the opposition would have

ended it some time ago, and we would be happy to move on to something a

little more prosperous for the official opposition. But we're well

aware that although we don't always win the votes, we can certainly win

the debates. We're absolutely persuaded that we may well lose the vote

but win this debate in the minds of the people of British Columbia,

because they, too, are fair, and they know what can work and what can't

work. You cannot expect collective bargaining to work when the Premier

says something on February 18 of fundamental importance to the

compensation strategy of the government, when he said something else

three days ago and when the law itself says nothing at all. You can't

expect that to work, Mr. Chairman. It's just not going to.

The

vagueness of this

section is objectionable to fair-minded people and to

people who are demonstrably expert in the field of labour-management

relations. The vagueness in this

section is clearly offensive to a

large group of our citizens: public employees, who work pretty hard.

I've got a lot of them in my own riding, and I'm proud to stand here

and try to advocate their interest and to put forward their point of

view. I have yet to meet one of them who thinks this section, or any

other feature of the bill, is fair to them — I haven't met one. Now

maybe there are some out there. The minister says there are; he has yet

to offer any evidence that that's true. I can offer evidence — names,

addresses, letters, phone calls. I've got a lot of evidence of public

servants who are dissatisfied with the unfairness, the arbitrariness

and the vagueness of this

section and the policy which that

section

would put into law. The minister offers no such proof and — believe it

or not — he, too, represents a riding that has a great many public

servants in it. He has a dual obligation: he has an obligation to his

own constituents who work for the Crown and he has an obligation to the

government that acts for the Crown. If this policy were rational, it

would be easier for him to reconcile the differences between those two

interests, but the policy is fundamentally not rational and therefore

the problem of reconciliation becomes pretty desperate.

The

minister has not given rational replies to our questions. He's tried to

give political replies, and he has not succeeded. He reads the papers,

as we do; he listens to the radio and watches TV, as we do, and he

knows full well that the media also are questioning in an increasingly

angry way the refusal of this minister and the policy of his government

to answer the simple questions which I put again now and hope again now

he will answer: how do we reconcile the statements of the Premier on

February 18 regarding 10, 12 and 14 as the percentage system for

awarding pay increases to public servants with the statements made by

the Premier three days ago when he first introduced the figure of 5

percent and when he indicated quite clearly that there may, in fact, be

some employees who will be entitled to no wage increase whatsoever,

during a period when inflation is running at between 12 percent and

14.5 percent, depending on how you measure it.

The Premier

didn't tell MLAs that they would be entitled to no wage increase

whatsoever; we're going to be rolled back partly, and that's fair — I

don't object to that at all. But the Premier did say it was quite clear

that some unnamed employees — obviously not members of this Legislature

— who also work on behalf of the Crown just might face an increase of

zero this year. He didn't indicate who they were, but that's a pretty

heavy threat to offer up to a lot of unnamed people who wonder whether

or not they are the intended victims.

So we ask again, Mr.

Chairman, which rules apply: 10 percent, 12 percent or 14 percent as of

three months ago, or 5 percent — a little more, a little less or

nothing — as of three days ago? The

section before us doesn't answer

it, and the minister before us hasn't answered it. So we'll try again

and ask him again.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman,

this has been my first opportunity to rise other than on a point of

order a couple of times since the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King) made his observations. It's the nature of this place that in his

remarks and on other earlier occasions my competence to speak to this

bill or to pilot this bill has been questioned. So be it. That's fair

comment by that side of the House, if that's the way they feel they

have to attack the legislation. I would point out, however, Mr.

Chairman, that all members of this committee, as I understand our

procedures, should come to this House understanding a bill, prepared to

ask questions with respect to points where the bill may be somewhat

vague, or where a particular

section is not providing all the

information which might be required by a member to vote rationally and

in an informed way. However, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke asked

about arbitration awards. Mr. Chairman, we will have an opportunity to

discuss that in this committee when we arrive at another section, and I

refer you to

section 29. It is not in

section 9; it is in

section 29.

I'm sure we will have an opportunity in a week, two weeks or three

weeks from now, or however long it takes the committee to reach that

particular point, for me to respond to questions that deal with that

section. Similarly, Mr. Chairman, in answer to another question with

respect to compensation regulations, I refer the Chair and members of

the committee to

section 17, which is

part 3 of the bill, on page 6. It

is not

section 9, the

section before us.

Mr. Chairman,

through you to the member, you may question my competence, but in my

view you've shown a significant lack of understanding of the bill by

asking questions which you know are not covered by this particular

section.

With regard to the questions that have been posed

on a number of occasions with respect to what the Premier of the

province of British Columbia has said regarding this program and this

legislation, in spite of interjections, which were most vocal yesterday

and which deal with

section 9, I would refer members of the committee

to the comments that I made at the outset of the opening remarks at

second reading. That may not be sufficient for their purposes, but for

members opposite to infer or imply that I have not commented in this

chamber on percentages and other aspects dealt with by this

section and

other sections — I would not want to say that that is misleading the

committee, but in my view it comes very close.

I've said

repeatedly that this may not satisfy the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). In terms of

partisan interests this may not be the political answer they want to

hear, but it is and

[ Page 7595 ]

has

been the correct answer with respect to this section. I'm not here to

serve the opposition's partisan goals and objectives; I am here to

report to the committee and to answer questions posed by members of the

committee with respect to the

section that is in front of us at that

particular moment.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'd

like once again to rise in my place to defend

section 9 and the lack of

specific figures in that section. I feel the lack of percentages in

this legislation is a very important and salient feature. The

opposition has, in effect, put themselves in the position of

negotiating for the public sector, and trying to use this House to do

it; as the first member for Victoria has in effect said, once a figure

is incorporated into the legislation, that figure becomes the floor or

the bargaining base.

Let's assume, for purposes of argument

that a figure of 10 percent was put into this legislation. This

section

would then read that the executive council "will establish a 10 percent

guideline," which would automatically prejudice the negotiations

completely. In other words, the 10 percent would be it. So in that

respect, Mr. Chairman, the opposition has put themselves in the

position of negotiating in this House. I don't think the bargaining

should be done in this House.

Interjections.

MR. BRUMMET:

We had the first member for Victoria indulging in fairy tales to try to

make his point and we had the Leader of the Opposition yesterday

threaten to kiss somebody in order to make his point. And they call

that responsible debate? To use the analogy from the first member for

Victoria about the letter grades in the schools, is he suggesting then

that at the beginning of the year a teacher should come in and say that

a C or a C+ will be a passing grade and then spell out exactly and

entirely what the pupil must do in order to achieve that C+? I maintain

that that would immediately set the minimum standard. That pupil would

then know that he or she has to do nothing more, make no effort beyond

that minimum that's spelled out. So there is judgment involved — even

in the school system.

MS. BROWN: But you have to know at least what to do to get a C.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BRUMMET:

You see, this is the point of the people who have never been in the

school system who are so experienced that they say: "Tell me exactly

how many hoops I have to jump through to get a passing grade." So you

then reach the point where they're trying to suggest that pupils in

schools should do nothing more than the absolute minimum.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, again I, the Chair, must remind all hon.

members that we are on

section 9. While some very slight additional

information might be brought in, the principle of the bill has already

been determined and we are now dealing specifically with

section 9.

With all due respect, there is very little in

section 9 referring to

the school system. I would remind all hon. members that we must be

strictly relevant in committee and on

section 9.

MR. BRUMMET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did get carried away with the school system analogy.

Back

section 9. As I've indicated, the opposition is trying to get a

percentage figure put into

section 9. That would defeat the whole

purpose of it. As has been clearly indicated, the Premier on February

18 suggested that 12 percent for government spending would be in order

as a ceiling, and that wage increases should be limited to 10 percent

in order to accomplish this. Again I would like to point out that that

was a ceiling — despite the first member for Victoria's description of

the Premier's performance in the House 72 hours ago, as he says. It was

not so. The Premier came in and spelled out that that ceiling was

indicated as an upper limit.

MR. COCKE: Why doesn't he come in here and say that?

MR. BRUMMET:

He has said it often enough. You probably weren't here to listen, Mr.

Member. The point that he was trying to make, and the point that

section 9 is trying to make, is that economic conditions should be a

major determining factor in what the wage increases are — economic

conditions, which the opposition members will not recognize because

they are so political in all of these things. They're trying to use the

public-sector employees as pawns in their game of politics. They're

trying to politicize the entire process.

The Premier also

said at that time that in the first year these were suggested ceilings.

He said that in the second year — which this legislation also allows

for — that ceiling would be determined by economic circumstances at the

time. So it would be foolish to put a figure into this legislation if

in fact we are going to accept the determining factor of economic

conditions. If we want to do this as a strictly political matter and

then fight it out on that basis, well then, yes, a figure should be put

in. But if we are going to acknowledge economic circumstances of the

day, then an actual percentage figure has no place in this section.

Because that would very much restrict it to being a political football

game rather than acknowledging the economy.

A lot has been

said about the press. I think we all realize that the press partly

reports circumstances and partly interprets them according to their

particular views. As I understand it, the Premier said — and I've gone

carefully through the Hansard from when he made his speech in

here — that economic conditions may well dictate salary settlements

below the ceilings that he suggested earlier, and that we must

recognize those economic conditions. So I don't think we can go by the

press reports or the

interpretation of the opposition that the Premier

said 5 percent or any other percentage.

He has said that economic conditions may well determine a much lower settlement.

Unless the wage-earners in both the public sector and the private sector in

this province recognize that the economic conditions should determine wage increases,

rather than political pressures or promises, and unless they recognize the ability

of the taxpayers in this province to pay those wage increases in the public

sector, we are certainly going to get into a much more difficult situation than

we are in now.

I would suggest that the minister not be bullied into trying to put a percentage

figure in here, that he not be cajoled or out-performed. If you like, in this

House. When I said out-performed I was talking about histrionics that are performed

here in those high falsetto voices.

[ Page 7596 ]

would suggest that the purpose of the responsible guidelines of this

act would be destroyed by putting in an actual percentage figure. I

would ask him not to respond to the clown and anguish act of the Leader

of the Opposition. I would ask him to stay with this legislation. We

have debated it for several days, and I am sure we can debate it

indefinitely. The point is that the principles will not change.

Section

9 leaves it open, and the economic circumstances this year and next

year can determine what those actual figures are. The opposition wants

a figure in there to set the wage increases for the public sector in

this province this year, and it wants it set in this House. They are

the ones who talk about collective bargaining, yet they want the wage

settlements established in this House in

an act regardless of economic

circumstances. I can't support that.

MR. BARBER: The

minister misinformed the House. He said when he just spoke that that

was his first opportunity to do so. That is simply not true. I offered

to yield in order that he could reply to my colleague the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, but he said: "No, that's all right." I wish he

would be a little bit more straight about this sort of thing. You were

given a chance to reply earlier, and you declined it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 9, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Secondly,

in regard to the grading policies, I have been a part-time student at

the University of Victoria school of music. Our grading policies are

known. The instructors will tell you. A grading policy should be an

open statement. It has a lot to do with the kind of academic career you

wish to pursue. If an openly stated grading policy is good enough for a

university it is certainly good enough for any other place. It is a

shame that a former school principal doesn't feel that way. It is a

good thing that he is a former school principal.

The problem

with accepting the response of the Minister of Finance — the only one

that he has offered — that we should go back and read his statement in Hansard

during second reading is that the statement of the Premier came after

the minister's speech in second reading. It therefore has to do with

the chronology of the events. The Minister of Finance is not numero

uno; the Premier is. The Minister of Finance made a statement during

second reading. We have all read it. We know what it says, but we also

know that the Premier came in some time after and made another

statement, a statement in glaring contradiction, in clear and obvious

dispute with the statement of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of

Finance opened the debate. He made a statement which is in Hansard .

We know what it is, and that's fine; or, as the Minister would say,

"fair enough." But so what? The fact is that that statement has been

made irrelevant by the subsequent statement of the Premier when he

introduced an altogether new body of factors. What we have to do is ask

which statement is operative.

As it happens, there was also

a statement made by the Premier at a press conference on February 18

which said something different again, and there was a statement made by

the Premier in the press conference, spontaneous as it was, in the

corridor. So there are four statements: the one on February 18, the

statement of the minister during second reading, the subsequent and

different statement of the Premier in the House, and then there is

again the statement of the Premier in the corridor. Which is it? Which

is still operative? It is important to know that. The minister opened

debate and made a statement. The Premier came in and spoke during the

debate and made another statement. That is in the record. The minister

is studying Hansard right now. He'll find it in there. Of

course the minister opened debate. We know that. The Premier

subsequently spoke in the debate. We know that too. It's in Hansard .

Therefore

what we want to know is: which rules apply? In the same way that a

grading policy should be an open, stated and material fact, so too are

public servants entitled to know what the pay policy is of the

government.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The

member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), in his usual low falsetto,

says that we want to conduct collective bargaining here on the floor of

the House and we don't want to do it in the usual way. If this bill

weren't here, the government would be conducting it in the usual way.

If this bill weren't here, collective bargaining would go ahead as

usual, as before. If the government had a plan to keep the wage

settlement within the bounds of certain offers it was prepared to make,

there would be no bill. They would simply negotiate according to their

own strategy. That strategy would not be debated on the floor of this

House. It would be offered during negotiations, and the concern of the

member for North Peace River would be alleviated.

It is the

government which introduced the wild card contained in this section. It

is the government which introduced the new factor that has twisted and

distorted the ordinary process and outcome of collective bargaining. It

is not the opposition that brought this

section in. It is not the

opposition that named the figures of 10, 12, 14, 5, or whatever. It's

the government that did that. Now the Premier is trying to backtrack,

because he realizes that the ceiling he thought he meant has been taken

to be a floor by everyone else. That's a very serious tactical error

the Premier made. He's trying to backtrack now. That's understandable.

He's a canny enough politician. He knows that he made a mistake, and

now he's trying to undo that mistake and correct it.

But he

has to deal with the fact that the Minister of Finance made a different

statement, and so did the Premier himself in February. That's a

difficult thing to reconcile. We did not introduce a debate on the

floor of this House in committee to yammer about 10, 12 or 14 percent.

It's not a private member's bill we're debating, Mr. Chairman. This is

the government's initiative. If they did not want to name a figure, why

did they not simply enter collective bargaining as usual, with a figure

in the back of their minds, and bargain according to that? If they were

concerned about the integrity of collective bargaining, that's what

they would have done. Who knows? They got 8 percent, 8 percent and 8

percent for the last contract. They might have been able to get 9

percent or 9.5 percent this time. They were successful before with

their strategy in keeping wages down: 8 percent, three years in a row.

They might have been successful again, but they've screwed up. The

Premier went on TV trying to score quick political points and has

discovered that he made a mistake. The ceiling looks like the floor. He

has to backpeddle. They introduced this bill. They open the debate on

policy for collective bargaining with the public service, and they have

to pay the price. The Premier screwed up.

[ Page 7597 ]

MR. RICHMOND: That's unparliamentary language.

MR. BARBER: What? What are you talking about? Are you serious? How old are you?

MR. RICHMOND: Old enough to know that that's offensive language.

MR. BARBER: The Premier botched it, Mr. Chairman. Is that more acceptable to the Cadillac-driving member from Kamloops.

MR. RICHMOND: It's better.

MR. BARBER: Good. They're sensitive, these Cadillac drivers.

MR. RICHMOND: I don't drive a Cadillac. Get your facts straight.

MR. BARBER: You do so. I've seen you in your Caddy and your Chevy, at the same time — crashing them.

MR. RICHMOND: I don't own a Cadillac.

MR. HANSON: It was somebody else's Cadillac.

MR. RICHMOND: No, I never drive in one.

MR. BARBER: Oh, gosh! They are sensitive about that still.

Mr.

Chairman, we're concerned that this government, which introduced this

section, is trying to backpeddle, and like any other cyclist trying to

go backwards, it is losing its balance, having trouble keeping in a

straight line, and is having trouble getting a story straight as well.

Precisely because they introduced a public statement of percentage

figure increases and precisely because they have provably contradicted

their own statement, we are now entitled to ask what the rules are.

May

I say it again, Mr. Chairman, for the sake of members opposite: if you

didn't want to debate figures on the floor of this House or in the

public forum, your own leader wouldn't have introduced figures on

February 18. If you didn't want them debated, you needn't have

introduced them. You could have bargained as before. But you introduced

figures, and now you've changed the figures. You've introduced the

rules, and now you appear to be changing the rules. It is precisely

because of what you have done, making it difficult for people to

bargain effectively, that we feel it necessary to protect the integrity

of a system that we designed and are proud to have designed, and that

we have to raise these questions.

I again ask the Minister of Finance

to tell us which statement is operative. Is it the statement of the

Premier on February 18 on the 10, 12 and 14 percent formula; the

statement of the Premier in the House subsequent to his own remarks

with second reading of this bill or the Premier's subsequent comments

in the corridor about 5 percent, a little more, a little less or

nothing at all? It is a simple question. The government opened this

debate and they have to answer the questions or the debate might go on

a while longer.

MS. BROWN: The problem that we're

having with

section 9 is that it says that the executive council is

going to be responsible for issuing these guidelines. In fact, we have

had no indication today that the executive council has had anything

whatsoever to do with these mysterious guidelines. The minister told us

— I agree with him, certainly; I have been checking the Blues — that he

has not named a percentage figure in his speech. He hasn't mentioned

10, 14, 5, zero or anything. The problem we have, though, is that his

leader, the Premier of the province, has.

All the figures

that we're debating, that we're trying to understand, that we're trying

to come to grips with, come not from the Minister of Finance but from

the Premier. What I am wondering is whether in fact we are questioning

the wrong person. We assume that because the Minister of Finance was

responsible for introducing this bill that he had something to do with

it. We could be quite incorrect in making that assumption, because the

Minister of Finance has not said anything at all about the figures

involved or what the guidelines are going to be. The only person who

has been making any statements — on the floor of this House, in the

corridor, on TV or wherever — has been the Premier. The only thing we

have from the Minister of Finance is that he sits there unable — not

unwilling — to answer the questions which are being put to him. We are

very clearly asking the wrong person.

The minister introduced the bill,

but the minister is clearly not in control of the legislation. He

cannot answer our questions because he doesn't know the answers. He

doesn't know what the compensation stabilization guidelines are going

to be. He doesn't know what the percentages are going to be. He doesn't

know whether the Premier is going to stick to the original percentages

of 10 to 14 or whether the Premier is going to stick to the later

percentages of 5 or less or whether even now, wherever he may be, the

Premier is issuing a different set of percentages. My heart goes out to

the Minister of Finance, compassionate person that I am. I feel for him

because he is in a very untenable position. He is asked to come in

here, introduce a piece of legislation and defend that legislation

without really having any control over what goes into the legislation

or even how the legislation is going to be implemented.

Section

9 talks about the executive council making decisions and issuing

guidelines. That is not happening. The only person making decisions and

the only person issuing guidelines is the Premier. I think the Minister

of Finance should simply wash his hands of the whole matter. The

Minister of Finance should say: "I cannot protect this bill. I cannot

usher this bill through the committee, because the Premier won't keep

his mouth shut." At least the Premier won't be consistent when he opens

his mouth. He will not pick a figure, any figure, and stick with it.

The Premier keeps contradicting himself. He should say: "I, as the

Minister of Finance, find myself in a situation where I am being

questioned about an issue over which I have no control, no knowledge."

If I am incorrect and the minister does know what the compensation

guidelines are, then the minister should tell us — not just the members

of the opposition or the public-sector workers, but I think everyone is

entitled to know what those compensation guidelines are. I don't think

it's necessary to use analogies, to talk about what it's like if one is

a student, to realize that this

section is unfair in that it asks the

opposition either to support or withhold its support from a

section

that doesn't say anything. There is no information to back up

section 9.

The livelihoods of a number of people depend on what happens in terms of the guidelines as established by this piece

[ Page 7598 ]

legislation. People's livelihoods are at stake, the income that people

have to live on. It is just not good enough for the Premier of the

province, speaking on behalf of the Minister of Finance, to keep

changing the guidelines.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

want to give you an example of what is going to happen to most of the

people who work in the public sector. As I said in debate on second

reading of this bill, 51.1 percent of the people who work in the

public sector are women. Of that number, more than 70 percent earn

incomes, which, if they are the sole support of their family, place

them clearly below the poverty line. This issue is of great importance

to these people. Are they going to get a 10 percent increase, which

would be totally inadequate? Are they going to get a 14 percent

increase, which is still inadequate? Are they going to get a 5 percent

increase or a zero percent increase, or are they going to be asked to

take a cut in their salaries?

Possibly that number of

something like 22,000 women who work in the civil service may find some

comfort in knowing that the guidelines, when they are designed, will be

designed by the executive council, but in fact that is not what is

going to happen.

Section 9 misleads the House. The reality of the

situation is that only one person has been issuing guidelines to date,

and that person is the Premier of the province, not the Minister of

Finance, and certainly not the executive council. Worse than that,

these guidelines keep changing; they're not consistent. Even when the

Premier picks a figure out of air he doesn't stick with it. On February

18, coiffured, shaved and powdered, the Premier went on TV and issued

one set of guidelines. Then we waited for the legislation to be

introduced into the House which would explain precisely what the wage

restraint program was about and what those 22,000 women who are working

in the public sector and earning less than $1,500 a month could

anticipate in terms of their attempt to get above the poverty line, or

whether they would stay below it.

We waited for nearly two

months before the House was called into session and the legislation

introduced. The legislation was introduced by the Minister of Finance,

as is tradition. So we assumed that the Minister of Finance was the

person who drafted the legislation in consultation with the executive

council; that he would shepherd the legislation through the House; and,

when we came to the committee stage, that the Minister of Finance would

be able to answer questions put to him based on the content of the

legislation. This is not what's happening. We have been trying for

well-nigh three days to get some information from the Minister of

Finance on

section 9, the guidelines of this piece of legislation. What

are the guidelines in terms of increases or decreases in income for

those 22,000 or more women who are working in the public sector at

somewhere around, and for the most part below, the poverty line? The

minister has absolutely refused to respond.

As I have listened to speaker after speaker place the question to the minister,

I have been forced to conclude that the minister is not deliberately withholding

information but that, in fact, the minister does not have the information; that,

in fact, the minister and the government are wasting our time; that the minister

should not have been the person who introduced this bill in the first place;

that the minister is incapable of ushering this bill through committee stage

because he does not have that information. Those women working in the public

sector earning $275 a week, if they are office assistant 1, still do not know

whether they're going to receive an increase of $27 a week, as mentioned

by the Premier on February 18, or $13.50 a week, as mentioned by the Premier

a couple of days ago, or no increase at all, as mentioned by the Premier a couple

of days ago, or whether they're going to be asked to take a reduction in

their below-poverty-line income. It is very sadistic of this government to play

those kinds of games with people who are in their employ.

is not a government, Mr. Chairman, which is famous for its compassion

or its concern for people; it is not a government that has a reputation

for caring about anyone else but itself. I think — and I'm sticking to

section 9; I'm not going off the point — that there are some people

working for this government who, if they receive a 5 percent increase

in their salaries, will, in fact, be receiving a smaller weekly

increase than a minister of that government paid for a bottle of wine.

Now think about that, and think about the statistics that also tell us

that most of these women who are working in the public sector and in the

private sector fall into two categories: they're either the sole

support of their family, or they are married to spouses who themselves

are making incomes below $15,000 a year.

When the Premier

talks about millionaire workers, he's certainly not including this

group of workers in that comment of his. I am certainly not speaking on

behalf of the alleged millionaire workers, because I'm not aware of any

of them working for the public sector. But under

section 9 we're being

asked to make a decision to vote either for or against guidelines which

are to be issued by the executive council when clearly it is the

Premier, and the Premier only, who is deciding what the guidelines are,

and when clearly the Premier keeps changing his mind. In fact, the last

figure issued by the Premier would mean that an office assistant 1

working for this government would receive a weekly increase of less

than a minister of that government paid for a bottle of wine.

Mr.

Chairman, 22,000 women or more work for the public sector; of these, 70

percent are concentrated in the clerical ghettos — office assistant 1,

office assistant 2, data processor 1, data processor 2, health-unit

aide, medical records librarian, court clerk 1. If you look at their

starting wage or their maximum income, you realize that it is crucial

that they know whether the increase they're going to be getting under

this legislation will bring them up to the poverty level or keep them

below the poverty level. There is a big difference between a zero

percent increase, a 5 percent increase and a 14 percent increase. I

don't think there is any question about the productivity; I can't think

of anyone who works harder. I'm sure even the minister or even you, Mr.

Chairman, will agree that your clerical help put in much longer hours

for much less pay than any other group of workers that we can think of.

So I don't think there is any question that they would qualify for the

productivity 2 percent.

So what are we looking at? We are

looking at incomes of $275 a week and $330 a week, $332 a week before

deductions. We are looking at take-home pay after deductions of $872 a

month, $900 a month. That is what we are looking at for most of the

employees in the public sector. The figure which the Public Service

Commission issues is 51.1 percent. I don't believe that that figure

takes in the people who work for non-profit organizations and community

groups who are paid by the government and, for the most part, have

gross incomes of $900 a month before deductions and who are taking home

in the area of $700, $750 and $760 a month.

[ Page 7599 ]

When

you give those workers a 10 or 14 percent increase you are ensuring

that they continue to live below the poverty line. You are doing that

anyway. The Minister of Finance knows that, as does the Premier.

The

Premier makes a lot of strange statements. In this morning's Province I

read where the Premier was saying he couldn't understand why hospital

beds were closing. Should we leave a man like that in charge of

anything? Hasn't the time now come for the Minister of Finance to

wrest control of this bill away from the Premier? If he doesn't even

understand why hospital beds are closing, if he talks about millionaire

workers in the public sector...

HON. MR. CURTIS: To

section 9.

MS. BROWN: ...is it safe to have him responsible for

section 9 of this bill?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I would just like to respectfully remind the member that she has been

off

section 9 for quite a while. Could you please return to it?

MS. BROWN:

I want to read

section 9 to you again, and then I'm going to explain to

you again what I'm trying to say.

Section 9(

l) says: "The executive

council shall issue compensation stabilization guidelines...." I am saying

that we have had no indication to date that

section 9 is in fact being

implemented.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the member that

section 9 has been passed in principle by this House.

MS. BROWN: I am not discussing the principle. I am discussing the reality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please contain your remarks to things pertinent to

section 9.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I am reading

section 9 verbatim. "The executive council

shall issue compensation stabilization guidelines." You can't be any

closer to the reality than that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I

understand that you have just read the first part of

section 9, and I

am just reminding you that the entire

section 9 and the rest of the

bill have been approved by this House in principle. So we are to

discuss the details of

section 9, please.

MS. BROWN:

That is what I am doing. The detail of

section 9 is that the executive

council.... Have you got your copy of the bill there? If not, I

would be happy to loan you mine. I can read it with my eyes shut now,

I've done it so often.

Section 9(

l) states very clearly that the

executive council and the executive council only shall issue the

compensation stabilization guidelines. I am saying to you that that has

not been happening. It is the Premier and the Premier only who has been

issuing these guidelines, and he has not even been sticking with the

guidelines which he has been issuing. It is the Premier who issued one

set of guidelines — coiffured, shaved and powdered on TV — and the

Premier himself who issued another set of guidelines which totally

contradicted the original set of guidelines.

I am saying to

you that there are over 22,000 women who work for the public sector who

would accept

section 9 if they thought for one moment that the

executive council had anything at all to do with designing or even

issuing the guidelines. But they know, as everyone else knows, that

this is not what has been happening.

Section 9(

l) is not where it's

at. It's the Premier and the Premier contradicting himself that renders

section 9(

l) irrelevant. I am suggesting to you that even at this

moment — wherever he may be — the Premier may be issuing another set of

guidelines. I suggest to you that maybe the first thing we should be

doing is somehow introducing legislation to get the Premier to stop

issuing all these guidelines. He's not only confusing himself; he's

confusing everyone else. In particular, he's confusing those 22,000 and

more women in the public sector whose wages already ensure that they

are living below the poverty line, when he keeps on issuing and

reissuing different guidelines every time he issues a new set of

guidelines.

We have been told that the average income which

will be affected by

section 9(

l) of this bill is something like $1,300

a month. I'm speaking strictly of component 12 of the public sector

workers, which is where most of the women are.

Section 9(

l) is going

to have an impact on an average wage of something in the neighbourhood

of $1,300. That is below the Senate poverty line for a family of three.

Section 9(

l) is important to someone who is either the sole supporter

of their family or who is married to someone whose income is also below

the Senate poverty line. That is why it is important that we know what

the stabilization guidelines are going to be. That is why it is

important that the executive council, through the Minister of Finance,

answer the question.

What are these guidelines? Can we

accept the figure of 10 to 12 to 14 percent? Or must we accept the

figure of 5.5 percent or less, or even a minus factor? Or is the

Premier somewhere issuing new guidelines even at this time?

Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to give the minister an opportunity to stand up and

agree with me that he should not, in fact, have been made responsible

for this bill, because he has no control over it. I'm going to give him

an opportunity to wash his hands of this whole matter, to walk away

from it and let the Premier deal with it himself, because it is unfair

for that minister to have to sit there and listen to questions for

which he has no answer. It is unfair for him to be bearing the brunt of

this. So I think that the Minister of Finance, in responding to my

questions, can do one of two things: issue his own guidelines now —

pick his own figures out of the hat — or walk away from it and let the

Premier, who is the only person who has been issuing any guidelines,

come and take responsibility for this bill so that we can get some

answers to the questions we've been putting.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult to give a full response in the

context of

section 9. However, the member need not be concerned about

my comfort with this

section or with the bill which is presently before

the committee.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I can understand the

minister's position. He's given the answers over and over again on this

subject — at least ten times — and continues to do so. The opposition,

in standing firm on this

section 9, has an ulterior motive far beyond

the limits of the section. I admire the position of the chair in

telling the hon. member: "Would the member kindly deal with. the issue

section 9, not the

[ Page 7600 ]

principle

of the bill." This debate has gone on for several days now, dealing

almost always with the principle of the bill, and the Chair has

magnanimously accepted this, rather than create a fuss on the floor. I

have to admire the Chair for taking this attitude, and I appeal to the

Chair again that we must stick very, very firmly to this section. This

section talks about money and compensation, and that is all.

The

issue is plain. The public service is well paid and will get an

increase, but they cannot get the increases that they have anticipated

and will continue to anticipate when so many good, solid working

Canadians are out of work entirely. That is what this

section is

saying, and what the opposition is saying is: "Pay; open the floodgates

of the treasury to the public service, and damn the torpedoes." But

that is not the way it must be.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let

me quote a little

section on this very matter from the Kamloops News of

May 5, Mr. Chairman. "We've had it so good for so long, we've forgotten

just how easy it's been. Anyone born since the Second World War, which

takes care of my generation" — that's not mine — "has no idea of the

comparative opulence in which Canadians have basked during the past 40

years." That is one of the issues. Sure, Canadians should dream of

wrestling inflation to the ground or a just society. They grumble when

they don't get 20 percent increases.

This

section is a money

matter, and the opposition is saying: "Open the floodgates of the

treasury." I'm telling this opposition now that the same public

servants they endeavour to claim they are the champions of are tired of

the position they are taking. I've talked to several in the last three

days. They are fed up entirely. What are they talking about? Most of

them are satisfied with their salaries. Most of them would be more than

grateful for a reasonable increase to take care of some inflation. But

when we have thousands upon thousands of people in this province who

are out of work entirely and when it is necessary to put in work

projects that the government must sustain, all these things must be

part of the economy of the government. Oh, certainly they can say: "You

did this and that, and you showed extravagance." These things happen.

But basically, in the long run, the government is endeavouring to

conserve the funds of the province of British Columbia, and that's what

section 9 represents.

The facts are very clear. There is a

ceiling, but the big issue, I hear the opposition saying, is that there

is no floor. They've taken the issue that the Premier has stated that

the settlements can be anywhere down to zero and below. That was never

said in the press or otherwise. This is a translation that the

opposition has made on its own, for some ulterior motive which I do not

understand.

Could the opposition be so kind as to get on the

subject of

section 9, tell us where they are dissatisfied, tell the

minister where they are dissatisfied, not continuously ask the same

question and ask for answers? How could the minister stand up and

answer the hon. member who has just spoken? It's been answered so

often; there is no point in answering it again. They do not intend to

let

section 9 go. But for what purpose? What is the ulterior motive.

That is what someone there should stand up and say what is the motive?

Who did they make this creation for? For what purpose? They have not

said that yet. They claim they are champions of the working people.

What working people, Mr. Chairman?

They talk about take-home

pay of $200 a week. I want to give you an example. In Riverview, which

is in the constituency of Coquitlam-Moody, a laundry worker is paid a

gross salary of $2,200 a month. Is that bad wages? That's not the

lowest pay, but they're all in the range of $1,800 to $2,000 and over.

The public service is not dancing for joy, but the public service is

well satisfied. And you are being champions to a very small group of

people out there trying to urge you on to create dissension and

trouble. As you fly the flag for the working man, I tell you that you

are not for the working people of this province; you are against the

working people of this province. During your three years of office, you

practically ran the country into the ground. When you had to bring in

legislation the same as

section 9....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please. We have to be relevant to this section.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I'm talking about money now. Until they had to legislate the people

back to work, until we're out of funds.... I'm not dredging up what

you did in those years. No, I'm not. But I'm saying that today this

government is trying to legislate so as to have a sound government, so

this province can be viable. This prosperous province is well off even

today, but the expectations of the public service and the working

people, wherever they are, are limited. But our sympathies must go to

those poor people without work.

Do we hear one word? Not one word. They cry, but do they have an idea? Never.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, once again the Chair will have to intervene. It has been

pointed out many times in this debate that debate in Committee of the

Whole House must be strictly relevant, as it says in standing order 61.

Would the member please address

section 9.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I am addressing funds at this time. I know you find it difficult to

follow some of these things. I sympathize with your position, but

because you are hard on me, I would ask you to do the same with

everyone from now on. I accept your ruling. Let's be hard and firm on

section 9.

There is no floor, because settlements can be

made for any limit. That is all. There is no floor on the guidelines.

The settlements can be made to any level that is desirable. What is the

issue? I would love to know. There is no issue. There is an ulterior

motive, and I ask them to tell us what that ulterior motive is.

MR. COCKE:

I am much obliged. The Minister of Finance hasn't told us much today

about what he's doing in terms of

section 9, a

section that obviously

the member for Dewdney doesn't quite understand either. He doesn't

understand the issue that's involved in

section 9. The issue is —

that's what he wants to hear, so now he can hear it — that nobody in

this province knows what's going on. We have percentages that range

from under 5 percent to 14. We do know something, however. The Ministry

of Health has informed the administrators and the hospital boards

across this province that their number is 7.65 percent. What does that

mean? It means 1,150 bed closures.

We know and they know that they're trying to confuse the public, trying to create an issue over what they call constraint.

[ Page 7601 ]

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

The member for Dewdney really doesn't care. He gets up and flies in the

face of all that is going on in our province. What is going on in our

province is confusion, bed closures and chaos. In a time when what we

require is leadership, we are getting none. What this

section of the

bill means to me is that somewhere over there is an amorphous idea — a

way to win an election or a way to convince people that the

government's doing something. But, you see, the idea didn't gel. We

have the Minister of Finance, who told us the figures were somewhere

between 8 to 14 percent — 8, 10, 12, possibly more. His major

percentage that he dealt with was 10. The first minister, on February

18, gave us that range. But just a few days after the Minister of

Finance gave his rendition on second reading, the Premier comes in and

tells us that he is going to reluctantly support the legislation. When

he talks about reluctance, it is reluctance around this particular area

of the bill —

section 9.

The Premier gave us a rendition. He

said that he was reluctant to support the bill because of the fact that

the guidelines had been set too high — obviously, because then he went

on to talk about 5 percent or less. I said yesterday and I'll say again

today that this is an absolutely intolerably stupid way to deal with

labour relations in a free society. I would expect this kind of thing

in the Soviet Union or in a junta-ruled nation such as Argentina, but I

don't expect this kind of thing from a government dedicated to what

they call freedom. This isn't freedom at all. Freedom means people have

the right not to be faced with

section 9, not to be faced with the

cabinet's making decisions.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to withdraw the remark. It was unparliamentary.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware that it was unparliamentary, but if it offends you I'll withdraw it.

MR. COCKE:

Nothing that minister could say would offend me, other than the fact of

his attitude toward the people in the province. Imagine his saying that

we're not debating the people out of work, that this is not what the

section is about. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, if anybody is responsible

for the people who are out of work in this province it's the

government. It sure as blazes isn't the opposition. So let's not get

into that kind of a crossword.

We're talking here about a

great confusion, a confusion that is only around numbers, but those

numbers are so sad. Apparently somebody got to the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and said: "This will be the restraint program for

the hospitals in our province." These hospitals were in deep trouble

last year. Most of the hospitals were in a deficit situation; and then

in the face of an inflation rate of 14 percent, they're given 7.65

percent this year. Obviously, that's their part of the guidelines.

The

secret is beginning to reveal itself; and it's something that will not

be lost on the people in this province — heartless government that

doesn't understand that they can hurt, that they can create chaos. And

why are they doing it? Only to provide themselves with a phony election

issue. It won't wash; it can't. It's dishonest and terribly

disheartening. One of the things this further does is to create a good

deal more unemployment. The guidelines that have been adopted to date,

such as they are all over the ballpark, have created a tremendous

amount of unemployment. The health association admits to 2,000 people

laid off, but it's closer to 3,000. And let me tell you why: because

they're not calling in part-timers and they're not calling in casuals.

They can't. They've got them so terribly constrained that our

health-care system in B.C. is suffering badly — on the whim of a

Premier who is dancing around, trying desperately to grasp onto

something that he thinks he can use to win an election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once more could I please advise the committee to be relevant to the

section before us.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, the relevancy is that this particular

section of the bill

is the key to the whole thing. This

section gives the cabinet the right

to prescribe guidelines; for that matter, it gives the cabinet the

right to decide on wages or increases. Beyond that, it gives them the

right to decide whether or not they're prepared to give us an honest

answer. We've carried this

section for a couple of days because we

haven't got the answer.

The Premier could very easily get up

in the House. After all, a dozen backbenchers have been up on this

section. It feels like a dozen; it sounds like a dozen. He could get up

and clarify what he's been saying in the hall.

MR. MUSSALLEM: He's clarified it 10 times — 20 times.

MR. COCKE:

Then, I'd like the member for Dewdney to tell me why there's a

conflict, why there's a disparity, between what we hear from the

Minister of Finance, who carries the bill, and what we hear from the

Premier. I think it's really shocking, when a province is hurting so

badly, that we cannot get an honest, straightforward answer on what

this

section means. Hide it behind that big oak door of cabinet. Hide

the decision-making. Take everything away from the bargaining table.

Take everything away from the Legislature. The minute this bill is

adopted they can run with it and do anything they like. We don't like

some of the outcomes of them doing what they like. It's been an utter

disaster of a government and a government policy. If you can't see it

in the health system of B.C. and the constraints around that, then I

don't know where you're going to find a better example. Education is

suffering, but health is particularly suffering.

Once again,

let's just ask the questions. Is it 5 percent or less? Is it 7.65

percent? Is it 8, 10, 12 or 14 percent? Is it a combination of those

numbers? What's the rationale for the numbers? If the minister can

suggest that the 7.65 percent for a health-care system that already had

one foot in the glue is reasonable, then what in blazes is that cabinet

going to do to the people that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown) was talking about who are already below the poverty line? Did

you hear that, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), with your head

in the cloud? There are people in your public service who are below the

poverty line. All you have to do is read your levels of pay.

There

was bargaining that went on in that public service three years ago.

What did it achieve? Unfortunately, for many of them it achieved a very

responsible level below the inflation level: 8 percent a year for three

years. So they've been kind of hammered. Then the government comes along

[ Page 7602 ]

and says: "Well, we've got them under our heel so we'll go after

them again, only this time in an arbitrary fashion where we don't negotiate;

we dictate." It is dictatorial. This is a very dictatorial

section of an

utterly outrageous bill in a free society. Mr. Chairman, what is meant by this

section, and for that matter, why is it there in the first place?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, as has been the case on a number of occasions in

committee on

section 9, I would refer members of the committee to my

earlier remarks. In order that there can be no misunderstanding, if I'm

not offending the rules with respect to section-by-section study of a

bill, I would refer interested members to Hansard commencing on

page 7341, dated May 3, which indicates very clearly that which was

intended by the government and that which has been debated under

section 9. I have answered the questions. If it is not to the political

satisfaction of the members opposite, then I shall have to refer again

to the answers which have been given willingly, freely and repeatedly

on this particular section.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I

have to disagree with the Minister of Finance. He has not given any

repeated indication of what the guidelines are to be. When the bill was

first introduced he did refer to a particular level. Unfortunately,

following that comment the Premier of the province, whose policy

statement initiated this bill, came in with a different list of

specifications. The Premier, through an apparent policy statement —

certainly one that was given wide coverage in the press — changed the

goalposts. We're asking the Minister of Finance to tell us definitively

which is correct — the Premier's statement of February 18 or the latter

one he made indicating that the new guidelines were 5 percent or less

and in some cases, indeed, a cut in pay.

To assist the

Minister of Finance and the House in understanding what the issue is

here, the issue is finding out what the parameters are for bargaining

so that those people at the bargaining table.... Whether we agree

or disagree is not the point; the point is what the guidelines are so

that people at the bargaining table can conduct themselves

intelligently and within those rules. The Minister of Finance has

stated that he wants them to comply voluntarily. In order to comply

voluntarily you have to know what the guidelines are — that's pretty

fundamental. There is a clear conflict between the initially stated

policy that the Premier introduced to the province on February 18 when

he took free-time television and what he recently told us it was going

to be. There would have been no problem at all, Mr. Chairman, with this

particular section, as most of the debate took place on second reading,

had the Premier not chosen to come in with a new set of guidelines. Now

we're entitled to ask what the standard is. Is it the February 18 one

or is it the latest one of 5 percent indicated by the Premier?

don't really trust the government, Mr. Chairman, to make these

decisions in secret. After all, the Premier has a bit of an unstable

history when it comes to honouring commitments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: We can't take him at his word, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, every member of this House is honourable,

and his word is taken. I'm sure the member realizes that he's offending

a parliamentary principle with those statements. Please be relevant to

section 9.

MR. KING: Well, I'm trying to be, Mr.

Chairman, but inevitably I have to point out to the House that we have

two conflicting statements made by the Premier. This is the same

Premier who touted BCRIC shares, and the people learned that perhaps

his admonitions were not the strongest. Mr. Chairman, in this case

we're asking the Premier and the Minister of Finance to give us a clear

indication of where the people stand.

The Minister of

Finance became more embroiled in a bit of a debate with my colleague

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) on Wednesday. Quite

frankly, I happened to agree with the Minister of Finance on that

point. I'm sorry that he's not in the House at the moment, but for the

edification of everyone else I would like to quote what he said. My

colleague had suggested that perhaps collective bargaining should be

allowed to proceed before any guidelines are introduced, and on that

point the Minister of Finance had this to say. I'm quoting from page

410 of the Hansard Blues for Wednesday last:

"On that

point the member and the government disagree. Perhaps he would care to

explain the purpose of issuing guidelines after the fact. In fact, the

guidelines were first outlined on February 18, then spelled out in

general form in a bulletin. As I indicated in answering an earlier

question, they will be more fully developed and clarified within a very

short space of time.

"Perhaps I could ask the member a

question that would assist me in attempting to answer him on this

section. There is nothing to compel that a settlement go to the

percentages spelled out in the guidelines, so I, on the contrary, don't

think that this is a premature bill or section."

The Minister has indicated that the guidelines will be more fully developed and clarified within a very short space of time.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the Premier and the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) to come to order.

MR. KING:

These are the minister's words. He said, and I repeat: "As I indicated

in answering an earlier question, they will be more fully developed and

clarified within a very short time." So the minister is indicating to

the opposition that we should be obliged to approve a section, the

intentions of which are not developed at this time. It's being

developed. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque. We are being

asked to approve a pig in a poke. We are being asked to give this

cabinet unlimited, unspecified and enormous powers which they can

exercise in the secrecy of a cabinet room. That is a dangerous,

dangerous principle. No matter what one thinks of the objective, it's a

totally dangerous principle.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What's your page citation again?

MR. KING:

Page 410 of the Blues, dated Wednesday. The Minister of Finance went on

to say: "Perhaps I could ask the member a question that would assist me

in attempting to answer him on this section. There is nothing to compel

that a settlement go to the percentages spelled out in the

[ Page 7603 ]

guidelines...." That's curious. In other words, the minister is saying: "Look, it's

voluntary. You can negotiate what you wish, but certain percentages

will be subject to review by the commissioner." Am I correct? Was that

the intention? That's what it appears to me, Mr. Chairman. But, if

that's the case, then surely the parties are entitled to know what

they're negotiating for, what the parameters are.

The

minister himself stated in response to my colleague for

Coquitlam-Maillardville (Mr. Levi) at a later point — and as I

indicated, I agree with the minister in this case — "For the life of

me, I cannot see the fairness of our asking public sector employees in

British Columbia to negotiate in the dark." That is precisely the point

that the member expounded. He shakes his head. I hope he reads the

Blues tomorrow morning. He will see the fallacy of the point he has

advanced, which says to the public-sector employees in British Columbia

— and he focuses exclusively on BCGEU — that he would like to respond

in a broader sense with regard to

section 9. I cannot believe that I

heard what he said. To paraphrase him, he said: "You negotiate, see

what we can work out and then, surprise, we're going to give you the

guidelines."

I apologize for the member, because he's

confused. Surely that isn't what the member really intended. I agree

with the minister on that reply. But that's the whole nub of the issue

here. It's the whole nub of the debate. The minister is indeed asking

the public-sector employees to bargain in the dark. Under

section 9 he

is asking us to pass permissive power to the government, to establish

guidelines which he himself has indicated are not yet complete. Perhaps

he's waiting for a final statement from the Premier, who shifts his

position frequently, in desperation, without any apparent coordination,

for whatever motivation only those very close to him can tell. And at

times, I suspect, he has those people confused.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

Yes, I play hookey occasionally, Mr. Chairman, but I never miss a

meeting to go and play tennis, like the Premier did. That's contempt

and disdain for his constituents. I don't do that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're not telling the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order! I'm sorry, I'll have to ask the Premier to withdraw that remark.

You cannot offend the honour of another hon. member. Would the Premier

please withdraw?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I

said the member was not telling the truth when he made that statement

about me missing a meeting for tennis. Although it is incorrect, I

would not impute an improper motive to the member in making that

statement. Let me say that I withdraw what I implied about him in

letting him know that what he said wasn't correct, as usual.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The withdrawal has been made.

MR. KING:

Behold the Premier, full of grace. I accept the Premier's statement

too, but he sure had one of his prospective candidates fooled, who has

now withdrawn his candidacy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a

point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would draw your attention to standing

order 61(2), which indicates that speeches in Committee of the Whole

House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under

consideration. As I said earlier this morning, Mr. Chairman, it is not

my rule; it is the rule of the House. The adverb "strictly" is

extremely important.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order the hon. Minister of Finance makes on standing order 61(2) is well taken.

MR. KING: If you will protect me from the interjections by the Premier, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed on this section.

The

point is that I was quoting the Minister of Finance, where he states

that it is foolish to ask union groups and management groups to

negotiate in the dark, without knowing what the guidelines are. He has

premised the bill on the request that those parties at the bargaining

table voluntarily comply. What are they going to comply with? The

goalposts have been changed by the Premier's statement. That is the

issue. The goalposts are not specified in

section 9 or anywhere else in

the bill. The public servants and the public sector employers, by the

minister's own statement, are entitled to know what the parameters are.

The government is not entitled to ask for enormous discretionary powers

that allow them, in the secrecy of the cabinet room, to alter and amend

their announced objectives. Under this

section they can certainly do

that. We want a clear commitment to the House now from the Minister of

Finance. It is true that on one occasion — one occasion only that I can

find — the Minister of Finance referred to 10 percent. But subsequently

the Premier, who is the government leader and the first minister,

indicated that the guidelines may now be 5 percent or less. Certainly

any reasonable person would then be entitled to ask the question: what

now is the standard? The minister's reticence in getting up and

clarifying this issue leads to greater suspicion that perhaps the early

policy statement made by the Premier is not now operative. That is the

issue, purely and simply.

MS. BROWN: We have heard

what the guidelines are for the hospitals, so I guess some guidelines

do exist under this section. What are the guidelines that the executive

council has settled on for over 22,000 women who work in the public

sector and whose incomes fall below or close to the poverty line? That

is the question I am putting to the Minister of Finance, if it is

possible to get the attention of the Minister of Finance.

The

member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who has left his seat, told us that

a laundry worker at Riverview makes $2,200 a month. He read that into

the record. I am here to tell you that a medical records librarian

makes $1,386, an office assistant I makes $1,099, and an office

assistant 2 makes $1,197. We are talking about people who make between

$275 and $375 a week. We are not talking about people who make $2,000 a

month. What are the guidelines which the executive council have arrived

at for the health unit aide, for example, who makes $304 a week and

after deductions has a take-home pay of about $896 a month? What are

the guidelines that would affect her? What are the guidelines arrived

at by the executive council, as outlined in

section 9(l), that would

affect the data-processing operator who cams $310 a week? What about

the microfilm operator 2? What guidelines would affect her? Under

section 9(l), did the

[ Page 7604 ]

executive

council decide that the guideline of 7.6 percent, which has been issued

to the hospitals, is the same guideline which is going to be issued to

the person who is making $310 a week or the office assistant who has a

take-home pay of just over $800 a month? That's really what we're

trying to find out from the minister.

Obviously the Premier,

who has been speaking out of turn and issuing figures like 10 percent

to 14 percent, and then figures like 5 percent or less, should be

ignored. We should ignore the statements of the Premier. Obviously, the

Premier was not the person who introduced this piece of legislation.

The Premier had no right to be making those statements on percentage.

The Minister of Finance, speaking on behalf of the executive council,

we've been told in

section 9(l), is the person responsible for that.

have also been told that the hospitals have been informed that their

guideline is 7.6 percent. Is the Minister of Finance ready to tell us

what the guideline is for the 22,000 or more women working in the

public sector who have a take home pay below or very close to the

poverty line?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the

opposition has taken us through what is going on two days of debate on

this issue, and the Minister of Finance has, I think, attempted to

respond to them in a fair manner, only to be subjected to a

considerable amount of abuse from time to time. The members in the

opposition seem to be hung up on percentages. I would like to pose a

question in regard to their comment about the percentages that have

been quoted in other readings of the bill. It seems to me that they

would like to see a situation in which the negotiating process between

the employee, the bargaining unit and the employer would be limited in

a settlement.

Let's say, for example, that a public-service

employee group, meeting in negotiation and recognizing the seriousness

of the problem today, the economy being in the state that it's in, and

recognizing that their brothers and sisters — fellow members of other

unions, but who are nevertheless in the trade union movement — are

unemployed, have had no wage increase, are laid off, and that the

employers of those employees in the private sector have their doors

closed, have faced bankruptcy.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

That

public-service union body may wish to achieve a settlement that doesn't

relate to the percentages that have been mentioned, but may possibly be

lower. I gather the opposition denies them that right. That's what

they're saying: "We're going to deny the right of that union to

negotiate a settlement which they want to negotiate." That's what

they'd lead you to believe. We'd better get that on the record as well.

have to recognize that some of the demands that have been publicized —

for a first time, possibly, by the public service unions — are

substantially higher than the inflation rate, substantially higher than

the taxpayer can afford to pay at this time. That's why the guidelines

that have been mentioned are brought into place. They were announced in

February. They have been commented on by the Minister of Finance,

because the economy requires that we have some responsible settlements

at this time. The negotiating process is there and available to all

parties concerned. If we didn't look at those guidelines and allowed

the trend to continue, if we can take their advertised first-line

demands at face value, we could have public-sector settlements far

beyond the inflation rate, far beyond the ability of the taxpayer to

pay. We have to recognize that, hopefully, the guidelines, the

cooperation and the communication between both public-sector

bargaining-unit parties — the employee and employer — may help

considerably. Let me give you an indication of a demand — first time,

possibly — of a public-service union. They wish a one-year contract,

and that is their right. They wish a lump-sum payment of some $3,700

for those employees who have worked since the beginning of the last

contract. They wish an 11 percent increase to restore parity with

another public-service group.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I am trying to indicate to you the reason for guidelines at this time.

They wish, on top of the 11 percent and the $3,700 settlement, a 20

percent wage increase at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Again, I would call the member's attention

to the fact that we are currently debating the very strictly relevant

section of the bill, which is

section 9, and the principle of the bill

has already been determined. We are now at the specifics of

section 9.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Section 9 says: "The executive council shall issue compensation

stabilization guidelines to stabilize the compensation plans of the

public-sector employers and public-sector employees." I am indicating

to you why this particular

section is worded the way it is and why it

is needed. I am referring you — no differently than the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has pointed out the below-poverty position

of some of the people she has referred to — to the situation that

develops as a first-line demand of a public-sector union. I am trying

to relate that for the need of the specifics in

section 9 of the act.

On top of those percentages I have given you, and recognizing that it

is a 31 percent increase at this time, plus a $3,700 lump sum payment

plus non-financial matters which do create a burden on you, the

taxpayer.... Special leave is a proposal that credits special leave

of half a day a month, to be accumulated to a maximum of 25 days, which

means that over a period of time the employer will have to have other

staff to fill the void when the special leave is granted. There are

other "non-financial" items, but they do have a cost to the taxpayer.

Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate the latitude you have given to me; I don't think

it's any more than has been given to the members opposite in their

debate. The opposition want figures stated. They would restrict

responsible public servants in negotiation in their flexibility. They

look at the guidelines and attempt to say that the government is

interfering; yet they know that the bargaining process can proceed,

that the employer and employee group can meet and determine what part

they want to play in the recovery of this province.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) spoke about groups of

employees. First, I will refer her to remarks in second reading that I

think are relevant to

section 9.

But more than just refer her to those remarks — and I will paraphrase slightly, but certainly the thrust of the answer to

[ Page 7605 ]

her

question, or questions, is virtually identical to that which I offered

at that time — I would point out that the program is to deal with

groups of employees only, not to employees as individuals. The effect

of this is to leave room for flexibility in determining the increases

in compensation for particular employees. So although a group's average

allowable increase might be in the range of 10 percent, some members of

that group, such as those at the lowest pay levels, could receive more

than that percentage figure; others could receive less.

think that's an important point to recall and to retain when dealing

not only with this

section but also later on in the bill: that we are

providing that degree of flexibility within the guidelines so that

certain circumstances, as they apply to groups of employees, can be

taken into account. In my view that is fundamental to the moderate and

sensible approach which this government has taken in introducing this

legislation. We wouldn't have a

section 9 if we had the problem which

obtains in the province of Quebec, with the strong likelihood of

salaries being frozen at their existing levels. There would be no need

for

section 9 if we were simply talking about the freezing of salaries

at present levels.

Section 9 should be seen — and I think is

seen by the majority of employees in the public sector — as to their

advantage rather than to their disadvantage. If we had been forced to

take a much tougher position for financial reasons, for fiscal,

budgetary reasons — as is the case in one or two other provinces — then

we wouldn't be here today discussing

section 9. We wouldn't need

section 9. It would be a much shorter bill.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Just before moving the adjournment motion I would recognize that today

is the first anniversary of our newest member of the Legislative

Assembly, Claude Richmond from Kamloops.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada