1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7429 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Computer services to hospitals. Mr. Cocke –– 7429

Possible conflict of interest of VGH board member. Mr. Cocke –– 7429

Directive on Site C project. Mrs. Wallace –– 7429

Gloucester property. Mrs. Wallace –– 7430

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 7430

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading

Mrs. Wallace –– 7431

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 7433

Mr. Nicolson –– 7435

Mr. Richmond –– 7439

Mr. Leggatt –– 7441

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7445

Mr. Mitchell –– 7448

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House a former alderman and dear friend from Surrey, Mr. Hugh Buckley.

MR. KING:

In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, we have Mr. and Mrs. Don MacLeod

visiting from the village of Anglemont on beautiful Shuswap Lake, along

with their friends, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Gerlitz of the city of Calgary.

I would ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to them.

MR. STRACHAN:

Today our caucus met with some very interesting people, and we had a

productive and edifying session. Would the House please welcome, from

the Pacific region of the Canadian Federation of Students, Miss Donna

Morgan, Mr. Mike Miller and Mr. Tim Winkelman.

On a personal

note, would the House please welcome, from the great riding of Prince

George South, Mrs. Leslie Bircham and her daughter Sarah.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'd ask all members of the House to extend a very cordial and warm

welcome to Dr. and Mrs. Leo Friesen, from the great riding of

Vancouver–Point Grey. I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that they're the

parents of Miss Jane Friesen, one of our Legislative interns.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, students from Sutherland Junior Secondary High School in

North Vancouver are in our galleries today, and I would like hon.

members to make them welcome.

MR. RICHMOND: It gives

me great pleasure and pride to introduce to this House my eldest son,

Craig, who is sitting in Mr. Speaker's gallery with his mother. I would

ask the House to make them both welcome.

MR. RITCHIE:

It's indeed my pleasure to introduce to the House today three very good

friends from the central Fraser Valley who are true free-enterprisers.

Mr. Larry Ned is president of the employee-owned company known as Sumas

Clay Products, and former chief of the Upper Sumas Indian band. Hugh

Kelly is councillor with the Upper Sumas Indian Band and the extruder

operator with Sumas Clay Products — a key position. We also have the

production foreman of Sumas Clay Products, Mr. Ray Silver. Ray is also

a director of that board. This is an employee-owned company that was

started up by the Upper Sumas Indian Band — true, hard-working

free-enterprisers. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two gentlemen from the B.C.

Central Credit Union, Mr. Richard McAlary and Mr. Thomas. I would ask

the House to bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

COMPUTER SERVICES TO HOSPITALS

MR. COCKE:

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

principal director of Computech Consulting Canada Ltd. and a director

of information systems for the Ministry of Health recently made a

presentation to senior hospital officials for the creation of an

integrated computer system or hospital system centre. Does the creation

of a new bureaucratic entity to provide computer services to hospitals

reflect the minister's policy?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr.

Speaker, I take great pleasure in taking the question on notice to

permit me the opportunity of asking senior staff to interpret the

question.

POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

OF VGH BOARD MEMBER

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a

new question to the minister who understands very few questions. Maybe

he will understand this question. In view of the fact that the first

target of the program I described is the Vancouver General Hospital,

did the minister take into consideration the possible conflict of

interest of appointing Mr. Hawkins to the Vancouver General Hospital

Board on February 5, 1982?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr.

Speaker, in that the member has reached conclusions I don't necessarily

agree with, I really don't think I can respond to that unless I wish to

accept his attitude of what the facts of the case may be.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, this is becoming more interesting all the time. Mr.

Hawkins's firm, Computech Consulting (Canada) Ltd., was only registered

in British Columbia five days prior to his appointment to the VGH

board. Can the minister tell the House how much Mr. Hawkins and his

company will benefit from the creation of the new hospital system

centre?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I can't advise the

member of any figures, but I'd be pleased to look into it. If there are

such figures or information available, I'll be pleased to bring them

back.

MR. COCKE: I have one final question. This is a

significant sum that I'm going to be talking about. Who authorized Mr.

Hawkins to offer $5.5 million over the next three years towards this

project at a meeting on April 19, 1982, to 16 major hospitals in this

province?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd be pleased to find out if that information is correct.

DIRECTIVE ON SITE C PROJECT

MRS. WALLACE:

My question is for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Has the

minister or any responsible official in his ministry ordered that his

staff be instructed not to express in public any opinion or comment

concerning B.C. Hydro's Site C project?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

That's a very interesting question. The answer is: no instructions have

been issued by the minister. I'm not aware of whether any instructions

have been

[ Page 7430 ]

issued

by senior personnel in the ministry. However, that doesn't fully answer

your question. For me to be able to determine whether instructions have

been issued by senior officials of the ministry, I will have to take

that portion of your question on notice and bring the answer back as

quickly as I possibly can.

MRS. WALLACE: Inasmuch as

I have in my hand a copy of a directive signed by Mr. D.T. Ross, whom

I'm sure the minister has heard of.... In view of the fact that the

directive says that no employee shall negate government policy and that

the persons concerned spoke against the Site C project, can the

minister tell me whether or not the government has already decided to

proceed with Site C development in spite of the fact that public

hearings are being held by the Public Utilities Commission? Are, in

fact, those hearings simply a façade?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MRS. WALLACE:

A final question to that minister. Does this gag order mean that all

civil servants, regardless of which department they are in, are now

prohibited from expressing their personal views on matters of public

interest in British Columbia?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not familiar with the document which the member for

Cowichan-Malahat is speaking from, and if she'd like to send me a copy

I'd like to look at it and respond in full measure, once I've had an

opportunity of digesting the full contents and the significance of

what's contained therein.

MRS. WALLACE: The document is on the way to the minister.

GLOUCESTER PROPERTY

MRS. WALLACE:

I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In order to clear

your name, and as a result of the statements made by the president of

the Fraser Valley branch of the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, has the

minister decided to table the transcript of the ELUC hearing relative

to the Gloucester property, together with all the related documentation?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

No, Mr. Speaker, the matter before ELUC doesn't come within the purview

of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It's under the chairmanship of

the Minister of Environment.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. In order to clear his colleague's name, is he prepared to file the document?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly glad I wasn't asked to clear my own on this particular issue, but the answer is no.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. Quintette Coal has decided to award a $45 million

contract to a French company — which I have difficulty pronouncing — called

Fives Cail Babcock for the conveyor belt to transport coal from the minesite

to the railhead on that project. Can the minister advise the House why the Canadian

bidder was refused and turned down in that very major part of the mine development?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: To answer the member's question, I would have to say that he is aware of information that I'm not aware of.

The

development of the mines in the northeast is in the hands of the

private sector. The government is not building the mines. The private

sector is putting $1.5 billion of their own money and the banks' money

into the development of the mines.

Sometimes I have to think

that these socialists are all over the map, like their friends in

Ottawa. One time they're against major projects, but when the major

projects are cancelled, they want them built and they want to tax the

taxpayers of Canada and British Columbia to put the money into the

mines. I don't know where they're at. They're all over the place. They

don't know whether they're for the project or against the project. They

don't know who they want to finance the project. One day they're

against it, and the next day they're doubly against it.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister doesn't mind being reminded that the

public are subsidizing this project with a billion and a half dollars.

I know the minister wants to look after the public's interest — I'm

sure he does — so we ought to know what is going on with the private

sector and what contracts are being awarded.

My question is

this, Mr. Speaker: in view of the fact that more than $300 million of

contracts have now been awarded to foreign companies in the northeast

coal project, can the minister advise why he failed to insert a clause

in the comprehensive agreement between the province and the companies

which will require those companies to let contracts to B.C. or Canadian

firms?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: First of all, Mr. Speaker,

in answer to the member's question, I'd like to state emphatically that

the taxpayers of British Columbia are not subsidizing the construction

of northeast. As a matter of fact, an independent report put out by one

of the most reputable accounting firms in North America says that

taxpayers of British Columbia — over the terms of that contract — will

not only receive all of the infrastructure money back, but will have a

surplus of $5.5 billion that they can use for services in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite have from time to time said that this

mine was not going to be profitable and that it was a poor venture. The

mining companies, Quintette particularly, are putting up $800 million

to provide jobs for British Columbians — that's not taxpayers' money.

want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if this government starts telling the

private sector how to run their business, and if it is unprofitable,

the private sector can go back to the government and say: "You told us

to do it this way. It's unprofitable, and you've got to buy us out at

great subsidy from the taxpayers of British Columbia." That's what they

want us to do — interfere with the private sector.

However,

I do want to say that of the $400 million worth of contracts that have

been let by the government, over 85 percent of those jobs and those

contracts have been let here in the province of British Columbia. It's

not like the Leader of the Opposition has said that British Columbians

aren't getting any benefits out of this project. All those contracts

going outside the country are because we don't have the expertise. I

want to tell you that with northeast coal coming on and southeast coal

booming, my department is working with the

[ Page

7431 ]

private sector to develop those products and that expertise so that we will

have those industries in British Columbia, because we are truly projecting British

Columbia into the coal markets of the world. In a century from now, with those

great projects progressing, we will have that expertise here in the province

of British Columbia and Canada so that we can indeed develop those projects.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam-Moody on a point of order.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I am being recognized for a further

question, but I know I was on my feet prior to the bell. I ask your

consideration in view of the fact that I was here and ready to ask the

minister whether he has guaranteed any of those companies the loans,

whether the minister is going to guarantee....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is out of order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

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 28.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE:

Before lunch I dealt briefly with some of the local problems that have

resulted in Cowichan-Malahat. I think the one that is most startling is

the way the restraint bill is affecting money-making projects

undertaken by local government. I cited the case in point of our

regional community centre, where we are being limited in the amount we

can spend in promoting various functions in that centre without any

regard for the amount of revenue that those functions generate in the

community as a result of those expenditures. That seems to me to be a

very unfair way to apply this piece of legislation. I note that at the

time I was discussing this, the Premier was in his place — he is no

longer with us — and was shaking his head, as if I were making some

incorrect statements. I would like to reiterate — and I have checked

this out over the lunch hour — that these instructions have been

received by the people responsible at the local level. They have been

received through Mr. Woodward, who is a very responsible civil servant

in a high place in this government's ministry. Certainly we have to

accept that as the way it's going to be interpreted: we cannot include

revenues when we are making our calculations. This is certainly very

unfair, because it's putting a direct damper on the economy by saying:

"No, you cannot go ahead and bring in good acts or good stars. You

cannot put up the Plexiglas so the Canucks can come here and practise.

You cannot do these things because they're too expensive. They're going

to exceed the 8, 10 or 12 percent" — or whatever it is that this

government finally decides to set down.

With that kind of

approach, it's really making it very difficult for us, because, as you

know, we're a forest-based industry and, as we all know, the forest

industry is not particularly lucrative at this time. So we have a lot

of unemployment, a lot of bankruptcies. I picked up my local paper the

other day, and a whole page was devoted to local bankruptcies. This is

the kind of thing that is happening. Here we have an opportunity to

generate some revenue and put a bit of impetus into the economy.

Because of this restraint program, we can't do it, because all they're

considering is the expenses.

I'm not going to repeat

anything more about that, but I did want to make that very clear and

get that firmly on the record, that that's what this is doing. It's not

just affecting Cowichan; it's affecting areas like Victoria and

Vancouver as well. So it does have a great deal of general importance

around the province.

We've mentioned many times on this side

of the House that what is really disturbing about this bill that we're

discussing is the fact that it has such a small amount of information

in it. I was interested in the editorial that was published in the Times-Colonist on April 19, just after the bill was dropped. It's headed: "The Cabinet is Cheating."

I think part of it should be read into the record. It says:

"The

idea down there at the Legislature is that the government writes its

policy plans into the bills, and then defends them publicly against

opposition criticism in the process of converting them from proposals

to laws."

Now that's what we're here for, Mr. Speaker, but it's very difficult to debate a bill that is so vague.

This

article goes on to say:

"The

debate portion of the process is intended to allow the rest of us to

make a judgment, with the help of the opposition, on the merits of the

government's plan. But it's also a painful part of the process for

government, because the members across the floor tend to be rather

shrill on discovering flaws — real or imagined — and debate frustrates

the government. As a result, politicians in power frequently try to

duck their obligation to explain and defend their decisions publicly.

"The

Bennett government provided a clearcut example of such a cop-out the

other day. It introduced Bill 28 — the Compensation Stabilization Act —

but with a singular gap in it: that gap will be filled by cabinet order

later. And thereby hangs the cop-out." I mentioned this morning, when I

was speaking, that in the background papers — or the bulletins or

whatever you call them — that have been issued in relation to this

bill, there was an assurance that regulations would be filed by March

31, and we still haven't seen them, Mr. Speaker. That's another cop-out.

I'll continue to read from the editorial:

"This

is the draft legislation that will give force to Premier Bennett's

restraint program. The Premier was quite specific when he legislated

the program, with some fanfare, on television. Civil servants would be

limited to an 8 to 14 percent pay increase this year. Bill 28 makes no

mention of these or other limits. The Minister of Finance defends this

omission by arguing that the government needs flexibility if

circumstances change."

And then the editorial writer says:

[ Page 7432 ]

"Don't you believe it. The government can always introduce

changes in the Legislature, and its majority assures these changes will be approved.

The gap in Bill 28 assures only one thing: cabinet, which includes two-thirds

of the government members, will be able to change the numbers in the restraint

program at any time in the future, without public debate."

This is closet government, Mr. Speaker; secrecy, no freedom of information.

And that's a major objection to this particular bill — the secrecy. It talks

about restraint. It talks about restraining municipalities, hospitals and school

districts. We've heard a lot of talk about those in various other areas

of debate in this Legislature. A

schedule at the back lists a great number of

companies that it's going to restrain — the British Columbia Building Corporation,

for example. The people who work for that company.... The janitors who clean

our building, the people who do the rather thankless, but very important, tasks

for our welfare — the people who have now turned up the heat; thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker; it's much more comfortable here — are all involved with

the B.C. Buildings Corporation. They are going to be told — told, not asked

— that they must take a certain wage settlement. They are going to be told by

a commissioner who can decide whether their wages are too much or too little,

whether there should be more in benefits or less in benefits, in spite of anything

that may be reached through the collective bargaining process. They are going

to be told that, and they are going to be limited, and that limit is going to

be 8 or 10 percent. That's for B.C. Buildings Corporation. At the same time

as the B.C. Buildings Corporation is being told that the people who work for

it — the little people, the people who do the jobs that keep us all comfortable

and happy — are going to be restrained, this government is paying out to B.C.

Buildings Corporation 20 percent more this year than last year. That's the

kind of restraint that the government is exercising as far as B.C. Buildings

Corporation is concerned. Yet the people who work there are being asked to stay

at 8 or 10 percent. But the government is quite happy, through the various ministries

that sit across the floor, to pay out to the B.C. Buildings Corporation 20 percent

more than last year. Is that fair? Is it fair to give them 20 percent more,

but then tell them that they can only give 8 or 10 percent more to their employees?

What kind of justice is that? It's Social Credit justice, apparently, Mr.

Speaker.

The

B.C. Ferry Corporation is another one. The people who work for B.C.

Ferries are going to be asked to keep their wage demands down. They

have the right to free collective bargaining, they tell us. That's

fine; they can go ahead and bargain; they can do anything they like;

they can come to a decision. But whatever they decide doesn't really

matter, because Mr. Peck is going to look at it, and Mr. Peck is going

to decide. I know Mr. Peck from way back. I remember the days when we

both worked for the B.C. Power Commission — that's a long time ago. You

know, I have great respect for Mr. Peck. He's being asked to make that

decision. It has nothing to do with collective bargaining. Those people

who work for B.C. Ferries are going to be asked to hold their wages

down. Yet we have the example of the Ministry of Tourism — I notice

that the Minister of Tourism is here increasing her budget for

professional and special services this year by a whopping 76 percent at

the same time as employees of B.C. Ferries — which is such an important

part of the tourist industry — are being asked to hold their wages down

to 8 or 10 percent. That's not fair, and that's not just. That's why I

oppose this bill.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Are you against the tourist industry, and the revenues and the jobs?

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm against 76 percent increases in special professional services —

probably obtained from outside this province. That has nothing

whatsoever to do with the success of the tourist industry here. That

minister has very little to do with the success of the tourist industry

in this province either.

The people who work in the British

Columbia Housing Management Commission are going to be asked to

restrain their wages, according to

schedule 13. School boards and

teachers are asked to cut back, along with the custodial workers,

secretaries and teachers' aides. We've heard evidence that those

lower-paid groups are receiving less than a single parent on welfare.

Their take-home pay is something less than $850 a month. Yet they're

being asked to restrain themselves. They say: "It's not a cutback." Mr.

Speaker, I submit to you that it is a cutback. If inflation is running

at 11 percent or 12 percent, and your salary is increasing only at 8

percent or 9 percent, that's a cutback, no matter how you cut it.

have this kind of treatment for those low-paid workers that do the

secretarial work in the public-school system — I know many of them and

the important role they play in the education of our children — yet we

have a minister who has increased his travel costs by 168 percent for

his office and for his ministry by 25 percent. These are the things

that make it so hard to swallow this kind of bill. It makes it

impossible to swallow, because obviously the people who have drafted

this bill have no intention whatsoever of curtailing their own

expenditures.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich),

for example, has increased his travel expenses by 69 percent. That's in

a budget that's been practically cut in half. That's at a time when the

employees who work for him — indirectly, on the Workers' Compensation

Board and the Labour Relations Board — are being asked, around this

province, to hold the line and practise restraint. Yet that same

minister has the gall to come before this Legislature and ask for an

increase of 69 percent in his travel expenses. That's not just, and

that's not fair.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is

asking for a 20 percent increase in advertising and publications.

That's a long way off 8 percent or 10 percent. It doesn't indicate to

me that there's any real intent for the government to tighten their

belt. The Attorney-General, as I said, is asking for a 20 percent

increase in his travel, but in his professional and special services

he's asking for a 33 percent increase. These are the kinds of

increases, one after the other, that the government is prepared to

present in its budget and estimates that will be coming before this

House very shortly. Yet in this bill we're being asked to tell the

workers in the public sector that they must restrain themselves to

something — presumably 8 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent or 14 percent.

We don't know. It could be — as was mentioned across the way — a zero

increase. I'm wondering if the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is

speaking for the government.

MR. KEMPF: Sit down. I'll talk some more.

MRS. WALLACE: Is that what they're really intending to do with this bill?

[ Page 7433 ]

MR. KEMPF: I'll talk some more.

MRS. WALLACE: Get in your own place.

that what the government is really intending to do with this bill — to

reduce it to no increase? I'm maintaining that if you reduce it to 8

percent or 10 percent, you're still cutting back because you're getting

less than inflation. But that member would have it held at no increase,

which is in effect — he's clapping and applauding — an 11 percent cut,

Mr. Member, as long as you have 11 percent inflation.

might be said that these increases are because there weren't enough

funds voted last year for those particular items. Certainly we saw a

lot of special warrants for those same items where ministers had

overexpended. But I think you have to compare the totals. If you look,

for example, at the public accounts for 1980-81, we find that the

ministers' travel for 1980-81 amounted to $410, 443. According to

public accounts, the ministers' travel for the preceding year, 1979-80,

was $219, 986. Do you know what that represents, Mr. Speaker? I took

time to calculate it. That's a 96 percent increase in travel expenses

between 1979-80 and 1980-81. On top of that, we're getting the kind of

expenses that came along in 1981-82, which were much, much higher than

those. If you will recall, we on this side of the House identified $85

million of excessive increases last year over the previous years in the

areas of travel, professional services, publicity and those kinds of

things. Now we have the kind of increases that I've been talking about:

percentage increases in various areas involving ministers. Yet those

same ministers are prepared to ask the public service that works for

the municipalities, the tourist industry, Highways, Mines, Energy,

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Provincial Secretary or the

Ministry of Finance to hold to 8 percent.

I've saved the

best for the last, Mr. Speaker, because I want to tell you what this

Minister of Finance is proposing to do for himself at the same time

he's proposing to cut or hold public employees to some undesignated

limits, which certainly will be no more than 8 percent, 10 percent or

12 percent. In the budget of the Ministry of Finance — the ministry

responsible for this bill — his advertising accounts for this year in

the estimates he has presented have increased by 24 percent. That's

double the maximum amount he's prepared to allow to the workers of this

province. The travel budget for his own office is up 25 percent, and

that's more than double. His ministry's travel budget is up 34 percent.

Those

are the increases he's prepared to bring into this House and ask us to

support and vote money for during his estimates, while at the same time

he's sponsoring this bill, which is going to limit the workers of this

province to an 8 percent or 10 percent increase or worse. His

professional service budget.... Would anyone care to guess how much

of an increase he's asking for professional services in the Ministry of

Finance this year? It's not 24 percent: it's more than that. That was

advertising. It's not 25 percent; it's more than that. That was travel

in his own office. It's not 34 percent; it's more than that.

Professional services in the Ministry of Finance are up by 71 percent

in this year's budget. That's restraint? That minister is sponsoring

this bill; that minister is asking the workers of this province to

curtail and cut back. Is it any wonder that we object to this bill? Is

it any wonder that the workers object to this bill?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

bill appoints a commissioner, as I've said. It doesn't say what the

guidelines are; we have no regulations. We know that there's going to

be restraint, but it's left entirely in the hands of the commissioner.

Well, no, not entirely, Mr. Speaker, because there's a little clause in

that bill which says that when the cards are down, in the final

decision, anything that Mr. Peck does is subject to the approval of the

cabinet, and that's who's going to really make the decisions. The

payments to the public employees of this province are going to be set

at the whim of the members of the cabinet. They can say to Mr. Peck:

"Well, we think that particular union is pretty militant. Maybe if we

cut them back a little more we might get them to strike, and then we

could have an election." You know it would cause a lot fury if they did

that.

That's what this bill allows, Mr. Speaker. It allows

political decisions in cabinet. It has nothing to do with fairness,

correctness or rightness. It's just like the land: all done behind

closed doors; decisions made by cabinet for political purpose. That's

what the bill really does. It puts Mr. Peck up as the front man, there

theoretically to make the decisions, but every one of those decisions

can be changed, adjusted or ordered by cabinet. That is how it is

really going to work. They are going to be political decisions. The

wages of the workers in this province are going to be decided behind

the closed doors of cabinet, and for political purposes. If they want

to cause friction between various unions or various groups of workers,

it can be done by a political decision behind closed doors. That's the

kind of program this is; that's the kind of bill this is. That is why I

am so entirely opposed to it.

The principle of restraint —

and certainly that is what we are talking about — was well covered in

an editorial in the Cowichan paper. It is entitled: "Somebody Please

Save Us From Those Restraints." I would like to read it:

"The

provincial government calls it a restraint program, and the way it is

being applied in the Cowichan Valley leaves no doubt at all that's

exactly what it is. Yes, it is a restraint program. It is going to

restrain every program that generates money, rather than just spends

taxpayers' money, in all our recreational facilities. It is going to

restrain the quality of entertainment that will be coming to our valley,

and it will restrain our children from receiving as good an education

as they have been receiving in recent years. But there is one thing

that this government has not been able to restrain. And that is bound

to be an overwhelming desire — at least from this constituency — to

bounce them out of office at the first opportunity."

HON. MR. FRASER:

I want to rise on Bill 28 and say, in case I forget, that I am speaking

in favour of it. It is a fine piece of legislation, and long overdue.

For the benefit of Hansard and other people I want to read off

the explanatory notes of what we are talking about; they are very

short. My research isn't newspaper clippings.

Bill 28 is called the Compensation Stabilization Act, and the explanatory notes in our material state this:

"This

act establishes the office of the Compensation Stabilization

Commissioner to administer the program of guidelines issued by the

executive council and the compensation regulations prescribed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This program is designed to provide:

(

a) voluntary and self-administering

[ Page 7434 ]

limitations on increases in compensation of public-sector

employees; and (

b) the enforcement of limitations prescribing limitations on

increases in compensation of public-sector employees for compensation plans

which are outside the voluntary guidelines."

That

is what we are talking about. As I said, I am very much in favour of

this bill. While I feel that the public employees have to be and will

be dealt with fairly and justly, the people who pay the bills, the

taxpayers — all the citizens of British Columbia — have to be

considered as well. Our Premier announced on television, on February

18, that this program was going into effect in our province. This bill

legalizes what he said at that time and puts it into law.

The

Leader of the Opposition is the master of twist in this province. I got

quite a kick out of him the other day when he said that this government

was carrying out orders from Ottawa. Let's face the facts of life: what

has Ottawa done about restraint? Absolutely nothing. What other

province in Canada has done anything about restraint? Absolutely none.

This bill provides the leadership that is lacking in the rest of this

country, and the Premier started it. All Canadians are fed up with

governments, at all levels, ripping off the taxpayer. This is one way

we'll have some controls.

MR. NICOLSON: And cabinet ministers.

AN HON. MEMBER: And MLAs.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'll come to that, Mr. Nuke, just wait; MLAs too, yes.

But

the master of twist, the Leader of the Opposition, says that we in this

government were directed by Ottawa. I want to tell you that they never

made a decision in their life in Ottawa, let alone one like this. They

haven't even passed the budget that they brought in in the House of

Commons last November — and they never will. They just misinform

Canadians all the time. It's all talk, no action. And it applies here.

This government has taken action with the leadership of our Premier

starting on February 18.

Another thing is that the

opposition over there get a great kick out of calling a lot of my good

friends and colleagues Liberals. They've been in opposition for so many

years that they lose track of time. I've got a lot of good friends in

public life, but in the executive council, yes, we've got people here

who used to be Liberals; I'm proud of them. They have been Social

Crediters since 1974 — eight years — and I know a lot of people who've

been in ten parties in eight years. I want to tell you why these

outstanding citizens in our province saw the light in 1974. In their

duty as public people they changed their political stripes solely to

get rid of the ravages of socialism because people in this province

were upset. I want to thank them publicly for the help they still give

for getting rid of socialism in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you remember when the NDP were responsible? They were called CCFers then.

HON. MR. FRASER: Right, those were the good old days when they were CCFers.

But

anyway, these fine outstanding people still serve this province as

Social Crediters, and, you know, they helped kick out the NDP

government we had from 1972 to 1975. The province of British Columbia

owes these people a lot for that alone. They left us $260 million in

debt. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, if they were still in power? God

forbid; the deficit would be $2,600,000.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to comment on that: the member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead) is talking about the indirect debt we have through

Crown corporations. I just say to him: I never saw the NDP government

do anything about decreasing the debt of B.C. Hydro or anything else;

they were all for that; they didn't do anything about it when they had

an opportunity. That's what they're talking about: they don't want any

powerlines or any more lights; they want us to go back to candles.

don't want to go too far back in history, but I have a couple more

comments. When they were the government they ran the mining industry

out of this country. The Minister of Mines they had — we still have one

of them here as an MLA — was the best Minister of Mines the Yukon ever

had. Investment stopped in this province. It's since been really

stepped up under this government, and the investment climate is changed.

Now

I want to deal again with the master of twist, the Leader of the

Opposition, making a grandiose speech about — of all things — our

government and our party being tied in with the federal Liberals, the

think we should actually look at some facts. Mr. Speaker, the facts of

life are that in the great nation of Canada we've had a Liberal

government for a long time, except for 10 or 11 months of the

Conservatives. I want to deal with the period of 1972 to 1974 in

Canada, when we had a minority Liberal government, and that was the

biggest period in the history of this country for giveaway of public

funds. I also want to tell you that that's where the idea of

nationalization of the oil industry came from, and I want to tell you

that the NDP federally supported that minority government right through

that time. Now what have we got in Canada? The biggest debt of any

citizen in the world, and we can't even pay the interest on it, thanks

to the NDP keeping them going from '72 to '74 with their votes. They

voted with them consistently.

The national energy policy was

also an idea of the socialists to nationalize energy. What has that

done in our country, Mr. Speaker? It hasn't created one gallon of oil,

but it has sure taken over a lot of service stations. That's socialism

at its very worst. Now we've got service stations all across the nation

that you and I and all the taxpayers paid for because of socialism fed

to the federal Liberals by the NDP. Just another example, I repeat, of

who is in bed with whom. When the NDP were the government of British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker, for your information, the Premier of this

province went back to Ottawa and offered to the national government our

oil and gas resources if they'd nationalize the oil and gas industry.

That happened, and they say that we're in bed with the federal

Liberals. That actually happened and is a matter of public record.

think we'll get a little closer to home now. I want to zero in on who

was in the parliament of Canada during the period 1972-74. Well, we

happen to have two of those members here in this Legislature. They're

not here, of course, but I want to deal with them. The present member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was an MP through this time and also the member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). They were federal NDP

[ Page 7435 ]

Members

of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, and if you want a little of their past I'll

give it to you. They're now provincial MLAs, but I wonder how they

voted in the minority government of 1972-74, when we had the biggest

giveaway ever of public funds and nationalization.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Tell us.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, these two members voted with the minority Liberal government, and

they're here today as provincial MLAs. The member for Coquitlam-Moody

was elected a federal MP in 1972, was re-elected in 1974, and he copped

out and didn't run in 1979. He was a federal NDP member from British

Columbia. You know, Mr. Speaker, why he didn't run federally in 1979?

Because he knew he couldn't get re-elected. We have these outstanding

Canadians right here across the floor from us, and I just want

everybody to know where they stood when we were getting socialism

pushed down our throats by a minority Liberal government.

The other one is a really interesting case. He's the present member for Skeena.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, as well as the House, the member for Skeena

was first elected to the House of Commons in Ottawa from the riding of Skeena

in 1957 — '57, '58, '62, '63, '65, '68, '72 — and

then the voters caught up with him, and he was defeated in '74.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did he vote in Ottawa?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'll tell you how he voted. He supported Trudeau and the minority

Liberal government that kept them in power to continue on with

socialization, as the federal NDP thought it should go. So we're now

living with how they voted in this period of minority Liberal government.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are they ashamed of that record, do you think?

HON. MR. FRASER: No. I don't think they're ashamed of it.

The

other thing is that I guess these MPs got a pretty nice pension out of

serving as MPs. I don't know what it would be. But you know, for the

member for Skeena.... When we took over the government of British

Columbia on December 22, 1975, we found out that he was the Indian

adviser to the Minister of Human Resources for the provincial

government. We went to find out what he was doing and we found out he

was doing this job for the natives of British Columbia out of Hull,

Quebec. He wasn't even in the province, and he was on the government of

B.C. payroll.

Back to their records. I feel sorry for the

member for Coquitlam-Moody because he's been sitting here since 1979

and he still thinks he's in Ottawa. He still hasn't lost that Ottawa

syndrome. I'm very sorry to see that happen.

I got carried away a little regarding the stabilization bill — Bill

28 — and I want to re-emphasize to you, Mr. Speaker, that this shows

leadership, and when the time comes, that will show up. Our citizens

know they have responsible government in place and that we will watch

out for their interests as well as our good employees'. We'll be fair

and just, I can assure you of that.

The last member who

spoke — the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) — said that

these decisions will be made behind closed doors by the executive

council. I would tell her that she knows full well that that's a

responsibility of the elected government. What is she making an issue

about that for? We aren't going to cop out of our responsibilities —

whether or not she thinks that we shouldn't be doing that. I don't know

how they would do it. We certainly have it all on record here what we

will do about it — and everybody knows.

I think she

mentioned something about B.C. Ferries. I didn't catch it, but I just

want to inform her, as a member for Vancouver Island, that those people

have a contract in place — the first ever — for 27 months. I don't know

just how she was trying to get that into her discussion, but their

contract is in place, and it's a legal contract.

Mr. Speaker,

this is a bill that probably should have come.... The only

criticism I've heard about it is that it isn't restraining enough.

That's what I've heard.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Who have I heard that from? I've heard that from citizens in British Columbia — and lots of them.

any case, I fully intend to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I thank

you for listening. I want you — like all the rest of the members of

this House — to root for the Vancouver Canucks tonight.

MR. RICHMOND:

We have a very special group of students visiting us in the gallery

today. They have just come into the House. They are a group from

McArthur Park Junior Secondary School in Kamloops — a school that two

of my children attended — and I'm very pleased to welcome them and

their teacher, Miss Kennan. They are a special group in that they are

from a challenge program — or an enriched class — and I would like the

House not only to welcome them, but to congratulate this fine group of

people.

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to introduce a

guest in the gallery, Mr. Peter Demeo from Nelson. Also, I notice

Marcia Braundy in the audience. She is a very distinguished person in

our area as she is on apprenticeship training and pioneering in the

area of non-traditional employment for women, and I'm very pleased to

see her here today.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to have

heard the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) debating 1972 to 1974.

The minister always had that very strong, forceful voice and was really

best suited, I think, to opposition. I hope that when the Premier

finally does get the courage to call an election, that that minister's

skills will once again reach their full potential.

I took

careful note of some of the things the minister said during his speech

on the bill. He said: "During those years the NDP never did anything

about Hydro debt." I would disagree with him on that. We reduced parity

bonds by $150 million. That was instant debt, callable at any time. A

run on those bonds could have placed the government in a very serious

predicament, and our government reduced those bonds by about $150

million.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes,

we spent a lot on assets. We spent a lot on buying and paying for

ferries — a pay-as-you-go government. We built government buildings —

pay as you

[ Page 7436 ]

go.

You took those very same buildings and put them in hock. You mortgaged

them, you mortgaged the ferries, and now we're having to pay high

interest rates. We are under the oppressive burden of a government that

follows a Social Credit philosophy of state centralism.

The

bill before us follows the pattern of Social Credit state centralism, a

form of government that is going to place power in the hands of one

person. I don't care how good that person is; any person will be sorely

tempted by the kind of powers, the almost God-like power, being placed

in his hands to determine what is and what is not a public service. He

can define what is or is not an employer or employee under this

particular act. He could look at some company that supplies a lot of

government services by contract, or at a consultant like Arthur

Erickson, who does a lot of government work, and decide it is a public

service.

Perhaps the minister will decide that

Downs-Archambault, another architect that has done a great amount of

government work, is essentially a public service. With the sweeping

powers in this act they could determine, because there would be nothing

to stop them if this bill passes the House, that these firms are indeed

subject to this particular act. It is so wide, and there is nothing

really spelled out in detail. All this act says is: "Let us do anything

we want, covering anybody that we please, and let us do it in secret.

Then we will determine the dimensions of this act."

This act

also enables the commissioner, who will be Mr. Peck, to investigate any

compensation plan. If we look at the definition of a compensation plan,

we see it's not restricted to this particular act. I hope his zeal does

get carried away in some places. I hope he starts looking at

compensation plans for certain high executives, the type of

compensation plans that allow for the giving of options to purchase

shares given at some future date at very nominal amounts. I hope some

of those things are perhaps looked into.

Quite seriously,

this is a very dangerous, wide-sweeping bill, and no one in British

Columbia, no employer or employee, is safe from the grasp of this act.

I don't think I have ever seen anything quite so loosely worded. As a

substitute for careful draftsmanship they have simply thrown in

everything from soup to nuts, including the kitchen sink; every cliché

one could bring to mind is appropriate to this particular piece of

legislation. There can't be much that is missed out. They can decide it

all after the fact.

This, supposedly, is the long-awaited piece of legislation. Many of my colleagues

have said there's nothing in this particular piece of legislation that sets

any limits, either minimums or maximums, as to the types of compensation that

can be awarded. There is nothing in this particular piece of legislation to

prevent a general rollback of 10 percent, 50 percent or 100 percent. There is

nothing here to prevent people from being forced to work for nothing. There

is not a single assurance in this act that we will not put people into slavery.

This particular act, so help me, Mr. Speaker, legalizes slavery. This is the

disemancipation of the people of British Columbia. It isn't limited only

to public servants; it is anyone we may define as being public servants. If

I am wrong, let the ministers tell me that this prevents an arbitrary cutback

in wages. Let them point that out. I say that this act, if passed.... The

regulations to be passed under this act amount to nothing less than

an act in

this House to legalize slavery in British Columbia. I am not saying that we are

going to have slavery in the province of British Columbia, but

an act with such

sweeping powers should never be passed by members in this House, regardless of

whether we are on the left or the right. No democratic institution should ever

bring in such dangerous legislation or create the precedent of such wide and

sweeping powers. I am surprised if some of the members opposite have not read

this distasteful piece of legislation.

When

I was a young student I used to wonder how democracy was very gradually

eroded in Germany. It happened for a lot of very good historical

reasons, but how did it happen so gradually? There was no overnight

change. It all happened very slowly over the matter of a few very short

years. Yet that is what we are doing in this House. We are bringing in

a piece of legislation that can set any rate of increase. A rate of

increase can be a negative rate of increase. If it can be negative and

if there are no limitations set, it means we can reduce people's level

of compensation to zero if the cabinet so orders Peck and his

commission. That is the scope and the principle of this bill. The

principle of this bill is whether we should be free and liberated,

enjoying all the democratic privileges that have been fought for, for

probably 800 years in the British parliamentary system, or whether we

are to turn our back on that and bring in a piece of potentially

dangerous legislation.

There will be a lot of things to stop

the government from taking this particular piece of legislation that

far. I suppose they will probably institute wage increases of 8 to 14

percent. I'll tell you that anybody in this Legislature who votes for

this bill couldn't have read it or couldn't care about this institution

in which we stand today.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

think it's ironic that this government should have the audacity to get

up and pretend to be the champions of restraint in this country when it

looks to me like they are the champions of overspending and lining

their own expense pockets to the extent that might be matched by some

of their colleagues and friends in the Liberal government in Ottawa.

do, remember that when I was Minister of Housing I too went to that

conference centre — the converted railway station in Ottawa — and was

housed. All arrangements were looked after by the federal Liberal

government. For cabinet ministers they would order these big, lavish

suites with big, lavish prices. I recall the reactions of myself, Mr.

Don Cody, the Minister of Cooperation and Cooperatives Development from

Saskatchewan, Mr. Walter Fitzgerald, the Minister of Labour and Housing

for the Nova Scotia Liberal government under Mr. Regan, and Brian

Peckford, who was then the Minister of Housing for Newfoundland. I

remember the four of us getting together and saying: "Never again are

we going to let this high-living Liberal bunch reserve accommodation

for us." When we got together after our meetings, as the four of us

often did, we got together in our little single rooms without....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON:

Well, it was a very interesting group of people of diverse political

philosophies. But, Mr. Speaker, we did not try to line our pockets, and

we did not try to live in a style in which we had no right to become

accustomed. When I was tired and wanted better accommodation on the

airline home from those meetings, I billed my department for economy

class and I paid what was then a $70 differental one-way from Toronto

to Vancouver for first class. I did not ask the

[ Page 7437 ]

people

of British Columbia; I did not ask the workers, I did not ask the

school teachers, I did not ask the CUPE workers, and I did not ask the

B.C. government public servants to pay for my first-class

transportation back. If I wanted to have the first-class accommodation

with canapés or a little bit of Grand Marnier or something like that,

that was something that I should pay out of my own pocket. Economy

class gets me to and from Victoria and Ottawa, and that is all that is

needed. If a person wants something a little bit better, they should

darned well pay for it out of their own pockets.

Mr.

Speaker, I can recall buying gifts when I was a minister. I've never

mentioned this before, but I recall buying a representative gift of

British Columbia, an argillite carving, and presenting it to the wife

of the then Minister of Housing. I did not bill my department for that;

my wife and I paid for that, because that was an expression of genuine

friendship. I was not out to buy favour. But it appears that this

government has to bill everything. A 60-cent carton of milk is put on

an invoice, and how much does it cost to process an invoice? Fifteen

dollars. Does that sound like restraint? And you're going to vote for

this bill, my friends on the opposite benches?

I must say

that every time I've been elected to serve in this House, I've said:

"Yes, I'm glad to serve." I didn't get in a snit when we lost the

election in 1975 and I found myself in opposition, but I recall the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

in 1972. The election results turned out not to be in his favour, and

he said: "I don't think I'll even go to Victoria." That's the kind of

dedication.... Of course, now that member is very pleased to be a

part of this House. He gets all of those free trips to Japan, and he

has one of the biggest expense accounts. In fact I wonder how high that

is. He has an extremely high expense account — I think he's the record

holder; yes, he is. Now he likes serving in this House.

Have

you noticed that every time the Premier goes to Ottawa with his Liberal

friends or whenever there is a conference in Ottawa...? Does he

come back to British Columbia? No, he goes down to Palm Springs. Almost

every time there is a major conference in Canada — a first ministers'

conference — I have noticed this absolutely incredible pattern: he then

embarks on a holiday, as if the job is too much for him. Well, he only

spent $35,000, according to the 1980-81 Public Accounts . Of

course that's two years ago, but that's the latest we have. But the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, that member for

Peace River South, he loves to stay here now, Mr. Speaker, because he

spends $39,000 more — a great part of it on travelling back and forth

to Japan. Very nice.

We say in this House that the price of

this has to be borne unilaterally by public servants. I'd like to talk

about some of those public servants. In the ten years I've been in

public office I've met and come to know and respect a great number of

public servants. I'm sad to say I've had to go to a few funerals of

public servants. I think of one electrical inspector who was always

understaffed and who always tried to do his job and would travel

innumerable miles and keep himself going with cigarettes and coffee so

that he could do his job, when he was underfunded, undersupported and

quite obviously unappreciated by this government. This stress finally

got to him, and he had a heart attack and died.

I think of

another of my friends in the public service who worked for the Ministry

of Highways. He got called out in the middle of night during

snowstorms. He worked and put his life on the line to try to keep the

roads safe for those of us who travel those highways. One day he went

out on that truck and his heart gave out. The truck went off the road —

fortunately, no one else was hurt — and he, too, literally gave up his

life serving the people of British Columbia.

I think about a

wildlife conservation officer. If you saw lights in the mountains in

the middle of the night, or if you heard shots out of season or at a

time of day or in a place where there shouldn't have been shots fired,

that conservation officer would come out seven days a week, 24 hours a

day, and would look into that incident thoroughly, competently and

professionally. He too died of stress and a heart attack, because he

was doing the job of more than one person; he was doing a job that five

people over there, chosen at random, couldn't do.

Mr. Speaker, these are the people I think about when I hear the words of the

government saying: "Improve productivity." That's their opening

shot with the B.C. Government Employees Union. And those are but a few of the

people who I've come to know and I've come to miss very, very much.

When

I look at the way that this particular government conducts itself, and

when I look at the expenses that were applied for, for a trip to

Scottsdale.... I too have the same taste: I like to go to

Scottsdale. I think it's a nice place. I've been there about three

times, but I've never submitted any vouchers for it. The last time I

was in Scottsdale, I met a banker, a judge and a lawyer. I didn't meet

any legislators, but we did talk about the Vancouver stock market. And

boy, Mr. Speaker, they had some things to tell me about the Vancouver

stock market. I met a couple of people very active in the banking

business down in New Mexico and Arizona. But I didn't put in a voucher

for that, Mr. Speaker. I felt that my wife and I should pay for it,

because we really enjoyed ourselves. And I think that it was well worth

it, and the people of British Columbia shouldn't pay for that.

another occasion not too long ago I went to Mexico. I went to attend a

wedding. While I was there I met a senator — a real, live senator of

the government of the state of Mexico. On other occasions at personal

expense I have met with senators from Italy and a Member of Parliament

from Britain. I've had meetings with the Speaker and with ten members

of the National Assembly of the province of Quebec, but I did not say

that because I had done such things I should put in a voucher and ask

the people of British Columbia to pay for that particular trip.

What

is different about any member in this House, that any of us are not

equal to the others? Why do some people get paid more in this House

than others? There are certain positions — there is the Speaker's

position, a special stipend over and above the allowances of a Member

of the Legislative Assembly, because the Speaker is responsible for

travelling around the country and visiting other jurisdictions and

finding out how they work. The Speaker does have the authority to

initiate these trips or to send one of us on such a trip. But to go out

and travel and look at other parliaments and then come back and claim

expenses of over $1,500 would not be proper for any one of us — not

even for members of the executive council. One might even argue that

the Provincial Secretary might because, to some extent, the business of

the Legislature seems to come under the Provincial Secretary, although

I don't think it should. What is there in the terms of reference of the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that allows him to go and

talk to a few legislators and then say that they have a legitimate

claim for expenses on a week-long

[ Page 7438 ]

holiday

in a luxurious...? I could certainly not afford to stay at the

Registry. What allows people like that to even make such a claim? What

allows people like that to say then that we have to have unilateral

restraint in this province, restraint of the people who work so hard

and put their lives on the line?

We have had a lot of

wasteful spending by this government. My colleagues have enumerated the

huge increases in advertising spending. Why don't we restrain

publication of the B.C. Government News ? Why don't we make the B.C. Government News go on user-pay basis? If people want to receive the B.C. Government News — if it is such a good publication — why don't we

have subscriptions to it? People could subscribe for $5 or $25 a year —

whatever it costs to pay the cost of that publication. Let's have

user-pay with the B.C. Government News . Let's have that kind of

restraint.

What about that pamphlet about B.C. Place that went out to everybody's home?

MR. LEA: That was only half a million dollars.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, well, half a million.

MR. LEGGATT: They spend more than that on wine.

MR. NICOLSON: That is right. Why not have some restraint on that kind of wasteful government advertising?

can think of so many ways. Should we have restraint? Let me count the

ways. We could be here long beyond the limitations of parliamentary

debate on second reading. I will tell you what bothers me even more

than this kind of spending, this kind of wasteful spending by the

cabinet.... It was $39,000 back in 1980; it would probably be

$80,000 this year for the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I don't know. I guess the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) only got to spend

$2,244 that first year because he was appointed partway through that

year,

but now that he is hitting his stride I think there is kind of a

steeplechase going on. One minute the Premier is in the lead, the next

minute it is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development,

and now we have a new up-and-coming competitor in that race — the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am betting my money on

him. Anybody who is dedicated enough to fill out a voucher for a

sixty-cent carton of milk at a cost of $15 to the Ministry of Finance

for processing it....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a good consumer.

MR. NICOLSON:

He is setting a splendid example, but that is why I am putting my money

on that horse as opposed to some of the others who have also been doing

their part.

I want to draw some analogies between this piece

of legislation and the past Anti-Inflation Board and the earlier

attempts at restraint. This kind of thing won't work, for a lot of

reasons. I think of how the Nelson city municipal police force — a

police force with about 13 people on staff at that time — just happened

to have their collective agreement fall on a day that was not

concurrent with the other collective agreements of municipal police

forces in the rest of the province of British Columbia. Back in 1976

they were caught, put under restraint, and we had two vacancies on that

very small force. That reduced them to about 80 or 85 percent of force

strength, because they could not attract people at that current

collective agreement that they had at that time. That is part of the

kind of thing that is going to happen under this piece of legislation.

How

big a bureaucracy are we going to have to create under this bill if we

are going to cast a wide enough net that we are going to be able to do

everybody else's business — the business of the city of Nelson, of the

Vancouver General Hospital, of the Port Alberni fire department or

municipality? How wide a net, how big a bureaucracy and what cost are

we going to have to come up with in order to do this?

While

I'm on this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, I look at

some of the exemptions. The employees of this commission are going to

be exempt from the Labour Code of British Columbia. The Public Service

Labour Relations Act will not apply. Yet when it comes to the nice

stuff, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — the cabinet — may, by

order, direct that our public service pension act applies. So the

public-service pensions are good enough for the employees of this

organization, but they cannot be part of a collective agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this particular act is a dreadful thing. Coming back to restraint,

I think of ways in which we could have restrained ourselves over the past several

years. Remember when the Premier hired an office assistant and we finally found

out what the duties of the office assistant were? He was a full-time chauffeur.

I think the wage was something like $19,000 or $26,000 a year, if my memory

serves me. You could buy a lot of cab fares for that kind of money. The Premier

has never shown restraint. Remember when Mr. Dave Brown was hired by the Premier?

Remember how he was living in Victoria and his expenses at the Empress Hotel

were being paid, and then whenever he went back to Vancouver — which is where

he really lived — he was collecting per diems, because he was away from his

base of operations? His home was in Vancouver. There were vouchers not dissimilar

to some that appear to have been tendered recently — vouchers for days

in which he was in two different places at once, where nobody could be unless

they've come up with some kind of teleportation device, Mr. Speaker.

That's

where restraint could have been shown. I look at this government and I

look at the way they make deals with their Liberal friends in Ottawa.

There's a subsidy agreement for the northern ferries — you and I know

that, Mr. Speaker, because we're both on the Crown corporations

committee — and I think it has expired. For some reason there seem to

be no negotiations going on. The Ferry Corporation was told to butt out

— get out of it. This agreement started out at $5 million a couple of

years ago. It brought in $10 million last year. It's up for

renegotiation, and the pot should be a lot sweeter, but the government

seems to be showing no interest in it. Why? Because it's part of the

deal for the Liberals to come in and take over the entire financing of

Pier B-C. Of course, this government has made some kind of a deal with

their Liberal friends and they've said: "Well, this allows us to save

face, makes you look good and makes us look good. Looks like we've

finally got the Liberals to spend all of this money here in British

Columbia. We'll let you off the hook. We'll make some kind of a deal" —

probably at the expense of northern transportation.

Mr.

Speaker, these are the kinds of things that are happening. Who does

this group run to hire? People like Ron Basford, former Liberal cabinet

minister. He heads northeast coal. Who's sitting across the table from

him? Ron Andras, former Liberal cabinet minister. There's no doubt that

this is

[ Page 7439 ]

the

voice of the Liberal Party in the west. Yes, there's no more Liberal

Party here in the west. There's poor Shirley McLoughlin, and she tries

her best, but that's the vestigial remnants of a few true Grits like

Gordon Gibson. This is the voice of the Liberal Party in the west. This

is where all the Liberal power brokers are. This is where advice on who

to appoint to the bench.... Who do they appoint to the bench?

They're always appointing old Liberals. They've taken over the

Attorney-General's department. It's all run by Liberals — former

presidents of the Liberal Party of British Columbia, former Liberal

candidates, and so on. This place is a nest of Liberals. They've

learned how to spend extravagantly. They've learned well from their

Liberal friends.

On restraint, a few things could have avoided the situation that we're in today.

This

government is finding new ways of imposing debt. The debt which is

being carried as short-term debt by hospitals in this province is part

of the deliberate policy of this government to sort of hide the truth.

In fact, there are millions and millions of dollars in direct debt out

there that this government — some government — will have to face up to

some day. This government is going to be creating new forms of debt

under

an act which we've just passed.

This government has

been responsible for wasting $21 million on the refit of the Queen of

the North . Let's not forget that, and the refit of the Victoria

Princess , the dock alterations, and the jetfoil service. Why was that

brought about? Simply out of spite, and let's not forget it. Simply

because the NDP started the Marguerite . They don't like anything that

the NDP had anything to do with. They never build from strength. They'd

sooner run something into the ground, create a position of weakness and

try and pick up the pieces from there. They had to go back; they were

forced in spite of everything to eat crow and go back and do what had

to be done with the Princess Marguerite — and she does what she does

best.

Mr. Speaker, they wasted $14 million on a heroin

treatment program in lavish surroundings. It was the Heroin Hilton.

Then they spent more tax dollars trying to advertise and defend this

program, which was illegal in the first instance and opposed by all

three opposition parties that were then in the House.

They

created a Ministry of Deregulation, and it cost $1.5 million for that

little escapade. All they succeeded in doing was wiping out Seaboard

Insurance and causing a special session of the Legislature that cost

$100 million.

Mr. Speaker, that government spent $2 million

on the Bates commission on uranium mining in British Columbia, and they

terminated the inquiry before the findings could be finalized and made

public.

Their sloppy accounting and financial management

have also cost the people of this province. In March 1979, the

government had $118 million outstanding in royalties on timber and

today that figure probably stands at about S400 million. The cabinet

ministers in the Social Credit government are the big spenders. In

1980-81 we know that they spent an enormous amount of money, according

to Public Accounts , and we know that next year they went on to

just about double that. We have every reason to believe that they will

be spending over $400,000 on these things.

I thank you for

your attention, Mr. Speaker, and those are the reasons that I will

certainly be voting against this bill and urge a few members of the

opposite side to join with us.

MR. RICHMOND: It is a

pleasure for me to rise in this debate and support this bill. Contrary

to what the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) says, I do

not have any trouble defending the philosophy behind this bill and

voting for it. I think that perhaps some of the members opposite do

because they don't understand the reasons for it. I think that a lot of

the time they don't really talk to the people out there who pay the

bills, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, who at this very time, not only in this

province, in this country, but throughout most of the world. are having

a very difficult time paying their own bills, without paying the bills

of a totally unrestrained bureaucracy or public service. So the

reasoning behind this bill is very clear, and that is to stop some of

the blank-cheque budgeting and mentality that has been prevalent in our

system for far too long. When I talk to the people who pay the bills,

they don't have any difficulty in supporting this philosophy — not one

bit.

MR. HANSON: How about the $37.50 wine? Do they support that?

MR. KEMPF: You're probably too young to drink, anyway.

MR. RICHMOND: We seem to have some people who are hung up on....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

We also seem to have some unparliamentary and quite out-of-order

discussion. I'll ask the member for Omineca, the second member for

Victoria and all other members who are interrupting to not interrupt

and to allow the member who has taken his place in debate to proceed

uninterrupted.

MR. RICHMOND: It seems very difficult

for them to get off the one track over there of the unpronounceable

words that they seem to be having problems with. The last speaker went

all the way from that into slavery. We are now going to introduce the

people of British Columbia to slavery. Maybe being a supporter of this

bill should make me feel a little bit like Abraham Lincoln, because I

intend to free the taxpayers from the slavery they have been subjected

to all these years.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got the beard.

MR. RICHMOND: I think the looks are fairly similar. Maybe if I stand

a little more erect in my place....

Interjections.

MR. RICHMOND: Other than that, how do you like it so far?

think we know what would happen if this bill were not introduced. I

think we are very sure of it, because all we have to do is look

eastward to Quebec where they have a socialist government — let me

remind everyone — that over the last few years has gone on a spending

spree that is probably unparalleled in this country and most others. I

feel fairly safe in saying that if we were ever to return this

socialist government to power we would end up in the following

circumstance. Quebec now has a debt that exceeds $16 billion — not only

a $16 billion debt but one that is increasing yearly, and they have no

more sources of revenue to tap. That is exactly what would happen if we

were ever to return you people to

[ Page 7440 ]

power

in this province. We would be $16 billion in debt in a very short time.

They would have tapped by now every source of available revenue, and the

debt would still be increasing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

fact, the one place where Quebec cannot turn for any more sources of

revenue is taxes, which they would have us do. No restraint; let's just

increase taxes. Let's see what's happened in Quebec, where taxes are

now among the highest in the world. Of 150 countries in the world, only

Norway and the Netherlands place a higher tax burden on the taxpayers

than Quebec. Under the socialist government of René Lévesque this is

what has happened. In fact, those poor people in that great province

are now paying 24 percent more tax than all other Canadians on average.

That is what socialism has done for that once-great province. Only a

few short years ago Montreal was the largest city and one of the most

prosperous in Canada. It isn't any more. Toronto is now the largest,

most thriving city in the country — not Montreal under the socialism of

René Levesque.

If we were to continue without any form of

restraint in this province, as they have suggested we should in every

ministry, we would soon be closing hospitals as they are in Quebec. We

wouldn't be asking people to restrain to an increase of 12 percent. We

would be closing institutions. In fact, René Lévesque's latest

solution to his problem would happen here under that government. His

latest solution is the suggestion that they lay off 17,430 civil

servants — not ask them to take an increase of 12 percent, 10 percent

or somewhere in there, but lay off 17,430 of them. That is what would

be happening in this province if we didn't show some restraint — as is

suggested across.

They are always ready to cite the extremes

of any case, as they have done yesterday and today. They want to cite

the extremes: those who are at the very lowest end of the wage scale,

possibly the bottom 10 percent, and those who are at the very highest —

giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe another 10 percent. But do

they ever talk to the 80 percent in the middle that make up most of the

workforce and most of the taxpayers? Somehow I doubt it. I talk to

those at the low end and the high end of the scale, but I also talk to

the 80 percent in the middle, and I suggest that they do the same thing.

They

talk about closing down megaprojects. They love the word

"megaprojects." Okay, we'll talk about megaprojects. They don't have to

talk about closing them down, because we know what would happen were

they in power and they took over the so-called megaprojects. A perfect

example happened last week under the socialist government of Pierre

Elliott Trudeau and his cohorts in Ottawa. When Alsands — his great

shining light that was going to get them out of debt and produce all

this revenue....

Interjection.

MR. RICHMOND:

Because of greed. They wanted a bigger slice of the pie, Mr. Member,

exactly as you want a bigger slice of the pie. All you would do is

consume the pie, and it would be shut down like Alsands. If you took

over northeast coal next week it would be shut down the week after. So

we don't have to hear your philosophy on what you'd do with northeast

coal. It's spelled out in black and white — what has happened to

megaprojects.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member please address the Chair.

MR. RICHMOND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

They

never talk about megajobs. They talk about megaprojects all the time,

but they forget to mention the megajobs that these projects are going

to produce, and where the megaprojects and megajobs are alive and well.

They're alive and well and living in British Columbia. Forty thousand

jobs will be created by these projects over the next few years, but

they would rather shut them down.

The people I talk to in my

constituency, and in others, don't mind some restraint. Many of them

feel we're not going far enough, but none of them mind our showing some

restraint in these times when they're trying desperately to hang onto

their businesses, mortgages and few personal possessions. They're very

thankful that they've got a government in Victoria that recognizes that

and is going to put an end to some of this blank-cheque financing.

The

only ones who do mind a little restraint are the same vocal few we hear

from ad nauseam in the headlines all the time: the John Fryers and Jim

Kinnairds. Those are the few you hear from. But they don't speak for

their membership. They don't speak for the 80 percent majority I was

talking about who live where the rest of us live: in a great middle

ground. We hardly hear from that 80 percent. They are the great silent

majority. If I do nothing else in this House, it's a pleasure for me to

stand here as part of that 80 percent and give them a voice in this

province.

The opposition on the other side of this House pay

close attention to that vocal minority. Whenever the vocal minority

speaks, you jump — right now. It's quite evident that they speak for

the minority. Give them anything they want, at all costs. No matter the

consequences, give them what they ask. If that party were back in power

this province would soon be known as Quebec West, in very short order.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of this House that that will

never happen in this province as long as this Social Credit government

is in power.

We will not promise everything and anything to

these vocal minorities just to gain their vote, ever. We have created

in this province, over the last few years, a very healthy climate for

business and industry, and we intend to keep it that way.

Interjection.

MR. RICHMOND:

I'm not talking about one passing storm, Mr. Member. We can all survive

a passing squall, as I'm going to try to survive yours. It's the entire

climate we're talking about, not just one passing squall which we

happen to be in right now.

All the thinking people in this province are in favour of Bill 28.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Except that few.

MR. RICHMOND: I said all the thinking people, Mr. Member.

Mr.

Speaker, this morning I listened to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) talk about what was causing inflation. I beg your leave to

digress for a moment to set the record straight. As that member strayed

from the intent of the bill, I would like your permission to do so for

about one

[ Page 7441 ]

minute.

She said one of the largest causes of inflation in this country is our

massive defence spending. I want to give a couple of comparisons so we

aren't under any misapprehensions.

The percentage of the

gross national product spent by the United States on defence is roughly

6 percent. The percentage of gross national product spent in the Union

of Soviet Socialist Republics on defence is roughly 12 percent. The

percentage of the gross national product spent on defence in Canada —

the cause of inflation, she says — is 2 percent, and falling rapidly.

In case she's wondering what the cause of inflation is, it is certainly

not the commitment of the socialist government in Ottawa to national

defence. If anything, the socialist government in Ottawa has made a

joke of our armed forces, and they have reneged drastically on our

commitments to NATO. That's exactly what would happen if this party was

in power.

We've seen it happen with Trudeau — a government

that they are desperately trying to get out of bed with. They've been

in bed with the Ottawa Liberals for years, and now they're trying

desperately to get out of that bed. In the same gesture they're trying

to put us into that bed. We don't want any part of it. We never have

had any part of it, and we never will have any part of it.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) come to order.

MR. RICHMOND:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reassure this House that we don't want any

part of a socialist government, whether it's in British Columbia or in

Ottawa.

The Leader of the Opposition is trying very hard to

link us up with the Ottawa Liberals, but it isn't working. It isn't

washing. His little scheme isn't working — even though you stand up,

one by one, and mouth the same speech that he made the other day. It's

not working. The people out there aren't that gullible, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: Go build another hospital, Dennis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Central Fraser Valley is being disruptive.

MR. RICHMOND:

Mr. Speaker, on Bill 28, this province will come out of this recession

that we're in — this economic downturn — in good shape, because we will

not come out with a burden of debt that the members opposite would

saddle us with were they in power. Because of showing a modicum of

restraint, we will come out of this downturn in good shape and ready to

reassume the prosperity that is rightfully ours when it ends.

the government in Ottawa were lucky enough to be made up of the members

on this side of the House, we wouldn't have the problems in Canada that

we have today. The people of Canada should be so fortunate as to have a

government like the government of British Columbia. One day the people

in the rest of the country will have a government that is equal to the

government of British Columbia. When that happens, our problems will be

over in this country. The taxpayers of Canada won't be spending $16

billion or $17 billion, or whatever, to pay interest on the

national debt. I shudder to think what would happen today, Mr. Speaker,

if we had a socialist government in power in British Columbia. We would

be worse off than the people of Quebec. We would be so far in debt that

your children and my children would never climb out of it.

supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the government of

this province will not let the kind of tragedy happen here that has

happened in Quebec — or rather, that would happen here if you guys were

back over on this side of the House.

We have created a

healthy climate for business in this province and for industry in this

province, and we're going to keep it that way. The climate is right.

Oh, yes, the climate is still right for the forest industry, Madam

Member. They're toughing it through a storm right now and they're in

rough shape, and that is exactly why we're bringing in this kind of

bill — to help them through this tough time. They and other industries

in this province need a little help right now, and that's exactly what

we're trying to give them. We're not trying to bury them.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) come to order.

MR. RICHMOND:

Our individual taxes in this province are next to the lowest in the

country — not the highest — and we intend to keep it that way.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Bring back Phil.

MR. RICHMOND:

That's pretty good. You've been around for a long time — but not too

much longer. We've got a guy all lined up in your riding who's going to

take care of that.

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to run this

province into debt — run up huge debts that we will never be able to

repay. We are going to keep this province healthy, and keep the climate

right for business and industry. We are not going to promise vocal

minorities anything and everything they want for the sake of gaining

their vote or their support, because that is being less than honest

with them. In the long run they cannot afford to pay for those

promises, as has happened in other administrations.

closing, Mr. Speaker — in case there is any doubt in anyone's mind over

there about which way I'm voting on this bill — common sense alone

would tell anyone who is using that God-given common sense to vote in

favour of this bill.

MR. LEGGATT: The bill we're now

debating is called the Compensation Stabilization Act. I've always

wondered where they get these names. Compensation Stabilization Act.

What does all that really mean? The explanatory note inside says: "This

act establishes the office of the compensation stabilization

commissioner to administer the program of guidelines issued by the

executive council and the compensation regulations prescribed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council," etc.

Compensation

stabilization simply means wage controls for the province. If you

examine how much this government anticipates it will save this year or

next year in terms of its compensation program, we don't know; we have

to speculate.

[ Page 7442 ]

I'm

very glad to see the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in his

seat. I would like him to tell us sometime whether his officials have

done any studies on the extent to which they will save as a result of

this bill; how many millions of dollars do you anticipate saving in

terms of the payout with regard to the bill? Last year the NDP cut $82

million out of that budget, and I'm willing to wager right now that

this Compensation Stabilization Act will save far less than $82 million.

we're going to save less than this as a result of the bill, what is the

price of the bill? What is this bill costing the province of British

Columbia? This bill is poisoning labour relations in the province of

British Columbia for the next 20 years; that's what's happening with

regard to this bill. This bill has been produced by a government and a

minister appallingly ignorant on the subject of labour relations. We

have in this province one of the most volatile labour relations

systems. We've had a very tough history in labour relations in British

Columbia, a record number of man-days lost, and here comes the arsonist

with a bucket of gas to throw on the fire — that's what this bill is.

There will be more days lost as a result of this bill.

You

would think, Mr. Speaker, that this government would have been wise

enough to learn something from their Liberal friends in Ottawa when

they brought in the AIB and wage controls. They should have learned

something about that. You don't take one

section of the society and

grind them down at the expense of everybody else. You don't tell civil

servants: "You sacrifice; you limit your salary; you don't take

holidays; but the real estate flippers and directors on boards of

corporations and rip-off artists on Howe Street can do anything they

want." That's why this legislation can't work. Thinking people on the

government side should examine this bill and stop following along on

this dumb leadership thing that whatever happens, they're not going to

took at the reality of the bill.

I'm looking at the Minister

of Labour (Mr. Heinrich), and I know he's a reasonable man. I know the

Minister of Labour has some sensitivity with regard to these questions.

I want to know what happened; how it was that the Minister of Finance

was able to ram this wage control bill down the throat of the Minister

of Labour. That's what we've got to know in this House. Surely the

Minister of Labour's credibility is in very serious doubt as a result

of this legislation. He must maintain some credibility with the labour

movement to maintain his office as Minister of Labour — and I don't

wish him any bad luck. We have to have some kind of equity around our

labour relations in British Columbia, or we will have disaster in the

province. What this government is doing is poisoning that atmosphere —

poisoning it for years and years to come.

I plead with the

government benches to think about the consequences of this bill. What

we should have learned from the AIB legislation.... We're not

opposed to some rationalism in planning the economy, and we're not

opposed to some rationalism in dealing with inflation. But the lesson

of the AIB was totally and completely clear: you can't freeze the wages

of working people and let them clip dividends. You can't let the

real-estate flippers and the Howe Street boys make fortunes and fly

around the world and then tell working people: "You're going to be

controlled. Everybody else gets what they want." That is the nature of

this bill and why this bill is the worst piece of legislation that I

have had the opportunity of examining since I came to this House. I

haven't been here a long time, but I do know the impact of this kind of

legislation out there among that 80 percent.... My friend from

Kamloops was talking about how widely they support wage control

legislation. Everybody supports controls, as long as the controls are

on somebody else. They are always very happy to control a civil

servant. "But don't control me. I can't be controlled. I'm the kind of

guy that's responsible. Don't control my salary or my expenses. My

gosh, I'm responsible. It's those wild-spending civil servants out

there who are irresponsible." You know those quiet people who walk

around trying to do a decent job for us. They're the villains in the

whole thing.

MR. BARBER: There are big spenders in the Douglas cafeteria.

MR. LEGGATT:

That is right. All those big spenders in the Douglas cafeteria over

there have got to be controlled. They're terrible. Get them under

control. What are we going to do with those guys? I hear they actually

go to beer parlours every once in a while and spend at least 80 cents

or 90 cents a glass. That is ridiculous. We've got to get those guys

down. They're ruining the economy. They've got inflation right out of

control.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you buy beer for 80 cents a glass?

MR. LEGGATT: It's $1 a glass now, isn't it?

make the point about the ridiculousness of this legislation, that is

not being very facetious. You are controlling the civil service of this

province at a cost that will poison labour relations. It's a saving to

the government that is insignificant, and I predict it will be far less

than what the NDP cut out of your waste last year.

I'm not

surprised that the Minister of Finance would rather mark his paper with

that yellow pen than look up, because he is embarrassed about this.

He knows that this bill will erode labour relations in this province

for a long time to come. He is too intelligent not to know that. At the

price of eroding labour relations in British Columbia, this government

has tried to make a few cheap political Brownie points, and we're all

going to pay for it. All the people of British Columbia are going to

pay for this through time loss, strikes and an inefficient economy.

is awfully popular to kick around government employees. I am really

getting a little tired of the conventional wisdom that civil servants

are always fair game. A lot of us travel around the world and know that

there is no better group of civil servants in the whole world than

those who work right here in British Columbia. I will tell you

something else: there is no group of civil servants more honest than

those who work here in British Columbia. The only trouble is that they

are so honest and so hard-working that this government isn't worthy of

the people they have working for them.

You go into a place

like Mexico and you deal with the civil service, and you find that there

is a thing called "mordida." You've got to have a little grease to get

anywhere in Mexico, Argentina, Costa Rica, Honduras and a lot of these

countries. Why do you have to have grease? Because they've got the

Socreds' philosophy: "Don't pay them a salary; force them to cheat to

make a living." The kind of philosophy that they have will erode and

corrupt the civil service in the whole western world. That is what wage

controls on civil servants really do.

[ Page 7443 ]

We've

always been proud when we travel, particularly to democratic socialist

countries, of the honesty, the integrity and the hard-working ability

in all of the modern industrial countries of the west. But now they're

under attack. Government is under attack generally. The big villain is

allegedly big government. We've forgotten about big corporations like

Exxon — the giants of the world who really control things. We're not

for big government, but we are for a government that provides some

equity and fairness in the community. You can't have equity and

fairness if you decide that one group of people — largely not

particularly well paid — are going to be controlled.

When

the AIB came in they tried not to call it wage control; they called it

something else. The Anti-Inflation Board was to work on controlling

inflation by freezing wages. If you had started in this province with

controls on excess profits, for example, as a way to fight inflation —

we've given that a serious look, and I think most objective people

would.... And if you had taken the billions — I don't mean millions —

from

unearned profit from the flipping of real estate around this province

for the last two years and tried to get some revenue from that....

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if they had the guts to do that, they

wouldn't be grinding down the civil servants today; they wouldn't have

to.

They have no sense of fairness, no sense of justice and

no sense of equity. My colleague for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) tells me

that they have created what he called "a favourable climate in the

province of British Columbia." If we are now in a favourable climate,

I'd hate to think what's going to happen when we get in a bad climate.

But we're in a favourable climate. He says: "Wait, there's a little

squall coming — there's a little, momentary storm. We're going to get

out of a storm — it's just a momentary storm." I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, there's a storm, and that government has been seeding the

clouds for the last two years. That's what's been happening. It's their

storm. They want to tell you: "This has nothing to do with us, folks.

This is just international finance. This is nothing to do with us; it's

the world price, it's terrible world inflation. Don't blame me — I'm a

Socred. I've got nothing to do with it."

I want to tell you

that the responsibility for the economy lies with the government, as it

always does, and it's about time this government quit trying to blame

others for its lack of administrative judgment and good planning for

the province of British Columbia.

Oh, let's look at this

little squall that the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) tells me

about. I just got the brand new UIC claimant statistics for April.

Let's see what's happening in Kamloops, in that squall country that's

beautiful for business, wonderful for people — everything's onward and

upward in Kamloops. My golly, do you know what's happening in Kamloops?

There's a 91 percent increase in unemployment insurance applications in

the city of Kamloops. No kidding! That's nearly twice as many people on

the dole, trying to get their unemployment insurance. Is that the kind

of climate this government is creating that they're so proud of?

MR. BARRETT: There they go, knocking growth again.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, there's growth — 91 percent.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) of standing order 17.

MR. LEGGATT:

Kamloops is not the worst hit — it's only 91 percent. Let's go to some

of the other folks that are not doing so well. Port Alberni has a 223

percent increase in unemployment insurance claimants in one year over a

year, Omineca has got to be in here someplace. Let's see how Jack's

riding is doing. By golly, I think they're so bad that they don't even

have them in here. They haven't got it. Let's find someplace close to

Omineca. Smithers is the headquarters. Smithers is just 167.7 percent

year over year. It's almost triple this year, Jack. We've got to do

something with the climate. The winds are blowing. The rain's coming

down. It's snowing. Come on, fellas — at least give us a raincoat. Give

us something. Climate. "The climate of the province is favourable."

Talk about being out of touch with reality. Mr. Speaker, we are in a

100 percent, full-fledged depression everywhere in the province of

British Columbia, and they haven't seen it, they haven't recognized it,

and they haven't done a thing about it. The only thing they're

producing is a little bill to grind civil servants.

MRS. WALLACE: To make it worse.

MR. LEGGATT:

Why does it make it worse? All these business-lovers, all these people

who are so favourable to small business, are going to make sure civil

servants can't go out and buy those products that those little

businessmen around this province are trying to sell. That's what's

going to happen. They've decided that the economy isn't depressed

enough. They're going to come along and depress it some more. Some

logic!

MR. HANSON: Tell us about Prince George.

MR. LEGGATT:

Well, Prince George. The climate has got to be good in Prince George.

It's always good in Prince George. In numbers this April, Prince George

had 6,789 UIC claimants. The increase is 92.1 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not 100!

MR. LEGGATT:

It's not 100 percent — not bad. He's beaten the guy from Kamloops.

They're having quite a race to see which riding can produce the most

UIC claimants this year. That's got to be the contest.

MR. SPEAKER: Back to the bill, hon. member.

MR. LEGGATT:

Back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I certainly appreciate being directed to

the bill, because this bill — it's been pointed out by others — is the

right hand of that Machiavellian Prime Minister we have. You've got to

give it to Trudeau. He's smart. He's pretty bright. He knows what's

happening. He knows what would happen to labour relations and this

country if he brought in a bill like this. So he lets his stooge do it

in the little Liberal Trudeau pilot project in British Columbia. Prime

Minister Trudeau has nothing to lose in British Columbia. He couldn't

get elected here, and he couldn't get anybody elected here, so he says:

"Who cares about it? These guys in the Socreds — they're so dumb.

They'll wreck the province for me, and I'll run a trial run on a bill."

Brilliant.

MR. HANSON: They let Trudeau Bill do it.

[ Page 7444 ]

MR. LEGGATT: This is the Trudeau Bill bill.

I'm

wondering where the Minister of Finance and the Premier got the advice.

I know they went back to Ottawa, had their little confab and talked to

Pierre. Pierre put his arm around Bill and said: "Bill, you're not such

a bad guy. You know, you were giving me a little bit of trouble there,

but now we're going to kiss and make up. We all love the constitution,

Bill. You've done a wonderful job on the constitution." Remember? He

must have said that. He said: "Bill, we've done a great job on the

constitution. We didn't put anything you wanted in it, but we still did

a pretty good job on it. You're happy, aren't you? You were in the

kitchen. Oh, you weren't in the kitchen, Bill? You mean you were in

bed, Bill. No, no. I thought you were there. You and Roy Romanow look

so much alike. You guys look like twins, right?"

What do we

do? Good old Pierre puts his arm around Bill and says: "Look, we're

getting along real good now, and things are going well. We've got the

constitution. I've got this problem with civil servants. They're really

out of whack. I'll bring my bill in pretty soon. I've just got to get

my act together here in Ottawa, but you go put one in in B.C., and

we'll see how it goes." It's the Trudeau Bill bill, and here it is. The

Trudeau Bill bill is here.

MR. HOWARD: A testing ground for chaos.

MR. LEGGATT:

A testing ground for chaos is right, my friend — a bill that will

poison labour relations in this province for the next 10 to 20 years,

and Trudeau is laughing all the way to the bank.

MR. BARRETT: Look how it's aged Curtis! [Laughter.]

MR. LEGGATT:

That's not fair. I think that was an unkind and unfair remark. I've

been looking right at that chair throughout my entire address, and I

was sure that was Hugh Curtis. Only the glasses were missing.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we will refer to hon. members by their designation.

MR. LEGGATT:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will. The member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) is occupying the Minister of Finance's chair, and I must

say....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong again.

MR. LEGGATT:

Oh, then it must be the chair of the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I really wish that the

venerable member for Dewdney, who's becoming one of the senior citizens

of the House, would occupy that seat for real, because then we might

get a little action out of Industry and Small Business Development.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knows what the pressure's like.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, he's been through it.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to redirect myself to the bill, because I was interested

in knowing how the advice came down with respect to the final decision to bring

in restraint. There are, of course, so many areas in which the Minister of Finance

can seek for advice. We've already looked at the Trudeau Bill bill end.

Now we have to look at what happened with regard to the Ontario Mafia. You know,

there is this question. It's a serious one, Mr. Speaker, and we do have

to deal with it. Is this a pilot project also for the Tories? Is the message

coming from Mr. Kinsella about restraint in British Columbia? That's a good

question.

MR. BARRETT: "Let him test it. If it doesn't work, Davis won't do it."

MR. LEGGATT:

Well, this is where I think the east — the wonderful, mystical east —

has finally gained total control over the west. There's where our

independence has gone. We know we're going to have an election one of

these days. We're just waiting for Premier Davis and Kinsella to call

the election in the province of British Columbia. But, then, the

Premier might have run out of advisers. He's gone to Kinsella, he's

talked to Trudeau, he's gone to Pitfield and all those high Liberal

muck-a-mucks, so he had to come home and look for advice. And where did

he go? He had to go, first of all, to Paul Manning, one of the Liberal

giants in the province of British Columbia. He had to talk to Paul

Manning. Then he had to talk to Ron Basford. I mean, after all, Ron

Basford is running the coal deal; Ron Basford is managing the coal

deal; Ron Basford is making all the decisions on the coal deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he paid?

MR. LEGGATT:

He receives $600 a day. I think that's very modest. I don't object to

anyone receiving $600. It's the wine he drinks that bugs me.

After

consulting Manning and Mr. Basford, he then had to go into the inner

circles of Social Credit where the real hard-core Social Crediters who

understand restraint and who understand this kind of bill live, and

they sat down one night and had dinner over at Rattenbury's. Do you

know who was there?

MR. BARRETT: Who?

MR. LEGGATT:

Who was there? Let's see. I'll bet you McGeer, that dyed-in-the-wool

Socred, was there. I'll bet you Williams, that dyed-in-the-wool Socred,

was probably there. I'll bet you Garde Gardom, that dyed-in-the-wool

Socred, was there. Are there any other dyed- in-the-wool Socreds over

there that advised on the restraint legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The Minister of Finance.

MR. LEGGATT:

The Minister of Finance, another dyed-in-the-wool Socred who was in at

that meeting, said: "We've got to restrain our civil servants." Why?

"Because Trudeau told us to." That's why, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Withdraw! You can't call him a dyed-in-the-wool Socred.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. That's the third asking.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'm not going to spend a lot more time on the bill. [Applause.] I knew

that would make you happy. I want to be serious for a moment, because

I've been somewhat facetious. I have been facetious, yes, but I don't

retract for

[ Page 7445 ]

one

minute, nor do I retract any statement which would lead a logical

person to the conclusion that this is the most dangerous piece of

labour legislation that's every been foisted on the province of British

Columbia. It is a piece of legislation which will erode labour

relations for the next 20 years. It will not save the taxpayers any

money. The way you can save taxpayers money is to stop the

proliferation of waste on that side of the House.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me I heard the Leader of the Opposition ask a

moment ago when I'd been back in my riding. I'll bet he could cast his

mind back to 1975. I wonder how many times he went back. They

remembered, and they remembered well. I don't apologize at all for my

attendance in my riding.

I picked out an editorial from the Prince George Citizen

of April 30. About six weeks to two months prior to that editorial's

being written, there was the devil to pay because of restraint. Being

one of the MLAs for the riding, I received a number of calls from the

school board about cutbacks. There was a school board meeting the night

before the editorial appeared, which reads like this:

"It

is difficult not to marvel at the ease with which the administration of

School District 57 was able to knock $1.5 million off the board's '82

budget. It was only a couple of months ago, after all, that the public

was being persuaded by the board to believe no stone had been left

unturned in its efforts to trim a budget which, at $83.5 million,

represented a 19.4 percent increase over the previous year.... The

administration recommended cutbacks involving two school programs and

the elimination of 27.5 teaching positions, and that reduced the budget

by $1.5 million."

It was that easy, or so it seemed.

"Casualties of the proposed cutbacks are a summer school program

designed for students who failed to achieve a passing grade — a pretty

difficult thing for a kid to do nowadays," the paper goes on to say.

"The other program cancelled is a course in water survival, a course in

which the school district's involvement would be altruistic at best."

They

talked about 27.5 teachers leaving, but the fact of the matter is — and

as time goes by — we find out that maybe that's not a real figure after

all: "Last year 100 teachers left this district for greener pastures,

and while the same number may not depart this year, it is easy to see

where 27.5 positions will not constitute actual layoffs. On the face of

it, and protestations to the contrary, it looks like this was a padded

budget from the outset." All of this has stemmed out of the idea of

restraint.

MR. LEA: Do you agree with that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Certainly I agree with that. What does the program really mean? It means equal treatment for all, special treatment for none.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It seems as though we're going to have a little fun in this one.

This

particular bill, despite views to the contrary, really preserves

collective bargaining in many ways. In the private sector there is a

grim reaper, and we know who the grim reaper is. He's working, and he's

working well.

What happens with the restraint program? We

know about the guidelines; we know about the regulations; we know about

the voluntary side.

There is a new industry in Vancouver

now. We don't have the Vancouver Stock Exchange, we've got the

Vancouver seat exchange: that's how we get our seats, as the first

member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition, well knows.

There may be very good reasons for the economic sacrifice. Their

ultimate well-being is dependent on the health of the private sector; we

know that. Those who wish can travel around and visit the mills and the

mine sites, and then be aware that roughly 50 percent of the economy is

export. Where are the export markets now? Have you got a place for them?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: And how are we going to pay for them?

don't quote the governor of the Bank of Canada too often, I can assure

you, but there was one which I thought we ought to have a look at.

"One

hears much these days about the need of various groups for catchup. The

hard fact of the matter is that Canada is not currently producing

enough in real terms to play the catchup game in either profits or

income. To assume everyone is entitled to at least the increase in the

consumer price index, and more if some group somewhere in Canada is

thought to be paid better, is to assume that the world owes us our

notion of a suitable living no matter how we perform in terms of real

output. This assumption cannot be taken seriously."

The

other day the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) made reference

to the Quebec problem. We know the debt they are facing: in excess of

$3 billion. An editorial in the Globe and Mail says:

"Quebec

now faces the crux of its problem. It attempted in a number of areas to

reduce expenditure, but when it really came in there was one specific

area. It was trimming the wages of its employees."

They are talking about trimming wages. The program before the House right now involves some degree of flexibility.

"The salaries and benefits of public and parapublic workers

make up 52 percent of the government's budget. The employees have a far

greater range of benefits — including job security and indexation — than the

private sector, and their salaries are between 11 percent and 16 percent higher.

'If they were paid at the same rate as private workers,' says the Treasury

Board president for Quebec, 'the government and its people would save roughly

$1 billion.'"

One thing I am particularly sensitive about in the portfolio is not to make

comments about those who are in the process of negotiations. I have no intention

whatsoever of making reference to the WCB or the BCGEU or their management counterparts.

But I would like to make reference to a couple of items which I've picked

up from the past, when the opposition was in government.

quote the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich): "The needs of organized

labour aren't always the same as the desires of their spokesmen." I

wonder when he said that.

[ Page 7446 ]

MR. LEA: Don't you know?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I thought you'd respond. He said that when the Labour Code was

introduced. You know, he was right. I think there is an analogy today.

think one of the most interesting comments of all, though, was made

when we had a piece of legislation which was really popular at the

time. It was called the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, the

famous Bill 146. Frankly, I think what happened then was their style

and the way they went. I am not going to question their style or the

route that they travelled, because I think that from where they were

standing it may very well have had merit. But then we saw what

happened. Interestingly, though, one of the comments made is that it

was popular with rank-and-file unionists and with the public at large

and was even welcomed, privately, by many union leaders who recognized

that the government had got them out of either unwanted strikes or

impossible situations. I think that also applies today, because there

are some difficult choices to be made.

Sure, it is a popular

bill among a lot of people. Yes, it may very well be unpopular among

some of the rank and file. I accept it. As a matter of fact the member

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), I thought, although I disagree with

some of what he said, was consistent. He was consistent in 1975 and he

was consistent in the House this week.

The choice we face is

simple. The Premier said it and said it well: "Pull in your belt one

notch, or we ask some of our people to tighten theirs four or five." I

think it was the preference of a lot of people, including those who are

employed, to have as many people work as possible, even if it means

taking a bit less. The particular bill is not asking people to take a

bit less. It is not asking them to cut back. It is asking them to stay

within what we can afford to pay, with some spread depending on how

they comply and fit in with the regulations. Is that really asking too

much?

A fair share of society's benefits also means a fair share of society's constraints.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I think maybe we ought to I listen and not holler, and perhaps there

might be a word or two in here that the members of the opposition might

like to listen to. Their point of view on the compensation

stabilization program reminds one of a satirical comment of Professor

Shoyama at the University of Victoria: "All that is needed to exorcise

the problem is a good dose of simple, old-fashioned virtue on somebody

else's part." That is the heart of the opposition's problem: it's

always somebody else, but there is never anybody to pay the piper.

One thing that the opposition did not learn when it was in office

was the short-term and long-term value of a government living within

its means. Much of the present North American dilemma can be attributed

to this circumstance, a notable exception being successive Socred

administrations in this province. Conversely, it's an equally dangerous

policy to expect to live off the avails of inflation forever. When it

comes to balanced budgets — the restraint program is part of this....

It's the opposite of Mr. Micawber's immortal words in Dickens' David Copperfield . I'm just wondering if some of you might read it: "Annual

income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen, nineteen and six, result

happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought

and six, result misery." The taxpayers of British Columbia can be thankful.

Because of the foresight of the government, they do not have to bear Mr. Micawber's

miserable burden.

talk about restraint programs. I'd like to make some comparisons with

some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition on his own

two-month anti-inflation program. "Bold action plan implemented to

allow Ottawa's wage-and-price control program to take effect. Prices of

essentials to be frozen. Real incomes are to be protected. But

increases in salaries in the public sector are not to exceed the rate

of inflation." His announcement in the Vancouver Sun for

October 25, 1975, indicates the kind of leadership his government

believes necessary. Another time in a speech to his alma mater he

personally favoured control of wages, prices, profits and interest

rates in Canada. He's reported in Hansard as qualifying that

but not denying the statement on controls. One more time, in the

Victoria Daily Colonist for October 15, 1975, he responded to the

federal wage and price controls by saying he had personally advised the

provincial cabinet to support the Trudeau move in principle, because

"it is my belief that they are steps in the right direction, that the

general thrust is correct." He suggested that there were some

inequities in the federal program, but that those problems could all be

overcome.

Do you remember everything that came across to us

about "this should be debated in the House"? The member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) will remember. He's not specific on the

Premier's speech, because he had not seen the actual legislation. He

said the place to announce this was in the throne speech, not on

prime-time television, that the place to debate this is in the

Legislature.

Let's have a look and see what he did when he was Premier.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I think it is fair. He'd implemented his anti-inflation policy by using

a series of orders-in-council, which were passed earlier that day at a

special 90-minute cabinet session, where you were. You remember that,

Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. The policy was announced to the

public at a 5 p.m. news conference. The Legislature had not been

sitting since June 26, except for a one-day special sitting on October

7, that fateful day of the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act.

Around

here I note the way you abandon your colleagues in Saskatchewan. I

can't believe what I've heard. Saskatchewan — brothers across this

land. I'll tell you, they get beaten, and you know why they did. Why

didn't they win enough votes? That's the issue. How do you ever abandon

your brothers in Saskatchewan? You're accusing them of everything

they've done. I remember last December when we were talking about the

constitution. One after another, each of you said something about

Saskatchewan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah, how wrong they were.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, you didn't say how wrong they were. You supported them right down the line. And when the polls came up, what happened?

Interjections.

[ Page 7447 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The minister will relate this to the bill shortly.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

It's rather interesting, the analysis of the restraint program now and

the program in 1975, when the Leader of the Opposition was Premier.

"The anti-inflation announcement," according to the observations of

one financial analyst with the Vancouver Sun , "has the sole

objective of improving the Barrett government's sagging political

fortunes." Similarly, another columnist from the Sun said he

entered the program "to hitch his political future to the coattails of

the federal Liberal party." And now they're running scared and trying

to turn the tune.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Victoria will return to his seat.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

There has been a great deal said, Mr. Speaker, about this government

driving the mining industry out of the province. When we talk about

world markets, that's where most of our product goes. In a moment,

perhaps, some percentages might be of interest to the House. But I'll

tell you one th