1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7451 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act (Bill 16). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 7451

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Mr. Mitchell –– 7451

Mr. Ritchie –– 7454

Mr. Hanson –– 7458

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 7462

Ms. Sanford –– 7464

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 7466

FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to move a motion, seconded by the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes).

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I move that this House offer its heartiest congratulations to the

Vancouver Canucks on the victory over the Chicago Black Hawks and

extend to them all best wishes for their final battle with the New York

Islanders to bring the Stanley Cup to British Columbia, from where it

has been missing since the historic wins of the Vancouver Millionaires

in the season of 1914-15, and the Vancouver Maroons in the season of

1924 — a 58-year drought that we hope will soon end.

MR. BARNES: In seconding the motion, I would like to make a few comments and observations as well — very short and non-partisan.

The

Vancouver Canucks, the National Hockey League team, by advancing to the

quarter and semi-finals of the Stanley Cup championships against the

New York Islanders, have done as much as, if not more than, a roomful

of politicians to focus attention on this great province and the

Pacific Coast, and will, I suspect, contribute handsomely to this

country's integrity, to its national unity. Not since 1963-64, when the

British Columbia Lions, a Canadian Football League team, played in the

Grey Cup, back to back against the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, and brought the

cup to British Columbia in 1964, have we had such a great sports

occasion. The enthusiasm and excitement so obvious in the faces of

people I see indicates the existence of magic; as though by osmosis,

wrinkled brows disappear and the day's troubles are put on hold.

are witnessing a rare miracle of overwhelming public happiness.

Inspiration is the ingredient we all seek to augment our lives and our

ordinary performances, Mr. Speaker. Politicians try to get it so that

they can become good leaders; coaches seek it for their players so that

they can become winners. But inspiration is not for sale; it does not

always go to the highest bidder. It is a spirit that touches you. It is

a spirit which, when you have it, is like gold in your pocket. I don't

know how the Canucks got their spirit but they are surely an inspired

team, and they have inspired the province of British Columbia, if not

the whole country.

In seconding this motion, I am honoured

to have had the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) make the motion, because

I believe that this is, indeed, a rare and very special occasion for

British Columbia, and for national unity as well.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I wasn't going to add a few words, but I too am caught up in the B.C.

spirit exhibited by the Vancouver Canucks. It's one that exemplifies

teamwork, proving that when a team works together, whether it's a

hockey team, a government or 2,750,000 British Columbians, they can win.

want to congratulate the Vancouver Canucks and urge them on. It's one

sport that is truly Canadian. While I'm a great football fan, it's

always a question of whether our American football players are better

than the American football players from Edmonton or Montreal. But in

hockey it's whether our Canadian players are better than the Canadians

playing in New York.

I want to back up the B.C. spirit of

the Vancouver Canucks. I'm willing to make a wager with the Governor of

New York that the Vancouver Canucks representing British Columbia will

beat the state of New York. I will wager a case of B.C. apple juice and

a case of B.C. salmon against any product New York has that meets the

high quality and standards that we produce in British Columbia.

MR. KING:

As a rabid hockey fan, I would just like to add my congratulations,

particularly to the coaching staff of the Vancouver Canucks. They have

indeed offered truly inspired leadership — a commodity that others

could well look to catching as a communicable disease in this province,

exemplified by the management of the Canucks. I hope that this House

unanimously on a non-partisan basis wishes them the best of luck in the

future series.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House Leader closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: With the hope that I may close the debate so we can....

MR. NICOLSON:

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no objection to the

House Leader speaking or indeed even closing the debate, but it must be

done with leave. The mover of a motion gets his chance to speak when he

moves the motion, but there is no closing of the debate by the mover of

a motion. This was canvassed last year during the session.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM:

I was just going to say that I would be very happy to close the debate

with the hope that we might be able to finish some of the bills we have

before the House before the middle of September, but I am delighted to

hear that all members have waxed so eloquent and I certainly hope we

will have a nemine contradicente, which indeed is a fine brand of wine.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House two friends from

Enderby. I would ask the House to welcome Paul and Stevie King,

visiting here from Enderby.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

members, in the gallery today we also have 70 grade 7 students from

Heath Elementary School in Delta, and I would ask the House to give

them a very warm welcome as well.

MS. SANFORD: I rise

under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek leave to move

adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite

matter of urgent public importance.

[ Page 7452 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please state the matter, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD:

The Premier talked this morning about all of the people of British

Columbia — in fact, I think he said 2.5 million — working together in

order to make British Columbia a better place in which to live.

Unfortunately, there are approximately a quarter of a million people

who are not in that category and are currently seeking employment.

Whereas the figures released today by Stats Canada show that the

unemployment rate in British Columbia is at 11.2 percent — the highest

since 1961 — and

whereas the region of Prince George now reports an

unemployment rate of 19.8 percent or a total of 18,000 people

unemployed in that area of the province alone, and

whereas the

hardest-hit unemployed are those within the 15- to 24-year-old group,

whose unemployment rate is a staggering 20.7 percent, and

whereas the

hidden unemployed in British Columbia add another 76,000 people to the

unemployed roll, bringing the real unemployed total to 220,000

people....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Dewdney rises on a point of order.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I heard the hon. member say that she was rising under standing order

35, which clearly states that when a member rises to discuss a definite

matter of urgent public importance, he states the matter, but it does

not allow for debate, which is now being put forth. I ask the Speaker

to rule that the matter should be put before us; the House will decide

whether debate goes on or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

member, on the point of order raised by the member, this has, I'm sure

all members can appreciate, been a matter of ongoing discussion between

members and the Chair. I'm sure all members are aware of the rules that

govern us, particularly on standing order 35. I would ask the member

who is presently on her feet to conclude briefly, as the standing

orders indicate, the matter that she is bringing before us, and to

continue in that vein.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'll adhere to your request this morning.

just wanted to say that there is now a total of 220,000 people — or

15.9 percent — unemployed in this province today.

Whereas this

situation is of the gravest possible concern to those 220,000 citizens

in British Columbia, I move....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

member, at this point it is only necessary to forward the motion to the

Chair, and the decision will be rendered at that time.

MS. SANFORD: All right. Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the Chair will take the matter under advisement without

prejudice to the member's submission, and come back with a decision at

the earliest possible opportunity.

Introduction of Bills

RESOURCE REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intitled Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act.

Bill

16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this

opportunity to review some of the highlights that I mentioned yesterday

in debate in summing up my concern about what effect this piece of

legislation will have on the people of British Columbia and how it will

destroy something that has taken so many years to develop; that is,

basically, the right of working people from all walks of life to

negotiate their wages and their standard of living in a free and

equitable manner. I feel that history has proven very decisively that

when you attempt to legislate, in a free collective bargaining

atmosphere, certain standards of living for certain groups of people,

it leads eventually to the destruction of what we have fought for over

the years, and that is the right to negotiate — the right to sit down

and debate the issues at hand. It is not only the issue of wages, but

the issues of school boards which have been freely elected by the

citizens in their community, and of hospital boards which have been

elected too by members of those communities to set a standard of health

care or of education equal to what a province as rich as British

Columbia can afford. I feel that only in this atmosphere of proper

negotiations and of free exchange of ideas can these principles carry

on and come to their eventual fruition.

I mentioned

yesterday, Mr. Speaker.... I know that you were following very closely,

but seeing that we have a few of the other members who were not here, I

would like to review what happened when the Liberals brought in their

infamous wage control act which this piece of legislation is following

in the footsteps of. This piece of legislation is controlled, developed

and sponsored by the federal Liberal Party. The first endorsement that

came from the Prime Minister of Canada was that two days after it came

down — as you are well aware — he came out strongly in support of

legislation restraining public servants.

As I mentioned to

you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I too can remember what happened to

negotiations when that type of legislation came in. It pushed the trade

union movement into a corner so that they ended up being far more

militant, far more politicized than at any time in history except when

the other piece of legislation was brought in by the previous Social

Credit government: the mediation board established back in 1971.

[ Page

7453 ]

The effect that that legislation had on the morale of the working people in

the province of British Columbia can never be estimated unless you listen to

what it did to the workforce. I was part of that workforce and I had been part

of that workforce for many years before. I was, at that time, in an essential

service where we did not enjoy the right of free collective bargaining. We did

not enjoy the right of striking. We were classed as essential and we were bound

by the binding arbitration; the employer nominated one member to the board,

the employee nominated another and the third was appointed by the government;

and the government of the day restricted any increase to public servants to

between 3 percent and 8 percent.

remember when the mediation board came in. It came in with the intent

that it was going to be a free board; it was going to study the facts

and set a wage that was comparable to others in the community. As I

said yesterday, I remember that one of the greatest exponents of that

particular legislation was a leading Social Credit supporter, a leading

Liberal supporter, and also one of the leaders of the Teamsters union

of British Columbia, the now Senator Ed Lawson. Senator Ed Lawson led a

campaign within the trade union movement that this piece of legislation

should be accepted and supported, and that it should be given an

opportunity to be tried out. I remember the senator coming to the

police departments in those days. He was convinced that legislation

could control free collective bargaining; that legislation could give a

platform; that the yearly negotiations could be done on a more

scientific basis.

I remember very strongly the opposition he

had from those who came from the democratically elected trade union

movement, who very wisely took a dim view of that piece of legislation.

He offered the public servants of the police department his expertise

as one of the top negotiators of the province. He thought he would

bring the facts to the board, and that the board would render a

decision that would set an example for the trade union movement and for

those in essential services. Mr. Lawson prepared one of the finest

statistical briefs I've ever read, in which he compared wages in the

community, cost of living — all the facts — so that a board could view

the comparable wages and the cost of living of the people in the police

departments. As I mentioned yesterday, after many years of negotiating

under binding arbitration, policemen went to negotiating under the

mediation board and could not qualify for a loan under Central Mortgage

and Housing; their wages were not sufficient to get a basic mortgage to

buy a home.

All these facts were presented to this mediation

board. This board was set up by legislation to take out of the field of

collective bargaining.... What happened to that first famous — or

infamous — decision of that board? They turned down every application

that was made. They ruled that there should be no increase in the

standard of living of policemen, who were then part of essential

services.

It is not that I regret personally that maybe we failed to get a better shake

from the wage structure. What I'm saying is that when you bring in legislation

that takes away from that free collective bargaining field and tries to force

something on any part of the community, you are destroying a little chunk of

the democracy that we know today. I have to agree with the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich) when he feels with those who are forced to go on strike

to fight for their increases. Everyone in the trade union movement, everyone

on this side of the House, knows the fight that must go on. We know the challenges

and we know the casualties, but this is a decision that is made by them collectively,

freely and democratically. For this government or any government to deny that

opportunity and say that they are going to set the guidelines.... Granted, at

this particular point in time the guidelines are set between 8 percent and 12

percent, but they could be one percent or two percent or they could be a 5 percent

rollback. This is the major fear. It is a major fear that if we allow the first

step of this type of legislation to come into British Columbia, we will be going

backwards and not ahead.

feel that the government must give leadership. It must be prepared to

listen to those people who have been freely elected in school boards,

hospitals or in the trade union movements. They have been elected to

make British Columbia a far better place to live in. You don't only

restrict wages, Mr. Speaker, but you have some control over the cost of

living. You bring in some guidelines for doctors or lawyers or any of

those professionals who are being excluded from this legislation. When

the mortgage rates are allowed to skyrocket, when more and more money

is sucked out of the economy by forces that are not controlled by any

type of leadership from this government and when the cost of living

keeps going up and up, you cannot just take one group. I say this very

sincerely, Mr. Speaker. At this time that one group happens to be those

who are working in the public service — be they government, municipal,

hospital or school workers. When you take one group and put them down

and allow the rest of the community and other costs to continue to go

up, it is wrong.

As I said yesterday, last year we decided

to take a flyer. At that time I believed the government was flying a

kite when they decided they were going to cut $55 off those who were on

welfare. I talked to a lot of people on welfare. Men had been injured

in industrial accidents years ago, and their compensation pensions were

so small that the government had to subsidize welfare through industry

by giving them a living wage. When the government said that many of

these people were employable and that they were going to cut $55 off

their meagre pension, it was the first kite that was flown for what is

now commonly called restraint.

Restraint is not pushing down

the little people. The leadership of a government or elected people

should be helping those who are in the lower income bracket. This

restraint limits the increase for workers. As the member for Burnaby

very ably pointed out, there are working parents who are employed in

the public service whose take-home pay is less than it would be if they

were on welfare. That fact of life has not been with us in British

Columbia since the days of the previous Social Credit government back

in the 70s. Back in the 70s there were examples of men with families

being subsidized by welfare because their wages within the civil

service were that low.

Mr. Speaker, we must look at the effect this is going to have on the community.

We must be fighting to bring those people up to a better standard of living.

If this bill is allowed to pass, it will go the same way as the mediation board

did: it will be rejected by the citizens of British Columbia. What it does more

than anything is that it destroys the morale of those whom we employ. When you

destroy the morale of any group, you find that their effectiveness and their

productivity goes down. When you have people at the water fountain, bitching

about what is going on with their jobs, complaining about how they are being

shafted by the government, then you are not getting the best and most effective

work from that

[ Page 7454 ]

group.

This is what it is doing. It is destroying that morale. It is

destroying the rights they have to make a decision, no matter what the

decision is. It is a decision that they must live with, and it is not a

decision that is going to be imposed on any group.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

closing, my big fear is that if this type of legislation is brought

in.... Last year it was those on welfare who got kicked in the face.

This year it will be the public servants that they will try to

suppress. But like the mediation board of the seventies, where all of a

sudden the government had the power to designate what group would be

classed as essential services.... They said that construction workers

and truckers must go under the mediation board, that woodworkers could

go under the mediation board. That power should not be given to any

government. The decisions of free collective bargaining must be shared

and handled responsibly by those who lead the trade union movement, and

they must be understood by those who are participating members. I say

that we cannot allow the thin edge of a wedge to go in and stop

democracy as it evolves, because democracy is a very fragile lifestyle

that a lot of us have grown to love and that we want to continue. We

are not afraid to make decisions and to accept responsibilities. To try

to treat the people anywhere in British Columbia as if they were

children and we were almighty, and must tell them what they can do, is

wrong. Like many members on this side of the House, I will be voting

against it. Although we believe in economic planning, although we feel

that the leadership must come from this Legislature, this is not the

type of leadership that the province of British Columbia can afford at

this time.

MR. RITCHIE: Before getting into the

debate on Bill 28, the Compensation Stabilization Act, I would like to

take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the hon. Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) on the most recent appointment that he

made in his ministry — Isabel Kelly as the deputy minister in the

women's branch. I am sure that my colleagues in this House will join me

in that. She is a very capable person indeed.

We have

listened to criticism from the other side of the House that we were not

getting up to defend this bill. It seems to me that the opposition

fails to recognize the protocol of this House. That is that we take

turns speaking. I would like to assure them that I had absolutely no

thought of missing the opportunity to get up and speak in this debate,

because I strongly recommend and support this bill. In fact, my

constituents would be terribly disappointed if I did not get up and

speak in favour of this bill. They support this bill, as I do, because

not only is it something that is long overdue, but they are telling me

that it isn't quite enough.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: Why doesn't the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) go out and busy himself building another hospital singlehandedly?

is quite normal that each time the members on this side of the House

get up to speak they have to correct the members on the opposite side

on some of the statements they make. The member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) is guilty of making many mistakes. One mistake

was saying that this bill does not affect doctors. I believe many

employees on the government payroll are doctors. Then he said the bill

puts the squeeze on those who are working. I can't understand that

statement at all. I know of many people out there in the private sector

who are paying bills and working as well; they are hard-working people.

It seems they are just grasping for straws, attempting to pick up any

silly little idea that they can use to try to condemn something that is

long overdue.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly)

also said this bill affects only working people. As I go around my area

and talk to the constituents in Central Fraser Valley, I will tell them

that those who are not on the public payroll are not considered to be

working people as far as the NDP is concerned.

There has

been a great deal of talk here about the free collective bargaining

system. I wonder what the result would be if the kind of free

collective bargaining that they seem to believe in were exercised

throughout this province — indeed, throughout this land. The member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) said, on May 4, 1982: "You bargain with

what you have to bargain with, then when you reach your limits, you

take a strike if you have to." That is what is wrong with our system

today: too many are trying to take out more than they are prepared to

put in.

I had the privilege and honour yesterday to

introduce three gentlemen to the members of this House, native Indians

who decided that the free enterprise system is the way to go. About

three years ago they came together to establish a business on their

own, Somas Clay Products. They advise me that none of those employees

has had an increase in wages for three years. They recognize the

importance of pulling together, of working together. They recognize the

need to put in more than you take out, and they recognize this because

they are part owners in that company. While we were having lunch, we

discussed the debate that was going on. I told them that, one after the

other, each member on the other side of the House who spoke on this

bill vigorously argued to allow the public employees of this province

to achieve the 30-plus percent increase, while the employees of Sumas

Clay Products have gone for three years without any increase at all. I

am sure that when they reach the goal they are dreaming of, a goal they

will achieve through dedication and hard work and their desire to put

something into this system, they will benefit tremendously from it. But

they were terribly upset when I told them that the NDP members, each

and every one of them, stood up here and said the taxpayer should be

compelled to cough up more taxes in order to give one segment of

society a 30-plus percent increase, while we have people in the forest

industry and all over this province who are laid off.

How

can one member stand up here today and ask for an emergency debate on

unemployment in this province, while out of the other side of his mouth

he is saying that we should not step in the way of these people getting

a 30-plus percent increase? Shame on you. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not

cutting anyone down at all; what it's saying is that we are going to

control the increases. That's what we want to do. We want to say to

those people who are employed by the government: "We want to protect

your job, but we have to think of those people who are unemployed." We

have to think of those people who are facing bankruptcy and those who

have already gone through that process.

[ Page 7455 ]

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to many out there who are unemployed, and they understand

fully the reason for it: the market has dried up for various reasons. The brutal

policy of the federal government, which this party supports totally....

Their interest policy has pushed many small business people into bankruptcy.

Those are the people that I speak to. Those are the people who say: "Shame

on those socialists who would say the public service must be allowed to bargain

and get 30 percent or more." It's terrible. We're not cutting anyone

back, but we're saying: "Let's be fair." That is the B.C.

spirit, and that's the sort of spirit that those people should try to engage

in, because that's the spirit that really works — none of this greedy grab,

take all you can get. Shame on you.

And

they say that there are no limits in the private sector. Well, I'm

going to tell you that there are lots of limits in the private sector,

and you know it too. Out there in the forest industry, all through the

province, we see the limits there, unemployment. We see it in business.

What's the limit in business? It could be bankruptcy. I'll be telling

the folks out there what they're saying in here and what they're

supporting.

Then the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

has the audacity to stand up on his feet here and say: "Those poor

public servants! Do you know what? They're going to have to find a job

in the private sector." Well, I say good. I say that's great, because

that's where you learn what it's all about. Mr. Speaker, I would hope

that those who are unhappy with what they have in the public sector

would try the private sector, because that's where you really learn.

Bill

28 is a good bill. It's a bill that I am indeed very proud of, and I'm

going to — and I've done this before, and other things — extend my

congratulations to our Minister of Finance and our Premier, who have

had the wisdom, the vision and the courage to bring such a bill in.

This isn't a follow-the-leader bill; this is a leadership bill. Just

watch it. Not only will other provinces and the federal government be

looking closely at it, but we could have other countries look at it as

well, because this is a bill that is long overdue.

One of

the things about this bill that I'm extremely happy with is something

that will mean a great deal to all of us, in my opinion: the

productivity factor. One of the serious problems of our province and of

our country, whether it's in the public or the private sector, is that

there isn't a great enough recognition of productivity. Mr. Speaker,

your job is kind of like your bank account. If you keep withdrawing,

very soon you will be bankrupt. You have to keep depositing to make

sure that you keep your account healthy.

Mr. Speaker, at

this time I would like to make a suggestion to our Premier and to our

Minister of Finance, because I don't believe that this item came out

during the debate. It's something that I have touched on before and is

something that I think is very important to all of us, but, more

particularly, it's very important to those who are at the low end of

the wage scale. I would like to touch very briefly on the fact that I

believe that this treadmill that we have got onto in our negotiations

and our settlements of percentage increases is just killing our

country. I think it's high time that we in British Columbia, throughout

the whole system, recognize that whenever you apply a percentage

increase you are fuelling inflation, bringing hardship on those at the

bottom end of the scale and building up a problem that someday we may

have real difficulties overcoming.

What I'm referring to is

the matter of settling, as is often done.... Let's take a 10 percent

settlement and apply that to someone whose earnings are in the

$20,000-a-year bracket. That brings him up to $22,000. Then we apply

the same 10 percent to the person who is getting $40,000, and we end up

with a spread of $22,000 rather than the original $20,000. The gap is

getting wider. Keep in mind that the person at the top of the scale has

a great influence on the cost of living, because his buying power is

greater. This causes those at the bottom of the scale to become

frustrated and feel shortchanged. They need more. That's

understandable, because this spread was established initially in that

job because there was a difference in responsibility. But this

difference, as the years go on, gets greater and greater. For instance,

in the second year the spread becomes $24,200. In the third year it

reaches $26,620. By the fifth year, if we keep applying this blanket 10

percent, we end up with a spread of $32,210. Initially the jobs were

rated as being $20,000 apart. We are creating a problem through the

process. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the fifth year, if we don't get off

this treadmill, we are going to end up with an initial wage spread of

$20,000 now up to $32,000.

I am making a very strong appeal

to our Minister of Finance that this be looked at very closely. I'm

concerned about it. I have been concerned about it for many years. I

believe that there have to be differences in salaries, certainly

depending on the responsibilities, etc. But when we're talking about

negotiating an increase in salary that is going to offset the cost of

living, then that cost of living affects each one equally. If any

greater spread is going to take place, let it take place as a result of

greater productivity.

I can't emphasize enough the

importance that not only our government but the private sector and our

unions recognize that this is a treadmill that we must get off. If we

don't, all we're doing is pushing those at the bottom end of the scale

further into the ground. That has to change. I certainly hope that that

will become a major part of this whole new look at compensation.

want to make some reference to some of the comments by the Leader of

the Opposition, because I'm really amused at the way they're dancing

around. They're attempting to get out of the Liberal bed. Mr. Speaker,

I know you're old enough to remember what an old-fashioned bed looks

like. Remember those old beds, Mr. Speaker? It was just like a hole in

the wall. That's the kind of bed they're in with the Liberals. Their

problem is that they're at the back of the bed, and they can't get out.

They're stuck. Some of them got underneath the blankets and they're

suffocated. They'll never get out.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Did you hear Broadbent's speech on PetroCan?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not Broadbent, broad bed.

MR. RITCHIE: It's a very broad bed, right.

Mr.

Speaker, I think all of you have seen someone do the Highland fling.

That is a Scottish dance where a dancer is stomping around, and his

arms are going, and so forth. Well, he just reminded me — and still

does — of someone doing a Highland fling. But in the Highland fling,

Mr. Speaker, they dance over two swords. They're crossed like this, and

the idea is to tiptoe back and forth and not touch a sword, because if

you do, you're going to get hurt. In the particular case of the

opposition — and now he's trying to get his puppets to do

[ Page 7456 ]

the

same thing — they're not using swords. They've got Lalonde here, and

they've got Trudeau here, and they're afraid to touch them. They're

afraid they'll get hurt.

Let's hear what that great writer

said just recently, Mr. Speaker. I know that not all in the House will

agree with me when I say that great writer, but I have no reason to

complain. It's written by Marjorie Nichols on May 5, 1982, in the Vancouver Sun ,

and the headline says: "Barrett Rehearses a Whole New Act." It's an

act. This is what you call the Barrett Act. We'll give it a number

later.

I guess her headline next week will be: "And His Puppets are Trying to do the Same Thing."

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, next week it will be: "Show Closes."

MR. RITCHIE:

Oh, "Show Closes," next week. I'd like to read this, because I think

this drives the message right home. Do you know what the difference

between an NDP and a Liberal is, Mr. Speaker? The difference is that a

Liberal has patience: they're going to do it slowly to us. The NDP want

to do it in a hurry. They tried it from 1972 to 1975, and they were in

too big a hurry.

Matjorie went on to say: "I think you get

the general tone of Mr. Barrett's speech and the direction in which he

is now launched, as he rehearses his new act in preparation for the

next election." I can see him out there now: "Oh, those terrible

Liberals. Those terrible Liberals."

She goes on to say: "The

lesson from Saskatchewan is that Pierre Trudeau is the Typhoid Mary of

Canadian politics, and to be seen shaking his hand, much less sharing

his policies, could be fatal."

So he's done the Highland

fling trying to avoid him. Mr. Speaker, she goes on to say: "The facts

are, of course, that Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Bennett have about as much in

common personally as a tractor salesman and an opera star. Unlike Mr.

Blakeney of Saskatchewan, Mr. Bennett cannot be accused of having

harboured any great admiration for the Prime Minister."

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: How many socialists do we have left in the House? Six. Well, that's fine. They'll be listening on their speakers.

Mr. Speaker, she ends up by saying: "Will it work? I know but one simple

little fact and it is that Dave Barrett has ordered his own campaign committee"

— listen to this — "to destroy any old pictures of himself and P.E. Trudeau."

Destroy the pictures! Don't let anybody see them! What a bunch of hypocritical duds!

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

Your system doesn't work any more. The people are smart to you. Listen

to this. We're going to go back a few years to November 1975. This was

the first act. Remember those days?

Their key speaker has just returned, Mr. Speaker. Seriously, this is what that same great writer said in the Vancouver Sun ,

Marjorie Nichols, an old friend of mine. I've got no beefs with

Marjorie. She's always been fair with me. I haven't always liked what

she's said, but she's been fair. The headline says: "Barrett Hangs on

to Strange Coat-tails." This is November 24, 1975, on page 16. "Life

does have little paradoxes. A year ago — even six months ago — the idea

that Dave Barrett would dare to hitch his political future to the

coat-tails of the federal Liberal Party would have been considered

utterly preposterous." Now what is he saying? "Stay away from me.

You're poison. Look what you did to my friend Allan in Saskatchewan.

You devastated him! Stay away from us." I'm going to tell you, my

friends, you'll never get out of it. No, sir. We've got your brand, and

the people out there have got your brand, and you'll never live it

down. You're in a bed with the Liberals, and you're in that

old-fashioned bed. The house is on fire.

For the benefit of

our younger members I really have to go over this again because of all

this "sleeping with the Liberals" nonsense that we hear. What they

don't realize is that they are in an old-fashioned bed. I am going to

say it again for the benefit of the younger members. If you ever get to

Scotland and to Robbie Burns' house, you will see one of these. An

old-fashioned bed is a hole in a wall. In those days three or four of

us all slept together and the old man usually slept at the front.

Anyway, in that old-fashioned Liberal bed they are all in the back and

they can't get out; some of them are smothered and will never get out

of there. The only difference between the NDP here and the Liberals in

Ottawa is that the Liberals have patience and they're doing it slowly.

This crowd here would like to do it to us overnight.

They

talk about us being in bed with the Liberals. I have a few questions

here. Who went to Ottawa lately to see the Queen but spent most of his

time visiting with Broadbent? Who was that? Somebody tell me who that

was. I'll give you three guesses, like the Leader of the Opposition

said. Who travelled all the way to Ottawa on the B.C. taxpayers'

account to see the Queen and spent all his time with Broadbent? Was it

you? I am going to tell you, since you don't know. It was the Leader of

the Opposition. He spent so much time with him because they were both

just struck out of their minds. I can just imagine Davie saying to

Pierre and to Broadbent: "What's happened?" Broadbent says: "Davie,

don't ask me, but you get out of there and stay away from us. Don't

have anything to do with us before the next election or you've had it."

So then he comes back here and does his Highland fling and tries to

convince the public out there that we are in bed with the Liberals. So

much nonsense! You know that is nonsense.

I have another

question for the House. Who offered the Liberals our natural resources

if they would nationalize them? Nobody knows? I'll give you two

guesses. This is how he does it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That gang over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will kindly address the Chair and cease the discussion, please.

MR. RITCHIE:

The first name was Dave. Dave Barrett offered to give our natural

resources to Trudeau so that they could come together and strangle this

country, just like they've done now. Look at what they've done. That is

a terrible thing to even think of, let alone suggest.

I have

another question for the House. Who joined the Liberals to defeat the

Conservatives in Ottawa? Here was an honest government. They are the

negative doom-and-gloomers. Scare tactics.... I won't say that; it

might get me into trouble. I'll tell you outside. Somebody please tell

me who

[ Page 7457 ]

joined

the Liberals to defeat the Conservative party. Who was it? Here was a

good government that came in and promised and they could have lived up

to their promise — to keep the price of gasoline down and to help the

homeowners of this country. What happened? They were kicked out of

office. Why? Because the NDP, with the support of Dave Barrett and his

group, got together and defeated them and kicked them out of office.

We'll never let them forget it and neither will the people of this

province, especially those people who have gone bankrupt, who are

having to lay employees off, who are facing bankruptcy and who are

unemployed. We will never let them forget it because the conditions

they are in today are a result of a combination of Trudeau and the NDP.

Two natural disasters.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Listen, here is another question. Who joined the Liberals in the constitution issues? Who was that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Barrett!

MR. RITCHIE:

Yes, the Leader of the Opposition — the NDP. Oh, yes, you can't get

away from it; it's in the record. We've got your votes recorded; you

asked to have them recorded. You bet; you did that, you and your party.

Here is another question, Mr. Speaker. Who joined the Liberals in their devastating energy policy? Who was that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Barrett.

MR. RITCHIE:

He wanted to give it all away, and now we know what the energy policy

is doing to us, Mr. Speaker. This is all in relation to Bill 28,

because this affects the people out there, and then we hear them

talking about these terrible, terrible wage controls. They say it's

terribly unfair, and that we're hurting the working people. They think

that only those who are in the public service are the working people.

But I'm going to repeat what the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) said: "If there is anybody there in the public service who

thinks that they're not well enough looked after, then I say try the

private sector. It's great."

Here are some other questions.

Who joined the Liberals in the wage controls? Who ran to Ottawa and

said: "Boy, we'll go all the way; we'll go further"? He supported them

on that. Who was that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS . Barrett and the NDP.

MR. RITCHIE:

That was the NDP — just a shameful, terrible exercise, and a very bad

goof, as Allan Blakeney has since found out, Mr. Speaker. Just look

what it has done to him. We get all those unemployed NDP members down

there in Saskatchewan, and I'm just worrying how many of them will be

appointed by their socialist friend in Ottawa and get jobs out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Senate, if they want it.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes. Oh, they'll put them anywhere.

Mr. Speaker, one final question — and I wish that all of the....

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

Do you want to talk turkey? I attended a meeting the other night. It

was a dinner sponsored by the Council of Marketing Boards, and I

couldn't help but tell them that I certainly do miss farming. I was

close to the turkey industry; that's right, but I have always felt

quite at home as I sit here and look across the floor. It makes me feel

quite at home, and I don't miss the turkey farm very much at all.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE:

Where are they all — out playing golf? What's the score? Mr. Speaker, I

said I had one more question, but really I've got two; I thought of

another one. I don't believe the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King). I would like him, when he gets up, to tell us how he managed to

get 18 holes of golf in before dark when he left here at 6 o'clock.

That's a good question, because I couldn't do it.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: No, wait your turn.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to get up.

MR. RITCHIE: He should be up. He's done nothing all through this session.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. RITCHIE: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

have one final question. I'm sorry that we haven't got more.... How

many of the socialist party do we have in the House now? We've still

got six. I was hoping that the leader would be here, but I have one

final question: who was it, Mr. Speaker, who signed the NDP Waffle

Manifesto to help the Liberals socialize Canada? Who was that? There

you go! There's one, but there were more.

Anyway, I stay

very close to my constituents. I stay close to my people who are on the

hospital board, the school board and the college board, and I've talked

to them about the restraint program, and they understand the reason for

it. Their response to me is: "Yes, it will be tough, but we'll make

it." Mr. Speaker, that's the spirit of British Columbia: it's tough,

but we're going to make it.

My school board trimmed all they

thought they could trim; they cut out janitor services that they could

get by without, and frills and so on they could get by without, and

they are still short $130,000, I believe. So my question to them is:

why don't you go back to the teachers? They're a reasonable,

first-class group. Oh, I have a little handful who listen to this trash

from the other side of the House, but they're a first-class group. I

have suggested that they get in touch with the president of the

teachers' association and suggest to him that maybe instead of closing

the little school far out in the country where we may have 30 or 40

students and instead of thinking of cutting programs, cutting 1 percent

from their salaries could do it.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Somewhere around 17. That's right.

[ Page 7458 ]

So,

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be stressing that I believe that the spirit

of B.C. is one where we all pull together, work together and share

together. I really believe that my teachers out there, when asked that

question, will say: "Well, sure, out of 17, why not, because there are

people out there who don't have a job at all." That is my suggestion to

them.

I'm going to close because I believe I'm just about

out of time. I want to stress to our Minister of Finance that we are

strongly supporting this bill. My constituents say that it's not enough

and that you're not tough enough. Sometimes I think you're too tough,

but you're not tough enough in this bill. I want to stress that we must

get off this blanket percentage increase, because we're hurting an

awful lot of those people at the bottom end. We must show the

leadership and do that. The private sector must do it. If we do it in

government, then they will do it out there. I want to see that there's

great emphasis placed on the productivity factor, because that is what

is really going to count. I'm going to be, whether you believe it or

not, voting in favour of Bill 28.

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

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, allow me to introduce today a large group of students from

Bell Road School, School District 75 in Mission, under the direction of

their teacher Ms. Ann Wood. The students are in grades 5, 6 and 7.

Accompanying this group are parents, mentors and others. I wish this

House would make them welcome.

MR. HANSON: After

listening to the previous speaker, the member for Central Fraser

Valley, it's hard to believe that the turkey board could ever have let

him go.

This piece of legislation before us really should be

renamed. It should be renamed The Supreme Act of Cowardice Act. Speaker

after speaker on that side of the House stands in his place, and within

the tone of the debate there is that longstanding contempt for public

employees which has always been the hallmark of Social Credit. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like you to cast your mind back to 1972, when government

employees of this province did not have collective bargaining rights

and many employees at the bottom end of the wage scale were

supplementing their income with welfare payments because of the abysmal

rate and wage structure that persisted in this province. We could not

recruit people. We had people classified in five or six different kinds

of classification: temporary, continuous, casual, as and when, etc. The

thing was a mess.

What I'm saying to the government is that

the Social Credit Party has always had contempt for public employees.

The supreme act of cowardice is for a government to try to win its

political epaulettes on the back of its own employees, who cannot speak

out, who have no voice, who try to do a decent day's work for the

people of this province and who are the most diverse in terms of the

kinds of jobs they perform. It is really as broadly based as any

industrial union. This legislation before us will have a terribly

negative impact on roughly 200,000 working people in this province. The

reason I'm voting against it and people on this side of the House are

voting against it is that it's going to impact on health care,

education and all the services that the government administers on

behalf of the people of this province.

Some years ago the

Social Credit government took from the Public Service Commission the

authority to bargain on behalf of the people of the province with their

own employees. They established a new structure called the Government

Employee Relations Bureau. That bureau, over the last few years, has

recruited people competent in labour-management relations to act

responsibly on behalf of the people of the province. That bureau,

according to current estimates, has allocated 79 positions for this

next fiscal year. In a small building at Bay and Douglas is the

Government Employee Relations Bureau, with a staff of 79; and allocated

in their budget vote in the Provincial Secretary's department is $14.5

million.

I would like to read into the record the role and

responsibility of the Government Employee Relations Bureau. The

description is vote 72, Government Employee Relations Bureau.

"This vote provides for staff support to the Treasury Board

by developing personnel management policies and practices, including the negotiation

and administration of collective agreements on behalf of the government; the

establishment of rates of remuneration, fringe benefit policies, practices and

administration; the establishment and review of systems of job evaluation and

classification in the government services; and determines the classification

of all positions within government organization structures. Also provided for

is: the employer's cost in respect of benefits for the licensed professional

employees group, the management appointments and those other employees not covered

by a collective agreement; settlement payments in respect of grievances, arbitration

rights disputes, severance, and other personnel-related settlements agreed to

by the bureau; and the employer's cost share in respect of boards of arbitration."

Mr.

Speaker, what does that mean? That means a government employee

relations bureau was established at arm's length from government to

administer fair labour-management relationships with its own employees.

To ensure no political interference, it was removed arm's length from

the cabinet. Clearly, the Government Employee Relations Bureau meets

with Treasury Board, gets guidelines, discusses funding allocations for

wage and benefit packages. However, implicit in the establishment of

that bureau was the understanding that there would be free collective

bargaining for public employees; in other words, a worker is a worker

is a worker, and they would not be discriminated against on the basis

of whom they worked for. For example, their employer might be a

hospital receiving funds from the provincial government, or the person

might be a teacher working indirectly, through a school board, for the

provincial government, or working directly for a line ministry or a

Crown corporation; and so on.

The act of cowardice is that

this government has enacted legislation to deny the free collective

bargaining process to its own employees. That, as many members on this

side of the House have illustrated, is something that is going to set

back labour relations in this province by a decade.

There

are many myths that surround the public sector. There's the myth of job

security. The public is probably not aware that there are basically two

classifications of government employees. There is the regular employee,

those employees required at all times to perform the operation — in

[ Page 7459 ]

other

words, a regular complement for, in my riding, Wilkinson Road jail,

Glendale Lodge, Glendale laundry, the line ministries, the Motor

Vehicle Branch, the liquor stores, the hospitals, the schools, etc.

Regular employees within the public sector are those positions that are

established and are required at all times for the ongoing performance

of that agency of the Crown.

There's another classification

called auxiliary. Those people do not have tenure with the government.

They can be laid off in terms of their own seniority if there's a

reduction of the work to be performed by that liquor store, that

hospital, that jail, etc. In my own area, in the city of Victoria,

there are approximately 12,000 employees of the provincial government.

Ancillary to that are the teachers, the nurses, the whole hospital and

health-care delivery system associated with the nursing homes, etc. The

auxiliary employees are subject to layoff, and they are laid off. They

have no more job security than anyone in the private sector.

colleague for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) outlined in her remarks a

number of statistics from various places in the province where layoffs

have occurred, and I'd like to read those into the record. Let's take

the Forest Service. Why should there be layoffs of auxiliaries in the

Forest Service now when there should be reforestation? In the area of

silviculture, when we should be taking advantage of this downturn of

forest markets, why should there be layoffs? At the Forest Service

nurseries in Chilliwack there are 60 casual employees; 54 have been on

layoff so long that they have lost their seniority. What kind of

priority is that? Here we have an opportunity to enhance our forest

production for our grandchildren and their children, to look ahead.

But, you know, we live off our grandchildren by over-harvesting the

timber now and not replacing it. So what are they doing?

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Of course we live off our grandchildren; we have always lived off our grandchildren in this province.

the Forest Service nurseries in Chilliwack there are 54 on layoff; in

Surrey there are 240 employees, and 140 will be laid off; in Kamloops

there were 132 auxiliaries lost just with the Forest Service, only 57

auxiliaries are left and another 75 have been laid off over six months

with lost seniority. In Campbell River there are 100 auxiliaries; 25 of

them have been laid off over six months; and in Red Rock there were 85

laid off in November. There are none at work right now.

MR. KEMPF: Do you know how much snow is on the ground in Red Rock?

MR. HANSON: At this time we should be enhancing....

MR. KEMPF: You don't even know where Red Rock is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) please come to order.

MR. HANSON:

The Minister of Municipal Affairs certainly made his contribution to

job creation in this province recently, as you are probably aware. He

had a seven-acre nursery built under glass with glaziers. The

unemployment among the building trades is very high and we have roughly

30 or 40 unemployed journeymen glaziers in British Columbia, but this

minister brought his glaziers from Holland. It was a subject of some

concern.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I will ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

the member for Omineca to come to order. Perhaps if we pay attention to

the debate in front of us, Bill 28, we can maintain orderly debate.

MR. HANSON:

The comment from the member for Omineca illustrates my point, that

contempt comes through for public employees. It is continuous in their

remarks. Government employees do a good day's work. Over half of all

public employees are on shift work. They are working when the members

of this House are often not working. They work in hospitals, on the

ferries, in the institutions, in the jails, in the mental hospitals and

so on. They do the work 24 hours a day. The major problem with the

public-sector workers is that their employers make the laws. That is a

very fundamental difference. It is one thing to bargain collectively

and freely with your employer, but when your employer has the right to

alter the law with a stroke of a pen, you are working in an extremely

vulnerable position. The Social Credit government has taken full

advantage of that vulnerability in introducing this Liberal legislation.

interesting thing has been pointed out by most members on this side of

the House. It is that Pierre Elliott Trudeau has got his handmaiden in

British Columbia to introduce this bill. This is a Trudeau, Liberal,

wage-control-in-the-public-sector piece of legislation. That is why we

are opposing it so strenuously.

There is restraint for

public employees who can't defend themselves, but it's high off the hog

for the cabinet with their expense claims, their own per diems and

their own living high off the hog. The public is watching them. They

are able to compare the two stories. We get that very clearly from the

member for Omineca. They are talking about restraint and talking about

being reasonable. Where is it restraining? My colleague the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) stood in his place the other day and

pointed out to this House that the Jubilee Hospital is going to cut 180

acute-care beds when we have 1,200 people waiting to get into Jubilee

Hospital. What kind of restraint is that?

I raised in this

House the question of the Juan de Fuca Hospital system, which handles

the extended care. Extended care is a problem in that we don't have

adequate extended care to free up those acute-care beds in those

hospitals. What is happening now? Fifty extended-care beds in the Juan

de Fuca Hospital system will be closed because of inadequate funding to

guarantee quality health care. Isn't it a ludicrous situation to close

extended-care beds and acute-care beds when there are waiting lists of

1,200 to get into just one hospital? The story is similar for Vancouver

General Hospital, Victoria General Hospital, Tranquille Hospital and so

on. That's restraint. Meanwhile, the cabinet flies first class; they

dine well; they wine well. It's a travesty!

MR. KEMPF: All you do is whine.

Interjections.

[ Page 7460 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I want to make a comment. This will not be taken from the time of the

second member for Victoria. Mr. Speaker or the chairman shall order

members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw from the House.

With that said, the problem seems to be solved. The hon. member

continues.

MR. HANSON: Whenever the government has

actually had opportunities to create work, they've never taken

advantage of it. Even the large purchases of furniture for their lavish

offices in the Ministry of Finance, over here behind the Douglas

Building.... I invite anyone within earshot who visits Victoria or who reads Hansard

to walk through the Douglas Building and see the lavish surroundings

and glass walls. Their offices are renovated every time a top

administrator is moved; the entire office is dismantled and redone.

Just recently — I believe it was in November — there was a story in the

Vancouver Sun which said that $250,000 worth of furniture had

been ordered. I had a look at the furniture that was placed in that

building. Do you know where that furniture was made? Not in British

Columbia, where we have softwood and beautiful hardwood, and where

finishing carpenters and trades people are out of work. That furniture

was made in Ontario. It was assembled here at Ebco in Coquitlam.

Whenever there's an opportunity to actually do something stimulative to

give people employment, they don't do it. What they do is to cut back

on health services and educational services. We live off our

grandchildren. We cheat our grandchildren. That's what this bill is

about. It's got nothing to do with restraint. It has to do with

cheating our grandchildren.

I went to the Legislative

Library yesterday to read a copy of the constitution, which was

proclaimed recently, signed by the Province of British Columbia. Let me

read one clause: "Equality Rights:

(1) Every individual is equal before

and under the law and has the right to equal protection and the equal

benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without

discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour,

religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." Implicit in that

clause is, I think, the intent that a person would not be discriminated

against on the basis of who they were employed by. I believe that the

language in the first part of that paragraph, "Every individual is

equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection

and equal benefit of the law" would stand up to a test in the highest

court in the land that the intent of that clause also applied to

individuals not being discriminated against in terms of who they were

employed by. That's what this bill is about. This bill takes one

category of people and says: "You are employed by the public; therefore

you do not have the same rights." Implicit in that clause is, I think,

that this particular bill is a denial of the intent of that clause.

Let

me read the second subsection. It refers to affirmative action

programs: " (2) Subsection (1) "The previous paragraph" — which I just

read — "does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its

object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or

groups, including those that are disadvantaged because of race,

national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or

physical disability." It doesn't say "exclusive" of those categories;

it says "has as its object the amelioration....? In other words, the

raising up, the bringing to parity, the bringing to equality of the

rights and benefits for all citizens.

Here

I am, standing in my place, in the middle of May 1982. This was passed

just recently, with the sovereign coming to Canada for the official

proclamation. Here we have equality rights now enshrined in the

constitution of Canada, and here before the Legislature of British

Columbia we have a bill to disfranchise, disentitle 200,000 public

employees, ordinary working men and women of British Columbia, from the

equality rights to which they're entitled in this great province. It is

a travesty; it is a great injustice; it is going to precipitate

dislocation in our labour-management relationships; it is a pressure

cooker that is building. The interesting thing is that when I started

my comments, I referred back to the Social Credit record in terms of

their own relations with their employees up until 1972. The public

employees of this province are not going to go back to 1972; they're

not going to go back to cap-in-hand collective begging. They want free

collective bargaining like all working people should have in the free

world. So there are going to be problems.

I read in the

paper the other day an announcement from the chairman of the Government

Employees Relations Bureau, who is acting on behalf of the provincial

government. I read his statements in the press, and I feel that the

government is actually antagonizing the public employees; they're

actually setting them up. They have put on the bargaining table 98

provisions to take away existing rights and benefits that they now have

in their collective agreement — there can't be that many more clauses

in the whole collective agreement. Let me just tell you of one that was

reported: they want to go from the definition of employees as regular

and auxiliary to two different

definitions of auxiliary: long-term and

short-term. That's what we had in 1972, Mr. Speaker — long-term and

short-term auxiliaries.

Let me just tell you happens when

you have that kind of a situation. Let's just say, for example, an

employee is employed by the provincial government, and they're an

office assistant 2.... I'd like you to listen to this very carefully,

Mr. Speaker, because it's an extremely important point, and it applies

all the way through the public service. If a person is employed by the

government of British Columbia and occupies a particular job

classification — let's call it office assistant 2, which is a

low-paying clerical position — and if he is a regular employee who

wants to go for a promotion in the public service, he will have to deny

himself that regular status and move to auxiliary to get a long-term

position which is a promotion. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? Let's

just say, for example, you make $1,000 a month as an office assistant 2

and you want to apply for a clerk 3 position. You must go from your

regular office assistant 2 to auxiliary clerk 3, a long-term posted

position. Can you understand that, Mr. Speaker? I mean, it's just

incredible. That means that all the way through the promotional career

pattern of the public service, people will have to lose any kind of

regular status they have after 10 or 12 years of performing their

duties. They will have to then move to an auxiliary position, subject

to layoff, for a long term to get a position as a regular clerk 3. I

know it sounds technical, Mr. Speaker, but it's an extremely important

point.

So when I as a member of this House read in the

newspaper that the government has put 98 clauses on the bargaining

table that they wish to take back, to take out of the public service

agreement — an agreement covering 45,000 employees, both directly in

the public service and the Crown agencies — that makes me worry that

the government is setting up an issue. They're trying to contrive an

issue;

[ Page 7461 ]

they're

trying to set up a confrontation for their own political purposes. When

you understand the origins of this bill and how it has emanated from

the Trudeau Liberals through the AIB into British Columbia as an

experiment here which will perhaps be followed by other provinces on

the instructions of — and aided and abetted by — the Trudeau Liberals,

I think we're in for very difficult times here.

I have been

doing research to see what other comments have been made around the

country about this particular so-called restraint program. I'd like to

read into the record what Mr. Paul Weiler, a highly esteemed lawyer

specializing in labour relations, who is now in Ontario, I believe,

said about this particular piece of legislation. He said: "In terms of

any impact on inflation, it will have only a minimal effect, if any. As

a program it's wrong; it's not likely to be effective and it's unfair."

Here is a top lawyer in Canada who, as chairman, headed the Labour

Relations Board of British Columbia, saying this program is ineffective

and unfair. He ought to know.

(Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

recently came to our attention that the Government Employee Relations

Bureau had prepared a straight contingency manual of various actions to

be taken in the event of a strike in the public service. I understand

that employers probably have a duty to put themselves in readiness in

the event of any kind of job action, but as I read through that manual

I couldn't help but note how many aspects of it seemed to address the

inevitability of it. In other words, the government was going to make

it inevitable. They were going to force the teachers, the nurses, their

own public-sector bargaining unit, the professionals and the nurses

into a confrontation — for their own political purposes. Wouldn't that

be a travesty if those shortages of hospital beds, those layoffs of

teachers, increased class sizes, lack of enrichment programs, special

needs for those children that need extra care and attention, were all

done to precipitate an election? Wouldn't that be a disgrace? That

would be an international disgrace. I've pointed out that I feel that

legislation is contrary to the intent of

section 15 of the constitution

on equality rights, which states that "every individual is equal before

and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal

benefit of the law without discrimination." I believe that intent is

violated by this bill, and I believe creating a category and

legislating against that category, because of whom they are employed

by, is contrary to that act.

Mr. Speaker, one of the members would care to make an introduction, so I waive my space.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I thank the member for stepping aside for a minute so that I may

introduce my daughter, Sylvia, who is visiting me for the first time

this year, along with her friend from Vancouver, Madhu Singh. I ask the

House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. HANSON: When

I hear the word "restraint" uttered by members of this government, I

can't help thinking of the inaction in terms of the cost of living

faced by the senior citizens of my riding; the lack of access to

adequate health care; the lack of access to quality education by the

children in my riding; the lack of access to higher education that

students are facing because of higher fees at the University of

Victoria, for example; the lack of housing; the inability of the

government to create adequate employment so that students can work

their way through to a decent education. That is what restraint means

in Social Credit language. It doesn't mean responsibility. It means

double standard. It means hurting the poor. It means hurting the young.

It means hurting the elderly. It doesn't mean being responsible, taking

your belt in a notch. There are two standards, and I think everyone

knows that. We see how the cabinet has behaved in terms of their own

personal behaviour. When you compare that with the things I'm

outlining, it's clear there's a double standard.

Last year I

raised in this House the difficulty experienced by public employees in

terms of on-the-job safety. I stated at that time that it was a right

of employees not to be endangered at work in terms of their health or

their safety. I brought to the attention of the House the fact that the

government had decided to abandon the Premier's Safety Award, awarded

each year by the Premier to the ministry of the Crown with the best

safety record, because the number of accidents had increased so

substantially due to inattention by the government. Let me just tell

you briefly about that, Mr. Speaker. The Highways ministry, for the

12-month period ending August 1980, had a 157 percent increase in the

the accident rate; the Forest Service had a 156 percent increase in the

accident rate. Let me just point out that when people are employed by

the provincial government, the provincial government is not subject to

the same kinds of assessment to make them more safety-conscious in the

workplace. They pay as the injuries arise — which is totally different

than in the private sector. A person is killed and they pay X amount of

dollars. A person's legs are chopped off and they pay X amount of

dollars. There's no assessment that goes off into the future as a

deterrent to make that industry more careful, more self-conscious.

The

reason I'm including this in my statement, Mr. Speaker, is that there's

been no concerted effort to restrain the number of accidents that occur

in the public service. But there is an effort, through this

legislation, to restrain the compensation the government employees get

for their day's work.

Another aspect that I want to touch on is: who is this bill directed at? There's

this faceless notion of the public employee, the civil servant. The impression

that this government likes to try to create is that.... This is really a

projection onto the public employee of their own lifestyle, which is the long

lunch-hour, the leisurely workday, the large voucher collection, the long leisurely

dinners, the sumptuous and commodious hotel rooms with thick carpets.

The

public employees are at Glendale laundry. The public employees are

looking after people at Glendale Lodge. They're sitting with earphones,

typing endless cards into computers — boring, tedious, nerve-racking,

stressful work. Public employees take home $800 a month, $900 a month,

looking after children. Who are these people? By far the largest

component of the public service is the administrative support

component. They're clerical workers, 95 percent of whom are women with

low wages.

Here's a comparison that can stand up. Their

friends in the private sector get to the government and say: "We don't

want you paying fair wages to the clerical people working for the

provincial government, because that would compete with us in the

private sector. We would rather have the clerical people unorganized in

the private sector. We don't want to pay them

[ Page 7462 ]

a fair wage. We don't want to see them having health benefits to cover their families." So they lean on the government.

this legislation, rather than just being discriminatory towards a

category of employees, is extremely discriminatory towards women. As

you may know, Mr. Speaker, there are an extremely large number of women

working in the administrative support component who are single parents.

They're single parents trying to compete, with their limited wage

package, to pay for a short supply of apartments, housing and day care.

That

round of French wine we were talking about recently probably comes to

about the same amount of money that a clerical worker would have to pay

for child care for an entire month. Four bottles of French wine equals

child care for one month for a single parent in the administrative

support component here in Victoria. It is shocking. It is a disgrace.

When we saw the Premier gather up his entourage of cabinet colleagues

and get a train, pay people to sit down and have a prime-rib dinner in

town after town through the interior of this province — paying people

to hear Social Credit speeches with big, thick slabs of prime rib paid

for by the public of this province....

Bed closures in

the hospitals. The class sizes go up and teachers' aides are laid off,

and the special programs — for example, the Warehouse School here in

Victoria — to try to get people who couldn't face it back into education....

There's a 60 percent increase in the seniors' bus passes and $55 has

been taken off the welfare cheques. They're pummeling the poor, Mr.

Speaker, for their own political advantage, and it is just an extreme

disgrace. To set labour relations in this province back by ten years by

trying to take political advantage of their own employees is about the

most cowardly act of any government.

They set up the

Government Employee Relations Bureau, with a staff complement of 79

people, to bargain on behalf of the public of this province. They hired

the best possible people they could get to counter expertise that exits

in the public sector unions — 79 employees and a vote of $14.5 million.

In one bill they are setting up another bureaucracy. The Minister of

Finance stood up and said: "We're not trying to set up another

bureaucracy." Of course they are trying to set up another bureaucracy.

The

Government Employee Relations Bureau was to take instructions from

Treasury Board but to allow free collective bargaining in the public

service, granting rights that have existed since 1973 when collective

bargaining was granted by the New Democratic Party government. In a

supreme act of political cowardliness they have taken away the

responsibility to bargain from those 79 employees. That $14.5 million

vote is here before us to set up a new bureaucracy. When Mr. Peck was a

mediator, his fee was $600 a day. He is going to be given $325 a day,

but I would expect that he will probably get more than that. He has

hired a couple of clerks at $1,200 a month, a stenographer at $1,600 a

month, a senior executive secretary at $2,000 a month, and a secretary

to the commission at $4,844 a month. They have announced the

appointment of Mr. Ready as a mediator, with no allocation of salary

yet. These are very high-priced appointments; we are looking at $60,000

or $70,000 for Mr. Ready. Edward Lein is the registrar of the program,

with no salary at the moment. They will want clerical backup. They will

have file clerks, executive assistants, administrative assistants,

cars, office space, filing cabinets, Ontario furniture, per diems, wine

lists and meal allowances. They will be having dinner with various

ministers. On it goes.

The $14.5 million for the Government

Employee Relations Bureau isn't enough. Seventy-nine employees at the

bureau is not enough. I say we should hoist this bill and allow the

Government Employee Relations Bureau to bargain in good faith — free

collective bargaining — with their own employees.

I would

just like to conclude by quoting

section 15 of the constitution, signed

by the Premier of this province: "Every individual is equal before and

under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit

of the law without discrimination." In British Columbia we should amend

that by adding: "...unless you work for the Social Credit government

and you are a public employee."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would members permit the Chair a short introduction?

Leave granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Very shortly 27 grade 10 students from St. Angela Academy in Delta will

be arriving with their instructor, Ms. Pauline Vanden Camp. I wonder if

the House would make them welcome.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I

rise in this debate on second reading of the Compensation Stabilization

Act to offer a few remarks to a crowded House. I want to say that I

support this legislation, not just slightly, not just quite a bit, but

wholeheartedly. It puts into legislation what was announced by the

government on February 18. It is responsible, equitable, completely

fair and necessary.

I would ask: what group or person in our

society would argue against a restriction which only imposed a 10

percent restriction on a wage increase in these times, given plus or

minus for productivity and so on? What organization is going to oppose

that? It is equitable and it is necessary. We hear a lot of rhetoric

here, and we can all argue about which party or government has been the

most excessive in expenditures. We can point the finger at anybody we

want to. The point here is that there is so much inaccuracy provided.

It seems really unfortunate to me that members have to continually rise

to correct what other members have stated in complete inaccuracy. In

the last two sessions of debate on this bill opposition members have

attempted to indicate that this government has been unfair to its

public service employees. That is completely untrue, Mr. Speaker. A

case was made by the member for Burnaby North, and I hope that she's

listening. She made an allegation that the pensions provided for public

service employees were not very good, we should not be proud of them

and that, in fact, the average retired public servant received an

average pension of $200 to $299 per month.

This is

completely inaccurate. I wouldn't stand here to take the time of the

House to correct this except for the fact that it is so inaccurate. The

member was quoting from the latest issue of the Provincial ,

the publication of the B.C. Government Employees Union. It quite openly

and inaccurately printed that the average pensioner in the public

service currently receives between $200 and $299 per month. Let's have

the actual circumstances in terms of average pensioners for the public

service of British Columbia.

[ Page 7463 ]

What

are they? The average figure for all retired employees is $515 per

month, not including old-age security or the Canada Pension Plan. If

you add in those two items, the average pensioner of all those

currently retired in British Columbia receives a pension of $1,047.

Nobody is going to stand here and say that that's easy to get by on

today with inflation the way it is. I'm not here to describe that, but

really to correct the impression that has been put out in this

publication. It has been brought to their attention by the

superannuation commissioner and it was referred to in the House by the

member for Burnaby North.

You can quote all sorts of figures

on pensions. The average single-life pension for a new pensioner

retiring in the 1980-81 year was $625, not $515, and this is not

including OAS or CPP. It all depends on how many years of service have

been provided. So if you want to quote figures, let's just put these on

the record. The average single-life pensions granted in the 1980-81

year for various service lengths were as follows: if a person retired

after 10 to 14 years, the single life pension per month was $273; if he

retired after 15 to 19 years, the single-life pension was $414 per

month; and so on, until an employee who had worked 30 to 34 years would

retire with a pension of $1,042, plus OAS and CPP; and for retirement

after 35 years, the pension was $1,340, plus old age security, which is

in the full amount of $232, and Canada Pension Plan. A full Canada

Pension Plan beneficiary would receive another $300.

So I

think it behooves us to correct the record on the matter that we should

be proud of. The pension plan in British Columbia, without a doubt, is

the best public service pension plan in Canada. We don't need to hold a

back seat to any other province in terms of the pensions provided to

our public servants, who we value very highly.

Much has been

said about the excessive use of auxiliary employees in the public

service and that they don't have the same security of permanent

positions. One point I want to make is that although there are

currently between 9,000 and 10,000 auxiliaries of the public service in

British Columbia, what is not being said is that during the years of

the former government, who hired an additional 9,000 employees in three

years, they wound up with 14,000 auxiliaries after their tenure in

office. I don't imagine they're too proud of that if they're worried

about security of employment and all the things that have been provided

by the government of the day. So let's just keep this matter in

perspective. It's always necessary to have a certain degree of

auxiliary employees because of the nature of the employment, the

flexibility of the requirements of the job and so on. So there's a

continual exercise which goes on to bring into permanent employment

positions those who are auxiliaries for an excessive period of time.

There

are two points that I would like to make in this debate on the

Compensation Stabilization Act. One relates to the matter that is

alleged to have been unfair — to have zeroed in strictly on public

employees. They say that this is inequitable and that we'll bear the

inequity and the hate of a lot of people in this province as a result

of that. Reference is made to the anti-inflation program back in 1976,

'77 and '78. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of critics of the former

anti-inflation program and a lot of inequities in it. A lot of people

criticized it and didn't like it, but just examine what it did for

Canada in terms of inflation. The anti-inflation program, which we

participated in in this province, was put into place by the government

of the day because of escalating inflation. Inflation rates in 1974 and

1975 were around 11.7 and 11.5 percent in Vancouver. For all of Canada

they were 10.9 and 10.8 percent. Those were the rates of inflation for

the years 1974 and 1975, preceding the introduction of anti-inflation.

Despite all the criticism of the anti-inflation program across Canada,

as it applied to prices and controls over wages, what you wind up with

after the program is dismantled is a much reduced rate of inflation. In

Vancouver it was something like 7.7 percent in 1978, when the program

was dismantled; in 1977, 7.2 percent was the rate of inflation in

Vancouver. For all of Canada you wind up with an approximate inflation

rate of 8 percent after the dismantling of this program.

The

AIB had a lot of faults, but what is not being said is that inflation

was reduced by 3 to 4 percent across Canada and in British Columbia

during those years. Everybody says: "You take it off and everything

just takes off again." Certainly inflation has gone up again and we

face similar problems today, but it took some time for this to take

place. The point I make is that despite its faults, some type of

governmental regulation to put some restraining factor on these

elements in our economy is necessary and does, from time to time,

succeed in restraining inflation. That is the name of this game. That

is the real enemy that we are facing today.

The other

element of this debate surrounds the constant reference to the fact

that it is unfair to apply it only to the public sector. As has been

said in this House many times before, we have a different circumstance

today than we had back in 1975 and 1976. We have a circumstance where

we are faced with headlines every day of layoffs in the private sector.

We are faced with very serious problems across Canada, not only in

British Columbia. Our alternative here is to face layoffs in the public

sector in amounts greatly exceeding what we are facing today, or to

have some restraining mechanism. That is really what the result of this

legislation is.

Just look at some of these recent

announcements, not just applied to small business. Certainly there is a

great deal of phasing down of employment in the small-business sector

that you don't see in the newspapers. Here are a few random news items

of recent times: "B.C. Timber announced in March that it was closing

four interior mills, laying off 700 employees."

"CP Rail is cutting one-third of its work force in Nelson

300 employees." "Placer Developments is shutting its mine at Fraser

Lake for 13 weeks, affecting 600 workers."

"Canadian Forest Products, Macmillan Bloedel and Weyerhaeuser — 1,800 workers off on March 30."

"Macmillan

Bloedel head office staff are taking 10 and 15 percent cuts." I am

told, aside from this news item, that they have also reduced their

staff by substantial numbers.

"Eaton's Laying Off 100 Vancouver Employees."

"Noranda's Granisle Copper Mine Laying Off 300 Workers from July."

These

are not good announcements to remind anyone of except that they focus

in on the real debate here in terms of whether or not it is fair to

address ourselves to the public sector which really, in truth, does not

face the same constraints of the marketplace which is out there in the

real world. That is the basis on which I say that it is completely fair

and completely responsible to place some kind of modest restraining

mechanism on the growth of the costs in the public sector. As the

Premier put it, this is a slight belt-tightening, a slight application

of the brakes, not something

[ Page 7464 ]

that anyone should criticize. For this reason, I wholeheartedly support second reading of this bill.

MS. SANFORD:

I cannot agree with the Provincial Secretary in his analysis of this

bill and what it does, that it is fair and equitable and everything

else, because this bill is nothing but a wage-control bill. That point

has been made several times during this debate. It is totally

inequitable. It demonstrates that the government has no confidence

whatsoever in the collective-bargaining system. It has no confidence in

its own Government Employee Relations Bureau and its chief negotiator,

Davison. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, it makes absolutely no attempt

to control the outrageous increases that this government has imposed on

the very people who are expected to live under this particular program.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

think the Minister of Finance is probably looked upon as being a very

good friend of the Prime Minister these days. After all, he has

concurred with the request that was made by the Prime Minister to curb

the public employees' salaries. He has agreed to — he has jumped at —

the request of the Prime Minister. I suppose the Liberal relationship

goes a long way back. We know that that particular Finance minister,

while he's now a Socred, was a Conservative, and before that he was a

Liberal. He was part of that group which predominates right now on the

government side of the House. I think that the Prime Minister might

even send the Minister of Finance one of the Good Show buttons. What a

good show he's putting on by following the requests of the Prime

Minister and being a good Liberal — going back to his roots as a good

Liberal and bringing in a bill which curtails the wages of

public-sector employees.

It's really a bill which represents

the desperation of this government. They are so desperate to create an

issue which they think will re-elect them — and no wonder they're

desperate, Mr. Speaker, because everybody knows this government is in

serious trouble — that they are quite prepared to bring in legislation

which is inequitable, a wage-control bill which singles out a sector of

the population representing about 15 percent of the workers. It will

not work. It is a cynical piece of legislation which they hope will

re-elect them. I'm sure they're disappointed at this point. When the

Premier made the announcement on February 18 that they intended to

initiate this program, he hoped at that time that the response from the

public would be such that he would be able to go to the polls at that

moment and get re-elected. It hasn't worked that way. And as a result,

the enthusiasm with which the government members have been supporting

this bill has not been what the Premier would like to have seen. It's

fallen flat. Yet the government is determined to proceed with this

inequitable, unacceptable piece of legislation.

They don't

care about restraint, Mr. Speaker. Look at their own actions. Look at

the kind of increases they have in their travel expenses. Look at the

kind of furniture they've been buying over the years. Look at the fact

that they're entertaining and living high off the hog all over the

place, all over this country. Look at all of that. Do they care about

restraint? If they cared about restraint, they would have accepted

every single motion that we made last year with respect to office

furniture, travel and advertising, which would have provided $82

million in the budget this year that they don't have. What do we see?

The kind of increases again in travel that the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) outlined yesterday. Restraint? What a

joke, Mr. Speaker! This government doesn't know anything about

restraint. They don't care about restraint, or their own actions would

demonstrate something other than what we see in the budget this year.

Nor do they care about working people, or they would not be singling

out one sector in this way.

Paul Weiler, who has attained a

reputation as one of the most respected people in the labour field

today, has expressed his views about this particular piece of

legislation. He's quoted in the Province as saying that there is

absolutely no justification for singling out one group of people and

imposing controls on them alone. There's absolutely no justification

except a cynical political one. Mr. Weiler knows about labour

relations, but he is not a politician. He doesn't recognize the real

reason for bringing in this legislation. It has nothing to do with

restraint; it has to do with the re-election of that government over

there. But it's not going to work.

Mr. Weiler also said that

if you're going to impose controls you have to do it seriously; you

have to do it with limits, in the order of 5 and 6 percent. And if you

do that, you have to do it for everybody, including price controls. Mr.

Weiler pointed out that the new program hits only about 15 percent of

the workforce, yet they get all of the unfairness. It's a cynical

political move. It's the people in the public sector who have to suffer

because this government wants to be re-elected and can't campaign on

anything else. It's a program that's wrong, says Mr. Weiler. Not only

that, Mr. Weiler tells us it's not likely to be effective, and it's

unfair.

It's utterly ludicrous for the Provincial Secretary

to get up and try to tell us that it is a fair program. Those people

have to pay the increased hydro rates imposed over there. They have to

pay the increased ICBC rates, the increased ambulance rates, the

increases in every possible user charge. Every possible increase which

that government could dream up, they've applied, yet they're bringing

in this cynical legislation.

They really are desperate, Mr.

Speaker, or we wouldn't be discussing this bill today. They can't

campaign on their record in terms of services to people; we have seen

the closure of hospital beds, and just this week in my own constituency

20 beds were closed in St. Joseph's Hospital in Comox. That's one of

the effects of this kind of legislation. They certainly can't campaign

on the record of preserving farmland — can they, Mr. Speaker? — and

we've had enough evidence of that in the last couple of weeks. They

can't campaign on their record in education. I have sheaves of letters

here from my constituency about what this kind of program does to

education. There are people being laid off in the school system, and

schools which desperately need to be built are not being given the

go-ahead. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because this government hopes that through

this kind of legislation they're going to gain some credibility by

imposing wage controls on the public sector. They certainly can't

campaign on the record of affordable housing or on municipal services.

We've heard what Mayor Tonn had to say about this government within the

last week as well. They can't campaign on government restraint, that's

a cinch, as far as their own budgets are concerned — and we've had

ample evidence about that in the last few weeks as well as lots of

publicity on the expenditures that they're prepared to make on their

own behalf.

Mr. Speaker, one thing really worries me — and when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) spoke on this bill

[ Page 7465 ]

yesterday,

he didn't make any reference to it; I suppose he was too embarrassed

because of what this kind of legislation does to the whole climate of

industrial relations in this province. It's a very destructive approach

to an area which requires finesse and which is a very delicate area in

which to manoeuvre. Yet the government is prepared to risk destroying

the industrial relations climate in this province through the

introduction of this inequitable, unfair bill.

Last year

when we had the problems with B.C. Tel and the kinds of difficulties

they got into in terms of the whole collective bargaining

process.... We had concern expressed by employers all over this

province with respect to what effect the actions of B.C. Tel would have

on the whole collective bargaining process. Bill Hamilton, of the

Employers Council, was very concerned. Even though B.C. Tel bargains

under federal legislation, their approach to collective bargaining was

such that people like Bill Hamilton of the Employers Council were very

worried about future agreements and negotiations in this province

because of the climate that was created as a result of the B.C. Tel

management. I know that Bill Hamilton was attempting, behind the

scenes, to ensure that an agreement was reached, to ensure that B.C.

Tel would accept the recommendations of one of Canada's most respected

mediators at the time. I know that concern was expressed — even though

it wasn't expressed by this government — about the whole collective

bargaining process, the climate and the atmosphere in which that

collective bargaining was going to take place.

Here we have,

through a piece of legislation that is under debate today, the same

danger being created, only this time it's not by some employer out in

the private sector but by government itself. This government is guilty,

through this piece of legislation, of interfering with that whole

climate in industrial relations. All the employees are looking at the

unfair, inequitable approach applied by this government. They're

looking at it and they're concerned about it, because it destroys that

whole collective bargaining atmosphere out there. That's a very serious

danger which the Minister of Labour did not even touch upon yesterday.

The

government tries to tell us that it will be collective bargaining as

usual. Well, that's a joke, Mr. Speaker. You have the government

saying: "Jump or be pushed into the kind of guidelines we wish to

impose upon you." They don't believe in the collective bargaining

process, or they wouldn't have brought in a bill of this nature. They

are not concerned about the collective bargaining climate in this

province, or they would not have brought in this piece of legislation.

They have no confidence in GERB or Mr. Davison.

We have the

B.C. Government Employees Union accepting 8 percent, 8 percent and 8

percent over three years, falling behind the cost of living year after

year after year.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to please come to order.

MS. SANFORD:

The employees have demonstrated that they are reasonable in their

approach to collective bargaining; they have accepted 8 percent for

three successive years, even though the cost of living skyrocketed far

above that. Mr. Speaker, now this government says: "You have not been

punished enough, even though you have fallen behind in your mortgage

payments and your ability to purchase goods. We wish to punish you

more, and we will bring in Bill 28, which limits your wages again."

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) was talking about the fact that the public sector must not lead

in the demands and in the negotiated settlements that are reached. For

three solid years the the BCGEU, through reasonable negotiations, have

accepted 8 percent increases. Why can't we continue to have a

reasonable approach to negotiations in this province, instead of this

kind of imposition of a bill which limits?

I would like to

compare some of the increases in the private sector over those same

years. In 1979 the IWA in the forest industry had increases of 11

percent; in 1980, 10 percent; in 1981, 15 percent. Those increases

pretty closely reflect the increases in the cost of living during those

particular years. Yet we have the Minister of Universities, Sciences

and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) telling us: "Well, gee, we've got

to bring this in, because we can't have the public sector leading." If

you look at what has happened in the private sector over those years,

you will see that indeed the public employees have been well below not

only the cost-of-living increases but also the increases that were won

in the private sector. Teamsters and transport labour relations in 1979

received an 11.1 percent increase; in 1980, a 14.1 percent increase;

in 1981, a 17.5 percent increase. For the Minister of Universities,

Sciences and Communications to attempt to tell us that the public

sector is leading and that the government, in order to ensure that they

don't, must bring in this kind of legislation doesn't square with the

facts. Again he was attempting, in his usual bombastic way, to convince

us that this bill was worthy of support.

This bill has led to an increase in the already appalling unemployment rolls in the province. In an

article in the Times-Colonist ,

April 23, UBC announced that they would be eliminating 161 positions as

a result of the financial restraints which are being imposed on them.

They have indicated that they are predicting more layoffs at the

university. Do you know what that does, Mr. Speaker? That adds to the

layoffs that are taking place in schools, universities, colleges and

hospitals, and of all the health employees, as a result of this

legislation. It adds to the unemployment rolls in this province, which

are already unacceptable. Today we have new figures, released by Stats

Canada, with respect to the unemployment rolls. They are appalling.

have a crisis in this province with respect to unemployment, and this

government, through this kind of legislation, through the approach that

it is taking, adds to those unemployment figures. The unemployment

figures that were released today indicate an 11.2 percent unemployment

rate in this province — the highest since 1961. In Vancouver the rate

has gone up from 4.5 percent in April of 1981 to 8.8 percent in April

of this year. It's nearly double what it was a year ago. In Victoria it

was 6.5 percent in April '81; in March '82 it was 11.7 percent and 10

percent in April. In the East Kootenays we have an unemployment rate in

April of 9.1 percent; in the West Kootenays, 18.7 percent — an overall

unemployment rate of 18.7. That's a crisis. I know, Mr. Speaker, that

even in your own area you have a 19.8 percent rate of unemployment. In

April of '82 the northern areas and the Peace River areas had 10.4

percent. Vancouver Island as a whole is 13 percent. The lower coast and

the lower mainland overall are 9.2 percent. The southern interior has

an unemployment rate of 15.3 percent.

[ Page 7466 ]

What

does the government do about these figures? They bring in legislation

which will add to them — and we've seen that through announcement after

announcement this week. They're trying to convince us that they've

balanced the budget when they have come nowhere near balancing the

budget. They're trying to convince us that they know how to manage

money. They're bringing in this kind of legislation when we have seen

the debt for the province of British Columbia go from $3.8 billion in

1976 up to $12.6 billion. That kind of increase in the debt of British

Columbia is money management, Mr. Speaker? That kind of increase in the

debt of British Columbia is just as unacceptable as this legislation is.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

you know what's going to happen to all of those people who are going to

be affected by this legislation? They are not going to be able to take

care of their families in the way that they should in this province.

This kind of legislation leads to unemployment. It leads to reduction

in essential services such as health care. This kind of legislation

also leads to family breakdown. When people cannot get the health care

that they need, when they cannot get the work that they need, when they

cannot meet their bills, this is the kind of thing it leads to.

lot of those people who are unemployed today are going to be added to

the welfare rolls tomorrow. We have seen an increase already in the

number of people who are recipients of social assistance. Between

January 1981 and January 1982, we have seen an increase of 1,872 in

the number of family heads on Human Resources assistance. Most of those

people who are family heads are single mothers with children. The

number of single women on Human Resources assistance has increased this

year over last year; single men — an increase this year over last year;

dependents — an increase this year over last year. There are 4,791

more dependents — these are kids — who are in receipt of Human

Resources assistance in January of this year than January of last year.

Last year in January the total number of people on Human Resources

assistance in this province was 122,712. This year in January it was

132,205, an increase of nearly 10,000 people.

Those people

are not even going to be eligible for some of those programs that the

government is talking about in terms of sharing costs through the

federal government and trying to establish employment. Those people

don't count. They have to be at least in receipt of UIC in order to

qualify for those programs.

Mr. Speaker, the government, after first of all cancelling the youth employment

program, is now trying to reintroduce the program; in fact, it advertises some

new aspect of the youth employment program every day of the week. But you will

notice that it was introduced so late that the students are no longer at the

university and will not be applying. They will not be contacted through the

universities. The universities have to come up with half the money to hire those

students — money they don't have because they are already laying off people

all over the place.

This

government is a failure. This bill simply adds to the problems of

unemployment. It adds to the hardships that families are facing. It is

a bill which I cannot support.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I

want to tell you that I can support this bill. I can support it because

it is good for every civil servant in British Columbia and it is good

for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

However, having said

that, it has been a long and boring week, and the debate from the

opposition has been the most boring debate that I have ever heard in

this Legislature. It was weak, boring and negative, as usual. Doom and

gloom. All it has been so far is political garbage from across the

floor. However, it has been a long and boring week sitting here and

listening to absolutely the weakest debate I have ever heard emanating

from that side of the House. I would suggest to the opposition that

they go out over the weekend and do a little homework. Therefore I

would like to adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 o'clock on Monday afternoon.

MR. COCKE:

On the motion for 2 o'clock on Monday, I would suggest that all in the

House are despairing about that hour on Monday because we are going to

have to listen to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

This morning the hon. member for Comox (Mrs. Sanford) sought to move,

pursuant to standing order 35, that the House adjourn to discuss a

definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the high

unemployment rate. I note that the hon. member rose on a similar matter

on April 8, at which time the Chair ruled that it did not qualify under

standing order 35, for two reasons: firstly, that an immediate

parliamentary opportunity to discuss the matter was presented by the

budget debate; and secondly, that the matter was of an ongoing nature.

At this time although the budget debate has been concluded, the

estimates are now before the House, consideration of which affords the

same opportunity for debate. The second ground also applies in the case

at hand, so that the matter does not come within the confines of

standing order 35.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:51 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada