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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 11745 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 11745

Municipalities Enabling and Validating,

1990 Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 84).

Hon. Mr Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 11745

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1991

(Bill 85). Hon. Mr. Rabbitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 11745

Tabling Documents –– 11746

Oral Questions

Pulp mill pollution limits. Mr. Harcourt

–– 11746

Closure of Emily Carr Gallery. Mr. G.

Hanson –– 11746

Export of water. Mr. Gabelmann –– 11747

Raw sewage treatment. Ms. Cull –– 11747

Oil spill cleanup costs. Mr. Long –– 11747

Government rental of office space. Hon.

Mrs. Gran –– 11748

Compensation Fairness Act (Bill 82).

Second reading

Mr. Loenen –– 11748

Mr. Harcourt –– 11749

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm, –– 11750

Mr. Blencoe –– 11755

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11756

Mr. Reynolds –– 11759

Hon. Mr. Serwa –– 11761

Mr. Gabelmann –– 11762

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 11763

Division –– 11766

Constitutional Amendment Approval Act

(Bill 81). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 11766

Mr. Gabelmann –– 11767

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11769

Ms. Smallwood –– 11770

Mr. Couvelier –– 11770

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr. Speaker, it is my

pleasure to make two introductions to the House this afternoon: Mr.

Joao Gualberto Marques-Porto, the newly appointed consul-general of

Brazil in Vancouver; also, Mr. Roger Bull, the Canadian consul-general

in Seattle. Please join me in welcoming the consul-generals.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Speaker, in your gallery

today is Mr. Bob Henderson, a resident of the Queen Charlotte Islands —

or Haida Gwai, as it's known. Bob is a former United Church minister, a

very well respected member of the community on the Queen Charlottes,

and I would ask the House to join me in welcoming him to the gallery

today.

MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, this seems the day

for it, but I take a great deal of pleasure in introducing in your

gallery Monsignor Nunzio Defoe from the Gardens of Gethsemard in my

riding. I would like the House to offer him a special welcome.

Accompanying Monsignor Defoe is the lady of my life — and I am pleased

that she is with us in the House today — my wife Marion.

MR. LOVICK : In the gallery today is a young

man visiting from Toronto who is the grandson of my legislative

assistant, Margaret Mortimore. I would like to ask all my colleagues in

the Legislature to please make Jeremy Mortimore welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I wish to ask the members

of this assembly to welcome a very good friend, a gentleman I've had

the opportunity to work with on many occasions: Mr. Frieder Kempe, who

resides in Coquitlam and has businesses in Abbotsford. He's up here in

the gallery.

MS. EDWARDS : I'd like to introduce two

residents of my riding who are visiting today, Len and Cyrus Lancaster,

who are in the Speaker's gallery. I'd also like to recognize Mr. George

Grant, who is manager of planning and economics with Chevron Canada,

and Mr. John Ludgate from the Canadian Petroleum Association. Welcome

to those gentlemen.

MR. REYNOLDS : I have two groups to

introduce this afternoon. The first is David and Beth Mathieson from

West Vancouver, and I wish the House would make them welcome. And we're

pleased this afternoon to have in the House 55 Howe Sound Secondary

School students with their teacher, Mr. Alger. Would the House please

make them welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY : I'd like to ask the House to

welcome a friend, a resident of Victoria and an avid watcher of this

assembly, Mr. John Edwards.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the statement of Crown proceedings for

the period 1989-90; and the annual report of the Ministry of Finance

and Corporate Relations for the period 1989-90.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING, 1990 AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and

Validating, 1990 Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, Bill 84

contains measures designed to permit a new municipality, to be known as

Winfield, in the Regional District of Central Okanagan, to phase in the

property tax on farms and farm residences over a five-year period.

It will also allow directors for three electoral areas to

represent those areas on the district of Campbell River council when

the areas have been included within the district by boundary extensions.

Bill 84 also validates the establishment and borrowing bylaws

of the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen for the Anarchist

Mountain electrical power specified area, and it enables the regional

district to convert the specified area into a local service area.

Bill 84 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment Standards Amendment

Act, 1991.

HON. MR. RABBITT : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased

to introduce amendments to

part 7 of the Employment Standards Amendment

Act, 1991, which will provide a new parental leave to allow British

Columbia employees to spend more time with a newly arrived child. The

new provision will provide a 12-week unpaid leave for working parents.

Parental leave will be available to both natural parents and to persons

who have adopted a child.

The amendment will ensure protection and fringe benefit

continuity to persons who are receiving parental benefit under the

recent amendments to the federal Unemployment Insurance Act. Mothers

will continue to be eligible for 18 weeks' maternity leave. The maximum

combined maternity and parental leave allowed under the Employment

Standards Act will be a total of 32 weeks.

Bill 85 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

[ Page 11746 ]

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt tabled the 1990 annual report of the

Industrial Relations Council.

Oral Questions

PULP MILL POLLUTION LIMITS

MR. HARCOURT : Recently this Environment

minister signed regulations which allowed 11 pulp mills to exceed their

former permitted pollution limits. What was illegal has, with the

stroke of the minister's pen, become legal. As a matter of fact, some

mills can now dump double the pollution. Is doubling the permitted

discharges part of this minister's strategy to reduce pulp mill

pollution?

HON. MR. SERWA : I'm pleased to hear that

question because it clearly defines some of the differences between

action this side of the House would take and action the other side of

the House would take. Those people would shut everything down in

British Columbia and throw thousands of people out of work throughout

all areas of the province — young men, young women, people with

families, people with homes and people with car payments. That would be

your action, that's your solution; that's not our solution.

We recognize the magnitude of the task in front of the pulp

mill industry to comply with very harsh, strict, but fair regulations.

It takes a considerable amount of capital — over $1 billion — and it's

going to take some time.

[2:15]

The permit regulations involve two things. There was clearly a

departure to an engineering scenario where you start to measure

emission quantities in engineering terms rather than in volume of

effluent per tonne of production. We're looking for quality of

effluent. That was one of the criteria. And we're allowing a legal

emission, recognizing that these permits wore granted from four to

seven years ago. It is no increase in emissions. That's what they were

allowed under the previous permits. This is only legalizing it so we

don't fine them repetitively.

MR. SPEAKER : It would assist the Chair if

the person asking the question would refer at the outset to which

minister the question is being asked.

MR. HARCOURT : Supplementary to the Minister

of Environment. Last December it was reported that the former

Environment minister suggested to pulp mill executives that the new

effluent standards could be relaxed after they had served the Socreds'

political needs — that is, after an election. Can the new Minister of

Environment tell this House whether he is still bound by that previous

minister's commitment to the industry?

HON. MR. SERWA : I would appreciate it if

the hon. member opposite would readdress that question to me.

MR. HARCOURT : I asked the new minister

whether he still feels bound by the reported discussions between his

predecessor and the industry, indicating that the new effluent

standards being introduced would be waived after they had served this

Social Credit government's purposes — that is, after the election. Does

this minister still feel bound by the previous minister's comments to

the industry?

HON. MR. SERWA : Mr. Speaker, I have no

background. I don't do business on the basis of rumours or hearsay. We

have taken appropriate action. We have taken initiatives which reduce

pulp mill emissions by two-thirds and more, with special stipulations

for critical areas. It's the toughest regulation in Canada. We have

implemented a time in that. I've asked for critical-path planning and

construction progress reports so that we can monitor that as well as

monitor the effluent. I'm very, very pleased with the decision we've

taken, and I'm very comfortable with the appropriate and responsible

decision that this side of the House has taken.

MR. HARCOURT : Supplementary to the Minister

of Environment. All it takes to turn around laws in the province is a

phone call to the Premier. We saw that last December. Can the

Environment minister tell the House if policies are developed by his

Ministry and approved by cabinet can still be overturned by a

well-timed call to the Premier?

HON. MR. SERWA : The actions taken by this

government are the appropriate, strict, tough actions that we had to

take in response to the public for actions on pulp mill effluent. They

are outstanding regulations, and they are entirely appropriate

regulations.

At the present time in the present regulations, we have a

limit of 2.5 kilograms per tonne. We have an objective of reaching 1.5.

As a matter of fact, there are two proposals for pulp mills in the

province which are closed-circuit and will have no negative

environmental impact. We're proud of that. The proposed new plant for

Celgar will come substantially under the 1.5 kilograms per tonne.

We have also commissioned two universities to explore and seek

out new information on this particular issue, because the ability to

measure parts per billion and parts per trillion is new technology. We

have asked the universities to explore this and report to cabinet.

Cabinet has undertaken a solid commitment to respond to the objective,

factual information, and we are awaiting that report.

CLOSURE OF EMILY CARR GALLERY

MR. G. HANSON : I have a question to the

Provincial Secretary. Two days from now, your ministry will close the

doors on the Emily Carr Gallery here on Victoria's waterfront to make

way for more government office space. With this government pouring tax

dollars into empty office space around the province, it seems a poor

excuse for warehousing the art of

[ Page 11747 ]

B.C.'s best-known painter. This is a

significant blow to culture, tourism and education in B.C. My question

is: does the minister now recognize the error of this decision? Has he

decided to keep the Emily Carr Gallery open while operating

arrangements are being worked out with the Art Gallery of Greater

Victoria?

HON. MR. DIRKS : When I first announced the

closure of the Emily Carr Gallery for March 16, there wasn't too much

attention paid to it. But since that date, I have met with the Art

Gallery of Greater Victoria to see what arrangements could possibly be

made with that gallery for displaying the Emily Carr collection. Those

discussions are now focusing on the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

Recreation and Culture.

You're quite correct: the gallery will close under the

Provincial Secretary's auspices on March 16. I met with the Friends of

Emily Carr yesterday, who presented me with a petition of some 120-odd

names advocating that the gallery remain open. I have given them the

assurance that we are concerned about the protection of that collection

and that we'll certainly look at it a little further between March 16

and March 30. We will not do anything to structure in that interim

period until we can decide on the disposition of that collection.

MR. G. HANSON : A supplementary to the

Minister of Culture. With the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria having

made representation to the minister, and having a meritorious proposal

before you, have you decided to recommend to the Provincial Secretary

that he keep the building open while arrangements are being negotiated

so that that waterfront gallery can be kept for the benefit of all

British Columbians and Canadians?

HON. L. HANSON : Yes, we are in the process

of negotiating with the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria a process that

will allow the gallery, if not to remain open, certainly to reopen.

Those negotiations are going on at the moment, and when we have a

finalized agreement, we will report back.

EXPORT OF WATER

MR. GABELMANN : Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for two ministers: the Minister of International Business and

the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister told the House that his

government would not ship water unless "there is great benefit to the

people of British Columbia." Under current government rates, the

shipment of bulk water will return the province about $18 per

acre-foot. Does the minister believe that this current rate of

one-third of a cent per barrel is an appropriate return to the people

of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VEITCH : I have reportedly stated,

when asked this question, that within government we had a nine-minister

committee looking at all of the regulations with respect to water

exports. No, I don't think that is a high enough rent for the water,

for the resource. I can also tell you that we are now in the process of

analyzing very carefully what rent would or should be applicable if and

when any water is shipped. I must tell you that there are many

qualifications that must be met before water can be shipped from

British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN : Supplementary to the

Minister of Environment. Will any licences for bulk water exports be

issued prior to this full assessment of pricing and other issues?

HON. MR. SERWA : The answer is going to be

dependent on several things. Fundamentally, there are applications in

process which we do not have complete information on, but at the

present time the straightforward answer is no.

RAW SEWAGE TREATMENT

MS. CULL : I also have a question to the

Minister of Environment. Shellfish growers recently cancelled a

conference in this city worth $300,000 to our local community, citing

as their reason the dumping of raw sewage into the ocean. This region's

tourism industry will continue to suffer until we reach a solution,

especially in light of the pressure from the U.S. Senate and the U.S.

Congress. We've heard many promises from this government. Has the

minister now finalized an action plan whereby all of B.C.'s oceanfront

municipalities can gain the capacity to treat their sewage?

HON. MR. SERWA : I believe that the member

opposite, if she's aware of the process, understands that the

development of solid waste management plans and liquid waste management

plans is the responsibility of the community — or the regional district

in this particular case. The Capital Regional District is working on

their liquid waste management plan. Upon receipt of that plan, we will

make an assessment and make the appropriate decisions in communication

with the Capital Regional District.

OIL SPILL CLEANUP COSTS

MR. LONG : I have a question for the

Minister of Environment. In view of yesterday's $1 billion out-of-court

settlement by Exxon Corp. with respect to the Alaskan oil spill, what

steps has the minister decided to take to ensure that B.C. taxpayers

can effectively recover all oil spill cleanup costs due to pollution in

B.C. waters?

HON. MR. SERWA : First of all, the position

of the Ministry of Environment and of the government of British

Columbia is that the polluter must pay. In the case of an inland oil

spill — the gulf of Georgia, perhaps — it will be the responsibility of

the polluter to clean up and pay for the cleanup. If it exceeds the

capacity of the polluter, the government will step in and assist in the

cleanup, but the polluter will be

[ Page 11748 ]

responsible for all of the costs

associated with that cleanup.

The claims by British Columbia in the Nestucca oil spill in

the state of Washington are some $420,000 for the actual cleanup and

approximately $1 million for environmental damage. The regulations and

the actions are in place, and it will be resolved by a court decision

later this spring.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, I wish to

answer a question that I took on notice yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER : Please proceed.

GOVERNMENT RENTAL OF OFFICE SPACE

HON. MRS. GRAN : First of all, I want to

acknowledge that empty space, whether it's in the private sector or

government, is not desirable. I want to tell this House — in the most

factual way I can — that government has a total of 8.5 million square

feet of office space with a 2.3 percent vacancy rate. In Vancouver, the

government's vacancy rate for office space is 3.5 percent, compared to

10 to 12 percent for the private sector.

We have 200, 000 square feet of vacant space, which is quite

different than the 500,000 alleged yesterday by the opposition. Of that

total, 98,000 is rented from the private sector, and that means that

the cost for the period it is vacant is anywhere from $18 to $25 a

square foot.

I want the House to know that the B.C. Buildings Corporation

is aggressively trying to fill those spaces, and I am confident that

they will.

[2:30]

I also want to say that this isn't the first time the issue of

vacant office space has come to this House, but it's the first time in

this session. In 1975, the then Leader of the Opposition, Bill Bennett,

asked five consecutive questions and never got an answer. He then

announced that the actual cost of empty office space by the NDP

government came to some $356,000.

The point I'm trying to make to the members of the opposition

is that government space that has become redundant is not only a

problem with government but is also a problem in the private sector.

Another point I want to make; the B.C. Buildings Corporation

is an award-winning Crown corporation and is well known across Canada.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, adjourned

debate on Bill 82.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS ACT

(continued)

MR. LOENEN : Before lunch I had occasion to

address Bill 82 and talk about this very fundamental and important

principle — namely, that for once and for all we will seek to establish

a direct link, relationship and connection between growth in government

and government expenditures, and the performance of our economy and the

ability of our economy to carry ever-increasing tax burdens.

I also happened to mention briefly that in Richmond we have

seen the election of an NDP school board and an NDP city council, and

the impact that has had on the taxpayers there. We have seen them

introduce a budget which has a larger tax increase than ever before:

9.1 percent. We have seen the trustees there negotiate a settlement

with the teachers that is richer than at any time before. In fact, we

have now seen that School District 38 has become a benchmark for the

rest of the province.

I must say that that is an indication of what we can expect

when the NDP philosophy takes hold. As I said before lunch, clearly it

is a case where they are beholden to interest groups such as the BCTF

and the unionized city workers. We know that the strength of the Social

Credit government has always been that we have not been beholden to any

particular interest group and that we have tried to represent fairly

and adequately all the different interests. Indeed, our motto has been:

equal opportunity for all and special privileges for none.

This particular legislation seeks to address the reality we

face, the economic conditions confronting us today. I cannot help but

refer to a few newspaper articles. I have before me the Vancouver Sun ,

February 16. What does the headline say? "Bankruptcies Soaring," and it

shows the various provinces. In Ontario, the richest province in

Canada, bankruptcies increased by 81 percent in 1990. We note also that

the gross domestic product during those past 12 months dropped some $10

billion. Those are the financial indicators that we have to confront.

I want to cite an

article by Peter C. Newman, who writes in

the March 4 issue of Maclean's

magazine: "If taxes move much higher, there's a real danger more and

more people will drop out of the system and join the underground

economy."

Even today in the Vancouver Province we saw an

article showing that retail businesses in the greater Vancouver-lower

mainland area have a 25 percent greater tax burden than their

competitors south of the border. Never mind sales tax; never mind GST;

simply the tax burden that various levels of government place on our

businesses — 25 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER : Why don't you raise taxes

25 percent?

MR. LOENEN : Mr. Speaker, I'm asked why we

don't raise taxes. We know that that is the NDP answer. In fact, every

year for the past four years their critic stands up and says: "Tax

corporations more. Tax the businesses more." They want to tax more to

the tune of half a billion dollars. If we had followed that kind of

foolish advice, do you really think we would be leading the country

today in job creation? How can you ask people to create jobs when at

the same time you suffocate them? That is the difference between our

philosophies, our pro-

[ Page 11749 ]

grams, our initiatives, and what we

can expect from across the way.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us seeks to put into place

a framework whereby we can put some discipline into the system. And we

should take note of the fact that other jurisdictions have seen the

wisdom of this and have followed suit. For instance, the federal

government in its most recent budget put a 3 percent cap on public

sector wage increases. It's great to see that they're following the

B.C. example.

I note that in Saskatchewan there's a 4 percent cap; in

Manitoba, a 2 percent cap for the schools. We don't live in a vacuum.

We have to take note of what is happening in the rest of the country

and what our competitors are doing. This is responsible legislation.

This is in keeping with the times. This is realistically facing the

economic conditions that surround us.

It has been suggested that somehow we're more concerned about

taxpayers than the kids in schools, for instance. This morning we had

occasion to listen to the former Minister of Education, and he made a

very important point. He said: "Isn't it curious that we see time and

again that the teachers first take a 7 percent wage increase for

themselves and after that suddenly become worried about class size?" If

they're truly that concerned about class size, as they say they are,

why do they not address that first, rather than first pocket a very

hefty wage increase — far in excess of what the economy can produce and

bear — and then blame Victoria for not providing enough money for

reduction of class size?

Again talking about teachers, we've heard the criticism that

somehow they have yet to recover from the restraint period of the early

eighties. Now let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, during that time there was

massive unemployment. Among professional engineers, for instance, there

was a 25 percent unemployment rate. What was the unemployment rate

among teachers? I think the teachers did remarkably well during that

period. And they have recovered. We have increased funding for

education. This government has made a commitment to it. In fact, during

the past two years, funding per student in my district increased in

excess of 25 percent, almost three times the rate of inflation. That is

the per-student funding increase. That is a commitment to education

which we made and honoured.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we need look at performance. It's not

only the input that matters but what comes out the other end. What is

the performance? How well do our students do? How well do they stack up

against other jurisdictions? What is the output? I want to quote from a

newspaper

article in the Times-Colonist

of May 26, 1990. The headline says, "British Columbia Students

Outperform All Others." We know that our students and our teachers have

delivered a good product, and we're proud of the way their performance

compares to others.

Just one more item — from the Vancouver Sun of

Monday, February 6, 1989. What does the headline say? "Results Give Lie

to Fears for Education." I want to quote the last paragraph in this

column:

"But the latest math and science test

results suggest that restraint didn't wreck the education system, nor

will a massive injection from the forthcoming provincial budget

necessarily make it 'excellent'.... The best results come mainly

through hard work by teachers and students."

How true, Mr. Speaker. There is simply no correlation between

input, the amount of money we spend, the reduction in class size and

output and performance. If that were so, the studies of the social

scientists would have indicated that long ago. It simply is not there.

The evidence is not there.

More importantly, when we judge the needs of our society as a

whole and look at the various support systems and all of the demands —

the health care system — we know that if we give to any one sector more

than what our economy can bear, it means that the money has to come

from somewhere else. What are we going to do? Are we going to take it

from the nurses and from our health care system in order to give more

to education? It takes prudence and sound judgment to make the right

balance. This legislation seeks to achieve that kind of balance, that

kind of just solution to difficult problems.

As I said earlier, we all have simple but important goals. We

would like to have clean air and clean water. We would like to have

good schools and the best hospitals. Those are the kinds of goals that

my constituents expect. That is the kind of future that we look forward

to. But the only way we can reach those goals and maintain that quality

of life and those lifestyles is if we have an economy that is sound, if

we manage our affairs well and are responsible. This government has

shown that it is sure of purpose, that it has a goal, that it is

committed to these things and that it is committed to lifestyle and

livelihood, to paycheques and to maintaining a way of life that is the

best in the world.

I want to close by quoting from Abraham Lincoln, because these

few quotes from Abraham Lincoln sum up in principle what we

fundamentally believe in on our side of the House and what this

legislation seeks to attain.

"You cannot bring about prosperity by

discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the

strong. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot

establish sound security on borrowed money. You cannot keep out of

trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and

courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot

help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do

for themselves."

[2:45]

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, we will not

support this bill. It is unnecessary and unfair. It will trigger labour

unrest and a loss of investment and investor confidence. It will

jeopardize jobs and paycheques. It will trigger a loss of key

professionals to other provinces and to the United States. Worst of

all, it will hurt women — those who can least afford it. British

Columbians will suffer longer lines and further-diminished public

services.

[ Page 11750 ]

This bill is designed as a poke in the eye to working people.

It's designed to create confrontation solely for the government's own

political gain. The Minister of Labour admitted it. He said that the

bill will restrict free collective bargaining and will damage relations

between employers and employees. That's your way. It's not my way, and

it's not the B.C. way. That's why more and more British Columbians are

saying it's time for a change. It's time we got the people of British

Columbia working together, and that's why as Premier I will not

tolerate unfair legislation like this bill. There is a fair, practical

and responsible alternative — a way to keep government spending in

check in tough economic times. It starts with a government restraining

itself.

It's time in this province that we got government spending

priorities right and act on public — not private and not political —

priorities. What we need are no more double standards, where we give 20

percent pay increases to political appointees, as has happened in the

last six months alone. To give $25 million of solely taxpayer-paid

pensions to doctors that could have gone into hiring 300 more nurses

and could have helped thousands of British Columbians waiting for heart

surgery and cancer treatment.... Furthermore, we shouldn't be putting

millions of dollars into a pork barrel that's going to go to

Socred-friendly companies.

Secondly, we can get better value for taxpayer dollars by

using government jets for air ambulances, instead of jet-setting

cabinet ministers. In terms of leased office space, lease only what you

need. The minister said there's a sameness to private sector space that

is vacant and waiting for private clients to rent, and space that is

occupied by this government — somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000

square feet of office space that's rented and sitting vacant. There is

a big difference, and I thought the minister would know that

difference, but he didn't.

The third area that New Democrats think can get the economy

rolling in tough times is to have fair taxes for families and for small

businesses. We know that British Columbians are now paying $3,000 more

in taxes and fees, courtesy of this government. We should make

profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes and target tax

breaks to the small business sector that's creating over 80 percent of

the new jobs in this province and to hard-pressed B.C. families who

have been taxed, taxed and taxed by this government, by the GST and by

the Tory federal government.

It's time that working British Columbians had a government

that was on their side — not on their back. While this government

preaches restraint, we have seen an enormous pre-election spending

spree by the Minister of Regional and Economic Development. At the same

time, ordinary men and women are expected to tighten their belts. But

not this government. It's time we had a government without those double

standards, and a government that believes in economic fairness. It is

indeed time for a change in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : My goodness, that's

some act to follow. I didn't know that all of the criticism of the

legislation from the Leader of the Opposition could be given to us in

just a few minutes. Perhaps it illustrates that they know we're doing

the right thing. But they have their commitments out there to those

special interest groups that must be fulfilled. Despite the knowledge

of what's right and that this is good legislation, they continue on the

course of opposing it because of their commitments to the large labour

bosses.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said the legislation

was unnecessary and unfair. Let's look at what's being done by

governments across the country. Governments across the country have had

to tighten up considerably more than what we're proposing to do in this

legislation. But they've had to do this. As a matter of fact, some

governments have not only had to put caps or a freeze on what might be

provided to those working in the public sector, but they're in the

process of closing down hospital beds, cutting out entire programs and

cutting back on services throughout their provinces. That's what

they're having to do.

The exception to this is the one that the Leader of the

Opposition and the NDP in this province hold forth as their model: the

province of Ontario. We refer to this because it is the best example of

what the people of this province could expect if we pursued the NDP

way, as the Leader of the Opposition said we ought to be doing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : We see it in Ontario,

where 58,000 people have lost their jobs since the fall of last year.

It's so much greater than what we see anywhere else in the Country that

the figure just comes out at you. It's astounding, it's unbelievable,

but it's happening in Ontario.

We see buildings in downtown Toronto that were built to the

thirteenth storey and were intended to go 50 or 60 storeys. They've put

a roof on it; they've quit. There are piles of lumber in Toronto that

are not being utilized because there's just no further building taking

place. People are being laid off, yet the government of Ontario

continues to increase taxes. They are going to have a deficit this year

in the range of $6 billion to $8 billion. As the Minister of Finance

said yesterday, they are projecting for next year a potential $15

billion deficit. If we thought Canada was really going down to where we

see Argentina or some other places to be, if we had any fear of that

previously, consider what it might be now when we see this happening in

Ontario with an NDP government.

This is positive legislation; this is moving in advance of a

problem. Certainly it's not easy in government to always be popular, to

do the nice things, to satisfy and try to please all people, to sit on

the fence, to try to do this for this group and, when you visit

somewhere else and address another group, to tell them that you'll do

something differently

[ Page 11751 ]

again. That's not possible when you're

in government. You have to be decisive. You have to do things, and not

just for today; you need to do things for the long term.

As a matter of fact, our legislation — our actions — in the

whole of the taxpayer protection plan is to not only provide for today

but also give consideration and concern to our children and our

children's children. That's totally contrary to NDP philosophy.

Do you care, really? Have you ever expressed anything, or

taken or suggested direction, that cares about the young students

sitting up here in the gallery today, and their future, and the fact

that government shouldn't burden them with a pile of debt, that they

shouldn't be paying for all the things we want to do today, that

there's something left for them — not only their education but their

future economic activity — and that they're not having to face the

shutdown of beds in hospitals and the like because we, as people in

government today, simply threw it away, increased the taxes or, perhaps

worst of all, created this horrendous debt?

This government does not subscribe to that philosophy of

burdening our young people for generations to come. They might in

Ontario, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. You may think this is great and

want to copy it, but one of the first things the government in Ontario

did was increase the fees considerably beyond what we've seen elsewhere

for those having to attend college or university.

Despite all of that, they're still running these horrendous

deficits because they're continually creating new programs and doing

exactly what the Leader of the Opposition and the other NDP members

would have us do — see increases for some in the public sector which

are far beyond what they can afford to pay in the private sector. Who

do you think has to come up with all of those tax dollars? You and your

NDP Finance critic can say: "Well, we'll just sock it to business."

That's easy — double the taxes for business.

Politically, that sounds like something which might be

acceptable to many of the people. It's an easy answer. But when those

businesses begin to fold, one after the other — small business, medium

business, big business alike — what do you think will happen? There

will be unemployment. There will be less revenue to government. We'll

be in a far worse state.

It may be a simple answer for the NDP to say, "We'll sock it

to business; we'll double their taxes, particularly big business," but

keep in mind as well that there are many little businesses dependent on

medium and big businesses. You cannot somehow sock it to people and

expect them to survive all the time and continue to support a

government which has a tremendous spending appetite such as we see with

the NDP government in Ontario. It can't be done. The country can't

survive.

This province wouldn't survive under the NDP beyond the 1,200

days that we saw previously. They couldn't possibly last that long.

They'd bankrupt the province. We'd see happening here what we see

happening in Ontario today. That's not a scare or a threat; that's a

statement of fact. We've heard it said by some of your members.

Certainly we've heard it said by Leonard Krog, who is a candidate for

the NDP in Parksville-Qualicum. He said: "If we as NDPers are to be

honest, we have to tell the people that they're all going to pay a lot

more taxes."

Leonard Krog was immediately kind of beaten upon, I think, by

some of the other NDP members in caucus here. They muzzled him very

quickly, and we haven't heard from Leonard Krog since. I don't know

what has happened to him. Leonard was honest. He said the NDP in this

province is going to increase everybody's taxes — and they will be

increased considerably — but since then somehow we haven't heard from

Leonard Krog.

[3:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We do have a problem in this country; there's no doubt about

that. We suffer because of the horrendous debt we've seen created in

Ottawa and its impact on every part of this country. We see the debts

that have been created by other provinces and their impact on the

entire country. We know that people, when they look to invest in this

country — be they in Asia, Europe, other parts of North America or

wherever — often, understandably, look at central Canada, where Ottawa

is located. They look at Ontario and see it to be sort of

representative of Canada. If they look at Canada today and at what we

see happening in Ontario, they'll not be investing here in new

business; they'll not be investing here in the expansion of business.

Things will grow gradually worse.

Again, we have to set the example in this province by being

leaders in providing the type of legislation we see here today,

legislation which still provides freedom for those in the public sector

to negotiate but which simply says.... And frankly, I don't see a thing

wrong with this. It says: "Public sector, you can have your wage

increases, but you can't have as much as you'd like, because there is a

limit to what taxpayers can pay." You can't, particularly during bad

times, Mr. Leader of the opposition, continue to reach into people's

pocket to see if there's another loose loonie that you might have for

government to create yet another program or to pay more to those in the

public service.

There has to be a balance. You can't have the IWA workers, the

pulp workers — if they're still working.... Should you ever have the

opportunity, you'd shut every pulp mill down, like right now; we heard

that a little earlier today. I care about those IWA workers, those pulp

workers and all of those other people. They'll not be getting increases

such as we've seen given to teachers for the last four years; they

can't get that. There simply isn't enough return in the woods industry

now, with the slowdown in housing in the United States, with the dollar

being where it's at and with interest rates being high. They can't

possibly hope to pay the sorts of increases we're seeing being provided

to teachers and others in the public sector.

[ Page 11752 ]

Now don't get me wrong. I support these workers. I believe

that our public sector workers do a great job. I wholeheartedly support

our teachers, and I don't mind a teacher being well paid or a nurse

being very well paid or others being well paid. I believe that's right

and proper. But during times like this you can't have a government

throwing more at the public sector when the private sector is having to

draw back or to contain the amount of increase they might otherwise

provide. There needs to be a balance, and the taxpayers today simply

cannot be asked to fork out yet more money.

I realize that the argument from the opposition could be: "Mr.

Premier, in British Columbia we have overall, everything considered,

the lowest tax rates in the country." That's true; I appreciate that.

But that is also one of the reasons we've seen people coming to invest

in British Columbia like they've not seen in any other province in the

country. It's why we're the most popular spot in Canada, perhaps in

North America. It's why people are looking to put their dollars here,

because they see it to be a safe place with lower taxes and with good

legislation.

I heard the member for Vancouver Centre, the Leader of the

Opposition, say: "Well, it's like Bill 19. It's like the labour

legislation" — as if somehow this legislation will cause all sorts of

labour unrest; as a result there will be no end of labour unrest and

unhappiness; all sorts of things might occur because of the

legislation. But you know, we've heard that before. I can recall the

Leader of the Opposition standing up in this House and saying: "Bill 19

will be such a disaster that we'll see businesses shutting down, we'll

see jobs being lost, we'll see unemployment like we've never seen it

before, we'll see businesses and people leaving the province and we'll

see chaos." Quite the opposite was true. Again, he was wrong, as he's

always wrong. He was totally wrong, because we've seen growth in

business like we've never seen it before. We've seen growth in business

beyond anything anywhere else in the country.

At one point last year this province, with only 12 percent of

the population, created half of all the new jobs in the whole of

Canada. We've led the country in every respect when it comes to good

fiscal management, good economic management and good legislation. We're

number one. Every other province looks to us with great envy.

Now it's true, we have people out there.... Obviously the

members opposite would like to see the NDP in government. That's one of

the reasons I have to point to Ontario as an example, because we have

people moving in droves to this city, to Vancouver and to other

communities throughout this province from Ontario, wanting to get away

from the NDP, and they've only been in power since some time last fall.

It's been a disaster. The whole economy is collapsing around great,

strong, powerful Ontario. It's falling apart because they're

introducing the sort of legislation that was being introduced in this

House during those miserable 1,200 days in the early seventies when the

NDP governed in this province. They're introducing the same type of

legislation, and they're throwing money away in the way we saw during

those black, miserable 1,200 days in the early seventies. You'll recall

that for the first time this province had a deficit. You will recall

that the NDP in the early seventies created unemployment and labour

unrest in proportions such as we've never seen — certainly 754 percent

over what we saw in the last three years. It was chaos. It's now

happening in Ontario. There are those opposite who want to do it all

over again to this province. They'd love to create the big deficits,

get on to big spending programs and put this government in the red and

in terrible problems once again.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made reference to

something that I would like to elaborate on a little. In speaking to

this bill he made reference to our negotiations with the doctors. I am

pleased that the Health critic for the NDP is in the House right now

because that man went on radio the next day and said that the Premier

did the right thing and that this was the proper thing to do. It's on

record. We have the tapes, and it's all there. He was supportive of

what was being done. Then in no time — immediately after — he was

muzzled. He has now been shifted off to the blue curtain in the far

corner. I like him. I think he's an honest and nice man. I like your

Health critic. But you've shoved him off in the corner by the blue

curtain, and he's not allowed to say anything anymore. He even used to

get up in question period once in a while, but now we don't hear from

him anymore. I wish he'd ask me a question sometime. He used to do

that. He was supportive of what we did.

The NDP Leader of the Opposition said: "No, no. No pension. No

retirement savings plan. We don't like retirement savings plans.

Instead we want to put the increase on the fees." They simply haven't

figured it out yet. I must repeat that had this same $25 million been

put on fees.... Incidentally, of course, this $25 million was far

legs.... Now you can argue it's not a big amount of money when compared

to $1 billion for doctors in total, but $25 million is a lot of money.

You could argue, as you have done, that it should go on the fees. But

if you put it on the fees, not only is it there forever, it becomes the

base upon which other increases get piled. Also, it means that as the

number of doctors in the province increases, the amount that comes out

of the fees is far greater. As we get more immigrants — particularly

from Ontario, and they're coming out in droves to get away from the NDP

— the amount again increases dramatically.

Although the Leader of the Opposition made reference to that,

I want to repeat that it was by far the least expensive way to deal

with it. Furthermore, it's the right way. Every group in our society

should have the opportunity through whatever mechanisms — be it

legislation or otherwise — to provide for their retirement years during

their productive years. If we, as a society, continue to look to the

Canada Pension Plan to be the cure-all for us all.... There are many of

you on that side and many of us on this side who in ten, 15 or 20 years

could be looking to that pension — although, as people in government,

we have pretty

[ Page 11753 ]

good pensions anyway. But many people

out there are not so fortunate; they don't have that opportunity.

Doctors may be quite the opposite, I'll grant you. They have

very good incomes.

MR. BARLEE : Some of them make $900,000 per

year.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : If there's a doctor,

as the second member for Boundary-Similkameen said, making $900,000 a

year, I agree that's certainly enormous. But you're being grossly

unfair to the doctors when you begin to single out a specialist and use

that as the example. I know that's the socialist way of doing things.

But the average for the doctors, as the Health critic for the NDP well

knows, is a lot less — and they pay their expenses. Frankly, I don't

mind a doctor getting a fair return. I don't hate doctors. I don't pick

on doctors. During every question period the NDP picks on the doctors,

during every debate, regardless of what the bill, you pick on the

doctors and create the impression, simply by using incomplete

information out of context, that there's something horrendously wrong.

It's grossly unfair to the doctors in our province, who I believe are

good, committed people. You'll find the odd one, as the Health critic

knows — as you'll find in every group — who perhaps doesn't come up to

the standard we expect. But I'll tell you that, by and large, we can be

very proud of our doctors.

I don't mind the doctors having a deferred income plan; I

think that's healthy. Not only is it healthy in the sense that this

money then gets put back into the economy here during its time of

investment, but it's also healthy in that we should be providing the

means, the opportunity and the encouragement for all people to put away

during their productive years in order to provide for themselves during

their retirement years. I want this for every British Columbian; I

think that's great and deserving.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention many other things as they

relate to this bill and to what we're trying to do in order to keep

this economy sound and number one in the country. But I'll try to boil

it down to just a couple of points that I still want to make before

closing.

This legislation is fair, and I underline "fair." It allows

people to negotiate, but it relates what we can eventually pay to the

taxpayers' ability to pay and to the moneys available without going

back to the taxpayers for a whole lot more or putting the province into

debt. What's so wrong with that?

[3:15]

If that's how we do it in business.... If you run a sawmill

and produce X number of two-by-fours, what you pay the people who

produce the two-by-fours — at least in the long haul — must somehow

relate to the price of those two-by-fours or the return from the sale

of those two-by-fours. That's simple business, members of the NDP. The

private sector, which is the strength of the economy, which holds up

the whole of the economy and which pays the taxes, has to live by those

rules.

Why do you believe that somehow the public sector can continue

on for whatever the increase, regardless of the times or of what we see

happening in the private sector, and that we in turn as government can

just carry on going back to the taxpayers, many of whom do not have

full employment and may not be earning that high a wage...? How do you

think we can continue to go back to them and increase income tax, sales

taxes and property taxes? It doesn't make sense,

This legislation recognizes that; it's good legislation. I

would like the NDP to reconsider. I understand your commitments to big

labour bosses. We saw the example in Nanaimo last fall when the Leader

of the Opposition was speaking to a CUPE convention. The Leader of the

Opposition said that if they would elect him as Premier, he'd tear up

the Social Credit's labour legislation. Immediately after, one of the

CUPE delegates summed it up and said: "For every dollar we spend

electing the NDP, we get back $10." Now that sort of sums it up. It

tells a lot, doesn't it?

The second member for Richmond was right when he said that we

as a political party — Social Credit — are not beholden to any

particular group. We represent all of the people. There are no special

interest groups. You like to keep throwing that out, because you know

that you can't exist without your special interest groups. In order to

camouflage that fact, you keep throwing it at the Social Credit. But

the CUPE member at the convention in Nanaimo, speaking after the leader

of the NDP, said it very well: "Every dollar we give to the NDP for

their election will return us $10."

I suppose that is a consideration when you're looking at the

legislation that we now have before the House. It is legislation which

will keep this economy sound, which says that we care about the people

today and about those who might be looking to retirement in 10, 15 or

20 years. We care about those young people who are up in the gallery

and about their future. We're not about to saddle them with horrendous

debts. It can't go on. This country cannot survive if we keep piling on

the debt. Every province in this country needs to follow the example

we're setting in British Columbia.

This legislation provides for all in the public service. It

provides not only that there be limits to how much we can negotiate for

increases in pay that's certainly one of the provisions, I grant you.

But it also provides that recognition be given to those groups who may

have been left behind and that a means be provided for many of the

women in the public sector who perhaps have occupied jobs — oftentimes

true enough — at the lower pay to be brought up. Keep in mind that it

was Social Credit that first recognized that something needed to be

done to address that problem and to bring about a greater equity in

pay. We believe in that. This legislation recognizes that, and that's

important.

[ Page 11754 ]

We've heard a lot from the members opposite about so-called 19

percent increases some weeks ago to some in the public service at the

higher levels. They're referring, of course — and they won't tell the

whole story or the whole truth — to some changes in classification,

which is a common practice in governments everywhere in the country as

well as in the private sector.

It's a common practice, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, that

you don't necessarily give people increases after they've been with you

for a long time or because of their learning and performance, but in

fact that you up them in the range. Someone else learning and needing

to fill another position will come in at the lower part of that range

and work her or his way through the system to a higher range. That's

what you picked up on and conveniently used to try to create the wrong

impression with people out there viewing this program today or reading

about it in the paper or hearing it on television on the 6 o'clock news.

This legislation recognizes that there are people within the

public service whose relevant positions may be overpaid or underpaid. I

use the example of a deputy in government, who makes about $100,000 a

year.

MR. CLARK . Wow!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : "Wow," he says.

That's a little more than you make, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, and

you come here for only a few months of the year, and for the rest,

you're travelling around the province.

The Leader of the Opposition gets as much as a deputy, and he

has been in the House more in the last three days than he was during

the whole of the last session.

One hundred thousand dollars for a deputy. But when you

compare that to, say, a school principal who might be getting $84,000

for looking after a school with 300 or 400 kids.... I'm not saying a

school principal shouldn't be paid that, but compare it. Compare it to

a school superintendent who looks after a district and gets perhaps

$110,000 or $115,000 or $120,000. Is it fair that the deputy should be

lower or, for that matter, higher? That's probably the better question.

Or is it fair that the Deputy Minister of Health, looking after the

whole of the health care system...?

I know the deputy ministers here. They work from early Monday

morning to very late Friday night and then take work home on the

weekends. Is it fair that this Deputy Minister of Health should get

$100,000 while a hospital administrator in a relatively small community

gets $150,000? One of them, at least, that we're aware of in Vancouver

gets about a quarter of a million dollars for administering a hospital.

Is it fair that an administrator looking after one hospital should get

a quarter of a million dollars and a deputy $100,000?

This bill deals with that problem. It allows for the range to

be narrowed and equity to be brought into the system. This bill deals

with those inequities.

The bill deals with one....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : You haven't read the

bill. You've been talking about this bill, and you haven't read it.

This bill also deals with job security. In business, if you

can't pay the wages or the salaries or the increase, you end up laying

people off. In government perhaps that hasn't always been the case. As

you are aware, in Ontario now, while thousands of people are leaving,

they're again hiring in government. They're trying to fill all the jobs

lost. They've lost 58,000 jobs. Do you think the NDP government in

Ontario will hire 58,000 people? I'll bet you they'll try. That's

typical of what we saw during those dark 1,200 days in the early

seventies — the very same thing. And we'll not return to those dark

1,200 days, because the people out there really won't have it. They

really haven't forgotten. They truly understand.

This bill provides job security in several respects. One, it

says that if public servants or those in a particular area of the

public sector will choose to select increases as set forth in the

guidelines by the commissioner, if they will accept those percentage

increases, their jobs will be maintained securely.

MR. PERRY : We're worried about your job.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'll talk about my

job in a minute.

The other aspect of the bill that maintains those jobs

securely is people in the public service being reasonable. With the

help of this legislation and the guidelines, their jobs will be

maintained securely, because we as a government will continue to carry

out those programs. We will keep hospitals open; we will keep health

clinics open; we will keep schools going; we will keep expanding the

college programs; we will keep providing university expansions and

opportunity; we'll keep social programs in place. You can't do that if

you follow the NDP approach. Therefore this legislation is very

positive.

The members opposite ask me about my job. I realize that is

perhaps an aside from what we're discussing when talking about this

legislation. But since the question was asked, I must respond. I don't

think the contest is between Bill Vander Zalm, as he stands here on

television, and the Leader of the Opposition, as he powders his face

for television each day and comes here in his new suit. I don't think

that's the measure. I don't think the measure is necessarily even doing

all of the things that people would like to see done. You're

underestimating the people. You're somehow assuming that they will

overlook all of this and that other things will perhaps occupy their

time and make them decide a particular way when the writ is dropped and

the big day is before us. I don't believe it's that.

[ Page 11755 ]

I think that in the final analysis, people, because they're

smart — and I give them credit.... I think you have to like people to

understand people, and somehow I don't believe you people on the other

side fully understand the people. I would urge you to give careful

consideration to this, because in the final analysis people will

measure performance. They will see what we've done, and they will

understand that when we compare this province to any province in the

country, we are number one in every respect. That's not just because

we're saying it. It's so because it's being said by people in business

and in government — the experts who measure performance in government —

all over the country and the continent, and elsewhere in the world.

This government has outperformed any government in Canada by a

country mile. The people will understand that. They will also come to

understand — and I'm sure they do already — that when we introduce this

sort of legislation, it may not be popular. It could be that there are

going to be people protesting out on the lawns as we've seen before.

That could well be; I don't doubt that could happen. I suppose the easy

thing would be to say: "Look, we don't want to do this to upset things

before the election. We'll not bring in this legislation." That might

be an easy way through it, but is that a responsible thing?

The NDP would go out and tax, tax, tax people to death and

eventually take all they own, and all of their belongings, and make it

mortgaged somehow because of the hunger of government. That's the NDP.

Or they would put this province into the horrendous debt situation that

we see happening in Ontario. The people will see that. So you see, in

the final analysis, I believe that people will understand and make the

right decision.

Mr. Speaker, this is great legislation. It's part of a total

package to protect the taxpayers of this province and to provide this

province with the necessary security to keep us number one in every

respect. I support the legislation. I would urge everyone in the House

to do likewise.

[3:30]

MR. BLENCOE : Before I start, as the member

for Victoria I would like to welcome all my colleagues from both sides

of the House back to the Legislature, back to Victoria. I hope your

stay is enjoyable; it won't be a long stay. I know the Premier knows

the city of Victoria as the City of Gardens, and I know he has a deep

interest in gardens. We hope to give him some more time in his garden

very soon.

Mr. Speaker, we enjoyed the speech by the Premier, and his

attempt to bolster a failing government. He said: "The people will

measure performance." The Premier said that this afternoon. I can

assure you, the people will measure the performance of this government.

They will measure the last four years of tax increases, scandals and

double standards. They will look at the record of this government, and

I think they're ready to say that it's time for a change. It's time for

integrity in government. It's time for honesty. And it's time for a

government to be straight with the people of British Columbia. They

will measure the performance of this government.

Before the Premier leaves.... After the Premier spoke today,

if you're so sure, leave today and let's have the election, because the

people of British Columbia are waiting for the election. They want an

election.

On this side of the House we made it quite clear that we are

opposed to this bill on a number of grounds, but the major one is the

evident double standard that appears in this government's rhetoric and

performance. I listened this morning to the Minister of Regional and

Economic Development, to how he seriously looked into the camera and

told the people of British Columbia of his deep concern for the

taxpayers of this great province. He says one thing to the people of

British Columbia from this chamber but does something totally different

when he's outside the building.

If there was ever a performance that is an example of the

double standard that is so inclusive in this legislation, it was from

that minister, the minister who appears to have rented a bunch of

trucks and to be driving across this province shovelling out that same

taxpayers' money that he purported this morning to be so concerned

about. It seems to me that this minister's major job in terms of

economic development is renting trucks in British Columbia to give the

taxpayers' money away. Yet at the same time he says in this House that

this plan is to save the taxpayers. Well, the double standard is

unbelievable.

We've seen the evidence in the last few months. I mean, there

are so many examples we could give of the double standards of this

government in terms of this legislation. For example, if every night

the people of British Columbia have to see their taxes squandered on

advertising.... In excess of $50 million spent on television

advertising. Yet this government says it's concerned about the

taxpayers' money.

We've covered the doctors issue, the $25 million for

perpetuity, the millions of dollars that this government is prepared to

give to that pension scheme. Mr. Speaker, the Premier defended the pay

raises for the insiders, the political appointments of this government,

those huge increases. But he missed the very important point that the

double standard is so evident: that for insiders and friends of the

government and political appointments, pay raises know no bounds; but

for the ordinary people who serve this government, there are indeed

incredible restrictions, and they are to be frozen. He doesn't

understand that, and he stands today to defend that double standard. I

mean, if there isn't anything more symbolic in terms of what's happened

to this government and the double standard and why the people want

change, the Premier gave us every example this afternoon. Freeze

everybody else, yet give whatever increases you see fit to your

political appointments and ministerial assistants.

Yet we have other examples. I've never heard the Premier or

any of those ministers over there talk about the Coquihalla in terms of

its fairness or

[ Page 11756 ]

unfairness — the $500 million of

public money squandered on overruns. Where was the concern from the

same...?

HON. MR. SERWA : On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. I take that member to task for making a statement in this

House which is blatantly untrue. An investigation took place with

respect to the Coquihalla. It was clearly enunciated that no waste of

capital funding went into that. That was clearly indicated as a result

of the inquiry. The member should apologize to the House for making

that statement.

MR. BLENCOE : I presume from your saying no

comment that, indeed, Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is quite correct: no

one on that government side ever apologized to the people of British

Columbia for half a billion dollars of overrun. Where was the restraint

then? You paved over snow. Where was the concern for the taxpayers'

money then? The double standard is unbelievable. Where was the Premier

in saying that that was wrong?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The former Minister of Education talked this morning about the

necessity to shortchange children in our schools by cutting back. But

did he talk about the scandalous overrun? Did he talk about the

scandalous back-of-the-truck spending that's going on right now by this

government — the ministerial increases? And at the same time he's

telling everybody else: "One rule for our friends; but everybody else,

legislation" — legislation that suspends some of the basic things we

believe in in the province of British Columbia.

When this bill came down, I looked for the motives. What could

be the reason? Mr. Matkin, someone you highly regard, Mr. Speaker, as

we do on this side of the Legislature, head of the Business Council of

British Columbia, said that there was no need for such legislation. The

climate doesn't justify a plan such as this. He said, interestingly

enough — I was trying to look for another motive — that the public and

private sector wage settlements are close; there is no discrepancy.

Where's the motive that could actually defend this legislation? Mr.

Matkin can't even find the motive.

We know that it's double standards. We know there is no real

justification. But we do know that what's going on here is a government

that is so desperate in its death throes to create an issue to

destabilize, once again, the province of British Columbia that it's

prepared to introduce this kind of legislation.

The double standards are clear. One rule for the friends of

government and insiders, one for the Premier who gave $25 million — and

now every year — for a pension fund for the doctors. At the same time,

what happens to the nurses and everybody else? They have different

rules.

The people have seen through this. They are saying: "We're

ready. It's time for a change. Let's have an election."

I oppose this legislation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It's my pleasure to make

a few comments on the bill, because I think it's very fair, very

necessary and very timely. I'll expand on that in a few moments.

First of all, though, I just have to make a few comments about

the previous two speakers from the opposition. I don't think I've heard

more tired old clichs than I have from the second member for Victoria

or the Leader of the Opposition. It's plain to see the new approach

over there. I kind of liked it better when he whined and snivelled like

he used to do. But now he's cleaned up his act. He's looking into the

television cameras like his leader did, because they intend to use

these for clips during their campaign.

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about dollars from regional

economic development, and the Leader of the Opposition talked about

closing pulp mills. It seems to me that this party across the way is

totally against the working people of British Columbia. They don't seem

to think we should be salvaging operations like we did with the Evans

operation in Golden, or that we should be trying to rescue plywood

mills in the city of Vancouver or any other facility we have deemed it

necessary to put money in to preserve jobs of working men and women.

All he could do was slam the Minister of Regional and Economic

Development because of some of the decisions this government has made.

He talks about doing it for insiders and friends. I repeat: if

the workers at Evans in Golden or at the plywood mill in Vancouver, or

Victoria for that matter, are insiders and friends of this government,

then I'm proud to call them friends of mine and of this government.

The member, as usual, has to dredge up the Coquihalla Highway.

I would remind that member that a full investigation was done, as my

colleague the Minister of Environment pointed out. I would also point

out to that member and members on that side that, at the time we

decided to accelerate the construction of the Coquihalla Highway, the

road building industry in this province was on its knees, Ritchie Bros.

Auctioneers were making tons of money auctioning off construction

equipment, because we were into the depths of a recession. If we hadn't

accelerated the building of the Coquihalla Highway at the time we did,

the list of unemployed would have grown dramatically, and road-building

companies in this province would have gone out of business and their

equipment gone to the auction block.

I have no qualms about looking at the members opposite — or

yes, into the television camera for the folks back home — and saying

that I'm proud of the job we did on the Coquihalla Highway. I have no

hesitation in supporting it. In fact, talk to anyone who lives in

Kamloops, Merritt, Kelowna or the Okanagan and ask them what they think

of the

[ Page 11757 ]

Coquihalla Highway. Ask them what it's

done for their constituency and what it will do in the years to come.

The second member for Victoria says: "I want to look for

motives behind this legislation." If you can give me just a few

minutes, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to tell you the motives behind this

legislation. The motive is to bring responsibility to those who bargain

with other people's money. It's very easy to sit at a negotiating table

and sign agreements during rough times when you are spending someone

else's money. People are not always so frugal with other people's money

as they are with their own.

[3:45]

The member for Burnaby North yesterday gave us some perfect

examples of public sector bargaining that got out of hand, when he

talked of wage increases of 17, 18 and 19 percent. I'll bet the member

for Burnaby North accepted those settlements as well, when he was in

the teaching profession at the time.

The private sector, as has been said here many times, has

constraints upon it. The economy, markets, the way that the country

happens to be going at any particular time and the competitiveness of

business keep constraints on the private sector. This year, for

example, when the forest industry is going through a rough time — pulp

and solid-wood markets are turning down — it's going to be a rough year

for negotiations. It's going to be rough on the pulp workers and on the

IWA members when they sit down to bargain, because the companies they

work for are in tough financial shape.

What sort of constraints are on the public sector when they

sit down to bargain? I submit that without legislation like this there

are no restraints or constraints on those who bargain for those who

work in the public sector.

As the Premier said a few moments ago, we want to see our

public servants — whether they work directly for government or for

Crown corporations or school boards or hospital boards — well paid.

There's no question about that. But we don't think that they should be

negotiating huge wage increases when those in the sawmills are

accepting layoff notices.

In my constituency alone there are hundreds of sawmill workers

who are either laid off temporarily or are working short weeks — three

days a week on a work-share basis. How do they feel? How does that pulp

mill worker in Kamloops or that IWA member feel when he or she has to

go home with a short paycheque or no paycheque at all, and those in the

public sector are receiving increases far beyond the cost of living?

And who is paying the bills, Mr. Speaker? It's that IWA worker or pulp

mill worker or construction worker or the clerk in the grocery store

who's paying the bill for settlements that in many cases go way beyond

what the private sector can afford.

I watched the Leader of the Opposition stand in this House a

few moments ago with his carefully powdered head, looking straight into

the camera behind me because he wants to use the clips during his

election campaign — it's quite obvious. I have no doubt in my mind as

he salivates over sitting in this chair.... I watch him eyeing this

chair beside me quite often, and he is so anxious to get here he can

hardly constrain himself. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it will never

happen. The people of British Columbia are too smart to ever let that

happen. But I watch, as he says with one breath that the workers of

this province need a government that cares about them, and yet a few

minutes earlier he stood in this House and said he would close down

pulp mills in this province. You talk about a double standard. You

can't have it both ways. He wanted to bring in a bill and a

commissioner to deal with plant closures. Now you know why he would

need a bill to deal with plant closures: because he would be closing

them down. You can't have it both ways. The people are too smart.

When he stands up and says, "I want to double the size of

parks as soon as I'm elected," who is going to pay for it? Depending on

whose figure you accept, either 2,400 or 8,000 IWA jobs would be lost;

somewhere in there. Those jobs would be lost. Yet he would do it like

that if he were ever elected.

I have no doubt that if, heaven forbid, the Leader of the

Opposition and that party ever formed a government, they would get rid

of this act immediately. They would get rid of it immediately, as Dave

Barrett said he would do back in about '83 sometime. He would get rid

of it immediately were he elected. First of all, he won't be elected;

and secondly, he would think very carefully before he got rid of it.

When the people of this province — I mean this sincerely —

total up the spending promises of that party, they will be terrified.

We'll help them total up the spending promises of the socialist

democrats opposite. They already total somewhere in the neighbourhood

of $6 billion. Figure out how much money that is. I ask you to sit down

and write it on a piece of paper. The interest alone on that is

frightening. When the people start figuring the cost of NDP promises,

they will be terrified, and they will really stop and think, and

they'll think about a bill like this that puts some constraints on

public rector bargaining.

Let's just look at a few examples of where there's a so-called

social democratic government in power. The Premier already used the

example of Ontario, where they are anticipating a budget deficit this

year of somewhere between $6 billion and $8 billion, and next year who

knows. In typical fashion of a socialist government, they are going to

try to spend their way to prosperity. And they will do it for all the

right reasons. They will stand up and give all the good humanitarian

reasons why they must spend this money, as has been done in northern

European countries.

If you want to see what a government is made of, look in other

jurisdictions where they have a similar type of government. Take a look

in the northern European countries. I had the pleasure to travel there

the year before last to look at some of their social programs. Let me

point out right here and now that

[ Page 11758 ]

they have had social programs in those

countries a lot longer than we have. They've had them for 100 years.

And they did them for all the right reasons. They're a very

compassionate, very caring people, as we are here — as you are and we

are. But what happened is that it got out of control on them. They had

no way of saying no, or they didn't have the backbone to say: "We can't

afford that." Look where they are now — exactly where we will end up

should a social democratic government ever be in charge in British

Columbia. Where are they now? They have a GST over there. They call it

a VAT tax, but you can call it any name you want — it's the same thing.

They have a GST, depending upon which country, of 22 to 25 percent on

everything that you buy. It's 22, 23 or 24 percent on the necessary

items. In some of the countries it's 35 percent on automobiles, VCRs

and televisions — some of the luxury items we all like to have, that we

cherish and derive a great deal of pleasure from in this country.

On top of that, besides a GST of up to 25 percent, the

ordinary working person in those countries pays income taxes of as high

as 70 percent. This is the average working person I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about those at the upper end of the income scale. I'm

talking about the average person making the equivalent of $30,000 a

year Canadian and who pays 65 to 70 percent income tax.

That's because you have a government, like the NDP, which

knows only how to spend. They never talk about where the dollars come

from. If they do, they talk about it in a derogatory fashion. What

generates the wealth in this province? You heard the second member for

Victoria — "You're bailing out plants in this province and doing

special favours for your insider friends." But what generates the

dollars? Is it the 700 people working in the sawmill in Golden and in

the plywood plant? I think it is, and I have no problem supporting

measures put forward by this government and delivered through the

Minister of Regional and Economic Development. I do have a problem when

you don't put any constraints on public sector spending.

The Leader of the Opposition today latched onto something new

that they've discovered — some vacant office space in downtown

Vancouver. They'll probably harp on that for a while. I will tell you

something. I don't think it'll ever happen, but should that party

become government, we won't have to worry about vacant office space. I

tell you, if I had the dollars, I would advise someone in Victoria to

start building office space if the NDP ever became government, because

they'd fill it up. They'd fill it up so fast it would make your head

spin. We'd have a civil service something like Ottawa has.

Ottawa hasn't realized the source of their problem. I think

that the federal Minister of Finance is in a tough spot. I think he

made some prudent moves during this last budget. But with the greatest

of respect to him, I say that he hasn't put his finger on the problem.

The problem is that they've got a bureaucracy back there that's out of

control. Worse than that, I think it's in control. The size of it is

out of control, and I think the decision-making of it is in control.

I'll repeat what I said to the media in Kamloops. I will know

that the federal government is sincere about reducing the budget when

deputy ministers in Ottawa — 43 of them, who make an average of

$130,000 or $140,000 a year — cease to have chauffeur-driven cars. I'll

know then that they are serious about dealing with the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, lest you think that I'm off the topic, with due

respect, I'm not. I'm talking about public sector spending, about

putting some responsibility and constraints on spending other people's

money. With this bill, we are being honest and upfront with all public

sector employees. We're telling them that they can bargain fairly for

working conditions and wage increases, within certain limitations and

within reason. We expect them to do the same, and we wish them well

with their bargaining. Most of them do very well.

We're being honest and upfront by saying there have to be some

constraints on you. The NDP is afraid to stand up here and be honest

and forthright and say: "Where is the extra $6 billion coming from?"

All this money you're going to spend....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Your leader said in

Kamloops about 214 years ago that we were underspending by $3 billion,

and it's grown since then.... The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey

said on the Rafe Mair show that if she had the decision to make, she

would double the day care budget in the province every year for four

years. It's on the record.

That's just some of the spending that they talk about. Almost

every member on that side has put forward programs that would increase

spending. Be honest with the people; stand up here and tell them where

you're going to get the money. That's what the people deserve to know.

It's very easy for you to stand up there and say: "If we were

making the decisions, we'd do this and this and this." But put a price

tag on it, and look the people who pay the taxes right in the eye and

tell them where you're going to get the money. Where will the billions

come from? At least be like Leonard, your candidate up in Nanaimo; at

least be honest about it. Leonard's hottest, if nothing else.

I think that the essence of this bill is really to say that we

respect the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia and their

ability to pay. They're the ones who have to pay the bills. They're the

ones who get the layoff notices when industry turns down. It happens.

There are downturns in the economy, and those put real constraints on

the private sector. The same constraints don't happen in the public

sector.

This is good legislation, Mr. Speaker. I am of the opinion

that there should always be a mechanism to ensure that the public

sector settlements never exceed those in the private sector. The

private sector should lead the way. The negotiating process will

guarantee that. It will guarantee that they get raises

[ Page 11759 ]

that are due and earned, but it will

guarantee that they should not be excessive.

[4:00]

Governments should always be asking themselves when any new

program comes along: can we afford it? There are pressures on

government every day to instigate new programs, to put this program in

and to give us a million dollars here and ten million dollars there.

The pressures are on every day, but governments have to learn to say

no. Governments have to learn to say: can we afford it, and can the

taxpayers afford it? Do we want what has happened with our federal

government? That's a problem that has been growing for over 20 years,

so it cuts across all party lines. Do we ever want to reach a state

here where 40 cents of every dollar we take from the taxpayers goes to

service debt? That's exactly what has happened to this country. Nearly

40 cents of every dollar that you and I send to Ottawa goes to service

debt — ot to retire debt, but just to pay the interest on it.

By this June it will be at $400 billion and growing by $30 billion a

year, and literally nothing is being done to get it under control.

We don't want to ever reach a situation like Ontario is going

to reach under their new administration. Ontario is going to reach it

very quickly with deficits this year of $8 billion and next year maybe

$15 billion. We're talking billions. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker,

it will never happen under a Social Credit government, because we are

responsible to the people who pay the bills in this province.

I urge everyone to support this bill because it's good

legislation. I challenge the NDP to stand up in this House and vote

against it and then tell the taxpayers where the money is going to come

from.

MR. REYNOLDS : I hadn't planned to speak

this afternoon, but there are probably two good reasons why I should.

Some of the comments made by members on the other side.... It's

interesting that on a bill this important, they seem to have run out of

speakers. Secondly, my five-and-a-half-year-old son is at home; he's

got chicken pox, and I know he's watching. He wants to know what his

father is doing in Victoria. Christopher is sitting at home, and he

sees Uncle Walter sitting next to me. He will know we're working hard.

I want to give him a little education about socialism and what it means

to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to say a few things, I also want

to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Chairman. You have

served a number of parliaments in this province very well, and I know

that in this very tough and fighting one that we're having right now,

you will serve extremely well.

The Leader of the Opposition — and I want to quote him — said

that this bill.... I'll give the name of the bill for people watching:

Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act, and it is a fairness act. The

Leader of the Opposition says that it's unfair, it's going to bring

labour unrest, it's going to mean lost business to British Columbia,

it's going to hurt women — he's throwing everything in; he's not

missing a thing — and it's a poke in the eye to the labour people. The

Leader of the Opposition says: "It's not my way; it's not the British

Columbia way." He said: "As Premier, I will not tolerate this bill."

Mr. Speaker: ho, ho, ho — him as Premier.

There was another leader of the NDP; his name was Dave

Barrett. In 1983 he was saying: "When I'm Premier I'll give all the

civil servants a raise in pay." He lost that election, and he lost it

big, because the people of British Columbia respected the fact that the

Social Credit government runs a responsible government and treats their

civil servants fairly. They also know that when things are tough, we

act and we're not afraid to act. We're not afraid to act right across

the board, including.... The members there haven't said it. The Premier

in his statement.... We're freezing members' salaries too, and I think

that's a good idea. We're being tougher on ourselves than we are on the

people who are working for us. That's how tough this government is.

During the debate on this bill and its fairness.... There's

the member for Vancouver–Point Grey: the man who speaks against the

troops on radio and in the newspaper but sits in this House and votes

for them. That's the NDP, Mr. Speaker: hypocrites. They change from one

side to the other. The New Democratic Party is full of that. They are

so close to an election. They want to go outside and tell everybody

they're against the war, but they came in here, and because it was

successful and we won the war with all our United Nations' allies,

they're voting for it now. It's unacceptable to the people of British

Columbia, and it should be.

Talking about compensation fairness, let's listen to some of

their speeches. They talk about the doctors, and they talk about the

$25 million pension. Again, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey was in

support of the pension on Rafe Mair's show. Now he's not in favour of

it because his party's not in favour of it.

Some of their friends over there, some of their supporters....

Let's talk about the teachers' pension fund. Last year this government

put $141 million into the teachers' pension fund — actually a little

more than that. Our donation from the taxpayers of British Columbia....

We feel that the teachers need to be well treated. We've given them a

good pension plan, and we donate to it. But they knocked the $25

million for doctors. What have you got against doctors, who work on the

seniors in this province and who keep us all well? You don't want them

to have a pension plan. You don't want to compare it. You want to play

politics with it, because an election's on. That's what the NDPs all

about, Mr. Speaker — playing politics during art election.

The Finance critic is sitting there. Let's quote him during

this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER : A nice young man.

MR. REYNOLDS : A great fellow. He looks

wonderful on television — and that's a compliment. He's one of the more

intelligent members of that party. He

[ Page 11760 ]

says this legislation has more to do

with politics than with the taxpayer's dollar. He says the bill is

confrontational. He says there's no money for civil servants. That's

not accurate. He says it's a desperate attempt to promote labour unrest.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would say to that member, who is, I am sure, hoping that

he'll be the Minister of Finance one day.... But I'm sure he won't be,

because on this issue the people of British Columbia are seeing through

the New Democrats. They've come to this House in this session.... We've

got a bill that is necessary. We brought in the same kind of tough

legislation when there was another recession in Canada, and it worked.

This kind of legislation is making sure, Mr. Speaker... Our debt

servicing in the province is only 3.3 cents per capita. That's the

lowest in Canada, and that's because this government has brought in

tough legislation like this bill when it has been necessary for all

British Columbians. That's why British Columbia leads Canada in the way

the province is run.

In Ontario, just so you can understand, their debt servicing

is 10 cents per capita, and they're estimating that next year it will

be 20 cents per capita. That's under the new socialist government of

Ontario. Ottawa is 36 to 38 cents.

The members smile. I know that the NDP haven't been in power

for a long time in Ontario. But there were Liberals — they were pretty

close to you guys. The Liberals were building up deficits. When there

was a good Conservative government running Ontario, they balanced

budgets like we do here in British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia know that this is a good

government, and when they watch us on television and hear the debate

from the other side.... It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that they don't

really want to talk about this bill. They want to vote against it so

they can tell their labour friends they didn't support it, but they

don't really want to do much about it.

Jobs. This province created more jobs last year than any other

province in Canada. In fact, half of all the jobs created in Canada

were created right here in British Columbia. That's because of the

tough legislation that this government brings in when it's necessary.

This bill is extremely necessary at this time, because there

is a recession in Canada. It hasn't hit British Columbia as hard as all

the other areas of Canada because of the good government Social Credit

presents in this province. Even one of the members who's retiring is

applauding that. He knows that we've got good government; that's why

his pension is good. That's why he's going to live a graceful life in

retirement in a wonderful province — because we've had good government

in this province under this government and under the government before

it.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS : The Finance critic says:

"What are you running for?" I'm running to get re-elected in West

Vancouver–Capilano. I can't wait to get onto the hustings and talk

about all these issues against opponents in that riding and in other

ridings in the province also. It's going to be a real race, and when

it's all over I'll look forward to sitting on this side again, making a

very similar speech to what we're talking about — a good, tough

government that runs a good province.

I won't see all of you over there. I'll miss the member out in

Coquitlam — or Port Moody; whatever. I served in the House of Commons

with him. He's been a great servant not only to British Columbia but to

Canada, and I wish him well in his retirement. He's been through a lot

of these debates. Unfortunately, he'll have only enjoyed the opposition

side all his life, but I can tell you from being on both sides that it

is very enjoyable to be on that side because you can say things like we

hear from you members now. You don't have the responsibility of running

the government and being tough when you have to be tough.

That's one thing about this bill, Mr. Speaker: it's not

politics. It's the facts of life. The inflation in this country, the

recession in this country created by a federal government gone wild,

will not be put up with by the government of this province. We're going

to be responsible and will make sure that all the civil servants in

this province are responsible also.

AN HON. MEMBER : Where are all their

speeches, John?

MR. REYNOLDS : Where are all the speeches

from the other side? It's just shocking on a bill like this. You should

all read it, it's so good. Normally you'd be up filibustering and

putting amendments in. "No, let's get out of here; let's get the

election on. We want to get out of here; we don't want to talk about

anything worthwhile."

What they're afraid of, Mr. Speaker, is letting the people out

there see exactly what they think and exactly what they say on

television. They get the makeup on, they come and sit down in their new

suits.... I've never seen so many. One member, it's the first suit I've

ever seen him in. They're looking wonderful.

It's a say-nothing opposition. They used to be say-everything,

say-anything, but now they're the say-nothing opposition. Put on your

tie. Put in the puff. I can't believe it: an NDPer with a silk puff in

the pocket. It's new. It's exciting. It won’t sell out there in

television land. It won't sell out on the hustings.

This is a good bill for British Columbia. It will keep our

civil service and the finances under control. Under our great new

Minister of Finance, it will keep the budget under control. I can't

wait to get this bill through and get out there on the hustings and

talk to the people about the facts of life.

[ Page 11761 ]

HON. MR. SERWA : It's a real pleasure to

stand up in the House today and speak to the philosophy and principles

of Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act. It was a stroke of genius on

the part of the Premier to call the House in and to fulfil his promise

with respect to television cameras.

When I look across the House to Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition, when they are all here at the one time for question period,

it's like looking at each individual collectively working together to

play Mr. and Ms. Dressup. That's what they look like.

I wonder what they're opposed to. The commonsense proposition

of fairness? Is that what you're opposed to over there? Do you have

difficulty with the concept of fairness? Or is it that so many of you

come from the public service and are going to go back? Is your

perspective in question? Is it unfair to be concerned about the ability

of the taxpayer to pay? Is that unreasonable? Is that unrealistic? It

was expected that you would be opposed, and you certainly have

fulfilled those expectations. Again, I ask for the people of British

Columbia, opposed to what? Opposed to fairness? Opposed to the ability

of the taxpayer to pay? Wake up and smell the roses.

I know from asking a question the other day that virtually

none of you on the opposite side of the House has ever created a

business or hired more than 10 or 15 employees. As a matter of fact,

there was only one member on that side. I don't expect you to have an

in-depth knowledge of economics and what makes things happen.

[4:15]

The people of British Columbia are really very important. You

fail to recognize that. What would happen with you in control? For an

example, I'll quote federal figures. The federal debt now is

approximately $400 billion. What would it have been if the NDP

socialists had been in the federal government? That's about $20,000 for

every man, woman and child in Canada. Mr. Speaker, 33 cents out of

every federal revenue dollar is spent addressing interest on the debt.

That is not responsible action, and that is precisely where you would

have us go. Interest charges on the debt amount to over $3,000 each

year for every man, woman and child in Canada. The $41.2 billion that

Ottawa pays every year on interest charges alone is more than the

combined budgets of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

In British Columbia the government debt is about $1,300 per

person, the lowest of any jurisdiction in Canada. The Social Credit

government has reduced direct government debt by almost $800 million

over the past three years. Just four cents — not 34 cents and not more

— out of every revenue dollar goes to service debt. That debt and the

interest charges accrue from individuals living beyond their means.

Madam Brundfland in Our Common Future, enunciated a very

important principle: the economy and the environment are integral. She

recognized, as we all recognize — and Social Credit government

certainly recognizes — that we are responsible for acting as stewards

of our environment. We are also responsible for acting as stewards of

our economy.

Is your particular position on this bill one that opposes

fairness and the ability of the taxpayer to pay? Is that being

responsible? I certainly think not. Who is being served from your

particular perspective? Special interest and self-interest groups, your

support groups and, in truth, yourselves.

Most of you have very limited experience in the world of

economics. You have come from publicly funded positions, and you will

go back to publicly funded positions. You are here in the House with

leaves of absence from those publicly funded positions. I can

understand your perspective. In fact, you will benefit yourselves with

your particular perspective on what happens, but you are abdicating

your responsibility to the very constituents who elected you. You are

focusing solely on your support groups, special interest and

single-interest groups, and that is the problem. You're not being

objective or realistic; you're being subjective and just speaking for

those special interest groups and self-interest groups which are a

small portion of the population. In your constituencies you have

abdicated your responsibility to the constituents that elected you.

When I stood up I spoke about the members playing Mr. Dressup.

It's important I address this in perspective of the philosophies and

the principle of the bill, because perspective is an important element

when we enunciate philosophy.

I'm looking at a charade. I'm looking at a faade. I've got to

know a number of you over the past four...

Interjection.

HON. MR. SERWA : Well, you're rather sparse

and barren in numbers. I wasn't referring to that — not at the moment.

I certainly wouldn't do that.

I'm saying that over the past four and a half years I've

gotten to know you as members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. But I

see a dramatic change. What principles do you stand for? What do you

stand for? You've gone out and bought a lot of new clothing. Your

leader has bought whatever Elizabeth Arden recommends for his forehead.

You’re purveying a charade. You're trying to fool the people of the

province of British Columbia. That's your perspective, and that's how

it impacts on your debate on this bill. That concerns me, and rightly

so. I believe that each and every individual in the province can see

through that.

I'd like to just address a slight analogy that is perhaps

representative of what I believe would happen with you in government.

The story is about a small village that happened to be a little bit on

both sides of a very small stream. The economy was quite strong in that

little village, and so the hard-working people of the village decided

to build a bridge across the little stream, and to unite and make it

easier to go back and forth. So they built that bridge, and because it

was a nice bridge and they were proud of it, they hired somebody to

look after it. That was a good

[ Page 11762 ]

idea; it needed painting, and it

needed maintenance, and they'd worked hard to build that bridge.

But some of the NDP socialists got into the play. They decided

that having a caretaker for the bridge wasn't adequate, Mr. Speaker. So

they hired a foreman to look after the maintenance man on that bridge,

and when they had the foreman. They had to hire a superintendent, and

naturally they had to hire a paymaster to pay all of these people. Then

they had to hire a treasurer to look after the paymaster.

It was a small village, and they were friends. The burden got

too heavy for the village, and then the socialist power-seekers knew

they were confronted with a difficult decision. What to do? The economy

wasn't so good. The people were complaining and were very concerned. So

they pooled their resources, got their heads together, and you know

what they did? You bet. They fired the maintenance worker. Everybody

else was secure.

That's the problem. We've got a strong, buoyant economy in the

province of British Columbia. This government has worked very hard to

maintain that economy, and with the spinoff from that economy we can

provide the best possible standards of health care in the Dominion of

Canada. We can provide the care and the social services. We can provide

outstanding services in public education and in advanced education, and

economic incentives so that we have jobs for people.

Yes, we have lots of friends in the province of British

Columbia. As a matter of fact, all of the people in the province are

our friends.

This government is charged with the responsibility of acting

as stewards of the environment, and we're doing that. This government

is also charged with the responsibility of acting as stewards of our

economy. They're tied together. They're integral, my friends. That's

why I support the philosophy and principles of Bill 82.

MR. GABELMANN : I'm tempted to say, Mr.

Speaker, that I went to a hockey game with the Minister of Environment

last night, we had a good time, and I didn't even have tell him what

inning it was.

It's been said many times that those who fail to learn from

history are doomed to repeat it. That was never more applicable than in

the case of this government and this legislation. Bill 82 is a serious

mistake on all counts. In the short run it will hurt morale in the

public service, and it will further undermine the quality of that

public service. It will make it impossible to achieve greater equity in

wages and in salaries. It will harm the collective bargaining process,

and it will adversely affect local economies. In the long run, Mr.

Speaker, it will be self-defeating. Creating frustration, resentment

and anger for tens of thousands of hard-working people in this province

is not only wrong in principle, it is counterproductive. Time and again

it has been demonstrated that people compelled to work for what they

perceive to be substandard wages or salaries just aren't as productive

as people who have voluntarily accepted their wage or salary level.

That is why many — in fact, most — enlightened employers accept

collective bargaining. They recognize that negotiated agreements lead

to better morale and improved productivity. You just don't get it any

other way.

This government has already done immense harm to public

services in this province. It’s shortsighted and mistaken policies have

left our health services in disarray. At every level our education

system is in trouble; local infrastructures have deteriorated;

environmental protection and improvement has been sacrificed.

My party has often been attacked as advocating excessive

government intervention in the economy. The reality is, however, that

this government has repeatedly initiated unwise intervention in the

economy. They just can't resist meddling where wage negotiations are

concerned. In spite of all the evidence that economic realities provide

a collective bargaining balance, this government persists in trying to

force its will on the parties involved. It has never worked well, and

it won't work well this time.

No individual commissioner, however well qualified, can

possibly understand the factors present in various sets of

negotiations. It's not surprising therefore that what ends up happening

is the arbitrary imposition of fixed percentages. This not only leads

to unfairness and creates frustrations, it also undermines attempts to

create greater equity between men's and women's wages and salaries. You

just don't make any progress in this vitally important area when

percentage ceilings are applied.

Under this government we have experienced a loss of highly

skilled people because in any occupation, trade or profession, if the

wages and conditions fall too far behind, people go elsewhere, either

to other industries or to other places. British Columbia under Social

Credit has been a happy hunting-ground for U.S. recruiters of teachers

and health care professionals. One of the mottoes of this government

might well be: we'll teach them and we'll train them, then you can have

them. That's just one of the many ways this government has undermined

health care and education in British Columbia.

It's true the government does face some economic problems. A

series of bad deals like northeast coal and the Expo land deal haven't

made those economic problems any better. None of us would pretend that

there are any magic solutions; there are no magic solutions.

But I want to suggest to the government one novel approach to

tackling our economic problems — one they've never tried and one

they've possibly never considered. It's this: try working with the

people who provide our public services. Try working with teachers,

nurses, health care workers and other public sector workers. Try

cooperation instead of confrontation. Consider the possibility — as

foreign to your thinking as it may be — that the thousands of women and

men working in the public sector actually care about the quality of

services they are delivering and actually feel a deep concern about the

well-being of our education system, our health care system and

[ Page 11763 ]

all of the other services upon which

we depend. Talk to the workers involved in delivering our important

public services. Our delivery systems are not efficient. They can show

you the inefficiencies. Things are only made worse by politically

motivated decisions with respect to the provision of new or expanded

facilities. Improve things the hard way: work at it.

Stop throwing money wherever you think there may be votes. Mr.

Speaker, we've seen countless examples in the last few years — and

increasingly now out of the Regional and Economic Development ministry

— of throwing money to attempt to buy an election, choosing to spend

the public's money in ways that are profligate and excessive, choosing

to spend money to help friends and insiders and to gain that money by

taking it away from the people who actually work for the public. Try

getting your priorities straight. Avoid the double standards; have one

standard. If you won't — because you haven't, and I don't expect you

will — turn over the responsibility of government to someone who will.

[4:30]

The simplistic answers so dear to Social Credit haven't worked

in the past, and they won't work now or in the future. There are

serious and complex problems that aren't simply solved by a gimmicky

announcement that provides the Premier or a cabinet minister with a

30-second bite.

The people of this province have seen the show too often

before. They now want a slogging approach to the problems. They want

governments at all levels to sit down and try to find solutions with

the people who are trying to make things work. This legislation does

not provide solutions. It will compound the problems, and we don't need

that.

I urge you to drop the legislation. Stop your attack on public

services. Stop your war on the people who work for the public. We still

have time. Sit down in good faith with the women and the men who are

working for all of us, and try to listen.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant to standing orders,

the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. VEITCH : It is my pleasure to rise

in closing debate on Bill 82. This bill is about leadership. It's

easier to run away from problems than to face them head-on. It's always

easier to raise taxes — to dip into what seems to be that deep, endless

well in order to solve problems than to face them head-on. It would be

much easier to raise taxes, to borrow money from around the world —

such as is happening in Ontario — than to have to stand here in this

Legislature and bring in the tough legislation that is required for

these times. It takes leadership.

There was a lot of talk about an election during this

particular debate. When the next election comes — as it will come — it

will be framed around several things. It will be framed around the

economy and who is best able to look after the economy of the province

of British Columbia. It will be framed around who is best able to

negotiate native land claims — someone who wants to do it in a way

that's fair and affordable and permanent or someone who wants to lay $2

billion on the table before they've ever sniffed the inside of the

cabinet office.

There really are choices that we're going to have to make.

Social Credit is about people. I hear these people over here talking

about Social Credit and Social Credit not being about people. I'm going

to read you a few items from the general fund expenditure for the last

quarter. I want to talk about people programs for just a minute, Mr.

Speaker.

The Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology's

expenditure of $813 million was up $88 million, or 12.1 percent, from

the same period last year, due to higher contributions to universities

and colleges. And they tell us we don't look after education.

The Ministry of Education's expenditure of $2.199 billion was

up $209 million, or 10.5 percent, from the same period last year,

mainly because of higher provincial contributions to school districts

under the new block-funding arrangements. We look after education.

We've looked after education in this province ever since 1952, and

we're going to continue to look after education.

The Ministry of Health had expenditures of $3.502 billion —

and remember there are three million people in this province to pay for

it — and they have increased by $381 million, or 12.2 percent, from the

first nine months of last year. This is a result of increased

contributions to hospitals and higher spending on the Medical Services

Plan and Pharmacare for the aged.

We're looking after people in British Columbia. This has

always been a government of the people, not of special interest groups.

We've been a government of the people; we always have been and we

always will be.

The Ministry of Social Services and Housing had expenditures

of $1.273 billion. Those expenditures are up $127 million, or 11

percent, from the same period last year. The increase reflects higher

expenditures for income assistance programs, and it goes on and on. I

want to tell you that we're going to continue.

This bill is about two things....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Perhaps if the

member speaking would address the Chair, the members who are

interrupting the member speaking would be somewhat restrained. That's

the normal procedure in this House. Would the minister please continue.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Thank you for drawing my

attention to that. That's very kind of you.

This bill, the Compensation Fairness Act, Bill 82, is about

two things. The first is about saving the jobs of public sector

employees — the people who teach our children, the people who care for

the sick of our province and the people who run the support ser-

[ Page 11764 ]

vices and run all aspects of

government, just to name a few.

This bill accomplishes that goal by keeping public sector wage

settlements from pricing themselves out of the market. The hon. second

member for Vancouver East, my critic, took great care yesterday in

reading from the most recent "Industrial Relations Bulletin" of the

B.C. Business Council, dated March 5, 1991. The gentleman chose a

particular point in time to suit his particular position. Other points

in time on the same graph produce an entirely different conclusion. If

he had turned the page over to the reverse side, his argument would

have been immediately struck down. I'm going to do that. I'm going to

read from that, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to tell you about wage increases

for the first two contract years compounded January 1, 1990, to

February 28, 1991. Then we're going to compare the private sector and

the public sector on that chart.

In year one, the private sector increases were 5.5 percent. In

the same period, the public sector increases were 7.7 percent. In year

two, the private sector increases were 5.4 percent. In the same year,

the public sector increase was 7 percent. After two years, the private

sector increase was 11.3 percent and the public sector averaged a

whopping 15.2 percent. The arrows are going in the wrong direction.

The Leader of the Opposition was telling us.... This new

fiscal conservative over there on the other side of the House who wants

to be Premier of the province of British Columbia was telling us about

the waste of government office space. I looked around and tried to put

a finger on some of the current numbers. My hon. colleague the Minister

of Government Management Services is looking into that.

I also found some interesting increases that occurred while

the NDP were in power during those 1,200 days and 1,200 nights. During

those 1,200 days, the increase in office space rented by that NDP

government amounted to 278 percent in just 3.5 years. The increase in

cost per square foot to government was 207 percent. The increase in

total cost of government office space in Victoria was 332 percent. They

have the gall to talk about vacant office space.

They tell us now that 1972 to 1975 is no longer relevant, and

that this bunch is now fiscal conservatives. They are friends of the

business people. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, any business person

who would believe the NDP is a friend of theirs would be akin to a

chicken going over to Colonel Sanders and looking for aid and succour.

There's no difference.

The people of British Columbia have some of the

hardest-working and most efficient public sector employees in the

country. This bill elevates and enshrines the job security of those

people in the public sector. It's good for women....

Where has the good doctor gone? He needs to look after one of

the members who is sitting on the wrong seat in the front bench here.

Where's the good doctor?

This bill is good for women, as the Minister Responsible for

Women's Programs has stated, by sending a message that employment and

jobs are a priority of this government. Women employed in the public

sector can continue to go to work with the assurance that they will

have a job tomorrow. Unlike the hon. member for New Westminster would

have this House believe, pay equity programs are not jeopardized in any

way. Stop fearmongering. It doesn't become you, hon. members. The hon.

member waxed eloquent about fundamental rights yesterday when she

talked about this bill. Unfortunately, in typical socialist fashion,

she accords those rights only to one side of the discussion. There are

two sides to this coin.

Hon. member, let me tell you something. I speak not just for

the government side of the House but for millions of British

Columbians. You know, the taxpayers have rights too. The people who pay

our bills, the people who pay the bills of the public sector, the

people in small business and the people in large business have rights.

It's not just governments that have rights. It's not just people who

work for government who have rights. That's the second purpose of this

bill: to protect the pay envelopes of the taxpayers who must fund all

public sector wage settlements.

Social Credit, once again, is the only voice the taxpaying

public has in this province. They don't have a voice with the NDP; it

just does not exist. If the NDP had their way, they would use Ontario

as a model. The Leader of the Opposition the other evening.... I

watched him on television when he was with the opposition House Leader;

they were having a roast. Mr. Bob Rae, the new Premier of Ontario, and

the House Leader were playing and singing: "Ain't Misbehavin." You just

wait. Two or three years from now when the people of Ontario go back to

the polls, you'll see whether or not they were misbehaving. They are

about ready to throw them out right now, I can tell you that.

[4:45]

As an alternative to Bill 82, what would the first member for

Vancouver Centre offer the province of British Columbia? I'll tell you

what he'd offer. He'd offer a deficit that is projected as close to $15

billion in the province of Ontario, because Ontario is his role model.

He said it that night on television. It is a system that will penalize

by 8 percent those who are trying to achieve great things in life —

university students — as the Minister of Advanced Education stated

today in the House.

The government of Ontario is passing on the cost of this huge

deficit and the cost of servicing that debt to the students of the

province of Ontario. Is that looking after people? That's not the way

we look after people in Social Credit.

Rent controls — controls that have put people out of work even

before they've passed the law.... Some of these people who voted for

Mr. Rae — this is your role model; this is what you want here in

British Columbia — are now getting a message from Mr. Rae.

Here is an

article that was clipped from the Toronto Sun in January

1991. It says: "Thank you, Mr. Rae. Your proposed rent control law may

have saved me $25 per month in rent. Unfortunately, as a direct result

of act one, I just lost my job." It is signed by a

[ Page 11765 ]

group of people — former employees,

workers, little people — the kind of people who pay your bills, who pay

the taxes that you're laughing about, hon. member. They're the kind of

people that you don't give a whit about.

You think it's funny for people to lose