1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, MAY 3, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7331 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Committee on Crown Corporations report on British Columbia Railway.

Mr. Kempf –– 7331

Ministry of Labour annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7331

Oral Questions

Hospital beds. Mr. Cocke –– 7331

Elective surgery lists. Mr. Cocke –– 7332

Investigation of members' expenses. Mr. Davis –– 7332

Hospital budgets. Mr. Leggatt –– 7332

Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Mr. Mussallem –– 7333

Mr. Lorimer –– 7335

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7337

Division –– 7341

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7341

Mr. Barrett –– 7344

Appendix –– 7355

The House met at 2 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

All members of this House, I'm sure, are always pleased by meeting

those people who help us in our political endeavours. It gives me great

pleasure at this time to introduce to the assembly the B.C. Young

Socreds who have been with our members this morning. They're a great

group of people. We enjoyed a scintillating and productive debate with

them today on some very interesting issues. Would the House please

welcome the president, Mary Hemmingson, vice-president Ron Finnigan,

youth coordinator Peter Wearing and all the B.C. Young Socreds who are

with us today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We in Surrey are

particularly fortunate to have a very active young Social Credit group.

There are a number represented here today. I would like to introduce

them to the House. We have Susan Bubela, John Fengler, and Laura

Fisher, who was chosen Miss Surrey 1982 –– I might add that the judges

had a difficult task from a great list — I was the MC at the pageant —

and they certainly chose well. We also have Harry Guttormson, Jana

Kirkwood, Peter Rolvink, Karen Roussy, Debbie Swindels, Rachel Tutte,

Heidi Van Lissem, my son Wim Vander Zalm, Angela Weber and Joe Weber. I

ask the House to bid them a big welcome.

MR. NICOLSON:

For the first time this year I have the honour of introducing someone

from the riding of Nelson-Creston. In the members' gallery today is

Colleen McCrory. She is the driving force behind the Valhalla

wilderness conservancy. I wish the members would bid her welcome.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, it's indeed an honour for me to introduce to the House a

very good friend of mine from Central Fraser Valley, Michael Horn.

Would the House please extend a warm welcome to him.

MR. BRUMMET:

In the gallery today we have a visitor from the energy heartland of

British Columbia. I would like this House to welcome Mayor Jack Dick of

the district municipality of Hudson's Hope.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

As you know, I don't often get the opportunity to introduce

constituency representatives from the great South Peace River area,

because they're up there opening up the province for the rest of the

people, so the people here on Vancouver Island can live in the lap of

luxury. Visiting with us today is the mayor of the great city of Dawson

Creek, Mayor Bob Trail. I hope the House will make him very warm and

welcome.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would ask

the House to welcome the mayor of Prince George, Elmer Mercier, and two

aldermen who are accompanying him today, Steve Sintich and George

McKnight.

MR. HOWARD: Over the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition, the Member

of Parliament for Prince Rupert, the mayor of Terrace and I had the pleasure

of being in attendance at the signing by the mayor of Terrace of a proclamation

relating to the Salvation Army and its activities in this country over the years.

I'd like to take this opportunity to say how much we appreciate the fact

that Captain Gillespie of the Salvation Army led us in prayers today.

MR. KEMPF:

ME Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I today table the

report by the Committee on Crown Corporations on the British Columbia

Railway. It's the most concise and detailed report ever brought down on

the BCR or, to my knowledge, on any other railway. It is a report of

which, on behalf of the staff, the BCR subcommittee and the committee

as a whole, I'm very proud.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, when various ministers file their various reports, I would trust they continue to do so without any debate.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the 1981 annual report of the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL BEDS

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Can the

minister confirm that within the hospital program of his ministry we

have the absurd situation of extended-care hospitals closing beds

because of a shortage of funds and the Ministry of Health offering

hospitals in the same area a $20,000 bonus to close their acute-care

beds?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for New

Westminster has asked a very general question, presumably with some

specifics in mind. If he'd like to offer the specifics perhaps I could

respond.

MR. COCKE: The question is about a bounty of

$20,000 per bed offered by the Ministry of Health for their closing

down the beds. This is per a letter to the hospital administrators

dated April 7, 1982, signed by the assistant deputy minister, Mr.

Cardiff. Is it the minister's policy to offer a bounty of $20,000 per

acute-care bed to have them closed down?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

There is a program which has been developed by the ministry, and the

information has been sent to the various hospitals. It is improperly

described by the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE:

In light of the Juan de Fuca Hospital's closing 50 extended-care beds

in this region because of a $750,000 shortfall in their budget.... Now

the Royal Jubilee and the Victoria General are being offered a grant to

close down acute-care beds so that they may be converted to

extended-care beds. Is this the minister's policy?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'll be very pleased to peruse the Blues when they're

available to find out if there is a common theme in all those questions

that could be answered.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, is it

the minister's policy to accommodate chronically ill, mostly elderly

patients in inappropriate care — that's acute-care beds — and to

convert those acute-care beds to extended-care beds at an extended-

[ Page 7332 ]

care bed rate? Is that the minister's policy? If he doesn't understand that, then he is....

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, if the question is quite specific, the policies of the

ministry will gladly be spelled out to the member with respect to the

accommodation of citizens in the province, elderly or not. Over the

past year there has been a major switch in the priorities of

construction of hospital beds from acute care to extended care or

intermediate care. If the member would like some of the statistics, I'd

be pleased to find them and offer them to him.

In response

to his question "Is it your policy to accommodate elderly people in

inappropriate accommodation?" the answer to that would be no, that is

not the policy.

ELECTIVE SURGERY LISTS

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, in light of the new policy, what has the minister decided

to do for the over 12,000 people in our province now awaiting elective

surgery?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the people

who would be on elective-surgery lists will receive their surgery as

their doctors are available, as their own schedules permit and as the

beds are available in the various hospitals throughout the province.

That policy has been in place for a long time. Elective surgery lists

are not a novel situation in the province. The policy is to accommodate

those people who are on the elective surgery lists as readily as

possible, depending on their own circumstances, the circumstances of

their position and the circumstances of the hospital they wish to

enter. That is the general policy, and I think it's consistent with the

policy we've had for many years.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Speaker, in this letter dated April 7, under "Incentives," the letter

states: "A one-time bonus of $20,000 per bed will be paid to hospitals

which can reduce their number of rated acute-care beds." Can the

minister confirm that he is paying a bonus of $20,000 a bed to close

them down?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll be

pleased to take the question as notice so I can produce the information

that might acquaint the member for New Westminster with that policy in

some detail. But I can say that it is not to close the bed down.

Perhaps he might read the rest of the letter.

INVESTIGATION OF MEMBERS' EXPENSES

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed through you to the

Attorney-General. It arises out of the fact that the province is

responsible for the administration of justice in British Columbia. Is

the Royal Canadian Mounted Police undertaking, or has it undertaken, an

intensive examination into the private and business transactions of the

second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), investigations of

the character to which I as an honourable member was exposed in

1977-1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In response to the hon.

member's question, I have no knowledge at the moment with respect to

the activities of the RCMP. I can assure you, Your Honour, the member

and all members of this House that every action appropriate to the

circumstances is and will be taken by this ministry.

MR. DAVIS:

Again to the Attorney-General: are the private and business

transactions of any other member of this honourable Legislature being

investigated by the RCMP at the present time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have no knowledge of such investigations.

MR. DAVIS:

Would the Attorney-General use his good offices to ensure, insofar as

he can, when any hon. member of this House is subject to an

investigation of that character, that that hon. member be made aware of

that investigation at as early a date as possible and that that hon.

member have access to the results of that investigation when it has

been concluded?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Investigations

into any citizen, whether or not a member of this House, are carried

out in accordance with the procedures which are appropriate to all

criminal investigations.

HOSPITAL BUDGETS

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Health. Under the Hospital

Insurance Act, regulation 7, there are provisions for adjustments to be

paid to general hospitals where necessary to properly reimburse

hospitals for services provided to their patients. On April 7 a

directive went out from the deputy minister to all hospital

administrators informing them that "the grant allocated to your

hospital will remain fixed from the beginning of the fiscal year and

not subject to quarterly or year-end adjustment." Can the minister

advise why he and his ministers have decided to fly in the face of the

regulations under the Hospital Insurance Act and not to provide for

quarterly or year-end adjustments to hospitals, in effect fixing their

budget without any chance for correction?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I believe the member for Coquitlam-Moody is offering a legal opinion as

to the

interpretation of

section 7 of that act. He is, I believe,

concluding that the letter is in violation of that section. I will

accept his legal argument and ask our legal counsel for their opinion.

MR. LEGGATT:

I wasn't offering a legal opinion. I usually charge for those. My

question to the minister is this: regardless of the legal

interpretation of the Hospital Insurance Act and of regulation 7, will

the minister confirm that he no longer is going to provide hospital

administrators with any adjustment in regard to the budget? He has now

told them that their budget is fixed and, regardless of the provisions

of that act, there won't be adjustment at any time following that year.

Will he confirm that in fact this is the position his ministry has

taken, and will he tell us why they have taken that position?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Basically, the member is correct in his

interpretation of the directive

and of the information sent to the various hospitals as to the

allocation of the grant for this fiscal year. They have been advised

that we basically expect those hospitals to live within their budget.

Historically,

budgets for hospitals have been struck at different times of the year.

I believe this year was perhaps the earliest the hospitals have

received their grant allocation figure. Traditionally in British

Columbia, there has been

[ Page

7333 ]

review of hospital budgets at year end, whether on a quarterly, semi-annual

or annual basis, and adjustments have been made to take certain circumstances

into consideration. The concept of providing them with their global budget figure

as early in the fiscal year as possible has now been adopted.

Basically,

the hospitals have been advised that the amount contained in the

communication to them is the budget figure we anticipate and expect

they will make use of for that year. It would be incorrect to suggest

there would be no opportunity for any hospital or institution to bring

to the ministry's attention certain circumstances for which they

perhaps feel no responsibility. This has occurred in the past on

frequent occasions. It would be very difficult to say that no

circumstances at all could be or would be considered by the Ministry of

Health with respect to a hospital. Some specifics in the past year were

taken into consideration and considered outside of the global budget

and grant to the hospitals, but as a principle this year the hospitals

have been advised that the Ministry of Health expects them to function

within the parameters of those budget guidelines and we have advised

them that we do not anticipate those facilities to go into a deficit

position.

So as a general directive, yes. As a general

directive we anticipate and expect those facilities to stay within

those stated budgetary guidelines.

MR. LEGGATT: Why?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The why is, I hope, fairly obvious. There is a serious restriction on

the capacity of the Ministry of Health to expend taxpayers' dollars in

this field. The ministry represents in excess of 30 percent of the

provincial budget. The overall expenditures for the ministry this year

will increase approximately 17 percent. We have worked with the

hospitals. We have attempted to assist all hospitals in developing

their budgets, and the message is as clear as we can offer it to them:

there are limitations on the amount of money available for health

expenditures in the province, and particularly in the case of

hospitals. Hospitals are receiving an increase this year, on average,

of about 8 percent. Many of the hospitals have advised us that they

require a considerably higher increase than that to meet what they

consider their obligations at the same level. Our ministerial officials

dispute some of their figures, and ongoing discussions will take place.

Other

hospitals have advised us that they feel they can maintain their level

of service at that approximate level. Basically, it is a matter of

allocating funds for hospitals as the main portion of our 30 percent of

the provincial budget. I suppose the very simple message to those

responsible for administering hospitals is that there is not an endless

amount of money available to them. We are asking them to attempt to

manage within the constraints required by the allocation of funds.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 15.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, it it a

pleasure to rise in my place again in support of the second reading of

Bill 15. It is a pleasure for many reasons. One thing that comes

particularly to mind is that it is a time for retrenchment, a time for

being responsible with the finances of British Columbia. This bill

dictates that clearly.

I cannot go on with my few and very

short remarks without referring to a statement made by the member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) last Friday. I cannot pass by this point,

because it is such a major statement that was made by the member. It

was a statement that should be taken as one of importance. When an hon.

member of this House makes a sweeping statement, it must be accepted

for what it's worth. But it's the right of another member to question

the veracity of such a statement. And I do so now.

The

member for New Westminster said: "I built the Royal Columbian

Hospital." He might have meant: "I built a lot of the Royal Columbian

Hospital." But he didn't do that, he said: "I built the Royal Columbian

Hospital." I want to tell him that the Royal Columbian Hospital was

built in 1910 or 1912.

MR. LEGGATT: You were there.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I wasn't there. And neither were you. And not many members in this

chamber were there. But I'm proud of those who were and are here. They

should not be referred to with derision; they should be referred to

with respect. That's very important.

I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, what happened at the Royal Columbian Hospital. I'll ask you to

bear with me as I lay out the details, because that was a major

statement. It requires more than a flashing reply. He was indicating

that they did a great deal with the Royal Columbian Hospital. During

the regime of the NDP, nothing — except two little items — was done for

the Royal Columbian Hospital. The rest was done — completed and

finished — during the regime of our previous Social Credit government

and the one today.

I'll just go over these a little bit — it

will take about two or three minutes. The 105-bed nurses' residence and

training school at the Royal Columbian Hospital was completed on May

31, 1962 at a cost of $1,400,000. It was the first time there was a

nursing school at that hospital. There was an addition to the emergency

department of 24 emergency recovery and treatment beds. That gain of 15

was approved in 1962 and finished in September, 1965, at a total

project cost of $481,000.

You'll notice this is all during

Social Credit. We in this government have always maintained that our

main priority is health. It still is health and it has never changed.

It has always been so.

In 1966, the Social Credit government

built a temporary lab. Electrical renovations took place in 1968. A

trauma unit was constructed in 1969. All of this was under the Social

Credit government. And the member for New Westminster said: "I built

the Royal Columbian Hospital."

I might say in passing that

the Royal Columbian Hospital Act was proclaimed in 1901. And yet he

said: "I built the Royal Columbian Hospital."

I must play this out, because I notice that as soon as he heard this he escaped out the door.

[ Page 7334 ]

Anyway, expansion, phase one: construction of modular units contained 174 replacement

beds for those in the old 1912 wing, approved in 1967 and completed in 1971

— all these things during the regime of the Social Credit government. The power

plant was completed in 1973. That was during their regime in office — I have

to admit that — but we, Social Credit, started it in our days.

Now

here is what they did do: they demolished the 1912 wing for a cost of

$114,000. That negative group demolished the wing all by themselves. I

go on. They did another little thing too, a psychiatric day-care unit,

20 spaces — approved in 1974 and completed in 1975 — for $101,000, that

little bitty thing. That's all they did — that psychiatric unit,

psychiatric beds.

Now we move to Social Credit again:

approved in principle and the job completed, for a total of $28

million, an additional 30 psychiatric in-patient beds, completed

approximately in 1980 — all these major things were done by our

government. But yet he said — and he escaped out of this chamber — "I

built the Royal Columbian Hospital. No 'I nearly built, ' or 'I partly

built, ' but 'I built it.' " Now you've got to take everything they say

with a little grain of salt. I could go on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Is this under Bill 15?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Yes, it is, because we're debating hospital expenditures, Mr. Speaker.

I could go on further in detail, but I think I'll drop it at that. I

must caution this House, when they hear a debate from the hon. members

opposite, to take it with a grain of salt, because it doesn't mean that

much.

Today we are debating the second reading of Bill 15.

Certainly it's not a bill that could be applauded, because it's a bill

of restraint. That is the problem with Bill 15, but we must have

restraint. The hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) laughs. Let

me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what is happening in the great province of

Quebec. Let me quote from an

article in the Globe and Mail , entitled "Quebec's Runaway Debt":

"The Quebec government is on a collision course with

320,000 civil servants, teachers and hospital workers. It has asked the

public sector unions to accept a reduction of 60 percent in salary."

Now if that is not trauma, I don't know what trauma is.

"Quebec

may have little choice. Five years ago the province's accumulated

deficit was only $5 billion. The figure now exceeds $16 billion. The

annual deficit for 1981-82 will be more than $3 billion."

Mr.

Speaker, I have to say that what this government stands for is pay as

you go, pay our debts without mortgaging the future, without mortgaging

the young people of today. We have in the gallery today a fine and

gallant group of Social Credit young people, and we're not a government

that will ever mortgage their lives away with debts, as the Quebec

government has mortgaged away the lives of their young people; as

Ontario mortgages away the lives of their young people and young people

yet to come. I can say for those two provinces, as for Canada, that

generations yet unborn are being mortgaged.

Yet we stand

here and are being criticized for calling for restraint. Mr. Speaker,

Bill 15 calls for restraint, and restraint is the order of this day,

and I think that we will be applauded by all governments — municipal or

otherwise — when they see the facts before them, when they see the

necessity for restraint. The municipalities are complaining at this

time, and I can understand their complaints. They're not all

complaining, but some are complaining, I can understand. They got the

news kind of late. It was impossible to get it sooner, because this

recession hit very suddenly and without warning. But we have to meet

the challenge, and this government is prepared to meet that challenge.

In some cases municipalities are displeased, but in many cases they are

not. I will give you an example of the municipalities of Pitt Meadows,

Maple Ridge and Mission. They don't like it, exactly, but they say

they've got to live with it, because it's necessary to show restraint.

Every

business in our jurisdiction of British Columbia — and, I'm sure, in

all of Canada — has to pull in, has to lay off people. There is no

other way, because they have to live within their budget or fail. The

only difference with the public sector is that we do not fail; we just

raise taxes. But in Quebec they're mortgaging the future of their

people. Certainly there are such things....

I know the Minister

of Municipal Affairs is very concerned that he has to hold back on

expenditures on sewers and other municipal matters, but you can see the

wisdom of this. The interest rates are too high just now, but the time

will come when interest rates come down. We must look at the positive

side — then those projects will be all go. But at this time I ask that

understanding be given. Restraint is necessary.

That's part

of our philosophy of paying as we go, and this philosophy will never be

changed. I'm certain that the people of British Columbia, especially

the young people, those who pay the taxes and the old people who are

living on fixed pensions, will say: "We want restraint. We must have

restraint." For those people of British Columbia we are legislating,

not for those who are spending every day, like they spend in Quebec and

Ontario, who say another day will come and the sun will shine brighter.

The sun will never shine brighter. If we're in debt today, we'll be in

debt forever, because it's a disease that takes hold of a jurisdiction

and never lets go. It got hold of Canada; it got hold of Ontario,

Quebec and other provinces — without mentioning their names. It's

necessary for us, as we are today totally out of operating debt and

paying as we go.... And to all the people of British Columbia I say

that it will continue that way.

Certainly medicine is hard

to take. I remember very well when we were children — and no one here

can look back that far, but we were children at one time — and along

came spring and the worst part about spring was not spring; it was

sulphur and molasses. That's an old remedy. I'm sure the young Socreds

up there never heard of it. But when we were youngsters, no sooner had

the weather got warm and we wanted to go out to play than we had a

couple of tablespoons of sulphur and molasses. Do you remember that,

Mr. Member? Wouldn't that kill you? Science got into the picture and

they found that wasn't necessary. Hooray for science.

have to realize that this government does not stay still. We do not say

restrain, hold back and tighten up. We say; "Tighten up as much as you

can, but go in places where you can go and build up new jobs." I want

to say that I have never, in all my knowledge of government and in all

my knowledge of the past, seen anything that appealed to me more or

excited me more than Expo 86. Think that just six months ago we would

have been saddled with a debt of $50 million or $60 million, and

suddenly this great production, this convention centre, this centre for

the ships or whatever you call it....

What do you call that centre?

[ Page 7335 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Pier B-C.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Pier B-C. Suddenly this project is going to be built without cost to

the people of British Columbia. What could be better than that? And the

northeast coal project, the biggest project to ever hit Canada, is

without cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia, but to the benefit

of Canada.

I say that is where we stand. We stand for

production; we stand in a rising atmosphere of people and we look at

the future with courage because we can do that. We're financially

sound. But I say that any government that sells the souls of the people

just to get a benefit today is making a great mistake. We will be

applauded when time shows the wisdom of our actions, and the people of

British Columbia will say they did right when they were there.

MR. LORIMER: I have committed the cardinal sin of reading the bill before I speak on it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First time.

MR. LORIMER:

It may be the first time, but I won't bother again. I'm afraid the

member who just sat down failed to read the bill, and the others who

spoke on behalf of the government obviously didn't read the bill.

They're talking about restraint. There's no restraint whatsoever in

this bill. There may be some saving of money as far as the provincial

government is concerned.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's the taxpayers.

MR. LORIMER:

But it means extra expense to the municipalities — and they're

taxpayers. So to suggest that this is any type of restraint is

ludicrous. These members haven't understood either the needs of

municipalities or the variety of transfers of funds between provincial

governments and municipal governments. But I think the main reason that

they spoke that way was that they forgot to read the bill — and they

may have made a better speech because of that.

The only

benefits from this bill go to the provincial government at the expense

of the municipalities. I wonder why, Mr. Speaker, people laugh when the

government members talk about restraint. I don't think they take them

seriously and it's a pity.

The Sewerage Assistance Act

states that the government shall pay its share of the costs to provide

certain sewerage services within a municipality. The government "shall"

make the payments; in its place, the new act says the government "may"

make grants to the municipalities. Those are two separate things. One

is a legislative requirement for the senior government to finance and

assist in the construction of sewerage services to municipalities. The

other merely says that they "may" make grants if they so desire. They

always could make grants, of course, so there's nothing new in this.

The Sewerage Assistance Act has been killed by this bill; the

transmission act has also been killed. The bill before us has one

purpose only: so that the provincial government can save money at the

expense of the municipalities. History in this province has been set

back at least 10 years. We're back to the old Social Credit government

days of 1972: keep in conflict with local governments; starve them;

keep them on their knees. The government will save money and can now

sprinkle some largess over the deserving municipalities at the expense

of other municipalities.

I was shocked when I heard the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) state that there

had been no reduction in the municipal share of welfare costs since the

1960s, apart from the reduction brought about two or three years ago by

this government. Now he and his staff know that the former 15 percent

municipal share of welfare costs was reduced to 10 percent under the

New Democratic Party administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you remember that, Bill, even though you said it wasn't so?

MR. LORIMER:

Why did the minister say that no reduction had taken place since the

1960s. The statement is false. It makes one wonder how many other

inaccuracies were contained in his speech. The minister, again, has

been very careless with the truth.

Another principle of this

bill is that some of the provisions are retroactive. Retroactive

legislation is, generally speaking, poor legislation, but in the past

few years more and more bills have been coming before us which have

retroactive portions introduced. They're always plugging holes,

changing the rules or moving the goal-posts, and doing it

retroactively. It's little wonder the municipalities now do not trust

this government. They know it's flying by the seat of its pants —

bringing in legislation to cover up errors that were made in previous

legislation, and so on.

Section 1 is made retroactive to

April 1980. I can't understand the reason for this provision; maybe the

minister can tell us what it is. When a municipality is undertaking

sewerage work, surveys have to be made, engineering has to be done. If

it is done by outside help, tenders have to be called, and it could be

well over a year before the construction is started and up to two years

in completion. During that period work is being done on the project. A

number of these projects will have started after April 1980 and be well

on their way, and moneys paid out by the municipalities for the

process. Budgeting could be based on the financial goal-posts that are

set at the time of the making. Now the rules are changed, and the

financial strain due to the retroactivity of this bill could be very

difficult for a municipality to manage. I don't know if that's the

purpose of the retroactivity, but I hope the minister will tell us what

his ideas are in this regard.

This bill makes any long-term

planning very difficult. The municipalities will not know whether they

have to budget for the total cost of the sewerage system they're

intending to proceed with, and which is needed for a number of reasons,

not the least being a health reason. They will not know whether or not

there will be some money coming from above — a grant from the

provincial government to assist them. If they play their cards right

and are not critical of the government, maybe a grant will come. If

not, they can expect to finance the project on their own tax base.

The

minister wants to be a great white father. He wants to be able to

sprinkle his largess over the municipalities as he sees fit and where

he wants. He believes that this type of legislation does two things of

benefit to the government. It will keep the municipalities in line and

reduce criticism of government action. The second reason is that it

will be a great political plus for the minister and members of his

government to pass out the cheques from time to time to any favoured

municipality that may be getting a grant from this government. They'll

be bribed with their own money. It will be sprinkled from above to the

deserving municipalities. If it

[ Page 7336 ]

follows the principle of the lottery funds, we know where the preferred municipalities may be located.

This

minister is great at ribbon-cutting, and this government is good at

turning sod, but they're very slow after the ceremonies to follow up

with any action whatsoever.

Let's look at the situation in

communities of less than 5,000 population. The minister has said that

by the removing of welfare costs the local taxpayers will benefit.

That's true: local taxpayers will benefit by the total removal of the

costs of welfare. However, this bill has the financial effect of

causing, in most municipalities, probably double the burden on the

municipality as an expense compared to the relief they get from the

removal of the welfare costs. I don't think the municipality worries

too much whether a transfer of payments or whatever is called welfare

or some other term. What concerns the municipality is the net result to

that particular municipality. In most cases in this province today,

they will find that they are being given with one hand about half what

is being taken away with the other, so the argument on welfare costs

has very little merit.

Towns of under 5,000 population pay

no welfare charges in any event. Those small communities not only don't

get any benefits; all they get is the hammer. A number of those

communities throughout the interior of this province, on Vancouver

Island and in non-urban areas, are going to suffer severely from this

legislation. They're going to have to go to the expense, for a variety

of reasons, of building sewerage systems. Some of them have been

started. Some of them have been planned for a period of up to two

years, and are in the process of being completed. Now they find they're

not going to get financing from their government. With a very limited

tax base, these small towns will have serious problems in trying, at

the last minute, to finance on their own small tax base the costs of

sewage disposal systems, due to the changing of the legislation which

we see before us today.

What do we hear from the Social

Credit rural members in this House? We don't hear very much. There's no

mention of what's going to happen to those small towns in the interior.

There are the communities of Clinton, Greenwood, Pouce Coupe, and a

variety of different communities that paid no welfare charges and are

now being asked to finance the total costs of these projects. This is

not restraint at all. This is merely transferring the responsibility

for financing to local taxation, instead of through general taxation by

the provincial government. The provincial government will have money in

its pockets; the municipalities, once again, will have the short end of

the stick.

During this session we have before us a number of

bills which take authority, funds, power and decision-making from local

governments in order to centralize government in Victoria —

centralizing its power and its purse in Victoria. Less and less

responsibility and jurisdiction are given to local areas. The

government is bent on a program of centralization. The most distressing

part of the whole process, of the direction taken by this government,

is the animosity being created between the provincial and municipal

governments. I'm suggesting that the government should not be using

municipalities as whipping boys. This was the situation during the

previous Social Credit administration in the sixties. The enemy was the

municipality. During my term as Minister of Municipal Affairs I was

happy to patch up the relationship between the municipal and provincial

governments, to give the municipalities greater authority, and relieve

them of some of their tax burden, as in the sewerage bill, the

administration of justice bill and so on.

In my opinion,

when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was Minister of

Municipal Affairs, he also made an effort to cooperate with the

municipalities. But the present minister is going back to the pre-1972

era — the Dan Campbell syndrome — in battling with the municipalities

and blaming them for everything. I want to warn the government that

holding a big stick over municipalities is counterproductive. All you

have to do is look at history to determine what the results will be.

When

our government amended the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act.... There

had been

an act in place before 1972. However, there was very little

call on the act because very few municipalities could come within the

terms of the act. Provincial government payments out of that act

averaged $5 million a year. Basically, those payments went to small

communities. We brought in new legislation which allowed every

municipality to take advantage of this act. There was great excitement

in the municipalities, because they could then proceed with the

necessary sewerage projects, which had been needed for years. As a

result, sewerage facilities were built throughout the province.

When

the amendments to the bill were brought into the House, they were met

with great enthusiasm by the Social Credit members, who were then in

opposition. I want to quote the present Minister of Transportation

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) in debate on second reading, May 2, 1974:

would agree with the minister that, hopefully, it will give assistance

on sewage facilities to some municipalities. But I think there are a

few things" — he was getting negative — "that will probably happen that

will nullify the good parts of this bill. I would think, Mr. Speaker,

that this would probably help smaller municipalities, whatever happens,

but for the medium-sized and larger I'm very much doubtful of the

assistance.

Well, it turned out that the Minister of

Transportation was wrong. The large municipalities used this

legislation to a great degree. The provincial treasury paid millions of

dollars to assist them and the local taxpayers to put in the needed

facilities.

What did the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) say?

Mr.

Speaker, I stand to support this legislation as well. It's not often

that I stand in my place and say that I think that the government has

introduced good legislation.

This bill is being done away with.

fact, this legislation is going to make it possible for the community

of Invermere to proceed with the installation of sewers and treatment

facilities in that municipality. They have done some examination and

feasibility studies on the projected cost in that community as to what

it would cost to install sewers, and it was prohibitive and it was

unrealistic.

This is the act that you're doing away with.

This is the act that you're killing by this legislation. I'm sure you

can't have the support of these members who spoke at the time and found

out how helpful this bill was to so many of their smaller communities

and to the larger communities. The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs.

Jordan) spoke on that bill. She was very negative. However, she did

say: "I think this is a very distressing situation because the bill, if

it is as we believe it is, is a good bill. The minister should be

complimented for bringing it in and meeting a much-known need in

British Columbia." That's what she said, and I couldn't help but agree

with her. She spoke for quite some time — she was quite lengthy in her

speeches in those days. The rest of it was mainly negative so I won't

read it. I'm sure you wouldn't want to listen to that. What she was

forecasting didn't come about anyway. This was in 1974. We still had a

little breath

[ Page 7337 ]

left

to do some more good deeds and to bring in good legislation for the

people of this province to help distribute the wealth of this province

among local governments and the provincial government. We didn't grab

it all; we gave it out.

For the financial health of this

province, there has to be a fair sharing of the funds raised within

this province. I think this government sometimes forgets that the

people who are financing the provincial government are the same people

who are financing the federal government and also financing the school

boards and the municipal governments. There has to be a fair sharing of

finances. In my opinion, this government is doing away with two bills

that recognize this principle of sharing.

It's not a

question of saving money. The taxpayers are going to pay the same

amount, but it's going to be a larger amount in that the money is all

going to come from local taxation. This government is going in reverse

— back to the days of the sixties.

This situation today is

very similar to the situation in 1969. I want to quote from the

Province of January 31, 1969, which carried a report on a very fine

speech that was made in this House. It's just coincidental that it was

my maiden speech:

"Lorimer said that the government must strengthen the municipal

financial position and beef up regional districts to make them work. He further

recommended work in cooperation with the municipalities or regional districts

of the Fraser Valley in connection with a full transportation study. He then

said that the government is starving municipalities, and anytime a gift is given

to a municipality, it gives additional financial responsibility to more than

take care of the grant given."

Now that's exactly the same situation that we have before us today.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Did you say that?

MR. LORIMER:

I said that in 1969. In 1972, things improved. There was a new

government, a government that recognized the need to have our

municipalities financially stable. And I said earlier, Mr. Minister of

Finance, that I thought you were trying to do the same thing. But the

disaster came with the new minister's appointment and directions from

cabinet since that time to starve the municipalities to save the moneys

for the province and to save the power and the purse for the provincial

government.

There's no difference in the attitude of the

provincial government toward the municipalities today than there was in

the days of Dan Campbell — no difference whatever. As a result, we are

unable to support this legislation in any way.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I've kept some notes of the various questions asked and observations

made. I hope I may answer them because obviously the members opposite

may have read the bill, as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr.

Lorimer) said, but they're certainly not very familiar with the

workings of the revenue-sharing program as it has been over the years

and as it will continue to be.

The statement made by the

member for Burnaby-Willingdon was that this sets history back about ten

years. I should hope it doesn't, because really ten years takes us back

to about the beginning of the NDP, and talk about a history that was

disastrous for the province, not only for its people but for those that

were affected directly in municipal affairs! I can assure you, Mr.

Member, those were the years. I know; I was was there. I can recall as

well, Mr. Speaker, the day of the embarrassment to many of us at the

UBCM in 1975, when the Premier of that day, the Leader of the

Opposition now, came with that minister, the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon, and stood before that assembly, and there was a

loud boo through the whole of the audience. It was a disaster; they had

to walk off the stage, because they couldn't take the heat. I can

remember that day. Was that the government, was that the group that was

treating municipalities so well? It was a disaster that certainly I

don't want to go back to, and in no way will this legislation take us

back to those years beginning about 1972.

If we're talking

about the worth of the program, Mr. Speaker, and if we're talking about

the effect of changing the sewerage assistance program from what it was

to what's proposed in the legislation, let's again think back to 1975

when the total worth of that sewerage assistance program was about $5

million. What is it today, Mr. Speaker? It's $50 million — a

considerable change. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon should certainly

have researched his material a whole lot more than simply reading a

two-page bill. There is much more to be done. You must look at the

nature, the workings of the program as it was and as it's intended to

continue.

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon said — and I

take objection to this: "This Ministry of Municipal Affairs with its

minister has not done much for municipalities, not like in the days

that we were there." I can recall those days that they were there. Let

me compare again, Mr. Speaker, because I think it brings the whole of

this program and the proposed change into proper perspective.

Certainly

that ministry under the then minister, the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon, was involved in transit, but how much involvement

did the municipalities have? Were they a part of it through the Urban

Transit Authority? No, it was off the comer of somebody's desk in that

ministry. Where was the municipal involvement? And what were they

contributing? The total contribution for transit and for grants to

municipal governments was only about a quarter of what those grants are

today, because this government, through proper management, has made

available those revenues that have made the municipalities prosper.

was the mayor of Surrey in those days, and no matter how hard we tried

we could not keep the mill rate down to what it is today, because that

municipality, like every other municipality, has had the benefit of

this revenue-sharing program.

Mr. Speaker, talk about

comparing! It almost embarrasses me to get involved in debate with that

member who mentioned what they did then and what's happening now: those

few old buses that came from Saskatoon compared with $700 million worth

of ALRT — how can you begin to compare, Mr. Member? Shame on you! Shame

on the NDP! I'm so disappointed.

I understand, Mr. Speaker,

that again there aren't too many members from the opposition in the

House today. When I gave my introductory remarks, which might have been

of tremendous assistance to them, last Monday.... It's

reported in the paper — and I really don't know, its accuracy, but the

writer is Allen Garr who's often written well about the NDP — that they

were all playing golf. I certainly wish they had been here when I gave

my introductory re-

[ Page 7338 ]

marks,

but they were out on the golf course. Shame on the NDP — out on the

golf course when they should be working in the House! Turf them out,

Mr. Speaker.

If that's the subject the member wanted to

raise, I could go on comparing the ministry then to what it is today,

and I could bring in the way they brought in the Islands Trust and the

ALR and all of these things. But I won't get into that, because I want

to concentrate as much as possible on the various points raised by

individual members in speaking to the bill. If I can set the record

straight, I hope they'll have a better understanding of what's being

proposed by this government, and then they can go back to their

constituencies and give the straight and honest goods. Certainly I'm

very grateful that when certain changes were introduced back in 1974 by

the then NDP government, members on this side spoke in support of it.

Why not? If you bring in a good piece of legislation, that's the right

thing to do. But I have yet to hear much positiveness from those

members; they must always be so negative. It's disappointing, to say

the least.

I was also a little upset by the remarks made by

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who is the Municipal

Affairs critic. I would really appreciate a good critic, because I

think our democratic system requires that we not only have effective

members in government but hopefully that we have effective members in

opposition, and I look to that member for constructive criticism. He is

the most negative person I've come across yet. I would give of my time

to meet with that member on a regular basis to make him a little more

aware of the workings not only of government but of the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs, in the hope that it could possibly assist him to do

a little better than he does in his role as critic.

That

particular member stood up and said: "This is fraud. It's misleading.

Read the budget speech. It's bad. It has not been presented fairly or

honestly." I ask: what is more fair? I understand and appreciate that

people will read things into whatever is presented, or they'll perhaps

present it in their way. But if you readjust two little paragraphs from

what was said in the budget speech and then read from some of the

statements made by that member's running mate the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson), you'll see what is more misleading or more

fraudulent. I would suggest that the statements made in the budget

speech by the Minister of Finance are certainly very descriptive of the

proposals that were put forth and which we're now debating.

MR. SPEAKER: These have to do with Bill 15.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Bill 15.

The

speech reads in part: "In particular, the Revenue Sharing Fund, which

was introduced in 1977 by this government to provide an assured and

predictable method of sharing provincial revenue with local government,

will be broadened to include several additional programs. The sewerage

assistance program, the utility underground program and the restructure

assistance program will be financed now from the Revenue Sharing Fund."

Isn't that honest? That certainly says it the way it is and the way

it's proposed. Why couldn't the members read or understand this simple

statement made during the debate of the budget speech?

It goes on to say in the second paragraph: "Most significantly, the requirement

that local government pay a share of social welfare costs will be phased out

over two years. This will result in an important cost saving to local governments.

For example, the saving to local governments will be $26.6 million in 1982-83

alone. In the future these costs will continue to be carried by the senior levels

of government." What is more honest than that? It phases out the program.

The saving is there this year. The balance of it will be phased out next year,

and then there will be no cost for social assistance to municipalities. It goes

on: "With this program consolidation it now will be possible to reduce

the diverse and costly financial interaction between the province and local

government. Program efficiency and service to the taxpayer will be improved."

This was the

section or portion that the first member for Victoria was referring

to when he said, "fraud, misleading, dishonest, it isn't there."

It's there, if he could just read it twice and understand. It's right

there in this budget document.

(Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

Talk about misleading. Let's see what the second member for Victoria had to say. For pages and pages in Hansard

of April 29, 1982, morning sitting, he goes on about the pollution of

the waters around Vancouver Island — how you soon won't be able to

swim; how the beaches will be polluted; and how things are going from

bad to worse because of all these outfalls and the sewage getting into

the ocean. For pages and pages, he talks about pollution. He says: "The

government is wiping out this act — the Sewerage Assistance Act — so

that if Victoria or the Capital Regional District, in their wisdom,

decide to call upon the provincial government to enter into a sharing

formula to provide treatment facilities here so that we could have

clean water — we could have bathing in our adjacent marine waters —

that request would be competing directly out of general revenue with

northeast coal and the other monumental projects that the Social Credit

government has underway. Talk about misleading dishonesty. Talk about

fraud. That certainly is a good example for anyone reading this....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. minister. The minister is not referring to any hon.

member in his remarks, I'm sure; but if he is, would he clear that at

this time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm only reading from the budget speech and from Hansard

of April 29, and I certainly do not intend to call a member a fraud.

But it's terribly misleading for a person who may later pickup this

material and receive from it, particularly should they be encouraged by

members of the opposition, the impression that somehow these changes

will eliminate the benefits available to them from the revenue-sharing

program when it comes to providing sewerage facilities. I think it's

shameful, and I'm hoping that somehow this may be corrected in one way

or another by the hon. member so that it doesn't leave the wrong

impression, because the moneys for the revenue sharing programs are

moneys provided out of general revenues. They are provided according to

a formula which was established by government and which is again in

effect this year as it was previous to this year. That program went

from $210 million last year to $235 million this year. So it is not

competing with the great projects that the government is involved in

otherwise. I don't want to debate, as the member did, the various

projects which are of such benefit to British Columbians, such as

northeast coal, B.C. Place, ALRT and all of the many other great and

wonderful projects which will assist our economy. I don't want to bring

these projects into

[ Page 7339 ]

debate,

but these projects are not competing with the sewerage assistance

program. I wanted to set the record straight on that, Mr. Speaker, and

I'm hoping that those who receive Hansard from the first member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and read in their copy the speech of April 29

also take the trouble to read the response that is being provided

today, because otherwise they could be left with a wrong impression.

The

one thing that has certainly been raised in this debate over and over

by a number of members.... And I certainly appreciate the comments made

by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), the member for North Peace

River (Mr. Brummet) and others, when they referred to the need for

restraint. I can honestly say that I sincerely wish that our economy,

the Canadian economy and the world economy were such that we might have

more moneys flowing into the revenues of the province so that we had

more to share and more to provide municipalities. I wish that were so,

but that isn't the situation.

Restraint is certainly called

for by all levels of government, because, as the first member for

Victoria unfortunately overlooked, the source of all moneys is the

taxpayers.

MR. COCKE: You're driving out the young Socreds.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

They're a great group, hon. member, and they're hard workers for the

party. They understand and appreciate free enterprise and they look to

a wonderful future in British Columbia under a free enterprise

government. No socialism. I'm sure they'll agree.

The first

member for Victoria, the critic for Municipal Affairs, who

unfortunately failed badly on this particular bill, did mention that

another alderman in Victoria.... I forget his name now. He's

certainly fairly active in the political party from which the first

member for Victoria comes. I'm looking for his name. I did mark it down

here someplace. I could contact him and see if possibly he has any

suggestions. The first member for Victoria went on to say that this

particular alderman in Victoria had said taxes would have to increase

by 19 percent, I believe — some ridiculous amount. That was the NDP

alderman who serves on the Victoria council and who works with the

first member for Victoria in the Legislature.

MR. HALL: Blencoe.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Yes, Alderman Blencoe; that's his name. Thank you. This council member

said taxes will have to increase by something like 19 percent because

of the change in the revenue-sharing program. In 1981, revenue-sharing

was up about 22 or 23 percent from 1980; 1980, it was up about 19 or 20

percent from 1979; 1979, it was up about 15 or 18 percent from 1978.

For the whole of that period, revenue-sharing was up about 400 percent

from 1975. But did that council member for Victoria, Mr. Blencoe, ever

say during those increases that they were going to reduce taxes? I

can't recall it once. While the province has given them more and more

money, they've still had to increase taxes. The moment there is a

change in the program and there should be some reduction, they talk

about tax increases. That's all the NDP know. That's their whole

thinking — to raise taxes. That's all you ever hear.

I would ask the member for Victoria to ask his friend on Victoria council if

possibly they couldn't sit down and responsibly do as we're having to

do: look at those budgets, pare where you can, bring a little restraint into

play and ask yourself how much the taxpayers can really afford. Are we not,

as elected individuals representing the people in our communities or constituencies,

responsible to them, and should we not keep in mind that there's a limit

to what they can pay in taxes? I would suggest that's the question you ought

to ask your friend on council, hon. member.

colleague, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), is a fine fellow

and I'm glad he's in the House, but I want to straighten out a few

things for him. Maybe my colleague got his information from some

members of council, but I don't believe this to be the council

position. If it is, I think they should be asked the same question:

where are the priorities? My colleague for Surrey said: "Oh, they'll

have to cut out parks programs, a swimming pool, a firehall, a library;

all of these programs will have to be cut out." The one thing he didn't

mention was their proposed $5-million municipal addition to house more

bureaucracy. Why can't they cut out that particular extension? Maybe

that's where the priority ought to be. I don't believe for a moment

they need to cut back on that library, that parks program, that

firehall or swimming pool in Surrey. I don't believe for one moment

those programs need to be cut out. Surrey, because of the tremendous

assist they'll receive from this provincial government in the various

programs, is relatively well off, and much better off than during those

NDP years in 1973-75. It's not just what's presented; it's how it's

presented. Again we've heard from other members, and once more the

figures ought to be compared.

The member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked about the North Cowichan loss of

revenue. We should keep in mind, in discussing this revenue-sharing

program, that there's a large fund of $235 million, $99 million of

which this year is unconditional. Last year $165 million was

unconditional, granted. In

part it's because of the changes through the

folding in of the sewerage assistance program. As well, in part, it's

because of the increased moneys required to fund the various water

projects which have always been a part of the revenue-sharing program.

No mention has been made of that, as I recall.

In the North

Cowichan program, unconditional moneys in 1981 were $1,195,390.

There's a $30,000 basic grant, for a total of $1,225,390. In 1982,

for this coming year the unconditional is $769,557; the saving in the

social-assistance charges is $364,200; the basic grant is $35,835.

This makes a total of $1,169,592 or about $55,000 or 0.05 percent

less than what it was in 1981. It's a whole lot different from the

figure that was mentioned by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, because

they're not taking into account the savings from the social-assistance

program when they're presenting it their way. The member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) said: "What about all those little

communities in the north? Where are those members from the north

speaking on behalf of the little communities?" He says they didn't pay

welfare and now they're going to suffer the cost of removal of the

welfare. In effect, that was the story, but he failed to mention that

the basic grant program has been changed to take that into account and

to give those smaller communities a larger basic grant. The whole of

the story wasn't told.

Then there's the figure from the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). Let me find the slip from Comox. We

certainly had the member for Comox.... I'll find Mackenzie here — I

see he's in the House. The member for Mackenzie (Mr.

[ Page 7340 ]

Lockstead)

said the program being cut from $162 million to $99 million will

seriously cut into sewer and water programs. That's nonsense, Mr.

Speaker. How can he get those two mixed up? The reduction in the

unconditional grants from $162 million to $99 million is not a cut into

the sewer and water programs. Those are other programs over and above,

as a part of the whole revenue-sharing program; and to suggest, as he

did, that the reduction in the unconditional will cut into those two

programs only shows that he doesn't understand the program at all. He

says that Powell River lost $228,000 on account of this change. Again,

Mr. Speaker, he obviously hadn't gone to the trouble of figuring it

out, because the details are here — if he wants them, I'll give them to

him. For Powell River, in particular, the change in 1981 was $999,775.

In 1982 — adding together those three programs — it comes to $905, 238.

If you deduct $905,000 from $999,000, there's no way you could possibly

end up with $228,000, unless you were the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) — and that doesn't say much for his teacher. I'm afraid his

teacher is somewhat ashamed of him.

I'm pleased to see the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is in the House so that I can

give him the figure as well. The unconditional for New Westminster for

1981 was $2,715,926. Add to that the basic grant of $30,000 and you

have a total of $2,745,926. In 1982 the unconditional was $1,784,526. Add to that the saving because of the removal of social

assistance, and you've got an additional $771,000. The basic grant is

$32,448 and the total is $2, 87,974. Mr. Speaker, the reduction in

the whole of that program in a year of restraint for the whole of New

Westminster is about....

MR. COCKE: Half a million dollars.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: About $200,000. As a matter of fact, it's less than $200,000.

MR. COCKE: You're spacy.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that member for New Westminster obviously attended school with the member for Mackenzie.

I'm

sorry that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) isn't in the House

today because the member is playing golf.... No, I don't think so.

The member for Nanaimo obviously has a busy day now with the income

tax. All accounting firms are rather busy around April 30, so I'm sure

that isn't the case — he's not playing golf. But, Mr. Speaker, the

member for Nanaimo went into some detail about how these programs would

affect the industry, commerce and the people of his constituency.

Again, the Nanaimo figures certainly aren't what they were made out to

be, but I think it should be mentioned as well that this particular

revenue sharing program — its highways program, its water-assistance

portion — have been a tremendous help to the city of Nanaimo. I would

suspect that the member for Nanaimo, who is also involved with the

Commonwealth or NDP Hotel — whatever the name of it is — should be

grateful that the underground wiring program might be of some

assistance to them. Possibly they'll be turning to city council to have

some of those wires buried underground to serve that hotel, and city

council will in turn be coming here. So the program will continue to

assist business and industry in all communities, including Nanaimo.

was waiting for the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to come in,

because she was quite right about a mistake I made with respect to the

changes in the percentages for the social assistance program. She's

just come through the door. In 1971 the government then reduced the

percentages from 20 percent to 15 percent, and in 1974 the NDP

government reduced it from 15 percent to 10 percent. I'll tell you,

hon. member, that it was not intended in any way to be misleading, but

it has to be remembered that 1974 was the year of the $100 million

overrun. If you recall, that's when even though the percentage charge

to municipalities came down, the per capita charges to municipalities

for social assistance went skyrocketing. The NDP social assistance

program was totally out of control — a complete disaster and one the

people of British Columbia will probably never forget. That was the

change and that was the year, which is why the percentages

unfortunately got lost in the magnitude of the figures. The hon. leader

of the NDP will recall that year. It was terribly embarrassing for him

then as it must be now, so I'll make no more mention of that $100

million overrun. In any case, it was supposedly a clerical mistake.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) was critical about

too much time being spent by the ministry, the minister and the government in

ribbon-cutting and sod-turning. Well, I don't apologize for that. I wish

we could have a lot more ribbon-cutting and sod-turning. That certainly is indicative

of the tremendous growth that we've experienced in British Columbia. It's

too bad they didn't have some sod-turnings during those NDP years. There

weren't any sod-turnings or ribbon cuttings; it was a disaster.

But,

Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish that somehow the economy in the whole of

the country and British Columbia will again start to put more moneys

into the revenue-sharing program, because as the revenues increase to

the province, so does the revenue increase for the revenue-sharing

program. These changes, certainly at first — it is showing, and I have

said this right along — have a negative impact on the unconditional

part of the whole of the revenue-sharing program, but there is also a

real benefit which has not been mentioned by the members of the

opposition. I would ask the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) to

listen carefully and keep this in mind. The sewerage assistance program

has been rising considerably in the last several years because the

federal government discontinued their $25 million community assistance

program. It was only in effect for two years and was then used as a

reduction off the top from the various sewer projects throughout the

province. When that discontinued, it directly impacted on the sewerage

assistance program.

Similarly the high percentages of

interest charged by the financial institutions are bad, but we're stuck

with them until perhaps there is a change of attitude at the federal

levels both in Ottawa and Washington. It's a fact of life and it's

having a tremendous impact on all sectors of the economy. It similarly

has had its effect on the sewerage assistance program. Historically,

however, the percentage increase in the sewerage assistance program has

been considerably less than the percentage increase in the social

assistance charges to municipalities. In the long haul, the interest

rates will come down for the sewerage assistance programs with the

complete removal of the welfare program as a burden on municipalities.

the long haul, as we had predicted earlier, not only will sewerage

assistance come down as a portion of the Revenue Sharing Fund, but,

with the welfare removed, the moneys left

[ Page 7341 ]

for

municipalities to provide their various programs will be better and

more than what they have been under the program during the last several

years. That has been excellent. In effect the program is an

improvement, but we agree there has to be some change in the interest

rates before we will see much of that improvement take effect in the

sewerage assistance portion of the Revenue Sharing Fund.

These

are not negative changes. These are positive changes. I think these are

changes that will also make local government much more accountable. The

sewerage assistance program, the water program and the road improvement

program are all properly something that local government should be

involved with and over which they should have some say, and into which

they should have and can have some input. The welfare program, however,

was not something you could directly relate to municipalities because

they had no

part in the decision-making that led to the charge for that

welfare program. The municipalities have, over the years, continually

called for the removal of that welfare program. It has now been

accomplished, or will be accomplished in total this time next year, and

that's a commendable change. I'm sure responsible people in local

government will agree that this will make the process of local

government more accountable in the end, and will lead to more

decision-making in local government, wherever they may be in the

province.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Richmond

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 15, Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to move second

reading of Bill 28, Compensation Stabilization Act, to explain it to

hon. members to the extent that I am able and, of course, to speak in

support of it.

May I first outline the government's

rationale for introducing the legislation at this time. I will then

discuss the operation of the Compensation Stabilization Act itself. I

believe it is vitally important from the outset for this House and for

the people of British Columbia to have a clear understanding of the

reasons for the government's decision to introduce a bill of this

nature in the spring of 1982. Through the winter and early this year

the provincial government was faced with a situation which I described

at length in earlier remarks: a rapidly deteriorating economic

situation, the main elements of which were generated outside and

therefore beyond the control of this province. In Ottawa late last year

the federal government introduced a damaging budget, and then at the

beginning of 1982, at the first ministers' conference on the economy,

it provided what I think most observers would say was relatively little

constructive leadership. Abroad — that is, away from Canada and the

United States — the economies of the developed countries were clearly

in disarray. The key American export market was particularly depressed.

this atmosphere of uncertainty the government of British Columbia was

faced with the task of shaping a budget and keeping the province's

economy on course. The decision was made that whatever else might be

done and could be done, the government had to ensure that its own house

was in order. Government spending had to be controlled so that as much

as possible of the province's financial resources could be freed for

maintaining people services in a period of economic downturn, and also

give us the opportunity to create employment. In practical terms, this

meant restricting public-sector expenditure on the one hand, while

stabilizing public-sector compensation on the other.

So, Mr.

Speaker, as all hon. members will know, on February 18 of this year the

Premier announced a two pronged restraint on government programs. The

first aspect of that program is a 12 percent upper limit on increases

in public-sector expenditure in fiscal 1982-83. The second aspect is

the compensation stabilization program, the subject of the bill now

before us for second reading.

Bill 28 is designed to capture

the essence of the promise made by the Premier of the province of

British Columbia on that day, February 18, that the wage restraint

program would not interfere with free collective bargaining. This is

accomplished by the design of the enforcement of the restraint. The

purpose of the act is to differentiate between the guidelines in

part 2

and the regulations in

part 3. The guidelines are voluntary, while the

regulations are mandatory. The message is very clearly as follows: jump

safely or be pushed; it is a matter of choice. If the two sides

involved choose to jump safely and follow the guidelines, then they

will find a safe landing and nothing will happen to them. If they

ignore the guidelines, then of necessity they will be pushed into the

regulations and the consequences could be serious, because the

regulations are more stringent and could apply for more than 24 months.

The

bill offers voluntary restraint, with compulsion only if necessary.

Therefore the enforcement contemplated is flexible. It reflects the

reality of the marketplace. Collective

[ Page 7342 ]

bargaining

will continue under Bill 28. The negotiation process requires room in

which to move. If rigid barriers prevent options from being explored,

voluntary agreements will not be made. Flexibility is an essential to

the life of the negotiation, and particularly in this legislation. Bill

28 is designed to give life to the negotiation process. The two

separate paths of

part 2 and

part 3 provide flexibility because the

guidelines are voluntary. The law does not encourage

self-administration of the guidelines by the parties affected. The

result will be a healthy climate for negotiation in the public sector

of this province.

In describing Bill 28, perhaps the title

itself deserves some comment. The bill establishes a stabilization

program, not a program with strict numerical limits. The stabilization

program is short-term in nature and deliberately flexible in its

operation. Based on the experience of earlier attempts to control

compensation increases, an emphasis has been placed on

self-administration, and the continued freedom of the parties concerned

to bargain collectively. A description of the program is perhaps the

easiest way this afternoon of illustrating these features.

The

program applies to the public sector only and is designed to ensure

that all public-sector employees are affected comparably. Generally

speaking, public-sector employees will be subject to the program for 24

consecutive months. As I intend to point out later, there may be some

exceptions to this rule, but essentially employees will be in the

program for only two years: a limited period of time. In addition, the

program will deal with groups of employees only and not to employees as

individuals. The effect of this is to leave room for flexibility in

determining the increases in compensation for particular identifiable

employees. So although a group's average allowable increase might be in

the range of 10 percent, some members of that group — such as those at

the lower pay levels — could receive more than that figure, while

others might receive less.

The composition of these groups

will be straightforward: existing collective bargaining units will

stand as groups. Non-unionized employees will be formed into separate

groups according to occupation, their ranking, or other reasonable

criteria.

I think that one particular group merits

particular mention: the executive. This group — made up of chief

executive officers and some senior managers in the public service —

will have their compensation frozen. The situation of the members of

this group will be studied, and a special set of guidelines will be

issued quite soon.

To return to the program itself, it has a

limited two-year cycle and it applies only to groups of public-sector

employees. The program itself is to be administered by a commissioner,

Mr. Ed Peck. Mr. Peck is well known and respected for his

professionalism in the labour relations community. He is to operate as

the head of an independent agency.

This last point should be

emphasized, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Peck's independence will be real; it must

be, or a program such as this will not work. The individual cases dealt

with by Mr. Peck will be subject to the usual restrictions of

administrative law. Otherwise he will be free to do his job as he sees

fit and according to the letter and spirit of this legislation and its

following guidelines and regulations. There is to be no question of

interference in his conduct of individual cases which go before him.

Mr.

Peck's agency will have a small staff, the chief officers of which are

named by title in the bill. This legislation will not give birth to

another cumbersome, bureaucratic apparatus. It mandates a lean

administration, committed to a minimum of red tape and to timely

decisions. Again, given the nature of labour relations, prompt rulings

are absolutely vital, or the whole process could grind to a halt.

Public-sector

employers will be required to file two categories of information with

the commissioner. The first is a registration form which indicates when

groups within a public-sector organization will enter the program and

who these groups are made up of. The question of entry into the program

perhaps merits further comment. For groups consisting of bargaining

units, the date of entry into the program will be the day following the

expiry date of their collective agreement. For groups not composed of a

bargaining unit, the date of entry will generally be determined by the

traditional timing of annual increases. For example, the usual time for

increases for management-excluded personnel in the public sector is

October; groups under this heading would therefore enter the program at

that particular point. This registration procedure will allow the

commissioner to judge his future workload and to keep track of groups

as they enter the program.

May I submit to hon. members that

it's important to remember that at this initial entrance point, all

employers and employees in the public sector are formulating their

compensation plans under the voluntary self-administering guidelines.

Bargaining in good faith must be carried out. The range of increase for

salary and benefit settlement is 8 percent to 14 percent total

compensation. Many other issues are, as always, negotiable. To claim

that bargaining cannot take place is, with respect, misinformed or

political posturing. The public-sector employer community cannot hide

behind the guidelines, claiming that the government has restricted

collective bargaining. The guidelines, while not legally enforceable,

are meaningful and realistic targets that will achieve stability within

the public sector.

The unionized public-sector employees who

ignore the guidelines are flouting the reality of the private sector in

the face of their less fortunate, unemployed unionized neighbours. Both

parties to the negotiations have a stake in ensuring their side is well

represented and their case well made within the voluntary spirit of

realistic collective bargaining.

The second type of

information the commissioner will receive from employers will be known

as compensation plans. The employer will file one such compensation

plan for each group as it enters the program. The easiest example here

is a bargaining unit. Within 30 days of reaching a settlement with such

units, the employer will forward to the commissioner a description of

the terms of the collective agreement, including all forms of pay,

benefits and perks agreed to. This description will constitute the

compensation plan for that group of employees. The same filing process

will be followed for groups not composed of a bargaining unit. Clearly,

depending on their contracts, some groups will enter the program in its

first year, while others will not enter until year two. Ultimately,

however, all groups of employees will have compensation plans filed

with the commissioner and, since each group will be in the program for

two years, each will have two compensation plans filed, unless — and I

think that this is a reasonable situation for most groups to strive

towards — a settlement is reached involving a two-year agreement. Under

those circumstances only one compensation plan would be necessary.

[ Page 7343 ]

Even

before a compensation plan is filed, the commissioner or his staff may

have been assisting the parties to reach an agreement or, if you will,

establish a plan which falls within the compensation guidelines. Here

is another key point, Mr. Speaker: at this first stage, the

acceptability of a compensation plan will be judged by the compensation

guidelines. This document will be issued by the executive council, and

will, speaking in the strict sense, have no force in law. The

guidelines will nonetheless contain the main features already announced

in compensation bulletin No. 3, which was dated March 18. The

guidelines will indicate when groups enter the program, how long they

remain in it and under what conditions. They include the percentage

limits beyond which increases in total compensation should not go.

the guideline stage these limits will have three components: a basic

income-protection factor of 10 percent; an experience-adjustment factor

of 2 percent, which could be added to or subtracted from that figure;

and a special- circumstances factor, which is a possible additional 2

percent. So the commissioner will determine whether the increase

proposed in a compensation plan conforms to the limit provided for in

the guidelines. The commissioner may work with the parties to assist

them in meeting those guidelines. As part of this effort, he may even

authorize his compensation mediator to suggest an acceptable settlement

in writing. It should be noted, however, that the onus lies on the

parties to work out an acceptable solution within the parameters of the

guidelines, which are written so as to give the parties and the

commissioner considerable leeway in trying to reach a successful

conclusion.

TO the extent that parties work constructively

within the framework of the guidelines, a considerable degree of

freedom to bargain collectively will in fact be retained. The whole

point of developing a two-step process in the first place is to provide

scope for the parties to reach agreement without government

interference. In order to provide an incentive for the parties to take

full advantage of this option, however, an alternative and frankly a

more stringent system has been established.

This is similar

to the federal procedure under the anti-inflation program. While under

that program there was only one set of rules, there were two

enforcement mechanisms. Under the AIB some leeway was allowed. However,

when a case was referred to the administrator, the rules were far more

stringent. The parties recognized this, and they avoided the rigid

application of the rules by the administrator to the extent — I think

this is significant — that he heard only 350 cases out of 100,000 filed

with the Anti-Inflation Board.

To repeat, while here in

British Columbia there is a single agency, there are two sets of rules,

the first involving voluntary self-administration and the second

involving enforceable regulatory compliance. The choice is for the

parties concerned to make. Let's assume that, despite all the efforts

of the parties and the commissioner, the compensation plan still does

not, in the commissioner's judgment, conform to the guidelines. At that

point, the commissioner may decide that the plan should be made subject

to the compensation regulations. These regulations will be issued by

the Lieutenant-Governor-In-Council. They will have the full force of

law and will be drafted in a more precise and formal fashion than the

guidelines. The degree of flexibility allowed to the commissioner under

the regulations will be significantly reduced. Such practices as

cost-accounting may be used in determining a plan's acceptability under

those regulations.

Beyond this broad differentiation, the

regulations will have three specific features distinguishing them from

the guidelines. First, under the regulations, the experience-adjustment

factor will be applied differently. Under the guidelines, the 2 percent

available under this heading could be applied in both years in which a

group is in the program. If a compensation plan falls under the

regulations in the first year a group is in the program, the 2 percent

will not be available in the second year. The only option for this

factor in the second year will be for a maximum of 2 percent to be

subtracted from the allowable increase. The difficulty of measuring,

with legal precision, this type of exception is one reason for applying

this factor to the guidelines, and not to the regulations.

The

second major difference concerns the length of time that a group will

be subject to the program. Under the regulations, the commissioner will

have the power to extend that time. If, in the commissioner's view,

circumstances warrant, he could keep a compensation plan, subject to

the regulations, for up to 24 months after the date of his order.

Since the commissioner's orders in this regard would probably be made

several months after the original filing date of a compensation plan,

this could leave a group subject to the program for longer than the

normal two years.

Thirdly, the regulations differ from the

guidelines because they give the commissioner the power to roll back

settlements which in the end the parties cannot make conform. Such

rollbacks, in common with all the commissioner's decisions, are

fileable with the court and enforceable as a court order.

this point I want to emphasize that the government hopes and expects

that the measures called for under the regulations side of this

legislation will not be utilized in the majority of cases. Certainly,

as I said a few minutes ago, the federal experience in AIB suggests

that the voluntary side of the process will dispose of most of the

compensation plans filed. To the degree that this occurs, the

compensation stabilization program will be self-administering. Once a

compensation plan falls under the regulations, however, it should be

kept in mind that the commissioner will have to administer the law in

all respects.

A word also about how the existing system of

arbitration fits into the compensation stabilization program. A

parallel procedure will govern arbitration awards, with arbitrators

having to, if you will, rearbitrate until the awards meet the

guidelines. The arbitrator will retain the power to act while an award

is subject to the guidelines. The arbitrator will lose the power to act

if an award falls under the regulations.

Finally, I'd like

to deal with one criticism which has arisen in connection with this

bill and which I consider to be inaccurate. Some have argued that this

legislation is flawed by the fact that no numerical limits are included

in the text of the bill itself. The charge is made that somehow this

leaves the program open to government, with the inference that

government would somehow find it expedient to reduce the limit unfairly

and with no justification or qualification. The suggestion is further

made that, because the numerical limits do not appear in the bill, this

House is being asked to buy a pig in a poke. I would make several

points with regard to this claim, and I would like to do so with

emphasis.

First, the fact that percentage limits will appear

only in regulations is entirely in keeping with past practice in this

and in other jurisdictions. The federal legislation setting up its

anti-inflation program, for example, contained no guideline numbers;

these were put into the regulations.

[ Page 7344 ]

Secondly,

the percentage figures for the program were announced by the Premier on

February 18 and remain the same in both the guidelines and the

regulations. The key figure in that respect is the 10 percent

income-protection factor.

Thirdly, if numerical limits were

put in, the whole procedural approach it contains would be impossible.

The key to the program is the two-stage process with its unenforceable

guidelines. Once numbers appear in the bill the guidelines lose their

informal, flexible character.

Fourth, this government has

nothing to hide from the people of British Columbia about the

compensation stabilization program. It is therefore incorrect to

suggest that this government would alter the program beyond

recognition. It was announced earlier this year, and this bill follows

that announcement. It would be at variance with this government's

demonstrable efforts to consult the affected public widely on this

program. It is an issue which has no substance.

For members and for those who observe this House, I would refer to the lead editorial in the Globe and Mail

of Friday, April 30, which identifies the problems being experienced

very severely now in the province of Quebec. I refer to that province

making reference in no way to the party which forms the government but

rather to the province as a whole. I think that in a few paragraphs the

editorial says volumes about what this government in British Columbia

has found it necessary to do. Fortunately we have been able to do it

sufficiently early.

I want to conclude the opening of this

debate by pointing out that this program is completely fair to all

those involved, but most importantly it is particularly fair to the

taxpayers of British Columbia, many of whom are today temporarily

unemployed. I look forward to the debate. I am sure it will be lengthy.

I move second reading of Bill 28.

MR. BARRETT: May I

say at the outset that I have been honoured by my colleagues to be the

designated speaker on this bill. I think you should know that right at

the outset.

I have a great deal to say about this bill, but

just some observations to open with. I do not understand why this bill

has been brought forward in the House on this day when the Premier of

the province is not here to listen to the debate. It is the decision of

the government to call a bill on any given day. The government knew

when it intended to call this bill. The government told the opposition

that it would call the bill today; we were prepared for the bill. But

we are disappointed that the government made a decision to call the

opening of this debate on a day the Premier would not be here to listen.

Having

known the Premier's penchant for running and hiding from issues, it is

noteworthy that the government has had since February 18, when the

Premier made the announcement on behalf of the Minister of Finance as

to the nature of this bill.... Until today the government saw fit

not to give any details, beyond the Premier's announcement, as to what

is happening and who the bill affects. I want to make some other

comments about that.

I find it interesting, and I think the

record should show, that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich),

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Smith) are not in their seats, yet all three have made

statements about this legislation before and during the sitting of the

House.

I think that the working men and women of this

province, the municipal elected officials and the ordinary taxpayers of

this province should know that not only are the Minister of Labour, the

Minister of Health and the Minister of Education not here, but the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who will allow

dictatorial decisions to be made under this bill, is not here either.

As a matter of fact, what they've done is to let the Minister of

Finance take the heat for legislation that has absolutely nothing to do

with him.

Now why do I say that they're allowing the

Minister of Finance to take the heat over this bill? Because, Mr.

Speaker, he's the only one that they could get to bring this bill in

and present it without knowing what he's talking about. If you listen

to his opening comments, anybody who had any doubt at all about whether

or not he knew what he was talking about might as well forget it. What

did he say? These are his words, Mr. Speaker. He said: "This

legislation is telling the workers to jump safely or be pushed. Free

collective bargaining is not going to be interfered with as long as you

do it our way."

What you do is you jump his way in free

collective bargaining. You have the freedom to jump or not to jump.

Mumbo-jumbo. This bill is nothing more than compulsory wage control

designed for one sector of the community. The designing of that wage

control has nothing to do with economics, nothing to do with finance,

but everything to do with politics. That's all it is: it's a political

bill. Who wrote that junk for you, through you, Mr. Speaker? Who wrote

that mumbo-jumbo junk that you read?

Mr. Speaker, he said

that this has nothing to do with labour and nothing to do with

collective bargaining. Well, if it's got nothing to do with collective

bargaining, why do they have sections in there saying, "if you don't

bargain to this end, we'll interfere"? I want to read you some other

quotes. He said: "This gives life-blood to the negotiations." That's

what he said. I wrote it down as I heard it. He said: "This bill gives

life-blood to the negotiations." Well, I want to tell you that my

colleague here behind me from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who has had

many year's experience in labour management negotiations, says that

it's embalming fluid. That's what it is.

This is how they

give life-blood to free collective bargaining. What they're going to

say is this: "Now you go in the room, management, and you go in the

room, labour, and you hammer out a deal. Let's make a deal. If we don't

like your deal then we're going to tell you what your deal should be —

but we don't want to interfere in the free collective bargaining

process." Hogwash! This kind of reasoning was used by Mussolini when he

took over all collective bargaining in Italy and said that they had the

right to bargain as long as they did it in his framework. You don't

look like Mussolini.

MR. HOWARD: He just thinks like him.

MR. BARRETT:

No, there is absolutely no comparison between Mussolini and the

Minister of Finance. They were both a little bit short of hair. But,

Mr. Speaker, do you mean to tell me that the Minister of Finance really

believed the illogic of his statements here in the opening of that

bill? Is he trying to peddle the line that free collective bargaining

is alive today under this legislation as long as you do it our way?

Hypocrisy! Absolute hypocrisy for political purposes!

Why

did this bill come into being? We should first have some historical

context. This bill came into being because a year ago the government

decided to embark upon a political

[ Page 7345 ]

strategy

to get itself elected. The classic political strategy in getting itself

re-elected was first of all to find a group that it could pick on in

society and hope that all of society will mobilize against them as long

as it doesn't affect the mainstream. Last year, Mr. Speaker, who did

they have in mind? They had the doctors — the doctors were the test

pilots of this legislation. Nothing personal. It's like the Mafia.

"Nothing personal — it's just your turn in the barrel." Last year it

was the doctors' turn. What did they do? They said: "This is how we're

going to handle you doctors. This is how we're going to handle the

negotiations." Then they brought in that bill. You recall it, Mr.

Speaker. They later withdrew it on arbitration and the whole cockamamie

scheme they'd drawn up. The Minister of Health was in the House during

those debates, wasn't he? He attended every word, didn't he, Mr.

Speaker? Oh, yes, he was the knight in shining armour. He was fighting

the doctors. He was saving the patients from the vicious pickpocketing

by the doctors.

What's happened in a year? Since he lost

against the doctors, he's decided to take on the patients. That's

what's happened in a year. Within one year he has now left the doctors

alone and he's attacking the sick of British Columbia through this

legislation.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, remember that the sick are a minority group. I wouldn't be a bit

surprised if the Minister of Health came in with a bill outlawing

anybody who became ill. It's against the law to be sick in British

Columbia. That's their next move, because if you're sick you're going

ask for compensation out of your payments in terms of services.

Why

did they pick on the Minister of Finance to do this? Why was he left

alone? Where is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)? When the

Minister of Finance starts lecturing this House about free collective

bargaining — this doesn't impede free collective bargaining — has he

actually put that question to the Minister of Labour? Have you turned

to the Minister of Labour and said: "By the way, I'm bringing in this

bill today that restricts the amount the union members can negotiate

for. Could you tell me, if I put this restriction on management and

labour, does that interfere with free collective bargaining?" "Oh,"

says the Minister of Labour, "would you restate the question so I can

understand it?" So he says to the Minister of Labour: "I'm bringing in

this bill, and this bill says that you can bargain any way you want;

but if you don't bargain my way in the end, I'm going to impose a

settlement. Can you tell me if this in any way infringes on free

collective bargaining?" Guess what the Minister of Labour did about it.

He took off. The Minister of Labour would be too embarrassed to answer

that question. Don't come in here and peddle the guff that this bill is

somehow in complete sympathy with free collective bargaining. This bill

is a dictatorial political statement for political purposes. Because it

didn't work on the doctors last year, you've decided to pick on civil

servants and public-sector employees — it's their turn in the barrel.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I watch with interest. The Premier announced this on

February 18, with three flags behind him. It was a three-flag-rating press conference.

Doug Heal has them on the basis of how many flags — it's one-star, two star,

three-star. This required a three-flag performance. There he was on television,

which was going all over British Columbia on February 18 with the three-flag

performance prescribed by Doug Heal. We don't know how many rehearsals.

Put the makeup on. The presentation was that something big was going to be announced

on February 18. Little did we know that it wasn't another lottery; little

did we know that it wasn't going to be the opening of the House; little

did we know that it wasn't going to be an election. It was going to be this

program of "restraint." How much did it cost to rehearse the Premier

for the program?

When

you talk about restraint, the amount of money spent out of the

Premier's office in an attempt to refurbish his image and his logic is

fantastic. You think it's been limited to 8 percent, 10 percent or 12

percent? You couldn't limit a $1 million budget on a 10 percent basis

to improve his image. What did he do that night? I want to read some of

the words that he said. It's really interesting.

Before I do

that I want to go back to another comment made by the minister. He said

that Mr. Peck is going to have all the authority under this

legislation. That's what you said, Mr. Minister. On page 6 of the bill,

part 1, all of the authority rests in the cabinet, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; and Peck will do as he's told by the

cabinet. That's what's going to happen. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me

how the Minister of Finance can stand up in this House and look

solemnly at the opposition and announce that Mr. Peck is going to have

all the authority and then dismiss page 6 of the bill that delegates

all the authority to Mr. Peck from the executive council? I'm convinced

that the one saving grace about giving the Minister of Finance this

bill is that he doesn't know what he's talking about and that allows

him to read that

preamble with a straight face. You've never been

involved in labour-management negotiations, and you've been allowed to

carry the can for this bill by saying that Mr. Peck has all the

authority. You explain to us, if he's got all the authority, what

section 17 is doing in this bill. Make a note of it when you wind up,

and read your notes. You said Mr. Peck has all the authority. I want

you to make a note of it too, Mr. Speaker, because you'll recall that I

asked this question about the compensation regulations. All of this is

a political front, using Peck as the front man. Behind it, all the

political manoeuvring will go on in the cabinet and all those

regulations will be left flexible.

All you're doing is

playing politics with the lives of people who work for public bodies.

Do people who work for public bodies deserve less in terms of rights?

Are they to be kicked around by this government, entirely for political

purposes? Certainly the doctors were last year. This year it's their

turn.

Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that the bill was called

at approximately 4:15 p.m., and the Minister of Labour, the Minister of

Health and the Minister of Education are still not here. This bill

vitally affects all those services that they provide. Are they

embarrassed? Are they ashamed? Are they hiding too?

Every

newspaper in this province has outlined the details of the cuts in the

hospital services because of this bill. Where is the Minister of

Health? The trade union movement of this province is concerned about

the assault on free collective bargaining. Where is the Minister of

Labour? Schools are closing and teachers and parents all over this

province are concerned about the impact of this bill on education.

Where is the Minister of Education? We know where the Premier is. This

bill was called by the government on a day that the Premier wouldn't be

here. It was all designed — not for debate in this House, not for

serious consideration — as a result of a public poll that says: "When

in trouble kick public

[ Page 7346 ]

employees."

That is all it is. "Last year we tried to kick the doctors. It didn't

work, so this year we're going to kick government employees, municipal

employees and teachers. That is our target this year. But we don't mean

to play politics with them personally; it's just that it is their turn

in the barrel."

Did you hear what the minister said about

segregating groups within the trade union movement? He said: "We don't

want to interfere with collective bargaining, but there may be some

groups within the bargaining unit who we want to treat differently."

Can you imagine an employer coming into collective bargaining

negotiations and being told what the ground rules are by an outsider —

saying that you can deal separately with groups within the bargaining

unit directly and interfere with it. "Oh, but this is not an

interference with collective bargaining." I submit to you, Mr. Speaker,

that the Minister of Finance doesn't even know what free collective

bargaining means. The Premier said that night: "Most inflation is

caused internally and the large part of the inflationary factor is

excessive government spending, particularly when government spends more

than it earns, goes into the capital market and borrows for current

services." So who is he blaming that on? He is blaming that on the

employees. I'll come back to that in a minute when I ask the minister

to explain the $134 million overrun. Who caused that? The taxpayers?

The government employees? The teachers? Hospital workers? It was caused

by the government itself, which hasn't given a full accounting of the

whole budget.

The Premier said at his press conference: "We

believe that not all inflation is caused by external markets." I can

tell you that we know who has caused the inflation here in British

Columbia. It is the government, known as Social Credit and represented

by the minister that actually went out and supported the tight-money

policy and papers of 1978 delivered at federal-provincial conferences

and supported the fiscal policy.

I want to read an editorial. The minister didn't quote his editorial, I'll read an editorial here from the Times-Colonist . The Times-Colonist

is represented here in the press gallery. It is a radical, left-wing

organization that masquerades its radical left-wing line by its

columnist who writes right-wing stories. But it is all a front because

we've now seen an exposure of that plot. We know a party member when we

see one. On February 24, 1982, the Times-Colonist cut out the

doubletalk. This editorial was written before they heard the Minister

of Finance speak. Listen to what they say in the Times-Colonist . I think it is even distributed in the minister's own constituency.

The

time now, Mr. Speaker, is 18 minutes to five. Let the record show that

the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health and the Minister of

Education are not in their seats and yet this legislation affects their

ministries more than any others in this House.

The editorial reads:

"When

Premier Bennett imposed wage and spending controls throughout the

provincial public service last week, he said: 'Collective bargaining in

the public sector will take place in the normal manner.' Now Finance

Minister Hugh Curtis has repeated this nonsense, claiming the

government is still committed to the practice of free collective

bargaining in the public sector. Who are they trying to kid? The

obvious truth is that no employer can unilaterally announce wage limits

and still retain bargaining in any traditional sense. Why does the

government pretend it can? If it has the courage of its convictions, it

does not need to employ doubletalk."

I quote again from the Times-Colonist . It asked this question:

"The

obvious truth is that no employer can unilaterally announce wage limits

and still retain bargaining in any traditional sense. Why does the

government pretend it can? If it has the courage of its convictions, it

doesn't need to employ doubletalk." That's what he gave us at the

opening — doubletalk.

Here in the Prince George Citizen is an editorial from a constituency represented by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich).

MR. LORIMER: Who? Where is he?

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Labour. He doesn't want to stick around for this. He knows better.

Look at how this editorial starts out. I should read this part to you. Tuesday, February 16, 1982.

"It

hasn't been recorded how Labour minister Jack Heinrich reacted to

Premier Bill Bennett's warning to government employees to settle for

modest wage increases or face the consequences of massive layoffs, but

he would be entitled to a moan and a groan of despair. What his boss

said last week was a bald threat, a clear violation of the collective

bargaining process which the Labour minister has always been quick to

defend."

Where is he now, when this editorial asks these questions?

"The Premier's warning endangered the process and places him in a position where he can be accused of blackmail."

Mr. Speaker, this appeared in the public press as an opinion. They said that the Premier could be accused of blackmail.

"However

well-intentioned his remarks, it is unfortunate that he has only helped

worsen an already uneasy labour climate in B.C. It's time Jack Heinrich

had a few friendly words of advice for his boss."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I find that very interesting. No response to that editorial.

Mr. Speaker, the government says: "Trust us." They want to be believed

about what they're doing on this legislation, they want to be believed about

their fiscal responsibility, and they want to be believed about what is going

on. This bill is nothing but bunkum designed for political purposes, and the

minister has been left alone in the House with one erstwhile friend to sit next

to him while the rest of the cabinet, except for two in the corner, have taken

off for the day. Now he's going to be left by the biggest spender of all.

He's getting ready to go.

I'm

glad that minister is here, because while the government says it has

tight control in terms of fiscal restraint and says in this bill that

it wants to be more accountable to the public in terms of expending

public funds, the Minister of Finance, who has given this bill, gave

the minister who is leaving now $45 million for northeast coal, without

any explanation, one week before the end of the fiscal year. That's

right. They've got money to throw around without any explanation, but

no money to deal with health problems, education problems or proper

labour-management negotiations.

[ Page 7347 ]

Mr.

Speaker, I want to refer you to page 40 of the budget speech from the

same Minister of Finance. "Long-term borrowing forecast for the British

Columbia Railway Co. will be used to fund interim borrowing during

1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line."

This is the minister who is giving us the doubletalk today about this

legislation. Here's a statement in his speech saying that they're going

to go into debt. In spite of this government's argument about long-term

debt leading to inflation, they're going to go into massive debt on the

Tumbler Ridge line.

The minister was asked in this House:

"I've a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the government

decided that the long-term borrowing forecast for B.C. Railway will be

used to fund interim borrowing in '82-83 for construction of the

Tumbler branch line?" Let's get it straight. Let's set this scene so we

understand what we're dealing with. We're dealing with the minister, if

he is to be believed, who tells us that long-term financing leads to

inflation. In his report to this House he says that there will be

long-term borrowing for B.C. Rail. And when he was asked if there will

be long-term borrowing for B.C. Rail, this was his answer: "There are a

number of matters with respect to funding of B.C. Rail activities which

are still in the development stage insofar as the government's

concerned. I'm afraid I cannot assist the member further on that

particular point; it is a matter of developing policy."

Mr.

Speaker, the minister delivered a speech in this House, and the

appendix in it, in terms of fiscal matters related to this bill, states

clearly that long-term borrowing, which is a policy that this

government is opposed to because it adds to inflation.... He claims

that long-term borrowing....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I don't know what Frank said, but you listen to what you said.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor. I'm

hoping the Leader of the Opposition will relate this to the bill

shortly.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, these comments are

related to the Minister of Finance, who has brought in a labour bill

and given as the reason fiscal responsibility in the public sector.

We're asked to believe this minister who talks about fiscal

responsibility in the public sector. In his budget speech he said:

"Long-term borrowing by the British Columbia Railway will take place

for the Tumbler Ridge line"; and when that statement was read back to

him as a question in this House, he said that policy hadn't been

decided yet.

Mr. Speaker, you're asking us to trust a

minister who doesn't even back up his own words in the budget speech?

The public and the employees of this province are supposed to believe

the minister, who gives conflicting statements about a simple matter

when a statement from his own speech is read back to him? Very clearly

the minister's best defence is that he really doesn't know what's going

on in his own department and in terms of financing here in British

Columbia. Why did you make conflicting statements? Why did you tell us

that inflation is fed by long-term debt? Why did you tell us in your

budget speech that long-term debt will be okayed on the B.C. Railway,

and then when you were asked about it you said you hadn't made up your

mind yet? I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance

doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to these kinds of

issues.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The minister

has been told to carry the can for this bill. The minister has been

told that it's his responsibility to go in there with this

public-employee-bashing bill. The polls say they're the group to kick

around. They're the group to cut back on. I'm going to give you some

examples of those cutbacks; but no civil servant, public employee or

hospital worker should take any of this personally. It has nothing to

do with them personally. It is only politics, that's all. Don't take it

personally if you can't pay your mortgage or if you've lost your free

collective bargaining or if you don't have a job any more. It's nothing

personal; it's just politics. And we want you to vote for us, even

though we've driven a nail right through you.

I can see them

now. Can you see them on the campaign trail, asking for the votes of

these workers because they've defended them from themselves? The

minister said here that this is not an imposition on collective

bargaining. What he is really saying is: wage control if necessary but

not necessarily wage control. Where have we heard that before?

want to read some comments from Mr. John Crispo. Mr. Crispo is a member

of the faculty of management studies at the University of Toronto. He

is on leave as the Chevron visiting professor of management at Simon

Fraser University. This is what he says about controls — and he ought

to know: "If anything, controls and guidelines are used to distract

public attention from the very real and tough fiscal and monetary

measures that are usually required." That's true. The illustration I've

given of distracting people's attention is the amount of money poured

up against the wall in northeast coal, without any explanation to this

province. In one week $45 million slipped through the cracks of a

government warrant, without any explanation to this House. So what do

you do to distract them? Well, controls and guidelines are used to

distract public attention from the very real and tough fiscal and

monetary measures that are usually required.

In this

respect, these policies might well be described as an exercise in

political fraud. The fraud is made worse by the public having been

conned into believing that such policies can actually solve

inflationary problems; those are the words of Mr. Crispo. Controls

invariably result in an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare,

presided over by gnomes and mandarins with little or no experience in

the world of reality. Controls can also be counted upon to create a

monumental make-work project for the cadre of accountants, consultants

and lawyers who man both sides of the control barricades. But the worst

thing about controls is that they deal with symptoms rather than the

sources of the problem. "Meanwhile the public will doubtless be treated

to more futile gestures in the form of controls and guidelines, " he

says later on, "in the hope that these will fool the people into

believing that their governments are serious about inflation, when in

fact they are not."

This government has done much to fuel inflation with its mania for irresponsible megaprojects, designs for edifice

[ Page 7348 ]

complexes,

with no return of jobs for the people of British Columbia. And when

they got caught spending and squandering tens of millions of dollars on

public projects that have no payback for the people of British

Columbia, they decided to punish the very taxpayers who provided the

money in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the jobs from

northeast coal that this government is squandering money on are going

to Japan and Belgium. You tell them up there in Fort St. John how happy

you are that Korea is going to build two ships to carry the coal to

Japan. You tell the unemployed up there in Fort St. John how happy you

are that Belgium is going to build two ships to carry B.C. coal to

Japan. You tell them up in Fort St. John that this $21 million contract

for the stacker reclaimer has gone to Japan to keep them employed. You

tell them up in Fort St. John about the multimillion-dollar contract to

go to France to employ French workers to build a conveyor belt. You

tell them how this government closed down the Railwest car plant so it

can buy cars from Quebec and Ontario and northwest United States. The

policy that should be in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that the

government ask the Belgians, the Koreans, the Japanese and the

Americans to pay welfare and unemployment insurance here in B.C.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill is nothing more than a political smoke-screen based

on hypocrisy. It is nothing more than a political bill designed to pick

on a group of employees to take the heat off their own actions or

inactions.

Mr. Speaker, it is now three minutes to five. The

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is not in his seat. The Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is not in his seat. The Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is not in his seat, and neither is the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). This bill is

designed to interfere in collective bargaining, and the Minister of

Labour is not in his seat. This bill will cut hospital budgets, and the

Minist