1991 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

11701 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 11701

Oral Questions

Presentation of 1991-92 budget. Mr. Harcourt –– 11701

Government rental of office space. Ms. Marzari –– 11701

Mr. Clark

Water quality. Mr. Chalmers –– 11702

Public sector bargaining registrar. Mr. Sihota –– 11703

Export of water. Mr. Cashore –– 11703

Loans to Social Credit ridings. Mr. Loenen –– 11703

Export of water. Mr. Gabelmann –– 11703

Presenting Reports –– 11704

job Protection Act (Bill 83). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 11704

Compensation Fairness Act (Bill 82). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 11705

Mr. Clark –– 11708

Hon. S. Hagen –– 11711

Ms. Cull –– 11712

Mr. Couvelier –– 11713

Mr. G. Janssen –– 11716

Hon. J. Jansen –– 11718

Ms. A. Hagen –– 11719

Mr. Rose –– 11720

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 11722

Mr. Miller –– 11724

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt –– 11725

Mr. Jones –– 11726

Hon. Mr –– 11728

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

In the gallery today is a former employee, my former constituency

secretary who was with me from 1984 to 1986 in Prince George, and her

two sons. Would you please welcome Mrs. Laurie Atkins and her sons Mark

and David.

MR. CASHORE : In the gallery today is the

Rev. Gordon How, the executive secretary of the B.C. Conference of the

United Church of Canada. Would the House please join me in making him

welcome.

MR. HUBERTS : Mr. Speaker, in your gallery

my cousin is here from Ontario with his wife: Allan and Joanne

Heidbuurt. They have friends with them: George and Freda Hellinga. They

are part of the male chorus that is travelling through British

Columbia, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

MRS. BOONE :

In the gallery today are two dear friends of my legislative assistant,

Harold and Barbara Walton of West Vancouver. Would the House please

make them welcome.

MR. PERRY : I would like to

welcome to the Legislature today Mrs. Bobbie Bower of Langley, B.C.

Mrs. Bower has rendered extraordinary service to the province by

addressing herself to both me and the Minister of Health on the issue

of hepatitis B immunization in B.C. and has accomplished, with the help

of the minister, some good work. I am sure that the minister joins me

in welcoming her today, and I'd like other members to recognize her

achievements.

MR. PETERSON : Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery is my son Ryan Peterson, accompanied by one of his good

friends, Alex Benekritis. Would the House please join me in welcoming

them.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, I move that the

public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1990, be referred

to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, pursuant to orders

of the House made April 5, 1990.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

PRESENTATION OF 1991-92 BUDGET

MR. HARCOURT : On Monday the Finance minister told the Legislature that

there will be budget estimates coming down in this House, but outside the assembly

the minister had a different story. He said: "We'll see some sort of

interim financial bill or budget in the next few weeks." He said we'd

have to wait and see. Which is it? Has the minister decided to table a complete

budget, or is it just going to be an interim supply bill?

HON. MR. VEITCH : There will be either supply or a complete budget coming down in the next short while.

MR. HARCOURT :

In two weeks your government runs out of authority to spend money. With

an interim supply bill, though, you're simply seeking approval to spend

more. A budget reveals the state of government finances, and it

projects expenditures and revenues over the complete fiscal year.

There's a big difference. An interim supply bill alone won't guarantee

a look at the books. Will the minister tell us when this House will see

a budget?

HON. MR. VEITCH : We'll probably come down with interim supply first, Mr. Speaker, and shortly following that, a budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : When?

HON. MR. VEITCH : As soon as it's ready, and in the fullness of time.

MR. HARCOURT :

Things sure have changed. At one time Bill Bennett stood before this

House and said: "Not a dime without debate." Now you want billions

without a budget. Will the Minister of Finance fulfil his obligation to

the people of British Columbia and tell us today in this House that

he'll present a budget within the next two weeks?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I'm sure that any financial bills, whether interim supply or a budget,

will be well debated in this House. I can assure you that we're not

spending billions or contemplating spending billions like they are in

your role model, Ontario. I understand that they're contemplating a

possible $15 billion budget next year, and that's after only two years

of socialist bliss. Think what would happen if that ever happened in

the province of British Columbia. There will be full debate, and the

proper legislation will be brought forward as soon as it's ready.

GOVERNMENT RENTAL OF OFFICE SPACE

MS. MARZARI :

I have a question to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs and

of Government Management Services. Madam Minister, Women's Programs is

presently vacating an office in the Bentall Centre. You’ve signed a

five-year lease for that space at $170,000 a year. You've been there

for nine months; you're now moving on. That building is vacant. You've

signed the lease, and it's costing you thousands of dollars every week.

We've

been talking in this House about limited resources for women and

children. In fact, $170,000 a year is more than half of the annual

budget for transition houses. It's not a small sum. Madam Minister, why

are you throwing away $170,000 a year

[ Page 11702 ]

on empty office space when you could be helping women and children in this province?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

I appreciate the question, because the member opposite has pointed out

the frugality and the good common sense that is demonstrated in Women's

Programs. That's the very reason we have moved out of that very

expensive downtown space. The space will very shortly be occupied by

someone else. We've made arrangements to get out of the lease.

What

we've done is to regionalize Women's Programs. That office will now be

in New Westminster, not in downtown Vancouver. There will also be five

other offices throughout the province serving women all over British

Columbia. One of the very first decisions we made was that Women's

Programs had to be available to all women throughout this province.

That's the reason we no longer have an office in downtown Vancouver.

MS. MARZARI :

Madam Minister, nine months ago you signed a lease for $170,000. You

renovated those offices to the tune of thousands of dollars of

taxpayers' money. Now you are splitting the program, with half of it

going to New Westminster and the library coming back to Victoria. I'm

not sure of the rationale of that effort.

The question is:

will this space be rented immediately, and how much money will the

taxpayers be spending while that space is vacant?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, I don't mind repeating my answer. I take every opportunity

I can to talk about the success of Women's Programs in the last 15

months.

That lease was signed by a former acting director

of Women's Programs, and I don't have any hesitation in saying or

admitting that it was the wrong thing to do. The policy has been

changed in the ministry, and we decided — rightly so — that that money should be spent on women's programs and not on an expensive office in downtown Vancouver.

[2:15]

MR. CLARK :

Maybe we can elicit some more mistakes from the minister responsible

for B.C. Buildings Corporation. Can the minister confirm that vacant

office space at the Plaza of Nations on the old Expo site has cost B.C.

taxpayers some $450,000 in the last year? That's half a million dollars

for empty office space.

HON. MRS. GRAN : No, I can't, but I would be happy to take the question as notice.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Speaker, I'm getting tired of seeing ignorance as a defence from this minister. It's 18,000 square feet at $25 per annum.

New question. Will the minister confirm that provincewide there is 500,000

square feet of empty government office space that you are paying rent for?

Will you inform the House how much that is costing British Columbians?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, I believe I've already taken that question as notice.

I must say that I object to the word "ignorance." I don't consider myself to be ignorant.

MR. CLARK :

The minister professes not to know that there are 18, 000 square feet

of prime office-space in downtown Vancouver that's been empty for a

year, and she's the minister responsible. Now she says she doesn't know

there's 500,000 square feet provincewide of empty rented government

office space in British Columbia. And you're the minister responsible.

New

question. Will the minister not agree that some restraint when it comes

to renting expensive, empty office space is more desirable than rolling

back or cutting wages of women public servants in British Columbia.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, I feel that it's far more honest and prudent for me to say

that I will bring those answers back to the House if I don't have them

at my fingertips. So I think in fairness — and you would agree, were you standing in my position —

that it's impossible for any minister to have all of those figures at

their fingertips. I am more than happy to bring those answers back to

the House for your perusal.

WATER QUALITY

MR. CHALMERS :

My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday the chairman of

the B.C. branch of the Canadian Institute of Public Health inspectors

told the Royal Commission on Health Care that the residents of over 50

communities in our province are at risk of contacting a disease

commonly known as beaver fever as a result of the contamination of

watersheds by infected animals. In view of these alarming reports, what

action has the minister decided to take to deal effectively with this

problem?

HON. J. JANSEN : The question of giardiasis

is a concern in a number of communities that rely on surface water for

their water supply. We now have approximately 100 boil advisories in

place in the province that relate to this water problem. We have hired

18 additional water inspectors to go through the province to assist

communities, in identifying these problems and trying to resolve them.

colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, through his municipal

infrastructure grant program, has increased the grants from $40 million

to $65 million to assist communities in addressing some of these

problems.

The problem stems from animals that bring this

disease into the water system through their by-products. It is

obviously difficult to control the movement of animals, but we are

addressing it in terms of municipal infrastructure.

[ Page

11703 ]

PUBLIC SECTOR BARGAINING REGISTRAR

MR. SIHOTA :

My question is to the minister responsible for the program governing

the registration of public sector bargaining positions. Could the

minister please advise the House what the cost to date has been to the

taxpayers with respect to this ill-conceived plan?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take that question on notice.

MR. SIHOTA . Mr. Speaker, I see that he had some difficulty determining

who is responsible for the program, Now that that's been resolved, I have

a new question to the minister.

Given

that the bill was ill-conceived, and that it has now been indicated

that the program will be terminated, has the minister responsible (

a) notified Mr. Yanow — who is paid $80,000 a year — that he's been fired, (

b) notified him that he's been laid off, or (

c) given him another job?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought not always source his information

from any of the leading newspapers in this province. Mr. Yanow was

indeed met with last Friday. Arrangements have been made with him, and

he's fully aware of this legislation and its impending impact upon him.

Mr. Yanow, like every other public servant in British Columbia, will be

dealt with fairly.

EXPORT OF WATER

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, the question is to the Minister of Environment. As the

minister knows, several companies have applied for water export

licences from our coast. Current applications could open the floodgates

to 700 yearly tanker movements in pristine Toba Inlet alone.

Agrologists, native bands, regional districts and others have expressed

concerns about proceeding without public involvement. The question is:

has the minister decided to ensure that no licences will be granted

until a thorough, public, arm’s-length environmental review is

completed?

HON. MR. SERWA : Mr. Speaker, the answer

to the question is that the matter is under review. It is a fairly

complex issue. There is a great deal of potential there for the people

of the province. But until the review is completed we're just

proceeding on that basis and exploring all the elements in that review.

LOANS TO SOCIAL CREDIT RIDINGS

MR. LOENEN : My question is to the Minister of Regional and Economic

Development. As you know there have been some very serious allegations that

this ministry has made loans or loan guarantees primarily to those ridings held

by government members. Can the minister assure this House that every British

Columbian will be treated with fairness and that in British Columbia today there

is equality of opportunity for all and special privileges for none?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Before recognizing the minister I would caution him to

keep his answer within a relatively tight confine, because the question

is so open-ended as to be an abuse of question period.

HON. MR. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, the answer, generally speaking, is yes, I can give that

assurance. More specifically, perhaps I should, for the information of

the House — because I suspect what drives the question is information reported as recently as this morning in the media —

the answer is that in terms of the loans and guarantees and

contributions provided by the ministry to businesses and communities

during the length of the programs, the dollar amount to those

constituencies represented by members of the New Democratic Party is

$283 million, and to constituencies represented by the Social Credit

Party it's $300 million. With respect to loans to businesses only — loans and guarantees — the numbers are $281 million to New Democratic and $296 million to Social Credit ridings.

With

respect to the issue of the number of loans that I have dealt with, the

largest loan in terms of risk, in terms of dollar amount and in terms

of impact — and, indeed, the first one I dealt with in terms of communities — was a loan which will be used substantially, if not entirely, in the constituency of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

The

article you may be contemplating today in the local newspaper is false.

The reporter who made that report from the legislative bureau had

available to him at the time he made the report information that would

have contradicted his own article, and he could have found that

information by reading the front page of his own newspaper.

MR. SPEAKER : The Chair will allow one more question. The member for North Island.

EXPORT OF WATER

MR. GABELMANN :

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that opportunity. I have a question for the

Minister of International Business and Immigration. The Canadian Bar

Association has suggested that water is covered by the free trade

agreement with the United States. Before any applications for

bulk-water export are permitted in British Columbia, has there been a

full impact study in respect of the implications under the free trade

agreement?

HON. MR. VEITCH : The whole matter, as my

colleague said, is under review. There had been some water licences

issued, but that doesn't mean any water can be shipped. There's a long

way between shipping water and issuing licences. Several conditions

would have to be met. As my hon. colleague the

[ Page 11704 ]

Minister

of Environment stated: "The matter is under review." In fact, there are

nine ministries involved in the issue. No water will be shipped unless

there is a great benefit imbuing to the people of British Columbia and

indeed, as my colleague said, all environmental concerns have been met.

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. members, before we proceed to the next order of business, could I

have your attention, please. Perhaps members would like to review Standing Orders

about which questions should be questions on the order paper and which

questions should be oral. There have been some rather elaborate

preambles to questions and some rather lengthy questions. The Chair is

limited by the time and would like to see everyone who wishes to ask a

question in a relatively short time accommodated during question

period. Thank you for your cooperation on that matter.

Presenting Reports

MR. LOENEN :

I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing

Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. I

move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. LOENEN : With leave, I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN :

Before the question is called, I would like to make a few comments on

this. First of all, this report was adopted unanimously by the

committee. Moreover, the committee believes that the recommendation

will provide better and more complete information to consumers when

they buy life insurance, mutual funds or any kinds of securities, or

when they rely on professional financial advice.

The

committee also believes that these recommendations, through increased

information and disclosure, will render fraudulent or unethical

practices by financial institutions more difficult.

The

committee wishes to thank and express appreciation to the numerous

members of the financial planning industry and individual consumers who

so readily offered their advice and suggestions. These recommendations

result from an extensive and consultative process, including public

hearings. We recommend this report for implementation by the government.

[2:30]

Finally, I wish to thank the many members of this House who contributed to

this report. In particular, the present Minister of Labour and the first member

for Vancouver-Point Grey deserve mention. Lastly, this report could not have

succeeded without the diligent service of the Clerk of Committees, Craig James.

I move that the report now be adopted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I call second reading of Bill 83, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Regional

and Economic Development began the closing debate and will continue

today.

JOB PROTECTION ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. SMITH :

Yesterday when we rose for the afternoon I was discussing with the

House a number of the issues that have been raised, particularly by

members opposite, with respect to this legislation and to its

principles, and their concerns about those principles and about the

impact of the specific matters they raised on those issues. I want, if

I may, to continue with that.

Mr. Speaker, I think the

point at which we drew this matter to a close yesterday really does

define ever so terribly well the difference between our position on job

protection and the position put forward by the NDP. I just want to

remind you of what was said, both yesterday and on January 28, by the

Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday it was said that this whole issue

was something of whimsy. Yesterday it was said as well that many of the

issues we have dealt with — Evans Products, which I'm going to

talk about specifically; the Western Star Trucks project, which was

raised yesterday and which I will talk about specifically; and the West

Coast Plywood issue, which was raised yesterday and which I will talk

about specifically — were not appropriate or worthy of support,

and that somehow that was an inappropriate use of government moneys or

government credit.

The third thing referred to yesterday was a matter that had been reported — I am told, at least — by no less an authority on New Democratic Party policy than the Vancouver Sun

on January 29, when they said that the opposition leader had wanted to

create a critical industry commission to help negotiate plant closures.

Now I think that is the point of demarcation that we should begin this

afternoon's proceedings with.

Mr. Speaker, we have

introduced this legislation because we do not want plant closures. We

have brought in legislation to empower a job protection commissioner

precisely so that we can keep jobs going, and precisely so that we can

find the way and the will among people in the community, on the plant

floor and within the employees' groups to ensure that we don't have

plant closures where that is possible, but instead will have plant

continuity and indeed plant expansion. That is a very clear distinction

between our program and that which was articulated by the Leader of the

Opposition.

[ Page

11705 ]

The other issue that shows clearly — more than anything that we

can articulate.... The Leader of the Opposition said that it is the

goal of the New Democratic Party, with respect to job protection and

creation, to create 9,000 jobs per year. Mr. Speaker, that is their

goal. They aspire to lead British Columbia with the creation of 9,000

jobs a year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, today in British Columbia we are

creating 36,000 jobs per year. What it is that they aspire to do,

clearly — by their own statements, and I'm taking their statements; I'm not inventing this — is to reduce the number of jobs that are created in British Columbia by 27,000.

Therefore

I can understand why this whole issue was referred to as whimsy by one

of their members, because clearly that is whimsy. It's not right. The

issues that we ought to be dealing with are ones that are real. They're

about real jobs for real people in real communities around this

province. I suggest to you they deserve the serious attention of this

Legislature through the introduction and support of the bill that we

have brought in.

As well, yesterday we had a number of the

members issue statements and concerns about this particular notion of

job creation and job protection in our communities. I was interested to

note that the second member for Boundary-Similkameen did not indicate

support for the Polestar project at Apex Mountain — an important

mining project in that area, which will create jobs and which is

supported very clearly and specifically by the first member for

Boundary-Similkameen. Apparently it is not by the second member,

because I asked him to articulate that support.

That also

demonstrates clearly once again the attitude between the New Democratic

Party and the Social Credit Party with respect to mining. It is a very

important issue in British Columbia, because the health of our economy

and our capacity to protect jobs is very much dependent upon the kind

of attitude we bring with us in support of mining projects up and down

this province and in support of the mining industry.

The second member for Boundary-Similkameen also said, when he was calling Mr. Kerley a czar —

which I think is a terribly inappropriate thing to attach to a

gentleman of his ability and of his longstanding prominence in the

British Columbia business community.... But when he was saying that, he

also indicated that he had some kind of firsthand knowledge about the

gas prices in the United States. Hopefully he will refrain in future as

an NDPer from crossing over to Oroville and Omak to fill up his gas

tank, and he will instead patronize the businesses in Oliver, Osoyoos

and Penticton as he should be doing.

The second member for Cariboo says that the bill we have before the House should allow for land-use planning.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. Minister, I must advise you that under the standing

orders, the time available for you to close debate has expired. The time under

standing orders for the reply has expired. The member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale

is standing on a point of order.

MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give the speaker more time. I was going to ask

leave of the House to have the minister give us the balance of his

presentation.

MR. SPEAKER : It's not a matter that the Chair has a choice on.

MR. REID : Maybe the House could vote on it.

MR. SPEAKER :

If it will satisfy the member, I'll put the question. Shall leave be

granted? I hear several noes. Thank you very much. I must ask now....

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Perhaps I was remiss in not advising Mr. Speaker that the minister is our designated speaker on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER :

That's appropriate in his opening remarks, but not on the closing

remarks. The standing orders have a fixed time for closing remarks. I

must ask the minister to now put the question. Therefore I'd like you

to move second reading.

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

83, Job Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS ACT

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Before commencing second reading I would like to table a draft of the

compensation fairness guidelines, and I believe copies have been made

available to all members. If they have not, the Sergeant-at-Arms will

be passing them around.

Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness

Act, introducer, the concept of compensation fairness based on the

taxpayers', and therefore the employers', ability to pay.

January 29, 1991, the Premier of the province announced a 12-point

taxpayer protection program. One of the key elements of that program is

control of public expenditure. One of the key components of public

expenditure is wages paid to public sector employees.

British

Columbia citizens pay, through their taxes, the wages of over 200,000

public servants in British Columbia. The compensation wages, plus

benefits, cost the taxpayer approximately $8.3 billion per annum. If

these costs were allowed to increase without restraint in an

environment of slowing govern-

[ Page 11706 ]

ment revenue, only three options would possibly exist.

The

first option would see thousands of public servants, all taxpayers

themselves, forced out of work as public sector wages rose beyond the

taxpayers', and therefore the public sector employers' ability to pay.

Such a situation would hurt public servants through unemployment, would

hurt the people of British Columbia through reduced services, and would

hurt government through lost income tax that these workers would have

paid had they still been employed. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is no

solution.

The second solution would see the same number of

public servants employed, but would require borrowing to meet payroll

demands. We have seen what a mess that is turning out to be in Ontario.

This type of borrowing is nothing but a tax on future generations, a

repeat of the irresponsible policies that we had under the New

Democratic regime from 1972 to 1975, and we will not allow that to

happen in British Columbia. This option was not prudent then, Mr.

Speaker, nor is it prudent now. A Social Credit government simply will

not do such a thing to the people of British Columbia.

The

third option is one that provides for maintained levels of employment

in the public sector without either borrowing or raising taxes. This

option retains the integrity of government, including all social

services, and does so within the taxpayers' ability to pay.

Compensation

fairness with respect to public sector wage settlements is reasonable,

workable and affordable. Compensation fairness is the prudent option.

It is the vision that the Social Credit government has chosen for

British Columbia.

There are over 700 different public

sector employers, each unique in its own way in British Columbia. Each

employer has different tax bases and differing abilities to generate

tax revenues. Some have the power to tax — for example,

municipalities and school districts. Some charge regulated utility

rates; others charge fees for services. Some employees are represented

by trade unions, while about 20 percent are not.

Because

the public sector is not homogeneous, this program does not prescribe a

homogeneous solution. No one set of facts, and therefore no one

formula, fits the different groups and wage groups who benefit from the

public purse — a public purse that does not raise revenue in other

ways but through taxing productive individuals and firms within the

economy. The taxpayers' ability to pay those taxes depends on an

ability to generate wealth in the competitive world marketplace.

[2:45]

British Columbia is a small, open, all too often commodity-based and export-dominated

economy. Our products are sold in the world marketplace. We are price-takers

in British Columbia, not price-setters. Our ability to pay is based on our ability

to compete around the world. There is no independent money pot. There is no

government tap that can be turned on in time of need, and no tree on which endless

supplies of finance grow, as the opposition would have us believe.

our economic wealth increases, we can afford more. The growth in the

economy is what generates wealth and therefore taxes. At no time can we

pay more than the taxpayer can afford. At no time can we pay more in

compensation increases than the economy can generate through growth in

taxes.

Let it be clear that we cannot continue to increase taxes and expect our industry to remain internationally competitive —

a lesson taught to us by the first hon. member for Vancouver East in

1974, and a hard lesson for thousands of workers once employed in

British Columbia's mining industry. We do not believe that it is

reasonable that a key ingredient of total public sector expenditure,

such as compensation paid to public sector employees, should be

unresponsive to conditions elsewhere in the marketplace.

It is not fair to ask taxpayers present or future — the vast majority of whom are and will be employed in the private sector —

to fund wage increases for public sector employees at a rate in excess

of that determined by the market for their own remuneration. In short,

the private sector must lead the public sector, not the other way

around.

We must create wealth before we can even

contemplate redistributing that wealth. When the market turns down or

in times of recession, those taxpayers employed in the private sector

may be laid off or may have their hours of work reduced. In any case,

whether or not their wages increase will certainly depend on the

profitability of the enterprise in which they are employed. Average

private sector settlements are presently in the 4 percent to 5 percent

range. Recent public sector wage settlements have been averaging 7

percent to 8 percent.

That's not the full story. These

unrealistic, high total compensation increases provide pay and benefits

for the employee over a full 12-month period — full pay for a full year's work. In the private sector, temporary layoffs are, unfortunately, a way of life.

So,

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the legislation is to ensure that wage

increases bargained in good faith between public sector employers and

public sector employees are not beyond the ability of the taxpayer, and

therefore the employer, to pay. Thus we can ensure fairness not only to

the parties who bargained agreements, but also to those who must pay

the bill ultimately, and they are the taxpayers of the province of

British Columbia.

Unlike the private sector, there is no

market-driven consequence for the public sector. This program

establishes the only relationship possible by deriving that marketplace

through the taxpayers' ability to pay. Although this legislation is in

a form similar to that introduced in 1982, the emphasis on a concept of

ability to pay will result in more opportunity to ensure fairness and

not simply restraint. The compensation fairness program will provide

sufficient flexibility within the complete focus of fairness.

This

distinguishing feature is reflected in several flexibilities within the

guidelines. The guidelines will permit consideration of pay equity

plans intended to

[ Page

11707 ]

address gender-based wage rate disparities and

compensation increases intended to meet human rights legislation

requirements. Pay increases may also be accommodated where necessary to

address short-term and long-term skill shortages. Further, other

factors which fall within the competitive guidelines — less structured work practices which encourage productivity gains and cash bonuses in lieu of base adjustments — will also be considered.

The

compensation fairness program will apply to the complete public sector,

including Crown corporations, municipal employees, health care,

education and private societies performing public functions. It will

apply to all public sector employee groups equally.

Unlike

the previous compensation stabilization plan, it will not be time

limited. This program will, therefore, allow public employees to share

with other employee groups in the province when times are good, when

the economy is on the ascendancy, and at the same time will result in

wage adjustments to public sector employees sensitive to reduce

revenues resulting from economic downturn, as are the wages of all

other employees in the province. The taxpayer will not be asked to

carry the cost of insulating the public sector from recession.

The

guidelines within which total compensation increases must fall are not

rigid. They will vary as provincial revenues rise or fall. This is as

it should be in order that public sector wages are adjusted only in

accordance with the overall health of the provincial economy. There is

no intention to pretend that this legislation could attempt to identify

all the variables in each employer's workplace. It is clearly the

intention that employers and employees and the representatives sit down

and identify where productivity savings can be achieved. Sharing those

savings is an integral part of this bill.

Free collective

bargaining will not be restricted under this program; only compensation

will be addressed. Although total compensation increases must fall

within the guidelines, all aspects of the collective agreement are

fully negotiable. Only in the event that a public sector employer and a

public sector employee group choose to negotiate an agreement under

which the total compensation increase exceeds the guidelines will a

commissioner intervene by returning the plan for further discussion. No

compensation plan can be implemented without the commissioner's

approval.

The commissioner will have full independence in

the administration of the program. It is not intended to be, nor will

it be, a political process. It is intended to reflect a commitment to

sound fiscal management — the foundation of Social Credit governments past, present and future.

The program is centred on the definition of the public sector employers'

ability to pay. Ability to pay is defined as the current ability of a public

sector employer to increase compensation under compensation plans, taking into

account relevant factors, including but not limited to any fiscal or financial

policies to which the public sector employer is subject and the impact of increased

costs on the levels of public service.

One

further feature of the compensation fairness program is the

compensation rationalization for senior managers, which will allow us

to achieve uniformity and fairness of compensation for senior managers.

This

act provides for an effective date of January 30, 1991, and is

retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect. Under this

legislation all agreements reached prior to that date will not be

subject to the guidelines. However, all agreements reached after that

date, including those in the bargaining stage prior to January 30, are

fully affected.

Executive compensation, in our view, should

not be exempt from the principles of fairness contained within this

bill. The chief executive officer and senior officials in all public

sector enterprises recognize that inconsistency and inequity ought to

be eliminated. This bill will permit me as the minister responsible to

review compensation at the senior level to ensure that marketplace

fairness— fair comparability between employers and the public sector,

and fair compensation to our executives throughout this public

sector — is in place.

Where time and circumstance have

resulted in inconsistent compensation arrangements, whether too high or

too low, I will bring policies forward to make the necessary

corrections over time. The public can expect that we attract and retain

the very best executives to manage our public service organizations,

but that our responsibility as government is to manage in a responsible

manner.

The value of pay increments and reclassification

plans will be taken into consideration in determining the cost to the

public sector employer of a total compensation plan. Additionally,

costs associated with the provision of public services not directly

tied to employee compensation but captured within the notion of ability

to pay will also be subject to review. The office of the commissioner

established under the program will be responsible for monitoring all

compensation plans in the public sector.

Interpretation of

the application of the guidelines, policies or regulations would be

provided to parties upon request. Where the settlement exceeds the

guidelines, the parties will be advised.

The commissioner

will ensure that compensation agreements comply with the requirements

of the compensation fairness program, and his rulings will have a

binding effect. The commissioner will not interfere in the normal

course of collective bargaining, although either party may seek

interpretations of the guidelines from the commissioner at any stage

during the negotiations.

It is critical that essential

social programs not be jeopardized by excessive public sector

expenditures, particularly in the area of compensation. The integrity

and quality of service by public sector workers is unchallenged, but

compensation increases must be determined first by the ability to pay.

[3:00]

[ Page 11708 ]

the spring of 1990, government sought to influence the size of public

sector wage settlements by means other than establishing firm

guidelines. The Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act was

one aspect of the government's efforts. It was hoped that the market

could, with slight assistance, correct itself, and we believed that the

disclosure requirement of the act could provide that assistance.

Despite our efforts, the market did not correct itself.

Although

we contacted public sector employers and emphasized the need to give

paramount consideration to the ability of the taxpayer to pay any

negotiated wage increase, percentage wage settlements have continued to

exceed the private sector. This cannot be allowed to continue. Thus, we

have concluded that we must seek to achieve our goals through other

means.

This bill is a statement of our commitment to

economic reality. In an ideal world, it would be nice to presume that

all outcomes you seek can be achieved without a guiding hand.

Regrettably, the world is not ideal, and this guiding hand is intended

to ensure fairness to the taxpayers, the people of British Columbia, as

well as to our valued public sector workers.

Other Canadian jurisdictions have addressed problems in other ways. The province of Ontario, I must add — the only socialist province in Canada —

has not opted for any solution whatsoever to this problem. That is one

of the reasons that budget deficits for the next fiscal year are

projected upwards to $15 billion. Other Canadian jurisdictions have

addressed the same problems in ways involving direct intervention in

the process of collective bargaining and in rigid boundaries within

which wage increases must fall.

This legislation is not of

that sort. It will not restrict the ability of the public sector

employers and employee groups to freely bargain a collective agreement

which meets their respective objectives. It will simply ensure that in

that process they will have regard to the interests of those who must

ultimately pay the bills — the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Some

may argue that the answer to this issue is to simply bargain tougher.

Well, we will bargain. However, there are over 700 public sector

employers representing over 200,000 public sector employees in British

Columbia. Unfortunately, some appear not to bring sufficient discipline

to the bargaining table. It is only indirectly their own money. It's

often too easy to argue government underfunding. That's the easy way

out.

Government does not have money of its own; in fact,

governments at all levels tax the same taxpayer, whether they be school

boards or whether they be municipal, provincial or federal. Eighty

percent of our transfers to the public sector employers go directly to

pay envelopes of our employees. A competitive marketplace discipline is

needed, and this bill introduces that reality. That reality is the

growth in our economy and therefore the taxpayers' ability to pay.

It is my pleasure to move second reading of Bill 82.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CLARK : Let's make

no mistake about this. This bill has more to do with politics and the

political agenda of this government than it does with concern for

taxpayers' dollars. It is deliberately provocative and it provokes

confrontation. The really offensive part of this bill is that it plays

politics with people's lives to suit the government's election

strategy. It shows how desperate this government has become. It gives

the government the power to retroactively break legal contracts and

make workers pay back money legally paid to them. I might say that that

not only violates the comments of the Premier, but of the former

Minister of Finance and the newly appointed commissioner, as we have

letters stating that it would be retroactive only to the date of the

Premier's televised speech. This bill allows for unlimited

retroactivity beyond and before the Premier's speech.

It's

an example of the erratic and unpredictable nature of this government.

No one can predict the rules in British Columbia. The Premier changes

his mind three times on the way in from the parking lot every day.

Mr.

Speaker, on this side of the House we will be voting against this

legislation. The government claims that they're in favour of restraint,

but it's clear from this bill that it's restraint only for some people.

It is selective restraint. Once again we see the double standard we've

come to expect from this administration. On the one hand are 100

percent taxpayer-funded pensions for doctors; on the other hand, nurses

are being laid off and salaries are being capped below the level of

inflation, we're led to believe. We see 20 percent salary increases for

ministers' political aides, including the current Minister of

Finance's. On the other hand, the bill says that teachers cannot

negotiate lower class sizes.

We see the Minister of

Regional and Economic Development about to give away $40 million to one

company, but the same government professes that it has no money to hire

more nurses, police officers, firefighters, teachers or public

servants. It's a bit like going on a diet and saying you're going to

give up ice cream but continuing to eat chocolate bars. It says there's

restraint only for some people but not for everyone else. They continue

to spend money on areas that they claim are political priorities, but

they have no money for public servants.

It's obvious that

during an economic slowdown governments must carefully plan spending.

But any government initiatives to control spending must be applied

fairly, and this bill is not fair. It singles out employees of

government to bear the burden of the government's restraint program.

There

are four or five aspects to this legislation that I and my colleagues

find particularly offensive. First, the bill contains unlimited

retroactivity. The government is seeking unprecedented power to roll

back wage increases that were granted perhaps one,

[ Page

11709 ]

two or three years ago. Two parties negotiate in

good faith; they come to an agreement; they sign a legal contract.

Suddenly, one or two years later, the government can use this law to

retroactively rip up a legal contract.

The government asks

for the power in this bill to make employees pay back money that was

legally paid to them in a legal contract signed some time ago. That

power is contained in this bill. In other words, Big Brother — the government — is

giving itself the power to destroy a legal contract and then confiscate

money from public employees. It will reach into the bank accounts of

citizens and take back money that was legally paid to them. They wish

to use the power of government to confiscate people's paycheques.

Who

decides whether a contract will be rolled back retroactively? The

government decides. Who decides how far back they will go to rip up a

contract? The government does. Will all public sector workers be

treated the same? Not necessarily; there's no guarantee. The government

says it wants flexibility. What that means is that some groups of

public servants will be, or could be, treated differently than other

groups. They could pick on the nurses, for example, with this bill, who

have been given larger increases than other employees, and roll them

back — and them only. This bill allows for that kind of selective restraint.

The

bill gives enormous and arbitrary power to the commissioner, who is

appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by this government.

Does anybody seriously trust this government to act fairly with this

kind of open-ended and arbitrary power? It has consistently exhibited a

double standard when it comes to public spending, and I think most

people would see this as an invitation to abuse.

The bill

is deliberately provocative. It is designed, I believe, to provoke

labour unrest in a desperate attempt to find an election issue. They

need an issue that will divert the public's attention away from the

scandals, away from the ethical lapses of this administration. They're

desperately looking for an issue and hoping that this bill will incite

labour unrest. That's the real agenda here — nothing to do with

restraint or concern about taxpayers. It's a deliberate attempt to

provoke the labour movement to react. It's simple and clear.

Mr.

Speaker, is this bill necessary? Do we need legislation to keep wage

settlements at a level where the public has the ability to pay?

first question is: what have they been doing over the last four years?

They're saying: "Gee, we can't afford that. We'd better sign it."

Surely a government that professes to be concerned about the taxpayer

hasn't been entering into contracts beyond the ability of government to

pay. Surely school boards who've been given a budget and who negotiate

a collective agreement can't spend more money than they've been given.

Surely, under the leadership of a competent government concerned about

taxpayers, they wouldn't enter into agreements that were beyond the

ability of the government to pay.

Of course, it was the

Premier himself who negotiated the nurses' agreement, which is beyond

the guidelines, it appears. It was the Premier himself who negotiated a

sweetheart deal for doctors. It's no wonder that they need legislation

with the track record of this Premier and of poor negotiations, not to

mention the fiasco of the Expo land sale that the Premier negotiated — or his government negotiated —

not to mention the poor negotiating track record of this administration

in other land deals. So maybe that's why they claim they need

legislation, because they simply haven't done a good job of negotiating.

Surely,

Mr. Speaker, the government signs a collective agreement. It takes two

parties to negotiate a contract. I always find it ironic that after the

government signs a contract with their employees, they would have the

gall to come into the House and say "We're giving them too much," after

they signed their name to the contract. We need legislation now to

force a rollback in contracts that they signed. It's their job to

negotiate on behalf of taxpayers. This bill pretends that they have

failed.

[3:15]

What are the facts,

Mr. Speaker? In January, 1991, the wage gap between public and private

sector was 0.7 percent. In other words, the public sector, on average,

received 0.7 percent more than the private sector. The gap has been

narrowing, as always is the case. Public sector wages lead the private

sector sometimes; they fall behind in other times. On average now in

British Columbia the gap is very narrow.

I want to draw the

attention of the House to the latest B.C. Business Council document,

which shows that wage gap. In February, 1991, the public sector

received 6.11 percent wage increases; the private sector received 6.23

percent wage increases. So last month, private sector settlements were

higher than public sector. The month before that, in January, the

public sector were 0.7 percent higher than the private sector. Does

that look like public sector wages are outstripping the private sector?

Of course not. The gap has narrowed; in fact, last month, settlements

in the private sector were higher than in the public sector.

we need the heavy hand of government in this kind of legislation not

only when the gap has narrowed, but when the private sector in the last

month received a higher settlement than the public sector?

The

bill is unnecessarily provocative and could result in labour unrest.

Does this inspire investor confidence in British Columbia? First of

all, the prospect of labour unrest hardly inspires investor confidence.

Secondly, ripping up contracts retroactively, going in and confiscating

money from employees, which is contemplated in this bill — does

that inspire investor confidence? Is that the sign of a stable

government? No, it's the sign of a desperate government that is asking

us to give them arbitrary power to retroactively break legal contracts

and to retroactively seize money out of people's bank accounts.

There are several other things in this bill designed to provoke a reaction.

Section 10(

b) of the bill states

[ Page 11710 ]

that

the guidelines apply to any "work practices, work rules, or working

conditions." In other words, even things like health and safety

improvements are now covered if they cost money, so what happens if the

Workers' Compensation Board orders a Crown corporation to remove

asbestos? Does that now come out of the wage packet of the public

employee working for that Crown corporation? Clearly, that's what's

contemplated.

Teachers, who have been arguing and

struggling to lower class size to improve our education system, now

have to pay for that lower class size out of their pay. That's what the

bill says. It says that working conditions, occupational health and

safety standards, anything that costs money, must come out of the

envelope. It means that the negotiated safety of our workers must come

out of their pay raise.

It's extraordinary that the

government would go to those lengths. The provision allows government

to interfere with any number of workplace improvements, including

non-discrimination clauses, protection of affirmative action programs,

educational leave, personal leave and bereavement leave. All of those

things are now part of the compensation package contemplated by this

bill. All are now subject to restraint under this legislation.

The

bill also says that there can be no appeal under

section 33(2). This is

quite extraordinary.

Section 33 gives the commissioner the power to

give decisions the force of a B.C. Supreme Court order, but then it

says no appeal may be taken from that order. It's an outrageous removal

of a basic common-law principle that says there must an avenue for

appeal — an avenue to appeal court decisions, for example. It

seems rather strange that they would want to remove the right of

appeal, a decent and common-law practice in our system of government.

Section

19(2)(j). What does it say? It says reclassifications are banned. The

minister said that pay equity is exempted from this bill. That's not

the case. The bill makes no reference to pay equity. In fact,

section

19(2)(

j) says reclassifications are part of the compensation package.

Frankly, very often in a pay equity negotiation, it may well be that

certain classifications are changed to accord women who have been

systematically discriminated against in our system a different

classification where more money can be earned. That is explicitly

prohibited under this legislation. Pay equity, despite what the

minister said, is not exempted from this legislation. So equal pay for

work of equal value, which we've heard this minister and this

government talk about, is specifically tied into this legislation. That

means this legislation prohibits certain actions which might normally

be seen as part of a pay equity package.

Section 29. What does

section 29 say? This is a very interesting section. It

says that government managers are covered, but it doesn't say that really,

when you look at it. It really says that the government can exempt people, because

senior managers.... It says the government may — not shall — require a list

of senior government managers, and it may change that list from time to time.

What

they've done is conveniently allow the legislation the capacity to

exempt certain people; for example, the minister's own political

assistant who received a 20 percent pay increase. He's exempt from this

legislation. In fact, other senior government staff, like deputy

ministers who received over 50 percent in pay increases over the last

four years.... The issue is not whether their current pay to fair or

not. The issue is the double standard — 50 percent for some

employees who are political appointments or deputy ministers of the

government, but we can't do that for other people. It's not fair.

What

about the loss of key professionals to other provinces and the U.S.? We

have a nursing shortage. Many people argue, and I believe, that the

nursing shortage was exacerbated by the previous restraint program.

Does this help remedy our nursing shortage, when the heavy hand of

government is going to restrain the wages of those largely women

employees? Does it help us recruit nurses when we have a shortage?

All

the projections are that there will be a shortage of teachers a few

years down the road. Does this help us attract good-quality teachers to

teach our young people? Of course not. It exacerbates the situation.

What

about health technicians, such as perfusionists and others, of which

there is a desperate shortage? What happened to perfusionists? Does

this help us? Of course not. It exacerbates those problems.

What

should be done? In an economic slowdown, it's my view the government

should be guided by three principles: (1) we should strive for better

value for taxpayer dollars; (2) we should make our government spending

priorities right; and (3) no one should be unfairly burdened or singled

out.

The government has failed on all three counts.

Striving for better value. We have seen 500,000 square feet of empty

office space in British Columbia, on which the government is paying

rent. We have 18,000 square feet of prime office space at the Expo site

empty. The government paid close to half a million dollars in rent last

year for empty office space. Is that getting our spending priorities

right?

It's a travesty that this government has the gall to

come here and say that nurses, teachers and other public servants have

to be restrained while they are wasting millions of dollars on bad

business deals and on empty office space. It's a double standard which

we have come to expect time and time again from this administration.

What

about administrative costs? Under this administration, administrative

costs have grown and grown. We have more cabinet ministers and more

cabinet ministers' offices than ever before in British Columbia. Is

there any restraint there? No.

aircraft? Is there any restraint there? Government ministers flying by

themselves back and forth from Kamloops every day, the two ministers

from Kamloops flying back and forth on different jets within minutes of

each other — is that restraint? Of course not. It's a double standard we've come to expect.

[ Page

11711 ]

What about making sure their spending priorities are right? As I

suggested, it's another principle which should guide government as we

move into an economic slowdown. The $25 million for doctors' pensions.

Massive government advertising campaigns. We've never seen so much

government advertising. Has that been cut? No. At the same time they're

spending more than ever in history on advertising they have the gall to

come in here and say: "We have no money to pay for teachers, health

care workers or other people who work in the public sector." The

spending priorities of this administration frankly are out of concert

with what people would like to see in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the question is: if we move into a recession or a slowdown, who

should pay for it? Should it be working people who have paid taxes — 784 tax

increases and income tax increases — and have paid and paid? Or should it be

large corporations that didn’t pay any tax in the last few years? Should

it be wealthy individuals who have had a tax break under this administration?

Or should it be working people who have paid and paid?

It's

a question of fairness. We need tax fairness. We need a system where

everybody pays their fair share. This government singles out working

people, senior citizens, people who can't afford it. We see massive

increases in medicare premiums and on and on. Yet we see tax breaks for

large companies and wealthy individuals.

As we move into an

economic slowdown, if we need to look for ways of conserving revenue,

we should look at our spending priorities. We should make sure we're

getting fair value for our money. We should make sure that we have a

fair tax system, so that the burden does not fall on one group of

employees but falls equally on all citizens of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, it's a heavy-handed bill, deliberately designed to provoke

confrontation and conflict. The Minister of Labour knows that. I notice

he's not in the House — the Minister of Labour who was quoted as

saying that this bill would provoke confrontation. As someone

responsible for labour relations in British Columbia, he knows that

this doesn't help bring about labour peace, that this is not conducive

to promoting good relations between public sector employees and

employers. It does the opposite. He knows. He was public and he said

so. The government's own Minister of Labour opposes this legislation.

Before

closing I want to make a few remarks just briefly about the fact that

this bill eradicates the Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure

Act. How many thousands of dollars were wasted setting up the public

sector bargaining disclosure registry? We've all seen those full-page

ads about labour disputes in the paper, with the tiny print that you

can hardly read. Each one of those ads cost thousands of dollars. And

now they've admitted that it hasn't done anything.

Of course, when they introduced Bill 79 last session, they said it was a sunshine

bill. It was designed to provide information to the public. Now the Minister

of Finance doesn't say that. He says the bill was designed to lower wages

of public servants, and he says it hasn't worked. So the real purpose behind

the bill was to provoke a confrontation. The real purpose behind the bill last

year was to try and get public sector unions to react. It was an election bill.

What

happened? It didn't work, so they have to bring in something even more

heavy-handed. In the process they have wasted thousands of dollars of

taxpayers' money setting up a system, with employees.... They rented

office space. They paid Mr. Yanow $80,000 a year. He had five staff,

including a lawyer. He set about getting collective agreements for

every public sector collective agreement negotiated in the province. He

had a big filing system. I was there. I visited him fairly recently.

Now it's gone; it's eliminated by this legislation.

[3:30]

We argued against the bill last

July, Mr. Speaker. We said it wouldn't work, and we're glad that the

minister has finally agreed. It's too bad, however, that in the process

we wasted thousands of taxpayers' dollars for a government that

pretends to be concerned about taxpayers.

We will be voting

against this bill, because it proves again that the government has a

double standard. This is an extremist bill which not only eliminates

any semblance of free collective bargaining for the public sector in

B.C. but will promote confusion, instability and chaos. It is so

alarmingly intrusive and sweeping that it may well be subject to

challenge for various sections that appear to contravene basic common

law.

Mr. Speaker, it's a desperate government that chooses

yet again to pick on one group of employees at the same time they've

given pay raises to their friends, to their political assistants, and

at the same time there are other options that government should choose

to be fair, to bring about the kind of efficiency in government that we

all want, especially as we move into an economic slowdown. It's

unacceptable that the government would stoop to a desperate attempt to

provoke labour unrest for an election issue to take the public's mind

off their own internal problems.

Mr. Speaker, we're voting against this legislation.

HON. S. HAGEN : It to my pleasure this afternoon to speak in favour of Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act.

would like to remind the other side of the House particularly that this

was the government that introduced free collective bargaining for

teachers. Prior to January 1, 1988, teachers were able to negotiate

only salaries and bonuses, but not other terms of their employment

relationship. Teachers were also precluded from forming or joining

unions. As of January 1, 1988, teachers have been able to negotiate

collective agreements covering the terms of their employment. They also

have been entitled to form and belong to trade unions.

[ Page 11712 ]

Free

and collective bargaining is not being threatened by the introduction

of this act. This act deals with fairness: fairness to employees and

fairness to the taxpayer. Teachers will continue to negotiate

collective agreements with school boards. No public sector employer

will, however, be permitted to enter into an agreement that it cannot

pay or that is in excess of the guidelines.

Mr. Speaker,

I'd just like to point to the present salaries which teachers have

negotiated and been very successful in negotiating over the past few

years. These are prior to the new salaries that are just being

negotiated. A beginning teacher in the province of British Columbia,

with benefits, averages $35,800 a year. An experienced teacher with 11

years' experience, with benefits, earns almost $61,000 a year. The

average teacher's salary, with benefits, is $51,466 a year. This does

not include administrative salaries or other allowances that they get.

Wages

in the public sector come from only one source: the pockets of the

taxpayers in the province of British Columbia. In times of economic

downturn, fiscal responsibility must be shown by all British

Columbians, and this government through this bill is taking a firm

stand on fiscal responsibility for fair wage settlements.

This

is not

an act designed with a special group in mind. All public sector

employees and employers will play their part. The principles cross all

public sector boundaries, and fairness is determined by the ability to

pay.

It is not acceptable that services in our education

system are cut back in order to be able to afford a salary settlement

that substantially exceeds the private sector CPI. I might point out,

Mr. Speaker, that in the province of British Columbia, private sector

salary settlements over the past three years have averaged between 4

and 5 percent. Recently it has been reported in the media that some

school boards have admitted to negotiating agreements that they cannot

afford. Who suffers from this type of fiscal irresponsibility? It is

indeed the students and the taxpayers.

Let's have a look at

what makes up the estimated cost of a class of students in British

Columbia. It's interesting to note that the estimated cost of a class

is $125,200 a year, and of that, $110,000 is for salaries of various

players in the education system. I'd like to just break that down,

because even the members opposite may learn something from this. It may

be interesting to them. The cost of a classroom teacher out of that

$125,000 — $51,500 a year. Other instructional staff, libraries and counsellors — $30,700 a year; instructional supplies and learning materials — $6,200 a year, building operations and maintenance — $17,000 a year; student transportation per classroom — $3,000 a year; school administration per classroom in British Columbia — $10,000 a year; district administration — $6,500 a year.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to recognize that this will bring fairness

into the system. The taxpayers cannot continue to afford time-after-time salary

increases that are being negotiated. I was interested in listening to the second

member for Vancouver East, and I've heard other members from that side of

the House talk about higher taxes and the need for higher taxes to support these

programs. He has even said that the job of a politician is to play around with

taxes. We say, on this side of the House, that taxpayers are paying enough.

We hear taxpayers saying that they are paying enough, and we agree with them.

The

NDP socialists would want to drive this province into economic chaos.

They always hold up the example of Sweden. Well, let's just talk about

Sweden a bit. This is the NDP's example of a socialist success story:

23 percent GST and a 67 percent personal income tax rate. Is that fair

to the taxpayers? 1 guess not. They have the highest employee

absenteeism in the world of any industrialized country. I don't believe

that's what the people of this province want. For that reason, Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to stand up in support of this bill.

MS. CULL : I believe that the principle of this bill is best understood

by looking at its real motive. The minister claims that the bill is about affordable

government and the taxpayer's ability to pay. But it's clear when you

look at the bill that the real motive is to find a cheap election issue and

to create confrontation with our public sector workers.

It's an old favourite of the Socreds: bashing the women and the men who work in the public service of this province —

in our schools, in government, in hospitals and in many areas of the

economy where the public service is the way we deliver services. It

saddens me to see this being done again. The minister responsible for

labour has said it himself: the bill will restrict free collective

bargaining and will hinder attempts to foster better relations between

employers and employees. And he's right. This attack on the women and

the men who work in the public service will threaten them. It will

demoralize them. It will threaten their working conditions; it will

affect and undermine their productivity, and it will make it more

difficult for them to carry out their jobs with pride.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Tom Peters, in in Search of Excellence ,

when he looked at the most successful companies, pointed out that you

can’t separate the interests of the employer from the interests of the

employees. That means you can't advance the cause of the employer — which is the taxpayer in this province —

by bashing the employee and taking away employee rights and interests.

But that's what this bill does, and if the members on the other side

weren't so blinded by their own ideology, they could actually learn

from recent history.

In 1983 the Socreds attacked the men

and women who work in the public service through legislation, through

arbitrary layoffs, through careless reductions in working conditions

and the level of service — all in the claim of efficient

government. And morale took a nosedive. The people who were demoralized

were not productive. You can't be a productive worker if you're

demoralized and being attacked and worrying about your compensation and

your job.

[ Page

11713 ]

Thousands of person-years of work were lost during that time, but no

one on that side of the floor looked at that cost when talking about

government efficiency. No one has looked at the cost in productivity

and the loss of skills and productive hours from people working in the

public service.

Again, you might think that they could have

learned, because in the last round of bargaining with the BCCEU, this

government had to significantly increase salaries for some skilled

occupations because they discovered that they could no longer attract

skilled workers to come and work for the government. But, Mr. Speaker,

this government doesn't learn. It says it does, it spouts all the right

lines, but its real motives are clear in its actions.

Yesterday

in this House while we were talking about the job protection bill,

members on the other side showed what they really think about public

sector workers. They said the only real jobs being done in this

province were in the private sector. In saying that, they are telling

the people of this province that the work being done by teachers and

nurses isn't real. They are saying that the work being done by

fisheries biologists, by social workers and by clerks isn't important

and isn't valuable. That's the message that this bill contains. This

bill is telling health care workers working in our hospitals, facing

bed closures, facing lay-offs, facing waiting-lists for patients to get

needed surgery, that what they're doing isn't valued and isn't

important. This bill is telling teachers — who are struggling with

a new curriculum brought forward by this government and the integration

of special-needs children into classrooms with inadequate and

overcrowded classes — that the work they're doing isn't important.

It says that the people doing those things — the men and women working in the public service in this province —

are not as important as ministers' political aides who receive

increases of up to 20 percent just weeks before the Premier comes on TV

to say he's going to cap public sector salaries. That's the hypocrisy

of this bill, Mr. Speaker: there's one standard for political friends

and another standard for the men and women who work in the public

service of the province.

This bill extends beyond just

hurting working people. It has the potential to affect the health and

safety of employees and clients who receive services through the public

sector.

[3:45]

The bill says working conditions are a part of compensation. That means that

employees who are bargaining with a public sector employer have the choice of

either worrying about safety for themselves and their fellow workers and their

clients, or worrying about getting a fair wage. It says that they can either

consider the adequacy of the service that they are providing to the public through

things such as class size, or they can worry about whether their paycheque is

going to be large enough to provide for their families in the months to come.

No employee in this province should have to make the choice between fair wages

and the safety of workers and the adequacy of public services. That's what

this bill means.

The

men and women who work in the public service in this province are

motivated; they are hard-working; they are skilled; and they have a

sincere interest in delivering good public services. The public sector

are not second-class citizens. They do first-class jobs, and they

deserve better treatment than being used as a political scapegoat by

this government.

If this government really wants to ensure

that taxpayers get the best value for the dollars they spend on public

sector wages, and if this government really wants to ensure that the

quality of services provided to the public through public servants does

not suffer, it should value them, it should treat them fairly, and it

should bargain with them fairly — not kick them in the stomach every time they need another cheap election issue.

MR. COUVELIER : I am delighted to rise in my place and speak in favour of Bill 82.

seems to me, in listening to the rhetoric from the members opposite,

that once again they have fallen into the easy trap of mindless

criticism with no sense of responsibility of what it is we're here to

do. It has always struck me, as I have listened to the debates in this

hall, that one of the limitations imposed on us by the parliamentary

system is a failure for us collectively to arrive at the best approach

to deal with the emerging problems of the moment.

That

brings me to the opening point I want to make, which is: what is the

appropriate role for a government which, by virtue of holding office,

has access to particular information that demands — if you have a sense of responsibility of office — to be addressed?

This

bill has been carefully considered and is a well-crafted response by

the government to what I believe is one of the most demanding and

pressing problems facing the nation today. If you doubt that we are

attempting to deal with what is a national problem, you only have to

look at the spoken word of our federal leaders and at the actions and

spoken words of provincial governments right across this country.

B.C.

is not an island unto itself. We must retain our relevance with the

country as a whole, and we must always be appreciative of the fact that

we are in an internationally competitive situation. We are an exporting

province. In determining public policy, we must always recognize that

we are in a constant battle for customers; we're in a constant battle

to attract investment income; we're in a constant battle to increase

the number of jobs for British Columbians, because our population grows

faster than that of any other province by virtue of the fact that

Canadians are moving here because of the aggressive, dynamic and

farsighted leadership this government has given over the last four and

a half years.

We have, then, some needs to address the

public policy issues of the moment. I happen to think that a

government's responsibility is to plan for the future. I

[ Page 11714 ]

happen

to think that when the history books are written about this

administration, they will say, first of all, that it never abandoned

its responsibility for long-range strategic planning. I believe this

administration has consistently made the hard decisions that were

required to be made to ensure that our economy continued to grow and

prosper. There has been no administration in the country which has

matched our job creation efforts — none.

We are

perceived by our peers across the country as leaders in the area of job

creation and in the area of keeping an economy vital and growing. It is

recognized across Canada; it is recognized internationally. I can tell

you, by virtue of my international travels over the last four years,

that I tell the truth. We are perceived as responsive leaders who are

determined to ensure that our province continues to prosper.

What

does the populace expect of its government? They expect, first of all,

stability. They expect integrity, a willingness to change and adapt to

meet new and changing circumstances, and leadership. If you wrap all

those things together with the economic dynamics of the moment, they

will tell you this bill is absolutely essential if we are going to

remain competitive in the international marketplace.

Obviously

the public sector cannot afford to get too far ahead of the private

sector in terms of wage settlements. I have heard members opposite

during this debate make the point that those lines are meeting and that

there is no longer that wide divergence between public and private

sector settlements. That is true. You are absolutely correct when you

make that point.

But what you fail to recognize, of course,

to the unfolding dynamic which will occur over the next 12 months in

this province in the private sector. You only have to look at wage

settlements in the lumber industry south of the border to understand

that the coming negotiations with our wood-fibre workers are going to

obviously restrict the flexibility that either side can make in their

demands.

The fact of the matter is that we are in a

tougher, competitive race now with our lumber and woodfibre products

than ever before, by virtue of the fall-off of U.S. housing starts and,

therefore, the forced look by U.S. producers internationally. For the

first time, our wood-fibre industry is having tough bidding wars with

U.S. wood-fibre exporting firms who were, prior to the fall-off in U.S.

housing starts and the U.S. recession, serving the domestic market.

Our competitive position has been exacerbated by economic events south of the

border. If you recognize that truth — and it is a truth — and if you recognize

that the largest number of private sector settlements in our recent ten-year

history are going to occur this year, and you understand that the private sector

settlements in this largest employer group in the province are obviously going

to come in at one of the lowest levels in years, then it's critical we ensure

the public sector remains relevant to what is happening in that private sector.

British

Columbia, unlike the other Canadian provinces, has a unique future in

the Pacific Rim. It is a highly competitive marketplace, but it also to

the most rapidly growing marketplace in the world. If we

collectively — members opposite and members on the government side —

can appreciate the importance of always remaining competitive and

always enhancing our partnership opportunities in the Pacific Rim, we

can ensure that our children will have jobs in the future. This bill

will help accommodate that outcome.

If you question my

comments on what is happening elsewhere in Canada, let me put on the

record some of the statements made by other provincial governments. For

example, the province of Saskatchewan has already announced a 4 percent

cap on public sector settlements. As I understand it, unlike British

Columbia, the socialist opposition in Saskatchewan is prepared to

cooperate with the government of that province in dealing with its

fiscal situation.

My friends, if we have the interests of

British Columbia at heart here in this building, in this room, surely

we would work in a cooperative fashion to attempt to solve the issues

we are facing, which are a limited ability to pay the escalating cost

of public services and a lack and continued erosion of our competitive

capabilities.

Let me tell you about Manitoba. Manitoba will

be limiting civil service pay hikes to 3 percent. The guidelines that

the minister tabled today give you a feel for the range in which we

believe we can afford to pay in this province. You know full well,

members, that those guidelines will likely result in settlements

exceeding what Manitoba is freezing and enforcing by edict. This bill

does not violate the normal collective bargaining process. We do not

intrude. We merely provide guidelines.

Let me tell you, my

friends, what Manitoba has also said. They are prepared to see zero

increases in the areas of education and Crown corporations, zero

increases for the civil service in year one and then leave the second

year open.

In Newfoundland, they have frozen the salaries

of all 35,000 public servants for a year. In that province, by virtue

of its particular financial difficulties, people are facing the closing

of 360 acute-care hospital beds and the elimination of some school

board positions, and they're terminating many courses and positions in

the community college system. They've introduced legislation to

initiate a one-year wage freeze — once again, an action this government is not contemplating.

think that when it comes to the public; sector, it's important to

understand that we have capable, dedicated, bright public servants with

a genuine desire to serve the needs of the taxpayer. Unlike other

jurisdictions in the country, we are not forcing something on them. We

are saying: "There are tough times ahead. We're all going to have to

tighten our belts." The Premier has announced a freeze for all of us in

this chamber, and of course we support that. But more than that, we've

said that in the area of our public sector employees, the bargaining

process must proceed unfettered. But we have guidelines. We've ap-

[ Page

11715 ]

pointed a commissioner to examine any negotiated

settlements so that he might judge whether they fit the guidelines. If

they don't, he will not make a ruling. He will merely send them back

with the advice that they don't meet the guidelines.

admit that that is a unique way to approach the problem. If we had not

had the historical performance of the compensation stabilization

commissioner to prove that it works, you might have a valid criticism

in saying it's a wild experiment. But, my friends, it worked in 1982,

and with these adaptations it will work in 1991.

One of the

difficulties we always have in this House is the rhetoric that our

supporters pick up. I happened to catch, just before I came into the

chamber this afternoon, a publication that I gather is put out by one

of the union groups that are obviously supporting the opposition —

financially and with their daily rhetoric. I was struck by some of the

quotes, which are unfortunately misleading and inaccurate, and which no

one.... The way our media representation is made and the way the

rhetoric flows back and forth across the room, no one rebuts this kind

of inaccurate statement.

Let me quote page 1 of this publication, The Provincial :

"The Premier's privatization scheme has failed miserably." My friends,

there is absolutely no evidence to justify that kind of comment. When

we privatized highways, we published the financial information to

support our contention that privatization saved $100 million in the

first term of the contract. That's recorded in the books of account.

It's audited by the auditor-general, and he comments about the validity

and accuracy of that statement. There is no way this kind of

rhetoric....

I go on to quote this document: "The province

lost millions of dollars in the Expo land deal." My goodness, how often

have we talked about the Expo land deal in this chamber? Let's just

repeat once more for the record the fact that that property was sold by

international tender. Let's confirm once again that the highest bidder

won the contract. Let's confirm once again that there was a profit made

in the transaction. That profit has been booked and audited by the

auditor-general, and the records so state. So to the allegation that

there has been a loss, my friends, you just refuse to recognize the

record.

I'm prepared to concede that had everyone in 1986

had the comfort of prior knowledge that the real estate market would

continue to rise, it might have been wise to have thought about whether

or not we wanted to sell it. But I ask you to consider the economic

times of 1986. Everyone in this chamber was almost paranoid about

having a post-Expo depression in this province. We heard statements

from the members opposite about the inevitability of that occurring.

You were telling us constantly that we had to do something to make sure

that we did not have a post-Expo recession.

So this administration cut the sales tax and put $250 million more in disposable

income into the pockets of British Columbians. This administration decided to

sell Expo to the highest bidder, no matter where they were born, no matter what

their colour, no matter what their religion or their political beliefs. The

highest bidder got it, and we made a profit on it.

What

flowed from that? You know as well as I do; we had an explosion of real

estate values in the city of Vancouver as a consequence of the renewed

international interest in Vancouver as a centre of some international

stature.

If you were given the problem we had in 1986 immediately after taking office — how best to make sure that this province we're all so proud of did not fall into a post-Expo recession —

how would you have crafted an economic strategy, my friends? You would

have had to do exactly the same thing we did. You would have had no

choice, because the dynamics of that moment required aggressive

leadership. They required confidence in decision-making and a teamwork

approach to solving public policy issues.

[4:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, I'm back to this publication which is so full of erroneous

comments. It goes on to say that the quality of highways maintenance

has deteriorated in some areas because some private operators choose

high profits over public safety. My friends, nothing could be further

from the truth. When we had an illustration of an inadequate level of

service, the Minister of Transportation and Highways dealt with it. I

can tell you that in my riding the quality of highways maintenance has

improved. I'll tell you why. It wasn't because the private sector

managers were so smart; it wasn't because they were so profit hungry

that they squeezed everything out of the contract. It was because they

were successful in maintaining the government employees onto their

staff, injecting a spirit of team work — something that I really

wish the members opposite would join us in embracing: an element of

team work. The consequence of a properly motivated workforce with

confidence in their management is an improved level of service, and it

does not have to mean an increased cost.

We said when we

privatized highways maintenance that all of those 28 highway districts

would likely not result in repeating of the contracts in some areas. We

recognized that many of the employees who decided to go in business for

themselves might not have the capability of seeing that contract

through. We predicted that we would have problems in some areas.

Refresh your memory. Look into Hansard. You will see that we told you

we didn't expect all 28 districts to be a success. But we said then

that we guaranteed the majority would, and by God, they have been.

what have we done with highway maintenance? We've created not only an

improved level of service at a reduced public cost but we now have a

dedicated, highly motivated workforce that I think will ensure that

future contracts are equally economical in addressing the needs of the

country.

Let me go on to an editorial in this publication — this publication that contains so many inaccuracies.

[ Page 11716 ]

This

publication makes reference to the fact that no one should shed too

many tears for the government and its senior government officials about

the freeze of wages. It says: "They have received higher wage increases

than any other group of public employees since this administration was

elected."

My friends, let me tell you some facts of life.

First of all, the statement is not true. As you know, the salaries for

members in this House have been reasonable and have followed

established market conditions, so we have not been heavy-handed in

terms of rewarding ourselves. But even if that were true, you are as

guilty as we are in that respect, and I trust you would agree that you

are not greedy and bottom-line oriented and self-serving and that you

haven't consistently voted for wage increases because you didn't earn

them. If you supported them — and you did — you obviously felt that we were keeping pace and not demanding too much of the taxpayers.

Your

supporters, the ones who make financial contributions to your party,

should not be allowed to get away with that kind of garbage. If we all

are so mindless, as you seem to characterize with these publications,

then, my friends, you are as guilty as we are, and don't try to paint

it otherwise.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Second

reading is to the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is

laid out in the explanatory notes behind the first page. I am having a

little difficulty equating some of the member's arguments to the

principle of the bill. Perhaps the member could take recognition of

that in his concluding remarks. Thank you.

MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly mollified by your remarks and will attempt

to abide by your rules. I would only ask that you might impose the same

kind of discipline on the members opposite. I was listening in my

office to some of these comments, and it seemed to me they wandered all

over.

The issue then comes to the need for this bill at

this point in time. As has been stated by other speakers on the

government side, our country Canada is in the depths of a recession. We

in this province are not yet in the depths of a recession, and we are

hopeful that with continued effective management of economic policy by

this side of the House we can stay out of that recessionary mood. We

certainly are in a downturn; things are tight. It requires every

British Columbian to tighten the belt, have an appreciation of the

dynamics of the times, and be prepared to accept their obligation as

responsible citizens dealing not only with problems of today but

problems of the future.

I believe this bill then, Mr. Speaker, continues the precedent established

with the very first sitting of this administration in this room. We will never

forfeit our short-term political goals to the expense of necessary long-term

strategic planning. There are some things that are so important that you do

not violate them for partisan political gain. And the kind of rhetoric that

I've heard from the members opposite tells me that you are going to vote

against this bill.

But

I suspect, were I to be a fly on the wall in the caucus room of the

socialists opposite, that there would have been comments like: "Well,

you know, it's something that's really needed. We'd better not be too

vociferous, because we know it's necessary. However, most of our

financial hell and most of our volunteer workers, of course, come from

the sectors who are going to be asked to be responsible British

Columbians. Therefore we cannot lose that support, and we must appear

to continue to be opposed to something that is vitally necessary."

suspect that those of you who appreciate the truth about Canada's

economic situation and our prospective economic situation privately

agree within the confines of your caucus room that this is probably

essential. Were you — in your wildest flight of fancy — to be

successful in winning the next provincial election, I would rather

think that you would not be rescinding this particular piece of

legislation this year.

My friends, you know as well as we

do that it is necessary. You know as well as we do that our children

and their jobs will depend upon a continuation of this kind of

determination. Some things are larger than partisan differences, and

this is one of them. It is time in our economic development and growth

for us to pass this bill, to understand that we are still the best-off

province in Canada in economic terms and to appreciate that if you

really care about jobs in your own riding. It is essential that the

public sector not get too far ahead of the private sector. This bill,

with the flexibility we give the commissioner, will ensure that outcome.

ask you in all seriousness to do what your colleagues are doing in

Saskatchewan. Develop a spirit of cooperation and an appreciation of

the economic times, drop your partisan quibbling and rhetoric and join

this side of the House in doing something that is very essential for

the times.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I enjoyed listening to

the former Minister of Finance talk about whether or not we had one

message in caucus and one message for the House. We are the New

Democratic Party — not the Social Credit Party, who have many messages both inside and outside their caucus, and inside and outside their party.

Let's

look at some of those differences, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour

has just returned to the House. Let's hear what he has to say about

Bill 82: "My role is to try and foster better relations between

employers and the employees. My personal choice is for free,

unobstructed collective bargaining. But cabinet has made a choice in

fact to do something different than that." Those are the differences in

Social Credit, and they don't exist on this side of the House.

The

former Minister of Finance, who has just finished speaking, speaks of

restraint. He spoke of restraint while he was the minister; he still

speaks of restraint. Yet we have the Minister of Economic Development,

who isn't shovelling money out of the back of the truck anymore; he's

driving down the

[ Page

11717 ]

freeway with the tailgate open.... He's talking

about that. What British Columbians and the business community in

British Columbia are looking for is stability, continuity and their

dollars spent very wisely. That is not happening in British Columbia.

Bill

82, the Compensation Fairness Act, sends a message of confusion to

British Columbia businessmen, to investors and to investment

confidence. While on one hand the government allows 12 percent to 20

percent increases in salaries for senior political aides, senior

business leaders in this province this year are taking zero increases.

Small business is taking a pay cut. Yet this province hands out 19

percent and 20 percent wage hikes for its senior employees. Under

Social Credit the cost of living has gone up 19 percent, yet deputy

ministers have got a 59 percent pay hike since this government took

office. Political appointees have been given a 35 percent wage hike

since this government took office. We only have to recall one political

appointee, David Poole, the secretary to the Premier, who after 18

months of service walked away with $175,000 to keep his mouth shut.

Government

employees are diligent workers; they are caring. This bill is a slap in

the face to them. It identifies them as unworthy of decent pay. It

identifies that maybe they don't work very hard. Maybe it's true what

people say about them: they take long lunch hours, and they travel

around the province and collect travel points. That's not true, Mr.

Speaker. The government owes more to the workers of this province than

that kind of message. This bill will foster labour unrest in the

province. It will again send a message to those investors, and it will

again ruin investor confidence in this province.

Key

professionals are leaving this province. Nurses are travelling away

time and time again. Why? There are other areas in Canada, in the

United States and in the world that recognize their importance and are

willing to compensate them fairly and honestly and treat them on a

level playing-field.

[4:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This

bill will hurt women in this province who earned 66 percent of what men

earned in 1966 when this government took office, and who now only earn

60 percent.

Instead of spending money travelling around on

jets in this province, this government should be spending money on

ambulance service and on ambulance workers in this province. Instead of

wasting money on empty offices in this province, this government should

be treating its employees fairly.

Last year we passed the

Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act. It was

an act that

came in, it was enacted upon and it went out. The government should

disclose immediately the cost of that exercise — the wasted

dollars that were thrown away on that government inaction. What message

are we sending to the business community with that kind of legislation?

It is not a message the business community enjoys seeing.

Indeed,

what are the revenues of this province? Are we to have a true account

of the finances? Are we to know whether we can afford to pay workers

more or less? This Minister of Finance refuses to bring down a budget.

Today he talked about an interim bill. We don't need an interim bill.

British

Columbians and the business community have a right to know the true

state of B.C.'s finances, the true state of the deficit in this

province. Employees, whether they're public or private, deserve to be

treated fairly in this province. They deserve to be treated equally on

a level playing-field— not one group being treated more equally than

another group; not senior management given wage increases that would

shame even members of this House. Truly this government has one rule

for friends and insiders and one rule for working British Columbians.

we enact this bill, will there be adequate education funding to assure

that we have well-trained people to enter the business community; that

we have adequate health care to see that those people are cared for and

are put back into the workplace as quickly as possible, instead of

waiting for months and sometimes years on waiting-lists where employers

can no longer count on those employees returning to work to increase

the productivity of this province, to turn out those goods and services

that make British Columbia great and keep it on a strong physical road?

This

government has mismanaged the economy. It has emptied the bank

accounts, it has no budget, it has no plan, and it is trying to hide

fiscal mismanagement at the cost of government employees. The

government has to get its spending priorities right in this province.

The

message to investors and to the business community should be that we

have a good education system; that their young children, when they move

to this province with those investments, will receive the best

education in the world; that their employees will be well trained and

taught by adequately compensated teachers; that they will receive good

health care because we have adequately paid health staff. We need a

well-educated, highly-skilled workforce in order to move this province

ahead. This bill will not accomplish that.

Professional

workers will leave this province. There will be an exodus of

highly-skilled people that work not only in the public service. They

will go to better fields. The dollars we have invested in their

education will be lost to British Columbia forever, because this

government does not recognize the value of their expertise.

The

message to the investors should be that we have a well-trained,

highly-skilled government workforce that enjoys working at a decent

standard of living.

Planning for the future means a stable

economy managed by a stable government that has the respect of the

business community and the investor. This government is anything but

stable. There is no leadership, there is no confidence from cabinet,

there is no confidence from members opposite, there is no

[ Page 11718 ]

confidence in its own party, and definitely there is no confidence from the citizens of British Columbia.

What

the citizens of British Columbia want is not Bill 82, but an election,

so they can pass judgment on the fiscal mismanagement of this province

and the way it unfairly treats its workers.

HON. J. JANSEN :

I would like to speak in support of the compensation fairness program.

I should preface my remarks by responding to the opening comments from

the member for Alberni, who said that in his particular part of the

House the message inside the caucus or outside the caucus, inside the

House or outside the House, was always the same. I have to tell you,

Mr. Speaker, that I agree with that, because the message is always the

same — it's nothing. And having listened to the comments that the

member made prior to me in the House, I've got to re-emphasize again:

there is a nothing comment. Nothing has been said, in terms of this

bill. It's all rhetoric.

The costs in the health care

sector of our economy have been increasing at a rate far in excess of

those in other sectors. In fact, the cost increase related to hospitals

is four and a half times the rate of the population. Health

expenditures in the province are twice that of provincial expenditures.

Settlements to the health care workers have generally been

proportionately far greater than those achieved by employees in other

sectors of our economy. This legislation will send the message that

there isn't a bottomless purse.

The health care industry

employs approximately 100,000 people in the province. That constitutes

about 80 percent of our health care budget; approximately $3.8 billion

of the province's health care system is allocated to health care

workers. We cannot have, nor would the employees want to have, the cost

of that labour increase to the point where patient care must be

compromised in order to accommodate it.

In no sector of the

economy is the issue of the employer's ability to pay more critical

than in the health care sector. A reduction in expenditures in any area

resulting from a compensation package increase in excess of the ability

of the employer to pay will inevitably have a negative impact on the

standard of patient care.

Free collective bargaining in our

health care system is a long-established right. The government respects

that bargaining process and the right of the workers. But the taxpayers

need a voice in the expenditure process too. They expect that the

government will negotiate within its means and within the ability of

the taxpayer to pay, because in the final analysis the government

doesn't have dollars; it's the taxpayers who must pay the bill.

In light of all the layoffs and cutbacks in the private sector, and as a reaction

to our recessionary economy, a fair compensation program to limit wage rates

in the public sector is entirely defensible. It is not acceptable that massive

layoffs follow an agreement in order to pay for it. The services we have come

to expect are an integral part of our high standard of living. We must continue

to strive for a balance between fair compensation and effective program delivery,

and our ability to pay.

Our

health care system has been recognized internationally in comparison to

other nations as the best in the world. There has recently been a

survey that indicates that Canada is at the top of an international

scale in terms of satisfaction and quality of health care. The United

States is number ten and Britain is number 11; Sweden didn't even make

it onto that particular scale. For us to retain that system, we must

ensure that our ability to pay does not compromise our services.

keep on hearing from the other side about nurse layoffs, about

shortages of nurses and that nurses are leaving in droves for other

parts of Canada and other parts of the world. In fact, we currently

have about 200 vacancies out of 27,000 nursing positions in the

province.

We also hear about the sweetheart deal with the

doctors, the 6,000 physicians and surgeons in the province who bill fee

for service. I recall the comments of the opposition health critic when

I was travelling with my son to go skiing one day. He was on the Rafe

Mair show, and he was supporting the pension plan. The interview that

was going on even raised the interest of my son, who said: "Can you

believe this turkey?" I obviously chided my son that he had no respect

for such a....

In subsequent conversation with the

president of the BCMA, Dr. Fry, she told me that she had spoken to the

Leader of the Opposition, who led her to believe that he too thought

the deal was acceptable and right.

It has been called a pension plan for doctors by the opposition many times — I think that's the terminology the opposition uses.

MR. ROSE : A what?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : You know pension plans, Mark. You've got four of them.

HON. J. JANSEN : Many of the opposition know a lot about pension plans, because they benefit from a lot of them.

The

pension plans mean a substantially higher cost than what is involved

here. The deferred income plan that was part of the package of

negotiation was approximately a 2 percent cost. Pension plans, on the

other hand, cost approximately 17 percent of salaries. So how can one

logically compare a pension plan to a deferred income benefit plan

which has no portability, no benefits until a certain age and no

vesting until a certain age? It is a ruling by Revenue Canada to enable

income sheltering in a deferred income plan.

From a

standpoint of the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia, where

we can remunerate doctors for services on the basis of a lump sum

rather than a fee that has the attributes of both utilization increases

and compounding, it is obviously to the benefit of the taxpayers to

have a fixed amount of payment. Mr. Speaker, the deal with the doctors

was no sweetheart deal. It was a good deal for the

[ Page

11719 ]

taxpayers, and it was a good deal for the physicians and surgeons.

Are

we fair with our wages? We're hearing about the shortages of nurses

that keep on appearing and nurse layoffs, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

know where the nurse layoffs referred to by the opposition are

happening. Why would you lay off nurses when you have 200 positions to

be filled?

Are we fair with the nurses of the province of

British Columbia? I've had an opportunity to meet many of them over the

time of being Health minister. We pay the highest starting wage in all

of Canada for nurses. We have the highest wages after six years of

service, and the second-highest wage in Canada at the top end of the

wage scale, after Alberta. Are we being fair? The answer must be: we

are being very fair.

[4:30]

In the

next little while we will be negotiating agreements with a number of

unions. We have negotiated an agreement with emergency health services.

We have negotiated an agreement with the BCGEU hospital workers and the

municipal nurses. We intend to negotiate in the next little while

agreements with the BCNU, which comprises $774 million of wages; the

HSA, which comprises $309 million worth of wages; and the HEU, $701

million. In the next little while altogether we'll be negotiating wages

costing $2.5 billion.

Reference was made to what is

happening in other provinces. The concerns that I have as Health

minister are the concerns that my colleagues have across the country.

Newfoundland has had to lay off 800 workers in the health care system.

They have had to close 360 beds because of inability to pay. I met

today with the Minister of Health from the province of Manitoba, who

indicated to me that the revenues of that province are flat. There is

no growth — absolutely zero increase in revenues. That will mean

that every dollar spent in a wage increase in the health care sector

will have to be taken from another program, or it will have to be a

borrowed dollar. There are no funds available.

Mr. Speaker,

the comment respecting the commencement base date. There was some

comment made that in fact the retroactivity of the plan was arbitrary.

The guidelines that have been passed out respecting this bill explain

very clearly the base date commencement and indicate by examples when

this agreement or this compensation package would come into place.

There was also concern about the need to be competitive. In this guideline

package we've listed three guidelines that determine the amount of compensation

that cart be given: job security, the labour market and the competitive market.

Within the health care system obviously we have a need for certain specialties

which may require more income than what is normal in the public sector. The

commissioner, through looking at the package, can provide for the ability of

the public sector employer to recruit and retain employees in areas of demonstrable

shortages of critical skills. So in fact the commissioner can take into consideration

the extra requirements that some of our health care workers have.

am concerned that a system which is allowed to grow without any

accountability in terms of wages will result in very significant

service reductions that we can ill afford in our health care system. I

urge you members on the opposite side to put aside your ideology and

recognize the problem that we'll be facing in the future, particularly

in the health care system, and to work with the government in dealing

with the pressures that will result in the future in a way that is

understood and supported by the public.

I would urge all members of this House to support this legislation.

MS. A. HAGEN :

We're debating this afternoon the principles of this bill, and I think

it's very important that we get our principles straight and stack them

up against what this bill purports to do. I would just pick up a

statement made by the member for Saanich and the islands a moment ago

where he noted that it was important not to have a failure to arrive at

the best approach. I think what we have today with this piece of

legislation is indeed a failure to arrive at the best approach.

The

people on the other side of the House, who have been responsible for

managing our province for the last four years as an administration,

have clearly, I believe, in the minds of the public, failed that test

over and over again. When we came back into the House a couple of days

ago — it's now Wednesday; we've been here since Monday — we

began to have an opportunity to explore some of those failures and some

of the reasons, to quote the Minister of Health who just spoke, that

they are claiming there are no funds available and are presenting a

doom-and-gloom story.

This group of people on the other side of the House — the Socred administration —

would have us misled about the double standard that they have been

working on over the last number of years. Most people understand double

standards in terms of very concrete examples. There is no more telling

example to a nurse, a health care worker, a home support worker or a

teacher than the example of the Minister of Finance who defends a 20

percent increase to his executive assistant for this coming year —

to the tune of $58,000 a year plus expenses, I would note. We look at

that in comparison with the salaries of many people who work in the

public sector: women who work for wages that we know are less than the

poverty line if they are with families; nurses who are struggling with

wages that we know don't bring us into equity with other sectors;

beginning teachers with five years' experience who are earning a

fraction of the salary that's going to an executive assistant. When we

stop to talk about fairness, I believe those examples really tell the

tale.

We are looking at a government spending hundreds of

thousands of dollars on advertising. We are looking at the government

mismanaging its Building Corporation in terms of space that lies empty

[ Page 11720 ]

phenomenal cost. And this government tries to tell us that there's fairness in this legislation.

The

second thing I think we have to look at is the actual substance of the

bill. We've heard across the floor today, mostly from the Minister of

Finance, the words "nonsense, nonsense, nonsense," as we have looked at

the substance of this bill and the specific details of it. One of the

things I believe we can do on this side of the House is read. We can

read that this bill in fact allows the government absolutely unlimited

powers. Whether they exercise them or not, it allows them relatively

unlimited powers in terms of collective bargaining and collective

agreements.

It allows them to say that agreements which were signed between two parties —

between a school board and a teachers' association; between the workers

in a long-term-care facility and the proprietors and operators of that

facility — are null and void and that they can retroactively

change those contracts. They have the right to draw back dollars that

have gone into the pockets of workers and, if the commissioner rules

that that is the case, there is no appeal. That is the kind of

legislation described in this particular document.

Then

today the Minister of Finance drops on our desks some guidelines. The

guidelines are intended to provide some basis for the implementation of

legislation, but we hear from the other side that these are not

guidelines; they are rules that would be laid down by the government's

appointed commissioner, and they will apply to hundreds of thousands of

working people in this province.

I want us to remember who

those working people are, and I want us to remember it in the context

of what I believe are the public's priorities. Like most of my

colleagues in this House, I've spent the last number of months in my

riding. Recently I called together a group of people who work in what I

call the people service part of my community. They were people from

education, from health, from the social services, from the police and

from the voluntary sector. We talked about what this province needs in

the future. We talked about what should be the priorities of

government; how we could manage to provide the very many services,

whether they are to children in our classes, children who are

developing normally or children who have special needs, children who

are new to our country or children who are in danger of dropping out;

how we can provide services to families; how we can deal with the

challenge of providing services in hospitals.

I want to

just comment before this House today about a couple of the perspectives

they brought back, because they do pertain to the principles of this

bill. Among our working people, and particularly among the people who

have the challenge of providing people services, there's a real

awareness that our resources are not infinite, and that we do have to

bring new ideas and new methods to bear on how to make sure those

services are maintained and provided as effectively as possible.

Those people were talking about what in management language is called productivity,

but I believe they were talking about something much more important. They were

talking about how they, working cooperatively and working within the community,

could look at means to make sure services were delivered in our schools, in

our hospitals, in our long-term-care facilities, among our police, in all of

those areas. They were looking for leadership that called upon them and their

provincial government, their municipal governments, their school boards and

their voluntary agencies to find ways of working cooperatively with resources

we know are not infinite.

[4:45]

They

were not looking for legislation that intrudes on their fundamental

rights to work toward collective agreements that provide them with

compensation in a fair and reasonable manner. They were not looking for

legislation that goes beyond anything most of us have seen in the

powers that it gives to this government.

The reasons we are

opposing this bill have a great deal to do with the kind of province we

want to see after the next election. It is a province, in fact, where

we are not setting people one against the other; where people in the

public sector and people in the private sector are treated fairly;

where we recognize that we have challenges to face in the provision of

the most important services which everyone agrees are essential to our

economic and social well-being. Anything that erodes or brings

demoralization or destabilization or unfairness into that challenge and

that work is counterproductive to the very things that are most

important to us.

This government speaks about planning.

It's not the subject of this bill to talk about planning, but let me

just speak in the field of education for a moment. The past Minister of

Education — whom we are going to miss in that role — and the

new Minister of Education have taken on probably one of the most

challenging tasks we have in British Columbia: to work with the parents

and teachers, support staff and young people of our community around an

education system that prepares us to be the workers, the parents and

the community activists we need in the future. We need to do that job

in a spirit that recognizes it is going to require all our energy, our

financial and human resources.

I remember all too well that

in the 1980s we lost a whole generation of teachers in this province

because of an earlier, flawed effort of this same Socred

government — a different administration — in another time when we had economic challenges to meet.

Let

me come back to the comment of the member for Saanich and the Islands.

We have in this bill a failure to arrive at the best approach, and that

is the reason we cannot support it.

MR. ROSE : I

didn't expect to be speaking as early as I am; I thought there might be

another speaker from the other side. But since I have....

Interjection.

[ Page

11721 ]

MR. ROSE : It's not up to me to look, Mr. Minister of Labour; it's up to the Speaker in the chair to make these decisions.

Since

I'm on my feet I might as well carry on. I will soldier on. I warn

everybody out there in television land not to adjust their set — it's my shirt.

Last

July when I left here and after a lot of people said some nice things

about me, I never thought I'd have to be back. I began to wonder: "Why

am I back?" When I left I said I would miss my friends around here. But

having to come back here to listen to hours and hours of the

self-serving, self-righteous twaddle that we've heard over the last two

or three days is very hard on an elderly person. It almost makes me

want to go out early in the afternoon to have some warm milk and

cookies, which I once suggested for the former Minister of Education

when his blood pressure was rising during on