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 )

THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8411 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

section 17 (continued) –– 8411

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. King

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Division

section 36 as amended –– 8424

Division

On the

schedule –– 8425

Division

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, third report.

Mr. Strachan –– 8425

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Stock Exchange Act (Bill PR403). Mr. Ree

Introduction and first reading –– 8425

Appendix –– 8426

TH URSDAY, JUNE 24, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

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, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 17.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, we've waited some weeks to resume questions under this

section. As the weeks have gone by, we've become more convinced that

this whole bill, as exemplified by this section, is nothing more than

political gamesmanship. In our opinion, the thrust of this bill has

been destroyed by the extravagance and waste shown by cabinet

ministers' expense accounts — which is out of order under this section,

but I bring that to the attention of the Chairman.

relation to this

section in particular, I want to point out the events

that have taken place over the past few weeks. The federal government

is going to bring in a new budget, which, it is widely speculated, will

bear on this bill. We want to put it clearly on the record that, rather

than wait another three days — they've waited three weeks — to test the

political wind, all they're doing is playing political games in calling

this bill at this time.

I don't intend to say much more.

Everything that can be said has been said. But I do want to say that in

the intervening weeks the lack of administrative ability has again been

demonstrated by the government in not clarifying this section. As a

matter of fact, not only has their particular administration gone

wonky, but they can't even control the computers any more. They're

spewing out cheques in a time of restraint. Mr. Chairman, that's out of

order too, and I want to point out to you that so is their computer,

their financial administration and their politics.

My final

comments on this

section are to repeat what I have said. There is no

continuity; you don't know what you're doing; you're playing politics;

and you're leaving despair and frustration in the wake of this

particular section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I

trust that the same latitude would be given to any other speaker with

respect to

section 17, which, as the committee will know, deals with

the regulation portion of the program. The remarks by the Leader of the

Opposition notwithstanding, there has been the very careful development

of a policy with respect not only to this

section but to the entire

bill which is being debated.

It's easy for the member for political purposes — and I have to accuse him of that, Mr. Chairman....

MR. BARRETT: I accuse you of it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: ...to relate to other matters which date from the 1980-81 fiscal year. This is mid-1982.

Mr.

Chairman, better that the government of British Columbia developed this

section of the bill with care, with great thought and early. This

section flows from a decision announced by the Premier of this province

on February 18. What have we seen since, Mr. Chairman? We have seen

other jurisdictions, other provinces, nations and states suddenly slam

the door shut in a panic situation in terms of public sector employees,

in terms of public spending; we have examples within our own nation of

absolute freezes being placed overnight on the public-sector employee.

I thank God that we at least have the opportunity to develop this

carefully and with great thought. For the Leader of the Opposition to

dismiss this as — and I paraphrase — "political gamesmanship" is not

worthy of the debate that should take place, not only on this

section

but on all sections of the Compensation Stabilization Act.

moved early, we moved with care, with caution, and with regard for

those employed in the public sector of British Columbia; not in a

panic, not blind, meeting overnight and making an announcement one

morning, as has happened elsewhere. I think it is important to bear

that in mind in this debate and in subsequent debates with respect to

the compensation stabilization program. As the member who has taken his

seat knows, the newspapers have been full of crises elsewhere, and that

is the difference between this administration and other governments

where it has been found necessary to take dramatic and sudden action.

MR. BARRETT:

Just a few brief comments, and we'll pass on to another section. Mr.

Chairman, I have to respond to the minister saying that it has been

handled with care, and no midnight meetings, and no announcements. The

minister has a selective memory. What destroyed the credibility of this

section were the announcements made every 24 hours in the corridor by

the Premier, changing the figures while that minister was struggling

with the bill in the House. You've got a selective memory. I pick up

the paper every morning, and they get a scoop from the Premier running

down the hallways saying: "Maybe it's nothing. Maybe it's 4 percent.

Maybe it's 6 percent." You think we've forgotten that? You apparently

have. It was panicsville every single day in that corridor, and you

were in the heat in this chamber.

HON. MR. CURDS: Nonsense!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What number would you suggest?

MR. BARRETT: There they go. Could you show some decorum and restraint in the debate, please?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're waving your arms like a raving maniac.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. First I will ask the Minister of Forests to withdraw the remark. That is not necessary in this debate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I said "like" a raving maniac. Frankly, I have nothing against raving maniacs, but I withdraw.

[ Page 8412 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The absolute withdrawal is necessary and has been given.

would advise all members that only one member at a time is permitted to

speak in debate, and right now that member is the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will never

comment on self-descriptions by any minister, particularly when he says

that he's got nothing against his self-description.

If I may

go on — without interruption from people who will not stand up in the

debate and participate — I just wish to remind the minister that the

credibility of this

section was destroyed daily in the hallway: as I

described it, panicsville. After reading one newspaper the Premier

would come into the hallway and make an announcement. The best thing

that's happened regarding the government's position on the bill is that

the Premier has decided to stay away instead of acting erratically on

this and other legislation, with his statements in the hallway. You've

decided to embark on this course; that's your decision. In my opinion

it was a political decision from day one. Nothing proves that to me

more than the manner in which you've called it back now, rather than

showing a sincere — as you stated — interest in what was happening

nationally. You're not kidding anybody.

In terms of what's

taken place up to now as bargaining by the government under this

section, as far as we're aware, there has been no serious bargaining,

from the government's point of view, with the civil servants. It's my

opinion that you're deliberately heading for a confrontation with the

civil servants — looking for an election issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong.

MR. BARRETT:

Okay, I may be wrong; I've been wrong before. But I'm not ashamed to

admit it when I'm wrong. I've been wrong many times in my life, and

I've not been ashamed to admit that. I hope, as I've gone through life,

that I learned from my mistakes. I worry about people who when they're

wrong, are too weak to stand up and admit they've made a mistake. Be

that as it may, I don't profess to be perfect. I have human

fallibilities, unlike other godlike figures who have impressions of

themselves.

We're dealing here with nothing more than a

political bill designed to look for an issue for the political survival

of this government. The minister talks about careful, and I want to

repeat his words: "better to be prepared." You sure as heck haven't

been prepared for the expense accounts, the clean-up mess, and you've

had weeks to do that. You're the one who related to that. I find no

preparation; it's purely politics. You're playing with people's lives,

dividing our society and showing no leadership to bring people together

to deal on a united basis with this kind of problem. The whole thing

has been a sham.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. Leader of

the Opposition says that it's a sham and he says that it's

gamesmanship. This is possibly one of the most important issues in the

last 25 years, and his only contribution to the debate is: "It's a sham

and it's gamesmanship." He has not offered one single, solitary

constructive alternative. He gets into the prurience of Pouilly Fuissé

and that seems to be the only thing that can satiate his appetite.

This

section, Mr. Chairman, establishes the regulations, and the regulations

are the second mechanism within a measure that is intended to do

nothing more than further establish the process of reasonableness and

fairness and sharing the load during very difficult times in our

country. I think we need more of substance from the official

opposition, and if it's not possible for us to obtain more of substance

from the leader of the official opposition, let's hope that some of his

colleagues can contribute something of substance to the discourse this

morning.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the

government and, I'd say, all my colleagues are to be commended for

their manifest demonstration of responsibility and of leadership. It is

called for and greatly needed at this highly critical time in the

history of our nation. As the Minister of Finance mentioned a few

moments ago, would that other administrations and other provincial

governments and the national government — which is primarily

responsible for our present Canadian malaise — had acted in such a

commendable manner. It's regrettable that they didn't.

Looking

at this

section and its encompassing but very reasonable regulatory

authorization capacity, one can easily make the analogy that it is just

not good enough for a fire department, in the middle of a three-alarm

blaze in gale-force winds with trucks and pumps and hoses and water at

the ready, to just sit by and say: "Let's wait, boys. Let's hope it

goes out." The position of the NDP is: "Let's wait, boys, and just hope

something better will turn up." The Micawber party over there. The

policy of the New Democratic Party insofar as this bill is concerned, I

think, with all respect to them, constitutes a dereliction of their

duties. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of the duty of the Minister

of Finance if he chose to act in such a fashion, but he has not

abdicated his responsibility, and that's why he has brought forth this

measure.

We have seen them, not only in the discussion this

morning but in the discussions on other sections which I am not going

to refer to — but manifested this morning by the hon. Leader of the

Opposition — in extreme discomfort, because they're absolutely floating

in a sea of ambivalence. They don't know whether to support it or walk

away from it. When the Leader of the Opposition gets up, he's going to

say: "Ha, ha, the old Liberal stance." If that happens to be the old

Liberal stance, boy, are you riding the fence on this one. You have

nothing to offer, no constructive alternatives, just waffle, waffle.

Ten years ago today, on June 24, 1972, that great New Democratic Party

in Ontario expelled the Waffle Manifesto, but unfortunately they let

them remain in B.C., and they're still here. They're one of the most

dangerous, ultra left-wing movements we have ever seen in this country.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who signed it?

HON. MR. GARDOM:

The gentleman over there is smiling and is in good humour. He only

signed it, he said, because people couldn't talk about it unless he

signed it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I strayed, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Again, I encourage all hon. members that if we are to

have a debate on this

section at all, each member speaking must bear in

mind that we must be

[ Page

8413 ]

strictly relevant to the

section before us. I commend that to all members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I accept the admonition, and thank you for it.

Nobody

likes restraint. After a number of very good economic years society has

become accustomed to excellent times, but we've got to hold our

expectations in check. It's just that simple. We have to face reality,

because if we don't, Mr. Chairman, I can assure every member in this

assembly and the people of our province that the bankruptcy of our

lifestyle could be assured right across our country. We've seen

leadership demonstrated in this bill. We see spectacular leadership

demonstrated in this section. I intend fully to support it. Once again,

I'd like to commend my colleague for having not only the foresight but

the fortitude to bring it forth.

MR. BARRETT: I've

enjoyed the few words the member said, speaking strictly to this

section. Yes, it is the same old Liberal stance: in bed with Trudeau

right through this bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I told you that you'd say that.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, but you didn't have the second part. You're Trudeau's agent in

wrecking the economy of this country, and that was manifest in this

bill. You've been playing games with the federal Liberal government all

along.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Garbage! You wanted to sell out our natural resources and bankrupt B.C.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I guess Trudeau doesn't want him because he's got mono.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. Every member will have an opportunity to

take his place in debate. At this time, the Leader of the Opposition

has the floor, and he will be permitted to make his remarks without

interruption.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, it's a

lovely morning. I sat here quietly and listened to all the things they

said. None of them made sense. As soon as I get up and make sense, they

start screaming at me. I've never seen them so unnerved.

The

fact is that this is Trudeau-inspired legislation, and a deal was made,

and you're the frontrunner of the Liberal federal policies. That's why

this

section is here. That's why we're debating it today. You've been

playing politics with this bill all along. If you really meant this,

you'd do something about prices, mortgage rates and interest rates in

this province, but you've not lifted a finger about that. In terms of

your own expenses, you've been squanderers and extravagant right across

the board, blowing money like it's going out of style, spending money

in New York and living it up, and then telling other people to behave

themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, if we are to conduct a debate

according to the rules of the House, then it's the responsibility of each

member to bear in mind those rules which guide us in committee. The rule that

primarily guides us in committee is strict relevance. Members are tending to

stray somewhat from that rule.

MR. BARRETT: It is true, and I agree, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the point you just made is my point of order. The

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom), in his

discussion on

section 17, simply asked the Leader of the Opposition if

he would perhaps suggest what his guidelines were. I suggest that if

the member were to do that, we could get into

section 17 of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again, each member will have an opportunity to take his place in debate at the appropriate time.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, speaking strictly to this section, the old pancake party

over there.... The pancake legislation in this

section — just lie there

flat and hope that something happens — is all being announced in the

hallway, not in here. Day by day the Premier made erratic statements in

the hallway about this

section in terms of what the compensation would

be — erratic statements, and they've still not been clarified. I

understand how the Premier is ill at ease. He couldn't show up

yesterday. The pressure is heavy on you — these are serious times — and

you have my sympathy. But the fact is you've destroyed the whole

credibility of this bill by the erratic statements made in the hallway

on this section.

There is no more belief that this

government had anything planned with this bill other than politics.

You've been playing politics from day one, that's all. You've not shown

one whit of interest in people who are losing their homes because of

high mortgage rates, not one whit of interest under this

section in

controlling prices, not one whit of interest under this

section of

doing something for people who have lost jobs in this province. You can

make all the speeches you want on this section, but when you talk about

wanting to be in government.... When you took over, you said you were

going to really handle this economy. You've done nothing. And now

you've picked out a group in our society and said: "This is the group

that we're going to use for political purposes." Straight Liberal

politics.

What did we propose? We proposed 26 steps for

economic recovery, which we distributed, and there has not been one bit

of debate from that side on our proposals to get the economy moving in

British Columbia. All this rhetoric and nonsense here in this committee

this morning isn't going to save one job in British Columbia; it's not

going to save one home in British Columbia; it's not going to help the

5,000 people out of work in Alberni or the 18 percent unemployed up in

Prince George.

You can talk all you want about attacking the

New Democratic Party, but it's your system that brought the economy to

its knees in British Columbia. You've been in power for six years.

You've blown money by your example — the squandering of money with

extravagant trips all over the world — and then you come back here and

tell people that they should behave with restraint, on the basis you

state in this section. Nonsense! Say everything you want, but no one

believes this government anymore anyway. The evidence of the last few

weeks of how you blow money personally.... The only one who doesn't is

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). He goes up to Cariboo and

looks after his riding — a good minister.

Interjection.

[ Page 8414 ]

MR. BARRETT: I need a little help in my constituency, Mr. Minister — Cassiar Street; you take care of them.

The

rest? Come on! You've got a political crank — not the Premier, a handle

— and you're playing it for all it's worth. But you're not kidding

anybody. Cheap, sleazy politics has been the measure of this government

around this section, and there is no way you can erase it, including

all the yelling of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland).

You

say you have this plan. There has been nothing but contradiction,

separate statements and different

interpretations of this

section day

by day, until finally you've got some sense together and pulled the

debate off. The only reason you pulled it back now is that you think

MacEachen is going to do something half-hearted like you've started

doing. You're nothing but a group of regenerative Liberals growing

little arms here and little arms there. You've been dead on Trudeau

politically and economically for the last eight months. You've got one

month to go, and we'll see what's born out of it. I want to tell you

that you're nothing but a bunch of Liberals in disguise. You've been

taken over by the Liberals who have crossed the floor. You believe in

Trudeau's economic policies, as shown by this section. You've got no

leadership and no will to save homes or jobs in this province....

want to tell you — and this may come as a surprise to the member for

Point Grey — that we don't intend to support this section.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, I've heard an awful lot of pathetic debate by the Leader

of the Opposition in this chamber, but I think with his performance

this morning he has outdone even himself. I really begin to wonder what

those socialists over there are thinking. I really begin to wonder

whether those socialists over there are in the same world.

MR. HOWARD: I can't hear you, Jack.

MR. KEMPF: Get the mud out of your ears, Mr. Member for Skeena, and you probably will.

Mr.

Chairman, we have in this province and in this country — in fact, all

over North America and the world — a recession of major proportions.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What about Omineca?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, in Omineca as well.

Mr.

Chairman, we're here debating an issue which would begin to put the lid

on government spending in this province. We are debating in this

section an issue limiting....

You sit there like a Cheshire

cat, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). You laugh about the

problems that are being faced by the people of British Columbia out

there. On behalf of the people I represent and on behalf of other

British Columbians, I don't think it's a bit funny.

In this

section we are debating a means by which to put a lid on government

spending in this province, to lessen the taxation burden on those

people still working out there in this province. As I said before, we

have a recession — and I wish the opposition would realize that — of

major proportions, not only in this province but all over the world. In

this

section we're debating a means by which to limit.... Big full page

ads taken out by the BCGEU say that we are cutting the wages of the

civil servants in this province. They take out full-page ads that cost

thousands of dollars to their membership and print lies. In this

section we can see that we're not cutting the wages of the civil

servants in this province; we're limiting the increases. Yet we see

hundreds of thousands of dollars — we see it on TV sets; we see it in

newspapers — being spent to try to convince the people of British

Columbia — and particularly their members, because they're now going to

them for a strike vote — that this government is out to cut their

wages. Absolute total lies, Mr. Chairman, through you to the members

across the way.

They try to tell the people of Victoria —

and I quote from this full-page, thousand-dollar ad: "When you come to

think of it, we get a raise, and so does Victoria." Yes, if those

people get a raise, more money is spent in Victoria. But where do you

think that money comes from? Why don't they tell the people of Victoria

the truth? If they get raises, their taxes go up. Somebody's got to pay

for it. Do you think we've got a machine in the basement of this

building that manufactures dollar bills? It all comes from the taxpayer

of this province, and I take exception, as a taxpayer of this province,

to such ads. I'm sure that there are many BCGEU members who will pick

up the Times-Colonist today and who will also take exception to

their money being spent on these kinds of ads, which spread lies in the

province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

I want to just talk about that for a minute, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition. You talk about Broadway shows, you talk about Pouilly

Fuissé. How many Broadway shows do you think this ad would buy? How

many bottles of Pouilly Fuissé do you think it would buy? I'd like you

to ask the members of the BCGEU how many bottles of it you think this

ad would buy. Let's tell the truth, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr.

Chairman, in this

section we're not talking about freezing the wages of

the civil servants of this province. We're not talking about cutting

the wages of the civil servants of this province. We're talking about

limiting the increases. If the truth were told by the union leaders out

there, I bet there'd be a very positive vote taken among the BCGEU

members. We're not talking of freezing those wages; we're talking of

limiting the increases.

I want to tell you that I'm not so

sure, as we stand here this morning and we look at the economic

situation in all of North America — in fact, all of the world — that we

shouldn't be talking in this

section about freezing the wages of the

BCGEU, freezing the wages of every man, woman and child in this

province, including our own. As I said before, we have a situation of

catastrophic proportions in the world today. This

section and this bill

are an indication of at least one government trying to do something

about that. I stand here this morning listening to that pathetic

performance by the Leader of the Opposition. The number of his members

who are here in the House supporting him is indicative of how pathetic

it is. There are 26 NDP members in this House. How many are here? Six.

How many of his members are speaking on this? None. He's the only one

who has gotten up this morning. He's the only one who has stood in his

place and pathetically tried to speak against this particular bill.

They stand and speak against this kind of action by a responsible

government at a time when private-sector workers are facing a level of

shutdowns and layoffs never seen before in this country.

[ Page 8415 ]

MR. LEA: Under your government.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, and you blame it all on our government. That's just how stupid you are.

Mr.

Chairman, I withdraw that remark. Everybody knows; I don't have to say

it. What does the NDP do? They put up as a spokesman that chubby little

Leader of the Opposition over there who can only muster all their....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Personal allusions in debate are totally out of order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw "little."

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've been on a diet.

MR. KEMPF: You'd never know it by looking at you.

a time when the private-sector workers are facing shutdowns and

layoffs, the NDP stands in this House and speaks against governments

trying to put a lid on its spending. They incite their friends to take

out ads to try to make the people of this province think the government

is cutting the wages of the BCGEU. That's not so. This particular

section of Bill 28 makes that very clear. What does the NDP do? They

spend hour after hour, not putting forward some meaningful figures

but.... Is that all you can do, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King) — show little pictures in this House? Why don't you get up and

speak on this section? I'll sit down in a minute or two, when I've had

my say. Then I want you to get up and speak and show your little

pictures.

They're not putting forward any meaningful ways

for economic recovery in this province. They're not telling us what

they would do, apart from spending money, to get over these economic

hard times. I can just imagine what it would be that those members

would do were they in government at this particular time. Would they

borrow money and spend their way out of this problem? I can just

imagine. It was difficult enough picking up the deficit that we

acquired when we came into office after their three and a half years as

government; I can imagine what they'd do during these times. They

borrowed and spent themselves into the hole during good times; so what

would they do during these times?

They'd mortgage the souls

of our children, and our children's children; that's what they'd do.

They would go the route of the federal government in order not to bring

in measures such as limiting increases in civil servants' wages. They'd

borrow and mortgage the souls of our people far into the future. They'd

go the route of the federal government: over $100 billion in debt; with

interest on long-term debt amounting to $16.7 billion in this fiscal

year alone. The money that is going to pay interest on long-term debt

today would go a long way if we spread it among the ten provinces.

That's over $1.5 billion each that those provinces would receive, but

it's being spent for naught — to pay the interest on long-term debt.

That's what you'd do, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. You'd borrow your

way out of this problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Hon. members, the debate is now clearly recanvassing what would have

been better discussed in second reading. We're now going much further

than the rules of the House allow, and I must instruct the member to

return to

section 17 so we can conclude the debate in order.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll go back to

section 17. I'll be in order as much as the Leader of the Opposition was.

We're

debating a solution to the ills facing our province today — ills which

the members opposite would like to blame totally on the present

provincial government. But the people of British Columbia know better,

and we will see that in the days to come.

What do the NDP do in this chamber during this time? They waste the time of this assembly.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

They waste time talking about $37.50 bottles of wine, Mr. Member for

New Westminster. That's all I've heard day after day and week after

week in this chamber. They whine about wine, Mr. Chairman. It can be

likened to Nero fiddling while Rome burned. They sit here day after day

and talk about bottles of wine and trips to New York City. They're not

facing the realities that face the people of British Columbia. People

out there are hurting. They are being laid off. World markets are

drying up, and they want governments to spend yet more. They want to

see the BCGEU get their 28 percent, or whatever it is they're asking

for. Well, it's not there. What do the NDP do about it? For so long

they have done things purely for political purposes, and they can't get

out of that rut. They are accustomed to being in that gutter, and there

is no way they can get out. Mines are closing, sawmills are reducing

shifts and small businesses are going bankrupt — and we've even heard

that from the other side of the floor.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

Yes, they are, hon. member. What should we do? Raise their taxes to pay

more to the 40,000-plus civil servants of this province? Is that how

you're going to fix the whole matter? Is that your response to it?

Mr.

Chairman, they try to inflame their friends in the union executives to

print these thousand-dollar ads. I don't know what an ad like this

costs; I don't know what those ads I've seen on television cost the

BCGEU members — hundreds of thousands of dollars, I suspect.

MR. BARRETT: They should have supported the Canucks. Are you saying they should have spent $14,000 supporting the Canucks?

MR. KEMPF: Are you against supporting the Canucks?

MR. BARRETT: You bet! Not $14,000 worth.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. The Chair is bound by the rules of this

House. The rules simply state that we must be strictly relevant to the

section. We are not going to have a recanvass of second reading, and we

are not going to discuss the entire economy of the province under

section 17. Strictly relevant means exactly that. Simply referring to

section 17 when a member discusses a matter that should be discussed

under general debate is not in order. I

[ Page 8416 ]

advise the member now speaking to return specifically to

section 17.

MR. KEMPF:

section 17 of Bill 28, this morning we are debating the government

putting a lid on their spending during difficult times — times in which

levels have been reached naturally in the private sector. There have

been groups of people in my constituency who voluntarily took 10

percent cuts in their wages in order to keep their manufacturing plants

open. All we're debating here this morning in

section 17 is a limiting

of the increases that the civil service of this province can receive in

these times. We're limiting those, not cutting them, as the ad said. I

think there's a big difference, and I think the members opposite should

start to realize that and come clean with the people of British

Columbia as to exactly what they would do.

What would you

do? The Leader of the Opposition has left the chamber. That's really a

step in the right direction. What would that Leader of the Opposition

do during these times? Would he increase their wages, or would he cut

them? By how much would he cut them? By 10 percent? By 5 percent? By 15

percent? What are his figures? This morning it's incumbent upon that

Leader of the Opposition and the very few members that seem to support

him to get up in this House and tell this chamber what it is that they

would do. By how much would they cut civil servants' wages, or how much

it is they would allow them to be increased?

Mr. Chairman,

that's all we're debating in

section 17. We're debating government

during very difficult times and trying to — on behalf of those whom we

represent, the people of British Columbia — put a lid on government

spending. If I listened to my constituents, I would stand here this

morning and ask for a freeze not only on BCGEU members' wages but on

every wage and every salary in the province of British Columbia. That's

what they're asking me to do. They're saying 8 to 14 percent is too

much.

MR. LEA: Then why don't you do it?

MR. KEMPF: What I want to know from the members opposite, on this section, is what it is they'd do during these difficult times.

could go on and on. You see it in other jurisdictions. I just saw an

item yesterday where the state of Idaho has moved not to increase its

civil servants' wages by 8 to 14 percent, but to put them on a four-day

work week and to pay them accordingly. Right to the south of us, our

neighbours in the state of Washington have put a freeze on civil

service wages. We see it in many jurisdictions, but in this

section

this morning we are debating limited increases to the civil servants of

this province. I think that we're doing the right thing on behalf of

the people of British Columbia, who really will be the ultimate judges

in this matter. The only thing I doubt is whether or not we should be

offering increases during a time when possibly we, too, in this

jurisdiction should be freezing those wages. That's all we're debating

here this morning in

section 17 of Bill 28.

I know that the

22 members of the NDP who aren't here this morning are listening in

their offices, and I dare them on this debate to come in here and tell

us what it is that their constituents are telling them to say. I know

that those that aren't on the golf course this morning are listening in

their offices. I dare them to come in here and debate this issue so

that not only their constituents can see what it is they think, but so

it's there for all British Columbians to see. I dare them to do that,

Mr. Chairman. I would think it would be to their benefit to have

something in Hansard other than the pathetic performance by their leader this morning.

could go on and on. Really, I want to hear what it is that the members

opposite have to say in regard to putting the lid on government

spending. They talk about the nickel and dime things; they stand up in

this House and whine about wine and talk about $30.50 bottles of wine,

but when we really get down to the dollars, when we really get down to

the area that's costing the taxpayer of this province, at a time when

we can't afford it, millions and millions of dollars, they have no

debate, no answers, no responses.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to

sit down, having thrown out that dare, and listen to what it is the

members of the opposition have to say on this subject.

MR. COCKE:

I will take very little time of the committee, but I will tell you what

my constituents are saying. They are saying: "For heaven's sake, when

are we going to have an election so we can get rid of that bunch in

Victoria?" That's what my constituents are saying.

I would

like to clear the air once and for all. The government before us now

continually criticizes the Liberal government in Ottawa for their

debt-ridden situation. This government has been in power for six years,

and our provincial debt — let's not kid around about indirect or direct

— has gone from $4 billion to $11 billion. That's over a billion a

year. For the size of the province, compared to the country....

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, I don't think the member is discussing this bill at all, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair must remind members that we are dealing with the strict

relevance of the sections of the bill. Members are tending to stray

from the particular section. Certainly the course that the member is

now pursuing is really not, by any stretch of the imagination, in

order; I would ask that member to return to something that is somewhat

close to

section 17.

MR. COCKE: I agree, Mr.

Chairman. The relevance of what I'm saying is, I think, far more

discernible than the relevance of anything said by the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in the last half hour. Anyway, that's neither here

nor there. I'm replying to some of the things he said. He said the

opposition would throw money at the problem that's before us; and I'm

saying the people who have been throwing money are the people we now

have in power.

Furthermore, we are dealing now with the

whole question of the regulations around Bill 28. When we're talking

about those regulations, we're talking about the people who will be

making those regulations — the people who have had such a contribution

to make to our province's inflation. One reason we're in such dire

straits is that they have continually raised taxes. The group that will

be making the regulations are an indolent bunch who haven't the

empathy, the understanding, of an economy. As far as I'm concerned,

they are the people who are going to make the decisions.

The

Leader of the Opposition pointed out how the Premier has been behaving

over the last few weeks on this particular bill. He runs out in the

hall one day and says it's 4 percent; the next day it's something

different. Up and down — nobody in this province knows where we are

going at all.

[ Page 8417 ]

Instead

of putting it before us in the form of a bill, they want to take it out

of the public purview, away from the public's ability to see what

they're doing, and take it behind the closed doors of that cabinet

where they're going to set the regulations. Heaven only knows what

those regulations might be.

To hear this group talking about

trying to make a contribution to save our economy, a contribution

called restraint, must be the biggest or the saddest joke that any of

us has heard. As I pointed out, that group has carried us into the

depths of debt; and then they turn around and say the BCGEU will bail

us out. Who are the BCGEU? The government employees, who, over the last

three years, have had an increase of 8 percent a year, while that

member for Omineca wallows around, never doing any work, grabbing every

nickel he can get. He's getting far bigger raises than any of them got

— 8 percent a year for three years. And this in the face of an

inflation rate of at least 11 percent!

AN HON. MEMBER: What would you give them?

MR. COCKE:

What do you mean, what would I give them? When I get into the

government, then I'll tell you. As far as I'm concerned, the duty of

the opposition is to criticize a fumbling government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think the economy is in the kind of shape that we can't wait that long.

MR. COCKE:

That's the funniest point of order I've heard in my life. Mr. Chairman,

one thing I would do, unless the entire economy goes one way or the

other, is negotiate with any group.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: What is it they say about the noonday sun? What does it do to people? It's not even noon yet.

far as I'm concerned, I don't trust the government to deal with this

particular bill in making regulations. I don't like this particular

section, because it's the kind of secretive thing that they're always

doing — taking it upon themselves to make all their decisions behind

those closed cabinet doors. Maybe the member for Omineca can trust

them; he's a wide-eyed little chap. But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot trust

this government, which I've been watching closely for the last six

years.

HON. MR. BENNETT: As the member for New

Westminster leaves the House, being late for his golf match — and the

Leader of the Opposition has gone.... Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond

to some of the statements made in this debate by the Leader of the

Opposition. I know you will allow me the same latitude you gave the

Leader of the Opposition when he was making a number of statements

during this debate. First of all, the Leader of the Opposition said

that this legislation has been introduced to somehow provoke a

confrontation or a fight for political benefit. This is irresponsible,

but it is no different from the conduct of the New Democratic Party and

that leader, who carry on....

It's not easy for a government

to take strong action. I don't believe that governments get a lot of

political benefit when they take strong action. It's easier to be

negative and politically partisan, to go out and spread all sorts of

smokescreens and confuse the people. It's easy for them to get these

people to be their allies by putting different

interpretations on the

Government's intentions. In the short term, it's easy for them to get

some political benefit. If anyone is playing partisan politics with the

economy of this province, instead of addressing themselves to the

serious problems facing not only our province but our country as well,

it's the leader of the New Democratic Party and his colleagues in this

House.

I'm as concerned as anyone about expenses in government. I know you

must watch the nickels and dimes. I also know that that's not our only

job. The public is finding it just a little confusing to hear members

day after day....

They attacked the member for Omineca. They

said he had a very good salary. Well, theirs is the same. I haven't

seen them sending any cheques back. And I haven't heard the opposition

members offer to meet the offer made by the member for Omineca, who

stated that he would be willing to take a freeze on his salary. Perhaps

it's because they question the fact that he gets the same salary as

they do and made that offer. Perhaps they will get into an auction and

will beat the offer he made to take a freeze on his salary today. It

must be of interest to them, because they mentioned it specifically.

Perhaps we'll hear from them about what they would recommend members of

this Legislature do in respect to the amount of public money that goes

to compensate us for our service to the province. I will certainly be

listening very closely. The government wishes to allow the members to

provide a leadership role in this regard.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What has the Leader of the Opposition done? They've spent almost all of the past three months in this Legislature...

MR. SEGARTY: Talking about a bottle of wine.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

...not on frivolous things, on serious matters. But the point has been

made. Now it's not only the public but also their own members out there

who are wondering just what they're doing to earn their money here in

this Legislature and what they're doing to be a part of the solutions

that are required in this province and in our country. It’s an unusual

thing when reports in the media suggest that the Leader of the

Opposition had to apologize at a nominating convention of his party in

Kamloops just recently for spending all their time talking about

expense vouchers and not addressing themselves to the problems of the

people of this province. I think they've hurt themselves by the very

fact that they have not addressed these problems. The Leader of the

Opposition calls us a pancake party. At the same time, as he was a

signer of the Waffle Manifesto, let me remind him that a waffle is

nothing more than pancake with a lot of holes in it. No matter how much

syrup they put on the NDP waffle, it still tastes like baloney to the

people of this province.

I was surprised at the good humour

that went on in this Legislature between the member for Omineca and the

Leader of the Opposition. I don't think the member for Omineca should

have described the Leader of the Opposition as "short and dumpy." I

think it was incorrect for him to do that. The Leader of the Opposition

was quite right to point out to the members that he was on a diet. I

want the public to recognize

[ Page 8418 ]

how

his restraint program is working personally, and how one he implemented

would work if he tried to bring one in, in government.

get to this

section of the bill, the very principle behind this

section

and bill is not to pick on the BCGEU, as some members of the opposition

have said. It is to provide guidelines for all of the public sector. It

has been suggested by some of the New Democratic Party members opposite

that if the government wanted to be tough and show leadership, all we

had to do was to negotiate firmly and toughly with the British Columbia

Government Employees Union. These are good workers. They work hard for

the province. But if we, as a government, chose to deal firmly and

toughly with just those employees, that would not be fair to the other

public employees; other public employees and public-sector managers and

negotiators may not feel their obligation to try to bring some reason

to the rate of increase of settlements in the areas for which they're

responsible, whether it be municipal, schools, hospitals or whatever.

B.C.

government employees are only about 20 percent of the total number of

people working in public-sector employment in this province. I don't

like the suggestion from the New Democratic Party that we should pick

on them and penalize them. It is quite correct that they have had a

very responsible contract over the last three years. As a government,

we refuse to follow the course of action that's been suggested by the

New Democratic Party. We didn't want to pick on the BCGEU, nor any

public-sector union. What we did want was to allow them the opportunity

to show some responsibility and restraint and to give them confidence

that union by union, group by group, if they negotiated responsibly —

because there were some guidelines — no other group, public-sector

negotiator or union negotiator who didn't have the same commitment to

restraint and was not as aware or maybe might not care.... The

neighbours and friends of these people who work in the private sector

do not have the same job security. Many are facing layoffs. Many have

faced, and are facing, unemployment. Many are facing very difficult

times.

What the guidelines allow is something new and unique

in Canadian industrial relations in the public sector. It is not the

traditional tool of government that has been used by New Democratic

Party governments and others, of simply moving in on a dispute and

legislating a group of people back to work, as the New Democratic Party

did in Saskatchewan recently and as other provincial governments have

done; as in the years between 1972 and 1975, when on at least three

occasions the New Democratic Party, as government, legislated against

one particular group. What this allows is all of the groups to know

what the rules and regulations are in regard to upper limits.

There

is some confusion, as is traditional with the New Democratic Party,

about how the program works. First of all, the program does have

flexible guidelines. There is a procedure that takes place before these

guidelines ever come into play — I'm hopeful they won't have to — and

that's called the collective bargaining process. That means that we can

have settlements well below the guidelines, and when settlements are

responsible it will mean that the union and management have recognized

that on one hand — on management's side — a responsible settlement

would allow them to maintain services. In many public institutions,

such as health and education, 80 percent of the cost to the public in

these very costly areas goes to wages or into compensation packages. It

allows management to make a decision that they have a responsibility to

their employees to negotiate fairly, but also to the people who would

use the system, to guarantee that those services will be there. And

then they also have an additional responsibility to the taxpayer, who

is also the user, and that is to keep the costs within affordable

limits during this very difficult period.

It is that

diminishing private sector that pays the cost of government. Unemployed

workers — organized or unorganized — and firms small and large with no

profits have no contribution to send to government, as they would like

to send if times were more prosperous. That's not only a problem for

provincial and federal governments in this country, but for federal and

state governments in the United States and around the world. As the

economy has deteriorated, the ability of the people — or the business

side of the economy — to pay has shrunk also. That means that there has

to be some restraint on the demands we make to government, some

restraint in the way government provides services, and some restraint

by those who have the security of working in the public service in

terms of what it costs to provide those services.

Now it

would have been easy, as many have suggested, to freeze wages across

the board, but I don't think that's fair. They're not freezing wages in

the private sector, even though it's difficult. I'm only sorry that in

the private sector the work-sharing concept that we have inherent in

this bill — and that is, "Restrain your demands and your settlements,

and keep your colleagues employed and keep services at maximum level" —

isn't being followed in the private sector by everyone. It's a sad

thing in our society when we see, not just for the usual economic

reasons, groups seeking more for a few, to the detriment of others who

may have been part of that group but now have lost their opportunity to

earn because a few want to make a little more, beyond the public's

ability to pay. That's just as true in the private sector as the public

sector. Inherent in this bill is the call for people to restrain their

demands, keep services operating, and keep their colleagues working.

as I started to say, there's an opportunity, before the guidelines that

are mentioned in this

section come into effect, for freely bargained

collective agreements to be achieved, and if they're achieved below the

guidelines, then services will remain at a maximum level in this

province and all of the people that work in those services can remain

working. We're not telling them to do that. I would say it's the

responsible thing to do; that's what I've said. What has apparently

confused the confused Leader of the Opposition is that the floor can be

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 percent, because that's what it can be when they

are bargaining freely and collectively, before any agreement — after

having been struck — would be referred to the commissioner and his

staff. It's a test of whether they can meet this challenge for those

who are responsible for negotiating agreements. It's going to be a test

to see whether self-interest or common interest comes first. It will be

a test to see how responsible elected public-sector managers are in

other areas of this province — whether it be hospitals, schools or

municipalities — and how the people who work there respond.

This

section really provides security to the responsible. It supplies the

security that allows them to negotiate responsibly and know that

someone can't get a 40 percent, 50 percent or 60 percent agreement. It

has happened in the past. It means that 40 percent arbitration awards

or agreements would not

[ Page

8419 ]

leave them out of their historic relationships. In

fact, the very flexibility of the program allows for some historic

relationships to be restored that have been lost or changed over the

last few years. One thing there must be is some continuing relationship

between categories and similarities between the various public-sector

workers.

That is all this

section allows us to do. It allows

for collective bargaining and it also allows some security for the

responsible to know that others will not get enormous increases while

they are showing responsibility. It's not the traditional reaction of

governments to pick on one sector and say, "You look after yours and

we'll just negotiate hard with the B.C. Government Employees Union," as

the NDP have said. We have said that we want everybody to negotiate

fairly, responsibly and hard, and we want them all to know what the big

picture is and what the guidelines are. That's what we've done.

think that members of the BCGEU who work hard for the people of this

province should be aware of who is advocating that this government or

any provincial government deal harshly with just them while others may

be allowed more lenient negotiations somewhere else in the public

sector. I've talked to many of them, and I think they like the

opportunities for them to be responsible without falling drastically

behind others who wouldn't be responsible.

I know they like

the idea that we're not talking about rollbacks, as there will be in

Quebec in January. Quebec has one of two social democratic governments

in this country, and they are going to roll back about 19 percent of

wages to the workers. I know the BCGEU like the fact that they are not

being frozen or rolled back, and we would not do that. This allows for

them to negotiate increases.

That's why the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was correct when he said that these people should

stop trying to fool the public. The public is tired of the cloudiness

that they're putting over a very clear-cut measure that will attempt to

rationalize what should be done in the public sector. They talk about

cutbacks in services, cutbacks in government spending and cutbacks in

wages. In all of those cases there is an allowance for responsible

increases. There are increases in the budget, which every British

Columbian knows, for health, education and all other aspects of public

spending on services. That isn't cutbacks.

The whole program

of restraint on government spending, of which this is a major part, is

only one part of the economic recovery program. The other part would be

as the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. We are channelling into

key economic areas — sensitive areas of mortgages and jobs — to assist

people in a very serious way. We have not attempted to introduce

legislation that cannot be followed through, as was done in

Saskatchewan. That was only cosmetic. It fell apart. That was the

advice we received, and it's not fair. When you do something like that,

it's worse than doing nothing at all, because you're fooling the people

for partisan political purposes. It's the old socialist trick of

raising any expectation to get elected and then worry about it later.

It's not fair for a government to do that today. It's not only misleading,

but it's the root of what's wrong with the economy. Very promising politicians

— and we've had a few promising politicians in this province — have promised

the people just about everything. They've also promised them that they wouldn't

have to pay. We had an example of that again today when the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke) said: "You're putting taxes on the people; the people are

paying taxes." Who do you think is going to pay for government? It took

tough times to destroy the socialist myth that somehow there were great hoards

of money locked up in the business vaults of this province — small business

and large business. Now they find out that when businesses, governments and

markets hit it, there isn't that wealth of hidden money. They've haven't

been ripping off the public. What happens when they're hit so hard is that

they can no longer sustain themselves and the people suffer. Profits mean jobs.

Losses mean unemployment. The zero growth that they advocate means zero opportunities

and zero jobs.

Perhaps

the myth of the old argument has been destroyed in this country. I was

up in Kamloops recently. I was speaking and also doing a lot of things

there for the government. I was faced with a demonstration in which

people were dressed up in costumes. There was Nelson Riis, the NDP MP

whom I know very well. I meet him in the first-class

section of

airplanes flying from Ottawa to British Columbia. I don't begrudge him

that. That's a 3,000 mile trip and a three-hour time change. If he's a

hard worker, he needs that time to both adjust and prepare. I just say

that at least he's not a cynic and hypocrite like some of the people he

has chosen not to join with now. He was mooted as the new leader of the

NDP in B.C., but having seen their conduct, he didn't even offer

himself for nomination at the recent Kamloops nominating convention.

Quite frankly, he's ashamed of their conduct and hypocrisy. His

constituency secretary was there all dressed up in costume so you

wouldn't recognize her.

What I was trying to explain to

these people.... They might have been there to hoot and holler at me,

but I'm concerned about them if they've got a problem. I wanted to

explain what the government was doing. I asked them where they would

ask us to get the money from, and they said to get it from those

bloated businesses who have been taking all the money. I said: "Find me

a business that has that much money, and we'll gladly put a fair and

equitable tax on them." But I'll tell you that there are not many who

have that now. In fact, we were the first government and this Minister

of Finance was the first minister in this country to do something about

putting a tax on banks. It may not be that they've made extraordinarily

high profits, but they're making profits at a time when the people who

deal with them are hurting.

We did put a tax on them. That's

the tax increase of which the New Democratic Party member for New

Westminster said: "This government is putting up taxes." The only tax

increase introduced in the budget was a tax on banks. Obviously he's

confused. He must be thinking of the social democratic government in

Quebec. They put the sales tax up to 9 percent. He must be thinking of

them as they run and plan for a record $3 billion deficit. They put

taxes up on the people and they're rolling back the workers' wages.

That's what the New Democratics do when they've got a secure mandate.

They didn't talk that way a few years ago when they were seeking

election in Quebec. They didn't talk that way in Manitoba before they

got elected. These people are talking about creating jobs.

you know what happened in Manitoba? They had great expectations. They

elected a socialist democratic party, and do you know what happened in

the few months since they were elected? The major Alcan project with

thousands of jobs has been cancelled. Alberta has cancelled their

participation in the energy grid for two years, which was going to feed

industry. The only thing left that was taking place under the former

government is a potash proposal, and the people are

[ Page 8420 ]

their knees, praying that the new socialist government of Manitoba

won't scare them out too. That's what happens when they become

government. They say, like they do in B.C.: "Oh, we're only going to

renegotiate the contract." That's what they say about northeast coal.

That's what they said in the election in Manitoba. They said: "Oh,

we're only going to renegotiate the contract with Alcan." Well, they

got elected and they had no one to talk to. The jobs and the company

had pulled up and gone, and the people hurt. That's the type of

renegotiation they talk about; they talk you right out of jobs.

We're

section 17, dealing with the regulations. Times are difficult and

the regulations are necessary. We have to have the ability to respond

to the economy. Last January, at the first ministers' conference on the

economy, we outlined an economic recovery program in which

public-sector government restraint on spending was one of the key

elements. But in spite of protestations, nobody accepted or could agree

to the British Columbia proposal at that time.

Contrary to

what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, who traditionally

has not been a supporter of Liberal governments.... He accused the

member for Point Grey of being an ex-Liberal. You don't have a Liberal

government in Ottawa; you have a Trudeau government, and the Trudeau

government is far closer to the New Democratic Party. They're the group

that got together on the national energy plan and the socialization of

the oil and gas industry, and they're the group that got together to

unilaterally bring back the constitution. The Leader of the Opposition

stood up in this Legislature and supported that unilateral action.

They've been in bed together, and the Leader of the Opposition has

kissed the Prime Minister so often they should have mononucleosis, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not

relevant to the section. I'll advise the hon. Premier that under

standing orders his time has elapsed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I apologize. I'll speak later in the debate, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING:

I'm going to try to keep my remarks to

section 17, rather than get down

to Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and all those other exotic places

that the Premier of the province visited in his rather pathetic attempt

to justify

section 17.

The Premier shows a remarkable

ignorance of the collective-bargaining system. I want to set the record

straight in terms of what our particular side of the House has

recommended.

We think it's a foolish move for the government

to set a specific level beyond which wage increases cannot be

negotiated. The government has said 14 percent is the maximum that can

be negotiated for.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What would you set it at?

MR. KING: If the member can contain himself, I'll explain the position.

think it's foolish to set the level at all by government dictum,

because as soon as that figure is put forward by the government, it

becomes the minimum level people will negotiate for. They say: "That's

the maximum allowable, and we are going to make certain that we get the

maximum." That's the way the collective bargaining system works. The

government has set a 14 percent figure, and none of the unions involved

will accept any less. That's the way the collective bargaining system

works.

It would have been far better had the government got

together with their Public Service Commission and the agency that they

already pay for, through GERB, to liaise with all of the other

public-sector employers — that is, the hospitals and the municipalities

of the province. They should have said: "Look, this is the maximum we

are going to pay this year because the economy is in tough shape." Had

they agreed, as do employers in the private sector.... How do you think

the construction industry in the private sector gets together and sets

a level which is the maximum they can afford? They do it by private

consultation; they do not reveal to the unions what that level is. Then

they negotiate within that framework.

This is what the

government should have done in British Columbia through the collective

bargaining process. The trade unions and the public sector understand

that the economy is in trouble. They are responsible people; the

Premier himself acknowledged that they are. Why did the government feel

it necessary to set a 14 percent figure as the maximum compensation

that could be set this year? I predict that by taking that course of

action, settlements in the public sector this year will tend to be

higher than they would otherwise have been — and that's an amazing

ignorance of the process. If you want to hold the line, fair enough;

but if you're going to start to legislate, as you have done, an

arbitrary maximum, then we say that is unfair. That is scapegoating one

group. If you are going to attempt to hold the line by legislation, it

should have been a broad package in terms of profits, prices and

interest rates as well. That would have been fair and equitable, and I

believe the people of British Columbia would have accepted it.

The

Premier's convoluted argument about how it's going to work is nonsense.

Any practitioner of industrial relations in the province — on the

labour side or on management side — know that it's utter and absolute

nonsense, Mr. Chairman. I predict again that this particular provision

is going to end up costing the public more for wage settlements this

year than would otherwise have been the case.

The Premier

talked about socialist governments in Quebec. I don't really care what

kind of government Quebec has, but it is rather interesting to note

that the Premier of the province of Quebec sat as a Liberal cabinet

minister in the provincial legislature for years — in the same fashion

that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and one or two other members on

that side sat in this Legislature as Liberal members. For the Premier

to identify all those people as socialists is a bit of a twist of

reality, it seems to me. The Premier is reaching to try to find

diversions that I think detract from the debate that's going on.

addition to setting some realistic guidelines that should have been

achieved through the collective bargaining process, we think the

government has a responsibility to lead by example. What has been the

example, Mr. Chairman, is the most absolutely irresponsible profligacy

that we have seen by any government over the past number of years in

this province. We have ministers showing the most amazing lack of

restraint in their travels around the country, in their very exotic

dinners and in their choice of the most expensive wines at public

expense.

[ Page 8421 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we please return to the section.

MR. KING:

Yes we can, Mr. Chairman, but where were you when the Premier was in

Quebec and Manitoba? Be equitable. Don't start calling me to order when

you've allowed the Premier to wander all over the nation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're in the gutter all the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the Minister of Agriculture not to interrupt.

MR. KING:

I'm in the gutter, eh? It's not me that's squandering the public money,

my friend, on wine, booze, exotic trips and limousines. That's the

gutter, and you're in it. There is a responsibility to lead by some

example. Your example is detestable and it coincides completely with

your mentality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The

debate is getting quite heated. I will ask the Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) not to heckle the hon. member who is speaking. No interruptions

please. Perhaps the member can address the Chair.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, the government has shown an astoundingly bad example of

restraint. It's been chronicled day after day in this Legislature — the

waste and the extravagance at public expense. How we can we expect any

other reaction but cynicism from people they are imposing restraint on

when they act in the most irresponsible fashion — reserving limousines

at public expense to junket around New York and attending Broadway

shows at public expense to the tune of thousands and thousands of

dollars?

How is it that they wish to lead by example when

last year the opposition in this Legislature moved motions cutting $82

million dollars from the extravagance of ministerial office? It's a

matter of public record. A total of $82 million was put forward by

motion by the opposition — not to cut back on ministerial spending but

simply to hold the line at the previous year's level for office

furniture, ministerial travel and for the luxurious things that those

ministers in their trappings of office demand. Each and every one of

the government members voted against those votes. That's no example of

restraint. When they had an opportunity to lead by example and show

some restraint, they stood up and insisted on their own extravagant

demands, yet they imposed by statute, on a small percentage of the

workforce of British Columbia, arbitrary limitations. Where have they

been this year? Just last night a motion was put forward by the

opposition to cut $4 million from the Attorney-General's estimates,

which represented an increase this year over last year's expenses for

travel, for office furniture, for building occupancy costs. None of

those areas would have detracted from services to the people of the

province of British Columbia; rather they represented the profligacy

and the extravagance of this government, which refuses to lead by

example, which refuses to accept the same constraints on their spending

habits as they are — through this

section — arbitrarily imposing on a

small group of working people in the province of British Columbia.

Our argument is that that is unfair, that's discriminatory, and in the

final analysis — as I pointed out earlier — it's self-defeating. It's

a foolish move. By all means, in this time of economic strife and trouble, negotiate

with a firm hand as the private sector does. But this government wanted to make

this a high-profile political issue. They thought it was popular, because of

their political polling, to impose with the heavy hand of government legislation

some restraint on someone — anyone — and they were prepared to make the settlements

more costly because they could create the ruse before the public that they were

doing something firm. It's not going to work that way. It's a foolish move;

it's discriminatory; and it's not going to save the taxpayers of the

province of British Columbia any money at all. It's ill-advised, and I certainly

don't support it.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I want to confine my remarks to

section 17 to the greatest extent

possible. I know that one does not refer to the galleries, but it is

instructive to note that through the course of this morning's debate on

this

section of Bill 28 we have had between four and six members of the

New Democratic Party in the House. At the moment I see five NDP

members. Clearly the New Democratic Party and its members in this House

are afraid of this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Perhaps, at this time, the whole committee could return to the section.

A great amount of latitude has been allowed. In fact, we've been in

second reading debate, not in committee debate, and I would ask if all

members could return to the specific relevance of

section 17.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I will attempt to follow your instruction. However, the Leader of the

Opposition spoke on

section 17 and withdrew from the chamber

immediately. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) spoke on

section 17 and withdrew. The NDP is afraid of this legislation, because

they know how the public feel about this

section and the bill in its

entirety.

References were made to comments about Quebec —

other parts of the country. When I heard the Premier speak, those

comments were clearly made in the context of this section. What do we

see occurring in the province of Quebec? It's appropriate when one is

looking at the regulation portion of this bill — this

section — to look

quickly at the Globe and Mail headline for Wednesday, May 26:

"PQ Cuts Pay Raises of 300,000 in Public Service." It is very important

to note that. This is from the same newspaper on the following day, the

27th: "Parizeau Believes Workers Will Accept Cuts." Not restraint as

imposed by the regulations in this section, but cuts in salaries for

the public service.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

It's appropriate also to speak about France in the days immediately following

the recent economic summit at Versailles, and I quote in part from Time magazine

of June 28: "Within a week after it ended" — and there is reference

to Versailles — "Finance Minister Jacques Delors travelled to Brussels to

present his European partners with a package of self-imposed austerity measures.

They included a 10 percent devaluation of the franc against the West German

mark, as well as a four-month freeze on wages and prices." That is the

chaos that is happening elsewhere in the world. I indicated earlier, in speaking

on this

section about an hour and a half ago, that this flows from a carefully

considered, realistic

[ Page 8422 ]

recognition of the need for public-sector restraint

as announced by the Premier of the province on February 18. Contrary to

the hitting of panic buttons across this country and in other parts of

the world, most recently in New Zealand, there was a carefully

considered recognition that some control had to be exerted on

public-sector salaries — not just the British Columbia Government

Employees Union, not just those who are employed directly by the

government of British Columbia, but those in all sectors of the public

service, whether at the local level, municipal level, regional district

level, school district level or hospital level. I am so happy that we

were able to address ourselves to this problem earlier on, rather than

to find ourselves in the kind of panic environment which has taken

place elsewhere.

It's

interesting that the Leader of the Opposition, as the leader of that

party in this House, today offered no constructive suggestion with

respect to this regulation section.

With respect to the

Chair, he indulged in a number of matters which are not relevant to the

section. He ducked the issue contained in this section, as members

across the floor have repeatedly ducked the issue and ducked the

legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to do something that I

don't often do: I am going to certainly ensure, not at government

expense, that copies of the comments made by the Leader of the

Opposition this morning are as widely distributed in my constituency as

I can possibly arrange, because we see actually nothing constructive,

nothing to suggest how this could be improved — and any legislation can

be improved. We see nothing constructive whatsoever from the man who

would be the Premier of this province. The NDP is afraid of this

legislation. We know that, and we know that the public support this

legislation. They recognize the need for modest, moderate restraint in

the public sector.

MR. HOWARD: What a hypocrite!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it is normal and usual to hear the word "hypocrite" from across the floor.

That was the one word missing from the Leader of the Opposition's statement

this morning. Usually he uses it as well. I take offence at the use of the word

"hypocrite."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the member to withdraw the word, which is unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD:

When the Minister of Finance says one thing and does completely the

opposite, as exhibited by his votes in this House, to continue a high

level of spending, no other word but the word "hypocrite" applies to

that minister, but if you insist that I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, I

will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The word is withdrawn.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, while we're having a

good debate here this morning on a very important issue in our

province, I want to say a few words about what I think about the issue.

Following the Premier is quite

an act, but I'd like to confirm a few

things that he said.

I had the honour to accompany him to

the first ministers' conference at the end of January this year. I know

that he put public restraint on the table there, and I know that he was

rejected by the other nine Premiers and the Prime Minister.

However, following that, the Premier of our province came back and

announced on television, on February 18, that we were going ahead with

the restraint program that is being debated here today. Following that,

the legislation was brought forward that is before us, and we are under

Bill 28,

section 17.

The bill we're discussing does not put

a freeze on the public payroll. It only limits the increase. We seem to

lose track of that. I think we have a fine public service in the

province. I have further reason to believe that they don't want a large

increase. They're very happy in the job security they have. They want

to know that they have that job continuing. They're aware of the

economy of our province. They're aware of the fact that we simply can't

afford to go any further than is suggested in the restraints.

point out to the committee that in the private sector they've lost

their jobs. They don't have to talk about increases or decreases. Their

jobs are gone. The opposition says that this government caused all

these problems. I want to repeat that we're in a world recession.

Certainly it affects our great country of Canada. The other thing I

think is relative is: how are the other provinces in our nation making

out? With the economy we have, British Columbia is ahead of any other

province in this nation today, including the great province of Alberta.

I don't think our citizens understand that even with the real problems

we have — there are real problems that I don't doubt for a minute — we

are really more fortunate than the other provinces in Canada.

Being

a little biased, as an MLA from the interior, I'd like to point

something else out. We continually hear about Port Alberni and the

problem there, with 6,000 people there and only 500 working. I feel

sympathy for them. I think we all do. In the interior of the province —

I think this is something that needs to be looked at by all of us — the

forest industry is working at 80 percent of capacity. I think we should

ask ourselves what is really going on when they can do it and they

can't in places like Port Alberni. I think maybe we should be dealing

with those serious issues.

The other thing I'd like to

mention is the great cliché put out by the opposition that under this

section things will be decided behind closed doors. My experiences

behind those closed doors has been that any major decisions made are

public in 24 hours. Then they have to be supported. I don't want the

press or anybody to go away with the idea that what the opposition is

saying — the decisions are made there and never made public.... They

are made public in 24 hours, and the government of the day has to

support them and will support them. So don't get carried away with that

kind of bunkum as an argument.

I want to deal now, though,

with a few other things that haven't been mentioned in the committee,

and I think they're relevant here. First of all, in the public sector —

and I'm talking about direct government, not Crown corporations — I

understand the payroll of the provincial government is about a billion

dollars a year. So we're dealing with quite an item here when we're

talking about restraining wages; the amount of money can easily

translate, if it was a minimum of 8 or maximum of 12, and so on.... But

that's added to a billion dollars basic, and that, I repeat, has

nothing to do with Crown corporations. That we're dealing with a lot of

taxpayers' money is what I'm talking about in this debate.

Again, on behalf of the government, we have put a restraint program forward, and there's no other government in

[ Page 8423 ]

Canada

that's done that today. The opposition say we're in bed with the

Liberals and Mr. Trudeau; well, I can’t quite follow that, when all

they've done is just drifted all around. They haven't any policy about

what they're going to do with these things. While I mention the direct

payroll of government, I think that mention should he made regarding

restraint in where public funds go. Quite frankly, I'm referring to the

people that are on public payrolls at the executive level.

I'd

like first of all to make some observations about the private sector. I

see, as a citizen, that a lot of them at the executive level are

overpaid and underworked. I feel the same way about some people in

Crown corporations that are overpaid and underworked. I might say that

I think a lot of the citizens of our province share that thinking. But

as to where public funds go — and I'm referring to health, education

and municipal employees — I'd like to make some observations, and tie

that in to the salary of the job I consider the biggest and most

responsible in this province. I refer to the Premier of our province,

at a salary of roughly $80,000 a year.

He — along with the

MLAs that support him — makes decisions on $7.5 billion in this budget.

He gets $80,000 a year; he works 18 hours a day, seven days a week.

There are people in the private sector, Mr. Chairman, that are getting

four times that amount and working half as much, and that's why I say

they're overpaid and underworked.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even union leaders.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, that applies to union leaders as well.

The

other point that I would like to make is where public funds go, and

let's deal with Health as an example. Mr. Chairman and members, how can

we justify staff members in this province getting a salary of $125,000

a year? That's what's happened. It's $45,000 more than the salary of

the Premier of British Columbia. Those are all public funds that we're

talking about. It doesn't come off the trees; it comes out of the

public treasury.

The other thing is education. I think our

teachers are well paid, and I think they feel they are well paid. I

have no argument with that. But I sure have an argument when the

executive level in Education gets $90,000 a year and the Deputy

Minister of Education gets $60,000 a year. What's going on, folks? It's

all public money. The Deputy Minister of Education has to oversee the

administration of a $2 billion budget, and he finds that people under

him are getting $90,000 a year. Mr. Chairman, something's radically

wrong. It's no wonder we're short of money to deliver services to the

people.

The other sector about which I'd like to speak for a

minute is the municipal employees at the executive level. I want to

read something into the record that was in the paper yesterday — in

that great Vancouver Sun newspaper — to see the nonsense that's going on with tax dollars in our province: I repeat, nonsense.

"The city's ten highest-paid staff members have fallen victim to hard economic times.

"City council voted 5-4 Tuesday to freeze the salaries of

senior staff and to deny them the 1.3 percent pay increase they were to get

July 1."

Boy, the council were really brave, weren't they?

"But the salary freeze, meant to show that city council is thinking restraint, will only save taxpayers about $10,000.

"The freeze means that city manager Fritz Bowers, now earning

$98,724 a year, will not see the raise that would put him over the $100,000

mark.

"The key rate for Bowers' deputy, Ken Dobell, plus finance

director Peter Leckie, parks superintendent Vic Kondrosky, medical health officer

David Kinloch and city engineer Bill Curtis now stays at just under $85,000."

I'd

remind you that the Premier of this province gets $80,000. What's

wrong? Where have we gone wrong in our society? No wonder we're in

trouble. I want to add something else. The responsibility I have as the

Minister of Transportation and Highways.... The deputy minister of that

portfolio, who has spent $700 million of taxpayers' money, gets $63,000

a year. Mr. Curtis, who's got all the streets in Vancouver jammed up

with vehicles, gets $85,000. I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman and members,

something is radically wrong.

Then we get into a discussion

trying to blame the provincial government for property tax increases.

Well, I guess we're going to have property tax increases when this kind

of stuff is going on in our major city, and I suggest it is going on in

a lot of other jurisdictions in the cities and so on of this province.

I'm not against paying these people a lot of money when we can afford

it, but we can't afford it now, and we have to do something about it.

That's what this restraint bill deals with, Mr. Chairman. I can't

understand them — and it comes up in question period — blaming the

provincial government for property tax increases. What do those

councils do? They set the property tax rate. This government doesn't

set it. They could have reduced the taxes this year. But did they? No,

sir. Why didn't they? Because of things like that right here, that's

why. They won't face up and make a decision. But this government will,

and we'll make it for them too. This restraint bill does that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Keep going, Alex.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'll keep going. I'm just about wound up.

What

I'm concerned about, when you have to make decisions.... I want to know

what the opposition is going to do. They are mealy-mouthed, wandering

all over the place, and they haven't stated their position yet on this

bill. Do you know what I think is going to happen, Mr. Chairman? I

think they're going to take a powder when it comes to a vote, just like

they did on independent schools — they ran out. I don't think they've

got enough here to stand and vote for or against this bill. They'll put

their running shoes on and beat it. I say to them that now is the time

to put up or shut up. It doesn't matter about me, Mr. Chairman, but the

public out there want to know your position too. They don't know your

position, and they want to know, and time is running out on you. So I

suggest that you get up, rather than just hammer, hammer all the

time.... Are you going to support this or aren't you? I'm looking

forward to a division on the bill — it will be a great day in the

annals of this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 17 pass? The ayes have it. A division is called.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have some real concern: again

today the bells in my office didn't work, not at all. It's an important

matter to

[ Page 8424 ]

this

assembly. I know that there have been people working on the bells in my

office for the last four or five days at least, and for some reason

they don't seem to be able to correct the problems. I'm not aware

whether it's the same in other offices or not, but the only reason I

knew there was a division was that someone came up from downstairs and

told me. If there is any chance that members can't get to a division in

this House, especially on an important bill like this, because bells

are not working correctly.... Mr. Chairman, I don't know how we resolve

it. I understand there are two buttons....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I consider this to be reasonably important; I'd like to take my place

in this assembly at the time when it's necessary, and I don't want to

be precluded from that opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I understand that

there are two different sets of buttons, and we're on one set and

another set is on another. Sometimes the wrong set of buttons is rung.

But whatever the problem is, Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to report to

the Speaker, if that's what's necessary, to expedite the solution to

the problem so that we can all maintain our opportunity to take

part in

the affairs of this assembly.

MR. NICOLSON: On the

point of order, I rise to point out that both the member who has just

spoken and I are out of order, bringing up a point of order when a

division is in progress.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Hon. members, the point raised by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) is indeed a valid one. Nevertheless it is perhaps the most

key responsibility of the Chair to ensure that members are indeed

informed of a vote before that vote takes place. I would advise members

as well that the bell indicating the time lapse had been sounded, the

doors are locked, and it is now the Chair's intention to take the

division. I will bring the matter raised by the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to the attention of

the Speaker in hopes that this continuing problem can be addressed and

rectified.

Section 17 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordon

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 19

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 18.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Sections 19 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the second amendment to

section 29 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 35 inclusive approved.

section 36.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

[ Page 8425 ]

NAYS — 18

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Hon. Mr. Curtis requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On the schedule.

Schedule approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 18

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Speaker, it was reported again that during the divisions there

seemed to be some problem with the division bells ringing in the

building.

Bill 28, Compensation Stabilization Act, reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Presenting Reports

Mr.

Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills, presented the committee's third report, which was

read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The

standing orders have been complied with relating to the petition for

leave to introduce a private bill intituled

An Act to Amend the

Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, except for late filing but with respect

thereto the petitioner has paid double fees in accordance with standing

order 98(3). Your committee recommends that the petitioner be allowed

to proceed with the said bill.

"All of which is respectfully submitted, W.B. Strachan, Chairman."

MR. STRACHAN: By leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill PR403, intituled

An Act to Amend the

Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, introduced, read a first time and

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private bills.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Page

8426 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

28 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 28) intituled Compensation Stabilization Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 18 (1)

is amended by deleting "is subject to the compensation regulations" and

substituting "is subject to the limitations on increases in

compensation".

SECTION 29 (1)

is amended by deleting "an arbitration award that contains a

compensation plan" and substituting "a compensation plan that contains

an arbitration award".

SECTION 29 (3)

is amended by deleting "a compensation plan contained in an arbitration

award," and substituting "an arbitration award contained in a

compensation plan,".

SECTION 36 (2) is amended by deleting "in Council".

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada