1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

2751 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 11). Committee stage. (Hon.

Mr. Curtis)

section 2 –– 2751

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Howard

On the amendment to

section 2 –– 2754

Mr. Lea

Mr. Howard

Division

section 2 –– 2755

Mr. Lea

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Division

section 4 –– 2761

Mr. Stupich

On the amendment to

section 4 –– 2762

Mr. Stupich

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Cocke

Division

section 4 –– 2763

Mr. Stupich

Mrs. Dailly

Division

section 5 –– 2763

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

Division

section 7 –– 2765

Mr. Stupich

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to

section 7 –– 2767

Division

section 7 –– 2767

Division

section 8 –– 2767

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Cocke

Section 11 –– 2767

Ms. Brown

Mr. Stupich

section 16 –– 2768

Mr. Stupich

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Division

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1983

The House met at 7:34 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 2.

MRS. WALLACE: Perhaps we should review what we're proposing

to do here.

Section 2 and adds a new dimension to the Compensation

Stabilization Act. What it does is establish a program that will

"encourage productivity," so it says, and "restrain and stabilize

compensation in the public sector." How is it going to encourage

productivity? One of the first requisites for encouraging productivity

— this is going to be very hard, if not impossible to evaluate — is, to

paraphrase, not only that it be fair, but also that it appear to be

fair. I suggest that that is something that has certainly not been

happening in the past. We have seen many examples that have not seemed

completely fair in the 129 cases referred to the compensation

stabilization officer. We have seen examples of people very close to

high officials in the government receiving some sizeable increases, and

that did not appear fair to people who were being told that not only

would they get a small increase, they wouldn't get any increase. I know

I am referring to other sections of this act, where we're talking about

wiping out any reference to any increase at all for the public service.

We've seen cutbacks in staff. We've seen rollbacks in wages. Yet we

have seen these other cases that have not been fair, or certainly have

not appeared to be fair.

One of the Crown corporations that comes under the Compensation

Stabilization Act and would certainly be related is B.C. Hydro, which

has made a lot of statements relative to what's going on with the

present government's program. We've seen a report from R.W. Bonner,

dated June 30, 1983, in which he talked about some of the things that

the government is doing. He talked about the restraint program, and

certainly the compensation stabilization program is part of that

restraint. He has indicated that there were 13.4 percent fewer

employees on staff on June 30, 1983, than there were on June 30, 1982,

which is all part of the general program that we are discussing under

this section. But there is one thing that concerns me and a number of

those 1,344 people who are no longer working for B.C. Hydro. They have

been deprived of their livelihood in the name of restraint and

compensation stabilization. And yet, at the same time, British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority's financial statements for the last couple of

years show that their general manager, J.N. Olsen, received $84,733

salary in 1981. You would expect that in a company that is laying off

1,344 employees and attempting to operate under the government's

legislation the general manager's salary would have been affected. What

was he getting as of March 31, 1983? Over $84,000. By 1983 that salary

is $125,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that again?

MRS. WALLACE: J.N. Olsen, manager of B.C. Hydro an increase

from $84,733 to $125,000. According to my calculation, that's a 47.5

percent increase.

That doesn't fall within the guidelines. That doesn't come anywhere

near the guidelines. That is not fair, Mr. Chairman, and that's the thing

that has people so upset with this program — when those kinds of things

are going on, those kinds of increases.

History indicates that you're not putting the brakes on the J.N.

Olsens. You're putting the brakes on the 1,344 people you're laying

off. That's why it's not fair, that's why people are upset about this

kind of legislation, and that's why it's wrong to introduce legislation

that allows that kind of thing to occur. If you can't put better

controls.... If that's what the compensation stabilization officer is

coming up with....

Did he approve that? Was that salary increase approved by the

compensation stabilization officer, or is that one that just slipped

through? Nobody cares. If you re at the top level, you can get as much

as you like; if you're at the bottom level, you get no increase, you

may get a cutback, or else you get laid off. That's what's so unfair

about this legislation and that's what's so unfair about this section.

If the minister has a response, I'd like to hear what it is.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I want

to.... I'm sorry, I didn't hear clearly the beginning part of her

remarks, but I believe the committee knows, and it has certainly been

made very clear throughout the province, that senior management

salaries in government and in Crown corporations are frozen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not attempting to fool anyone. It is a matter of fact.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please allow the minister to respond.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If a job has altered significantly — and I

underline the word "significantly," Mr. Chairman — then there would be

an opportunity for a salary increase. But, frankly, I'm offended when

the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) says that's not true. Senior

management salaries in government and in Crown corporations in this

province are now frozen, and have been frozen for some considerable

length of time. If the member for Cowichan-Malahat wishes....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please. The minister is trying to respond. Please let's allow him the courtesy....

HON. MR. CURTIS: If the member would care to elaborate on her

statement with precise dates and dollars, then I will certainly take

that up with the minister responsible, and I

[ Page 2752 ]

apologize at the outset for not having heard the

dates that applied in the case that she was making. But let there be no

misunderstanding about it: those salaries are frozen, and will remain

frozen for an indefinite period.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, no, I've said it twice. But if the member wishes, I'll certainly....

[7:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Cowichan-Malahat.... ?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll defer.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I can either read the figures or

I can send the minister copies of these photostats. But I can read them

again. This is the financial statement of B.C. Hydro and Power

Authority for the year ended March 31, 1981. J.N. Olsen, who was the

general manager, received $84,733 in salaries and wages, plus

$17,988.98 in expenses. In March of 1982 — again, this is from the

financial statement — he received $114,528, plus $23,851.91 in

expenses. And at March 31, 1983, he received $125,000.04 in salaries

and wages and $15,867.60 in expenses — his expenses are a bit lower in

MR. HOWARD: That 4 cents is for productivity.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's probably about the amount of productivity.

If you tell me that they're frozen, then those figures indicate that

that's not the case, and I'll be happy to get copies of these made and

see that the minister gets them. I think that's one example.... I have

nothing against Mr. Olsen — I know him personally and I have nothing

against him — but those kinds of figures destroy the credibility of the

program. Those are the kinds of figures that are upsetting the little

people around this province. When you have that kind of information —

and it gets out; people know this....

Obviously it's general information if it's filed in their financial report. The program is not credible. It becomes suspect.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not credible without that.

MRS. WALLACE: But that makes it even less credible, Madam

Member. As I said in the beginning, if you're going to have fairness,

if you're going to have the kind of thing that this talks about, with a

program that will encourage productivity — if you want to encourage

productivity this kind of thing is not the way to go about it. This

discourages productivity.

While I'm on my feet, let's talk about productivity. How in the

world do you assess productivity? I know there are other sections where

this will be discussed in more detail, but this relates to it too. How

do you assess productivity? Who assesses it? How do you decide on

productivity? If you're turning out so many pieces of a specific gear

for an automobile, or if you're plucking so many chickens, or if you're

growing mushrooms and get so many kilograms per square metre, then you

can judge productivity. But how do you judge the productivity of a

nurse in a hospital? How do you judge the productivity of a teacher in

the classroom with disabled kids? How do you judge the productivity of

a lineman with B.C. Hydro out in a snowstorm or a windstorm restoring

power? How do you judge that productivity? It's an impossibility. And

to try to bring that in to this already unpalatable

section and make it

sound like it's something really great; that you're going to evaluate

these people and they're all going to be judged fairly and have an

equal chance — all that, when at the same time you're letting a manager

of that company have an increase in two years of 47.5 percent? There's

no credibility. There is no responsibility. There's no point in this

particular section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Since the member was kind enough to restate

dollars and dates with respect to a senior official in B.C. Hydro, I

will review that. However, as the member knows, Mr. Chairman, there's

no attempt to keep that information confidential; it is published

regularly. When I indicated a few moments ago that public sector senior

management salaries were frozen, particularly with respect to the

provincial government and its Crown corporations, the effective date of

that freeze was February 1982. If the member is speaking about

fairness, most of us would remember the case of senior management in

the municipality of Surrey, where certain increases that had been

permitted were in fact rolled back by the commissioner. I may be wrong

but I trust that we've spent sufficient time on that one individual.

I'd like the photocopies just for ease of access, but bear in mind that

she has quoted March 31, 1981, March 1982, and March 1983, and the

freeze went in place in the latter part of February 1982. So I simply

make that observation.

It's important, I think, in looking at

section 2, to consider that

productivity is not identified in isolation. It is one of a couple of

factors which make up the purpose of the act: "to establish a program

that will encourage productivity and restrain and stabilize

compensation in the public sector," etc. The

section was been read

several times in the course of this afternoon and was referred to again

earlier this evening. We don't pretend to have all the answers with

respect to how one measures productivity. I acknowledge that it cannot

be accurately measured in certain instances — i.e., the Hydro lineman

on a very filthy night somewhere on the Howe Sound coast or northern

Vancouver Island — wherever it may be. But it seems to me that within

the very small staff available to the commissioner of CSP, within the

Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary, who

has the larger responsibility for "productivity," a number of very

useful activities are underway with respect to identifying productivity

among many public sector employees. I don't intend to offend the rules

in terms of this

section by enumerating them, but I think they have

been and will be referred to in days and weeks to come. That may mean

that certain individuals and certain groups of employees are prepared

to undertake particular activities which previously had been assigned

elsewhere, or had been sent out, as it were; a willingness to undertake

them. That is a measurement of productivity. A willingness to abandon

some of the "perks" which have been enjoyed in the past could be a

factor in negotiation, and in review by the commissioner in the CSP

program as a way to improve productivity.

[ Page 2753 ]

It is incumbent upon employee groups and employers in the public

sector to continue, not just for two weeks, or for the purpose of this

debate or this session.... It's an ongoing responsibility of both sides

to identify productivity, ways in which productivity can be increased

and improved. If I were to presume to stand here tonight and say,

"Well, productivity means this and that," then I think I would be

misleading the committee. I would be assuming something that it is not

mine to assume. I believe there is, in the private and public sectors,

that desire to improve productivity.

Am I offending this section, or the rule with respect to this section, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's in this section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Let me allude very briefly to the program of

suggestion awards that was initiated in the Ministry of Finance but

which has spread throughout government during the last 12 to 15 months.

The cynics will say: "Suggestion awards! That's sort of a sop. It's

something that sounds pretty good, but nobody will follow up." The fact

is that employees in the provincial service in this province have come

up with countless ideas and are being rewarded for them. I use

"rewarded" in the correct sense: rewarded for offering those

suggestions to senior managers in government. Ways in which to improve

productivity. Ways in which to avoid paper work that is meaningless,

that is just stored away somewhere. Ways in which to speed up the

process in terms of the people we all serve.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the garbage can.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Never in the garbage can, Madam Member.

That's productivity. That kind of thing is slow to build, but it is

essential in this amending act. It is essential to the fundamental

thesis with respect to compensation stabilization in this province.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a couple things to say. It's probably

going to be more than a couple after the minister's remarks about

productivity and the suggestion idea. He says he instituted it through

the Ministry of Finance. How long ago is it since I was an employee of

B.C. Hydro? I don't like to think how many years ago. That was

certainly operative in B.C. Hydro at that time. I served on what was

called the paper committee, where we were doing those things. Is the

government just getting around to this kind of thing now? We were

involved with those things in Hydro 15 or 20 years ago when I was

there. We didn't call it productivity; we called it common sense. The

unfortunate part was that we got it through the lower levels in the

regional district area, but when we got it to the big house in

Vancouver it suddenly got stopped. I remember getting an award one time

for designing a new timesheet for Hydro. That's productivity? Those

things have been around for a long time. If the minister is just

discovering this, I'm surprised.

I don't want to belabour poor Olsen, but the minister did say that

the salaries were frozen as of February 1982. On March 31, 1982, Mr.

Olsen received $114,528, One year later, March 31, 1983, he received

$125,000.04. Is that frozen? Was that salary reviewed by Mr. Peck? Was

his job description changed? Were his duties changed? I know we have

job descriptions in B.C. Hydro, because I have been around that outfit

for a long time. If his job description was changed to entitle him to

earn that extra money. Is the minister prepared to let us see those job

descriptions? Was it frozen? Was it reviewed by Peck? If it was

increased because of a change in responsibility, then what did the job

description say that changed that responsibility?

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect to the minister and,

of course, to the member, we might be developing an argument now that

would he better dealt with in another minister's estimates. I

appreciate that the member has correctly identified her argument with

this section, and the minister has responded, but I think we do have a

scope here for it.

[8:00]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if that is the Chair's wish I

don't want to pursue it. I have undertaken to examine the job

descriptions. For the purposes of this section, while the member may

feel that it is an excellent example....

Again, I indicate that senior managementos salaries were and remain

frozen. That's all I can do with respect to one individual in B.C.

Hydro. I did not suggest suggestion awards as something brand-new,

Madam Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. But I think the member assisted me, Mr.

Chairman, when she said ideas were offered but they never reached the

big place, the big tower. The fact is that they do now and they are

implemented. I didn't say that this was something that had been

invented in British Columbia in the last 15 months, but it's an element

of productivity.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if I could pursue this business of

productivity with the minister for just one moment. The minister

indicated to us that he did not want to say that A, B, C, D and E had

to happen in such and such a job in order to be measurable in terms of

productivity. I'm particularly interested because I know the teaching

profession. I would like the minister to give us some general outline —

not A, B, C, D and E — of what he sees as an increase in productivity

within the school system. Does he mean additional pupils in a

classroom? That may mean an additional number of students, but it does

not mean additional productivity if education is your ultimate aim.

Does it mean giving out more As to students? Does it mean marking more

papers? What is it that the minister has in mind as it applies

particularly to that profession?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if we pursued this form of

debate we could go through the entire structure of local government,

the education system, universities. I think my duty to the committee

and to this House tonight is to indicate that productivity is to be

taken into account. The member has shown....

MS. SANFORD: But you can't measure it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would refer the member to my earlier

remarks. The member has identified the teaching profession. I think it

is presumptuous of me, Mr. Chairman, to stand here tonight on behalf of

the Minister of Education, or perhaps without consultation with the

Minister of Education, and say that these are the factors that would

apply in the

[ Page 2754 ]

education system in the province; or say on behalf

of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications that these

are the factors that should be taken into account in the university

community; or if one wishes to speak about the Attorney-General's

ministry. The examples and the responses could be endless.

The fact is that we have laid in place the requirement that public

sector employers and public sector employees recognize that there is to

be an increasing importance assigned to productivity. I cannot assist

the committee tonight by identifying all those possibilities, except to

say that as recently as yesterday I met with one ministerial colleague

who has an idea with respect to increasing productivity in his

particular ministry. Whether it will work or not remains to be seen.

But the very fact that this bill is before the committee, before the

Legislature, has assisted him in identifying productivity as a factor,

along with restraint and the other points that are mentioned in this

relatively brief purpose section.

MR. HOWARD: I think productivity is a catch-phrase that has

been used, employed and attempted to be put into effect in various

industries for some period of time. In fact, at one point in the

history of Canada the federal Parliament passed a national productivity

act and set up a national productivity council whose purpose was to

deal with the question of productivity. It's a nice-sounding word. The

application of it seems to be in grave doubt. Perhaps if the minister

had used the word efficiency or efficient employment of workers' hours

and that sort of thing, he might have been able to get the message

across of what the government is seeking to do. Productivity is the

wrong word. It's a nice-sounding word, but it's meaningless in the

context of what is being said here, particularly since the minister —

as he did with the ability-to-pay concept — said that there are all

sorts of possibilities out there: this ministry may deal with,

productivity in a different way than another ministry would, a school

board may apply it differently, a municipality may have something

different and so on. That's understandable. Why then, I asked, is there

only reference in the bill to a program in the singular? "The purpose

of this Act is to establish a program," when in fact it should be "to

establish programs," if there is this broadness out there of diverse

groups that may have different approaches to it, as distinct from one

other group. It seems to fail on that ground.

I would therefore, in order to get to that point, move that

section

2 be amended in line 1 by deleting the words "a program" and

substituting therefore the word "programs," so that it would read: "The

purpose of this Act is to establish programs that will...." It seems to

need the plural, if there is a plural situation out there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find it in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, quick consultation with my

good friend the House Leader suggests that in the

Interpretation Act it

may be that the singular means the plural. I have no strenuous

objection to what the member for Skeena has suggested, but I would ask

that we have just a moment in order that.... Perhaps someone else would

care to raise another matter. I think the singular represents the

plural.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Debate can proceed on the amendment.

MR. LEA: Well, I think the Chair has ruled that although

debate has to be limited to this

section it is fairly wide-ranging in

discussing this particular section. It seems to me that the

section can

be broken into two parts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're a little narrower now, because we're on an amendment to change the words "a program" to "programs."

MR. LEA: I don't think that will hinder me in what I have to say, whether it's program or programs.

The first part of this paragraph says that the purpose of this act

is two things: to establish a program that will encourage productivity

— I see that as one part — and to establish and restrain and stabilize

compensation in the public sector while ensuring that the paramount

consideration for determining compensation is the public sector's

ability to pay. Well, it would be difficult to argue against what this

says; it's a bunch of words that sound good, and it's hard to argue

against the words, because all the key words are in place: "restraint,"

"stabilize," "compensation," "productivity." To argue against those

words would get you nowhere or anywhere.

But I think what we have to do is establish what we mean by these

words so that we're all talking about the same thing. The word

"productivity" is used — as I understand productivity, and I want to

understand it the same way the minister does so we can discuss it in an

intelligent way....

MR. CHAIRMAN: And particularly with respect to the amendment which we have accepted and are now speaking to, which is very, very minor.

MR. LEA: That's right. So what I'm doing now is talking about

the need for programs as opposed to a program, but in order to

establish whether we need programs, I think we need to define the

words, at least for my edification, to support the amendment.

Productivity to me means that if you're turning out X amount of

product with Y number of people, productivity would be to still turn

out X with fewer people or to turn out more than X with the same number

of people or even fewer people. That's as I would understand

productivity, and I hope the minister would understand it in the same

way. In other words, if we're going to apply productivity to the public

sector, we have to establish that we're either turning out the same

amount of programs with fewer people, or we're turning out more

programs with the same number of people or with fewer people. I contend

that what action the government is taking out of this is achieving none

of the above in describing productivity. We're going to turn out fewer

programs with less people. So that doesn't define productivity. If we

were turning out the same amount of programs with the same number of or

fewer people, that would be a productivity rise. So I don't see where

we're achieving productivity by cutting programs down at the same time

as we're cutting staff down. We may be saving money. We're not going to

either have to tax people more or borrow more, or a combination of

both, in order to achieve what the government is achieving, but it can

in no way be called productivity. The word "productivity" seems a

misnomer to me. Maybe some other word or some

[ Page 2755 ]

other phrase could be used. So before I go on to

the second part of this, with some questions for the minister, I'd just

like to ask him whether he agrees with me in the terms I've described,

and also if he agrees with me that to turn out fewer programs with

fewer people couldn't be described as productivity in the sense that

economists use the word.

HON. MR. CURTIS: First of all, with respect to the suggestion

made by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the interjection and the

recollection with respect to the

Interpretation Act is correct. I would

simply refer, as I'm sure other members have, to

section 28(3): "In an

enactment words in the singular include the plural, and words in the

plural include the singular." Therefore I think we'll stay with the

singular, knowing that it could cover a number of programs to encourage

productivity.

MR. HOWARD: All that would be well and good if the minister's

own bill did not, in the immediately preceding section, speak in the

plural. If you want to have some kind of continuity to it, then have it

all the way through. That's all I'm trying to get at. It'd be more

precise and clearer to people who will have this piece of legislation

in their hand but will not necessarily have the

Interpretation Act in

their hand. That's all I'm saying: you should say what it is that is

meant, which is why I moved the amendment.

[8:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 8

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Rose

NAYS — 30

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Hon. Mr. Curtis requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 2.

MR. LEA: Are you ready, Mr. Minister, to answer my question?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Prince Rupert set forth his

views with respect to perhaps a more precise definition of

productivity. I say parenthetically that the member for Skeena also

wondered if efficiency wasn't a better word than productivity, but we

will stay with productivity. However, to return to the point made by

the member for Prince Rupert, it isn't simply a question, in my view,

of attempting to do the same amount of work with fewer people, or

better work with the same number of people. Those may be factors, but

it may be higher-quality work; it may be work that is more effective in

terms of the taxpayer. I think that there's a danger here in attempting

to narrow a definition of productivity beyond that which would be

appropriate over the next number of years.

What we have in

section 2 is a purpose clause. It is a statement of

principle, if one would permit me to say that, to set the framework for

the next ten years, plus or minus, and to indicate to all who are

concerned with public sector compensation — provincial, Crown

corporations; municipal, school districts; we've gone through the whole

list before — that when you are negotiating public sector compensation,

and when the commissioner and his staff are reviewing it, they must

take these principles and purposes into effect. That really is, I

think, the way in which I would like to conclude my comments on this

section. It is a purpose clause. I think it could be observed that

under other legislative forms it might be a

preamble, but it is a

purpose section.

MR. LEA: I, for a moment, would like to put myself in the

place of a manager within the public sector. I would look at my mandate

from the government in regard to productivity. I would have to say to

myself: "Well, I've read what the minister had to say as a guideline

for productivity. It's something that the minister doesn't want to

define too narrowly. He really wants it held as sort of a mandate for

the next ten years — plus or minus — as a principle." I say: "That

sounds really great. Now what is the principle?" Well, that's the part

that the minister can't quite define. It's a little fuzzy. I know that

as a good manager in the public service I'd better meet it, except that

there are no guidelines. As a matter of fact, not even are there no

specific guidelines, but even the principle itself, according to the

government spokesmen in these matters, is not definable. It's just a

matter of principle. Okay. Now as I understand the matter of principle,

productivity does not fit into the equation whatsoever, but the second

part of the paragraph does, and that's talking about restraining and

stabilizing compensation in the public sector — basically do it to the

best that the taxpayers can afford, is what it's saying; the ability to

pay.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this act is one that I heard the

Premier say tonight he feels that the majority of the people in this

province are in favour of. The purpose of this act is to bring about

restraint. People have said, to my knowledge, in polls and to me

personally — I mean, you just get it all over; it's sort of like a

conventional wisdom — that they do want restraint, but they may not be

too happy with the methods that the government is employing to achieve

restraint. The government says that the reason for this whole program

of restraint on government is to encourage economic recovery in the

private sector. The minister said earlier in the debate that he doesn't

want to talk about the nuts and bolts of it, in talking about this, and

I think that's proper. You can't talk about the nuts and bolts, but I

think you can talk in a broad way about this particular section. If the

purpose of this act is to bring around restraint, in order to aid and

abet economic recovery, then I think it calls for some examination of

the broad principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member,

section 2 deals more specifically with the public sector and the public sector employers' ability to pay.

[ Page 2756 ]

MR. LEA: Okay. I'll stick to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that's implicit. This is a broad section, I agree, but that really is implicit.

MR. LEA: Okay, I agree with you, and I will stick to that, as much as I can.

Basically, what the government is doing, carried out by the purpose

of this act, is to restrain government spending, hoping, they say, to

get better productivity — undefined — but only to the employers'

ability to pay. In other words, the taxpayers — or the government, as

the employer in this case....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Okay, but in this case the government is the

employer. They get their money from the taxpayers. Now is it a fact

that the government, first of all, does not have the ability to pay?

That has to be established. I think everyone agrees that the money's

not rolling in, so there's some problem with revenue, all right, and

ability to pay. But what about priorities? What about the priority of

spending based on the ability to pay? There may be some kook, but I

don't think there's one person, with the exception of the one kook, in

this province who really would relish the thought of taking away $50 a

month from the handicapped. Nobody wants to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we are straying, hon. member.

[8:30]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we're not only canvassing

debate that has been extensively put forward on this particular bill in

second reading, but we're canvassing debate that has been advanced

during the budget and on other bills. I think particularly of the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who has again and again raised

this particular point. What we're dealing with is a specific section.

If we take every

section of every bill as an opportunity to rehearse

all of the rhetoric that has taken place in every other bill and in the

budget, clearly the productivity of the House will diminish to zero. I

ask that you call the member to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that point is well taken, and I think

the hon., member now taking his place in debate recognizes that we do

have a bill that has generally broad purposes to it, but we must admit

that it is confined to establishing a program that deals with the

public sector employer's ability to pay. Of course, there are other

guidelines there, but if the member can stick to that basic concept,

I'd appreciate it.

MR. LEA: I'd like to start at the back end and the employer's

ability to pay. The ability to pay encompasses a number of different

areas of where you can get the money to pay. Government has a number of

options that they can exercise. They could go out and borrow more money

and have no cuts in any programs. Then they would have the ability to

pay, but it may not be an option that the government wants to take

advantage of — going out to borrow more money. They could raise taxes

and therefore have the ability to pay and not cut programs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if you'll bear with me for a moment, the ability

to pay is a political decision based on the facts as the governing

party sees them. But I think they have to take into consideration what

the people want. I guess we're confined here to the overall ability to

pay. We can't go into the priorities of each program, so I won't do

that. But it becomes obvious that the government does have a number of

options — basically three — that they can go to. They can go to

borrowing to make sure these programs stay in effect. They could go to

taxation to gather all the money they need to make sure the programs

stay in effect, or they could do a combination of both — borrow some

and tax some in order to keep these programs in effect.

I think the question we as legislators have to ask ourselves before

we vote on this

section is whether or not the people of British

Columbia feel that the government should make themselves able to pay

for certain programs that they're cutting out — whether the revenue

comes from borrowing, taxation or from a combination of both. I think

the government is misreading the people if they believe that the people

don't want them to do either one of those three options that I

mentioned: borrow to keep some of the programs that are being cut out

in effect, tax to do it, a combination of borrowing and taxing or at

least — and I just mention this vaguely — change their priorities of

spending in order to keep some of the programs in effect.

It seems to me that the government is saying: "We have presented our

program and the purpose of it is laid out in this act. We've laid out

our program. This program will affect all the services that government

supplies, because this act will govern what kinds of programs will be

supplied, the manner in which they are delivered, the extent to which

they are delivered and the quality of them." So if the government has

satisfied itself that it has cut into other programs as far as they

possibly can, and we are left at the end with having to take away from

some people a program that is absolutely essential, I don't believe

that the people of this province would for one minute want this

government not to borrow or to tax or a combination of both to keep

some of the programs that are being cut because of this bill in place.

That is a matter of political evaluation.

What about the government itself, Mr. Chairman? Is the government

itself saying that we, the elected representatives as the government,

have made a decision that the programs — again, one like the $50 to the

handicapped....

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately we're straying from

the

section itself, because the member will have ample opportunity to

discuss that particular program during the estimates of the Ministry of

Human Resources. Indeed, there is not a program sponsored by the

government that will not be covered in detail at some stage in the

estimates. The rule of the House is that you neither repeat debate nor

anticipate debate. The member is succeeding in doing both and entering

into tedious and repetitious rehearsal of arguments under a

section of

a bill. It's entirely out of order, and I would ask that you either

call the member to order or ask him to take his place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have listened to all

the points you have made and they are well taken. It would seem to me

that in

section 2 there is pretty wide scope for debate here, but I

would ask the hon. member, who I know is quite capable of doing so, to

confine himself to the specifics that are contained in

section 2.

[ Page 2757 ]

MR. LEA: I'm trying to establish that the employer's ability

to pay is a matter of choice. It's not something that's living and

breathing on its own somewhere. The government can't say: "We have no

choice. We only have the ability to pay so much." That just is not

true. The government has some options. I resent that this

section is

written like this. "The employer's ability to pay" tries to leave the

impression that the government doesn’t have a choice, either in

priorities of spending or methods of raising more money if they have

to. I think that is a downright misleading statement in the paragraph

under "Purpose of Act." So we have established — or at least I have in

my own mind — that productivity, which is one of the centrepieces of

this, is not definable by the minister. He says he can't define it. He

admits that, but he wants managers within the public service to carry

it out to the letter. Good luck! Well, one thing about it, they won't

lose their job over it, because nobody will be able to tell whether

they've achieved the purpose or whether they haven't achieved the

purpose, so they're perfectly free from that point of view. If there

are no guidelines — there's not even a definable broad principle at

work here — who's to say whether or not they're achieving productivity?

So the first part of the paragraph is absolutely ludicrous, because

the government fails to define what they mean by productivity. They say

it's a general principle — no rules. They say that the employer's

ability to pay is one of the determinants of this section, and yet they

fail to mention that they have a choice to make. It's not some outside

force thrust on them; it's a choice to make. They talk about restraint

and stabilized compensation in the public sector as something that is

in itself good as opposed to what effect it has and whether it can be

judged on the effect as opposed to the broad principle.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill — and more specifically

section 2.1, which gives the broad outline of the bill — is not going

to achieve any number of things. It couldn't possibly achieve

productivity the way the minister describes it, which means he doesn't

know. It can't work if you use productivity in its strict economic

sense, because it doesn't apply. It doesn't fit the criteria. The whole

thing is a bunch of hogwash. That's exactly what it is.

I have been waiting for a long time during this session.... After

listening to the minister talk about the purpose of this act on TV, I

realized — and I say this kindly — that he didn't know what he was

talking about. You have to admit that as a politician it's a little

savoury to realize that you're going to be able to go into the

Legislature and directly ask the questions of the minister that you saw

asked on television or heard raised on radio that were not answered but

were skirted around. It's not our job here to let the minister skirt,

and that's why I want to nail down productivity. We've nailed it down:

there is no definition from the minister on it. It just makes this

particular

section a complete farce. It really has nothing to do with

all of the other sections, except it's nice. It's a nice sentence

unless you examine it and question the minister and say: "What's going

on here?" I've been listening on the speaker to the minister's debate

earlier, and not once has he answered a question. I have to admit, both

of us are out of the broadcasting business. We've both got fairly deep

voices, we round our letters off, and we can sound half-articulate if

we want to get a bunch of words going together, but they have to say

something in the end. I have been listening intently to the minister.

I've heard a number of words, one after the other, but not once have I

heard any explanation for the things that I have raised — not in the

debate on this bill and not when he's been interviewed in the public

media. There has been no answer, and I am forced to believe that he

doesn't know anything that he's talking about, and that's a sad state

of affairs for this province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Prince Rupert indicates that

he was listening in his office earlier today before the dinner-hour

adjournment. I hope that he heard — although from his remarks it may be

possible that he didn't — that when I was speaking of the public sector

employer, it is, I think, far too narrow an

interpretation on that

term, to think only of the provincial government, and the member

devoted a fair amount of his most recent remarks to the provincial

government. This is not to dismiss that significant number of

employees, but in the case of the provincial public service, before one

moves to Crown corporations, we're speaking of plus or minus 40,000 men

and women;

whereas this amending act and compensation stabilization,

1982, really cover something in the neighbourhood of 210,000 to 212,000

people. The point that I was trying to make to the hon. member earlier

on this very point was that there will be a variety of

interpretations

with respect to productivity appropriate to the agency or jurisdiction

concerned. I think the member really understands that. I think he knew

what I was saying when I was interviewed on this topic.

[8:45]

Speaking of productivity, I indicated a few moments ago that a minister has

a view with respect to productivity in his ministry, which he and I are inclined

to agree would not produce productivity in other ministries. That's the

challenge in this section. That is the challenge that was contained in the guidelines

of last summer — 1982. Productivity is to be taken into account. Productivity

in a municipality, in terms of the managers, in terms of the elected council

of that municipality, may be completely inappropriate in terms of a hospital,

a hospital board of management, the administrative staff of a hospital, the

senior management of a hospital. We're saying to the people who are involved

in the public sector that they must consider productivity. Mr. Member, it is

not — believe me — as a result of an inability to articulate it here, but quite

the reverse. It's a desire that individuals and organizations in the public

sector define and implement their own appropriate form of productivity increases.

It is not restrictive; it is the reverse. I think the member understands that.

Again, that which is appropriate in one particular community, or one hospital,

may not be appropriate elsewhere. The

section is saying: "You are to encourage

productivity."

We've had criticism in the course of other debates, without

reflecting on votes, that this is a centralist government that says:

"Do as we say." Well, we're inviting the public sector employers

employing 212,000 people in this province to identify the most

appropriate form of productivity for their particular activity, for

their particular jurisdiction, for the needs of the people who receive

that particular service. It is an upfront section. It is a challenge.

It is a challenge to everyone involved in senior positions in the

public sector in this province to identify priorities. There was one

phrase, if I can just find it quickly, that I did not use. I'm sure the

member will realize that I did not say it: that we're simply saying

productivity is a great thing and expecting the managers to define it

to the letter. Rather we expect them to be innovative, to identify

opportunities for productivity increase. That's not so difficult, Mr.

Chairman. I frankly think that the managers,

[ Page 2758 ]

the elected people, and the officials in government and in the public sector, whatever form it may be, can meet that challenge.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that when I was

speaking earlier I didn't talk about the municipalities; I didn't talk

about all those other things. But, Mr. Chairman, so what? It's a good

argument, except it doesn't mean anything to the argument. It's just a

bunch of words. It's like "upfront" and "challenge." "I know these

upfront people will meet the challenge of today, and this world will be

so good, and I ask all of you to join with me in this mission of mercy

for the economy." My gosh! Mr. Chairman. Wasn't it a great speech? But

still, nothing.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've been

listening to the debate with some interest myself, and notice there is

a lot of repetition. I suspect that if the member opposite has some

point of view that he wants to put across he could make an amendment or

something. But repetition, I think, is out, and I wish you would remind

him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The member will continue, bearing in mind....

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the minister and I have been in this

House a long time. We can both handle ourselves. You don't have to

worry about it. The minister's not in trouble — you know? We've been

around. We're not going to lose the opposition tonight.

But I think these things are worthwhile, Mr. Chairman, because I

think that the people have a right to know what the government means

when they say something. It doesn't really matter.... I want to go back

to the minister's statement that I didn't mention the municipalities —

I didn't mention anybody else. But by not defining productivity this

government will never know whether it's been reached and to what

degree, if at all. If you have 100 people in a factory and they're

turning out 100 washing machines a day…

AN HON. MEMBER: We've heard that already.

MR. LEA: No, you haven't.

...and all of a sudden you turn out 98 washing machines with 98

people, there has been no increase in productivity. The minister could

have us believe that there are two

definitions of productivity, his and

the one that is commonly used in economics. Now, Mr. Chairman, there

may very well be two, but there can't be the one on the one side and

none on the other, and the minister's right with no definition. Let's

just say it's successful, that for some unknown reason the upbeat

productivity challenge to the managers in the public sector works. From

what I know about productivity, that will mean that they will be

putting people out of work, pure and simple, unless they plan to

increase the output, which they say they have no intention of doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've heard that already.

MR. LEA: You don't seem to understand it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I know you understand it. I know they understand it,

Mr. Chairman. That's why they don't like it. Once you start getting

onto something they don't like, they pop up all over the place.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've been

in this House for some time now, and the first member for Vancouver

South (Mr. R. Fraser) is quite correct in making his statement that the

arguments put forward are repetitious and tedious. I would suggest that

the Chairman bring this member to order and get him back on the

section

that we are dealing with. This is in committee. This is not discussing

the bill in its principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The points that have

been raised, of course, are reasonably well taken. The Chair would

request that the hon. member for Prince Rupert confine his remarks,

bearing in mind all the requirements for relevancy under our standing

orders, and speak directly to

section 2 of Bill 11.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the minister said that the purpose of

this act, to encourage productivity, was a principle. Can we not

discuss that principle then?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I suppose we are discussing the

principles that are laid down in the purpose of the act. I've read this

thing a number of times during the course of this debate, and all it

appears to me to talk about is the purpose of this act. I don't think

it says whether it's going to be achieved, how it's going to be

achieved or anything like that. It gives the purpose of the act, and

then it lays out so many things to achieve certain things. It doesn't

say how it's to be done or what will be achieved in so doing. It is a

pretty broad statement, but still and all, we must confine ourselves to

the requirements of our standing orders, which stipulate that we must

speak directly to the act and to the points that are contained in the

particular part of the act that we're discussing. So I would suggest

that that's the way we're going to have to go.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think you're absolutely right, and I

would like to say this in closing: I don't think I could have said it

any better than you just did. It's going to be our secret. Never will

you see what you've said in Hansard anywhere in my riding or in

your own riding, but I think you have summed up this

section absolutely

perfectly. I don't think anybody could have done it any better, and I

agree with you absolutely. It doesn't say anything. It doesn't say what

it's going to do or how it's going to do it. Thank you very much. I'm

finished.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I rise primarily due to the remarks

that the member for Prince Rupert just made. I think he's absolutely

correct. I think we could probably debate this

section for the next ten

hours. We've had two hours now on this particular section. We've had

wide and far-ranging debate. I believe that in the interests of getting

on with the business of the people of this province I should move that

the question now be put.

MR. COCKE: I note, Mr. Chairman, that the Chairman is not in the chair.

[ Page 2759 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the acting Chairman is aware of

the point that has been brought to his attention by the member for New

Westminster. Hon. member for Omineca, the acting Chairman is not, under

the rules of this House, allowed to accept the motion that you have put

forward.

MR. ROSE: I won't, I don't think, cause the member for Omineca much anguish, because I don't intend to go on a long time about this.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope not.

MR. ROSE: Unless provoked. Then I might go on a long time. I might go on a very long time.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, you can; it doesn't matter. You can move it

an hour from now if you can stay awake. It would be nice to have you in

the House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we get on to speaking to

section 2?

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I too have been reading the

purpose of this act, and I find that it seems to be internally

contradictory, especially from a free enterprise government that feels

its rewards should be monetary, and that people are motivated by that

sort of thing rather than by non-monetary forms of encouragement. So

when I read that the purpose of this act is "to establish a program

that will encourage productivity," which we can't define, and neither

can the Minister of Education or the Minister of Finance — "and

restrain and stabilize compensation in the public sector...." Now, why

would anybody want to encourage productivity unless they were going to

get some reward out of it? They're not going to get any reward out of

it, they're going to get laid off. If they prove they're more

efficient.... The faster they do that, the faster they prove they're

really redundant. So it seems to me the whole thing is contradictory or

working at cross-purposes.

Anyway, what we're going to do is to encourage productivity,

whatever that means. In schools I think it means fewer teachers will

teach larger and larger classes and there will be less and less

individualized instruction. There will be fewer and fewer firemen

jumping up on roofs to put out flames, but they will have larger hoses

that can squirt faster, or taller ladders, or some such other kind of

nonsense, which this whole thing is. The only thing you can do is to

laugh at it, if it weren't so cruel.

"…while ensuring that the paramount consideration for determining

compensation is the public sector employee's ability to pay." I will

not be tediously repetitious, I promise, in this bill or other bills, or from

previous speakers, but what we do know, and I doubt that it's been said

before, is that the ability to pay on the part of the government is a political

choice. We may agree not to pay schoolteachers, but we may agree to pay more

coal-miners or more railway workers; we may do it one way or the other. So the

ability to pay really is a choice by the government, and nobody else.

[9:00]

There is no such thing as the ability to pay, because if we don't have

the totality of ability to pay — and the government will rush to agree with

me on this — you have to cut something. That's what the government says.

If you don't have revenue, if you've killed the economy, and you don't

have a consumer-led recovery — and you don't; every day proves that you

don't — then you're not going to have the revenue. Therefore you're

not going to have the ability to pay. So if you don't have the ability to

pay, as my friend said, you've got a couple of choices: you can raise taxes

or you can cut workers. If we're going to encourage productivity that means

one of two things: either a larger amount of whatever you want done — teaching,

learning, whatever — is done by fewer people, or the people you have will produce

more of what you are trying to achieve. I don't see that there's any

other kind of definition for it. Or you're going to overcapitalize. The

member for North Vancouver–Capilano used to say there were too many boats chasing

too few fish. If you put in larger boats the fish don't increase, but you

have an increased capitalization; therefore each boat per dollar invested catches

fewer fish. That isn't an example of productivity, that's lowered productivity.

Although each boat catches more fish, per dollar it's fewer fish.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Productivity is a very difficult thing to define, but it's a damned

good thing on a platform. Everybody is for productivity, very

positively favours productivity. They don't like the kind of a

situation I've seen in some South American or Caribbean countries,

where you have six guys on the back of a pickup unloading half a load

of T-shirts. That isn't good productivity.

MR. LEA: It's almost as good as "upbeat" and "challenge."

MR. ROSE: What I'm trying to say is that if you're not going

to do it through financial means, you're going to encourage managers to

encourage productivity and to restrain and stabilize compensation,

which means you're going to encourage this kind of productivity —

whatever the hell that is — but pay them less or the same. All right,

if you're not going to do it through money — which is the prime

motivator, according to that side over there — you're going to have to

do it through something else. Now, how are you going to do it? There

are a lot of traditional means. You can make somebody a sub-manager of

the ribbon counter, like Woolworth's does; you know, assistant manager

of the ribbon counter. That means he doesn't need to belong to the

union, and you can work him 15 hours a day because he has to check the

cash at night. Or you can do it in other ways. You can give somebody a

coloured telephone, or perhaps an office with a rug on the floor. You

can give him hugs and kisses.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Is this relevant?

MR. ROSE: And when I was suggesting hugs and kisses, I wasn't directing my remarks at the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's in the

section either.

MR. ROSE: I'm talking about productivity and attempting to develop the argument that if you're not going to pay

[ Page 2760 ]

people more to produce more — and

section 2 says

that's what you want to do; that that's the main objective of the bill

— then you're going to have to do it in some other way. And you have to

be flexible, because you're not going to do it the same way in one area

as in another, because if you did it would lead to uniformity,

inflexibility and centralization. Of course we don't want to do that,

except that we want Mr. Peck to centralize and make certain that that

kind of thing is stratified.

So what I'm trying to find out from the minister is, if he's not

going to pay them more, what means is he going to use to encourage

productivity? It seems to me there is either the carrot or the stick.

The stick is the threat of being fired. The carrot is more money or

some non-monetary reward. Perhaps a trip to Hawaii.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pride.

MR. ROSE: Pride? Yes, I think that's an important factor. A good old pat on the back, some other means.

That's really about all I wanted to say on that subject. I wanted to

ask a question, and I'll just summarize briefly for the minister so

there is no question about this. "The purpose of this act is to

establish a program that will encourage productivity." Now, we don't

know what that is. That's number one. "And restrain and stabilize

compensation in the public service." That means we're not going to pay

people to produce more in a given economic unit. "While ensuring that

the paramount consideration for determining compensation is the public

sector employer's ability to pay." We know that's a crock of garbage.

So it's a political choice, because you can encourage in one area and

discourage in the other. So how will productivity be encouraged? That

is the question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being

repetitious, I want to restate for the member for Coquitlam-Moody that

consciously, deliberately, we have not attempted to define productivity

by one narrow model. The member for Prince Rupert finds that amusing.

MR. LEA: I do. I find it hilarious.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's because you don't understand.

MR. ROSE: We're listening, we're listening. Go ahead. Let her fly.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The fact is, Mr. Chairman, there are

opportunities that could not be enunciated in this House tonight with

respect to productivity being introduced in the public sector. I made

that point before the dinner hour and since the dinner hour, and I'm

more saddened than embarrassed that the member for Prince Rupert finds

that humorous. That shows the narrowness of his point of view in this

matter.

MR. LEA: Upbeat and challenge!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Upfront. You can't even remember the phrase that you laugh at.

If it is a hospital in Smithers versus a school district on the lower mainland

versus a municipality on northern Vancouver Island, there will be opportunities

for the decision-makers — sorry to use a trite phrase, Mr. Chairman — in that

particular activity to say: "This is how we think productivity can be introduced

into our particular responsibility, our area of responsibility."

The other thing that I think speaks volumes about this is that with

respect to productivity in the guidelines which have been released in

draft form — and the press was interested in this; I think it's

extremely significant in the context of

section 2 — there is no upper

limit for the productivity factor in a compensation plan. That has

nothing to do with the ribbon counter or the coloured telephone or a

larger fire-hose; it is saying to the employers and to the employees —

212,000 strong in this province — productivity has to be given greater

recognition in this particular time in our development; find ways in

which it will work for your particular circumstance, rather than by

directive stated in 15 or 20 lines from Victoria. I've said it before

and I state it once again.

MR. ROSE: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what the minister

has said, cutting across all ministries and all sectors of the public

service, is that productivity by his definition is two squares of Purex

instead of three.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm curious to know how you measure

productivity in service areas, for example. I'm talking about jobs that

have to do with....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your microphone please, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. It's just that I never need it when I'm

speaking to my kids, even when they're two blocks away. It's just the

same here.

I'm kind of curious. Would the minister advise me: how do you

measure productivity in service areas, for example? I'm thinking of

people who, for example, work with battered women.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think we broached this point earlier....

MS. BROWN: Oh, you did?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. We had to admit that that type of

discussion might be better covered under a particular minister's

estimates. It would be hard for the Minister of Finance, under this

bill and in this section, to answer that type of detailed question. It

has been discussed.

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, how can one decide whether to

accept the concept of productivity if one doesn't know how it's going

to be applied? You know, the minister, in issuing his press release on

this

section and on the bill as a whole, said that there were two key

thrusts to his amendment: one was consideration of the public sector

employer's ability to pay; the other was to do with the public

employees' paycheques depending on greater productivity. Now if I don't

know how the productivity measurement is going to be applied, how can I

decide whether it's going to work or not? I mean, I can see that if you

measure productivity by how many miles of road are blacktopped in a

week or a month, or something like that, that is easy. But in areas

which are not as visible and not as easy to measure, it would help if

the

[ Page 2761 ]

minister would give some guidance as to what kind of criteria he would be looking at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver South on a point of order.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we've heard all these arguments before, and standing order 43 says "no tedious repetition."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. As I've pointed out to the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds, that argument has been advanced earlier during debate

on this

section by other members, and all members in the committee had

to conclude that it would be virtually impossible for the minister to

enter into and discuss the administrative actions of every ministry.

MS. BROWN: The minister has indicated a willingness to respond. I wonder if we would allow him the courtesy of doing so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister may wish to.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was going to observe much as

you did, that earlier this evening, after the adjournment for dinner, I

indicated that I did not think that it was appropriate for me. One

example inquired about was education. Now the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds has raised another example. It is not appropriate, and

I wonder how many times I've been on my feet to make that point. This

member has not spoken before this evening on this section, but the

debate is becoming tedious and repetitious in that we could have

literally hundreds of examples asked of me in the debate on

section 2

of this bill as to how productivity would be introduced. I say, once

again, Mr. Chairman, that productivity will be identified as a key

factor in compensation; it will be taken into consideration by the

commissioner. It will prove very easy to introduce in some instances,

less easy — more challenging, if you wish to put it another way — in

other instances. But we are saying that the purpose is, among other

things, increased productivity, and I don't think that's so difficult

for the members opposite. I frankly don't know how I can assist the

committee further when specific inquiries are made as to a program

activity or an activity that is of interest to a specific member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for

that explanation. I have one other question. When we look at the

statistics, for example, in the public sector we find that again,

although 51 percent of the people who work in this sector are female,

they tend to be congregated at the bottom of the pay scale. Now would

the productivity concept be one that would be used in terms of helping

them achieve the goal of, say, equal pay for work of equal value, or

would their efforts in that regard be hindered in any way by the

application of the productivity concept?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if I'm not out of order — and

I don't believe I am in terms of the purpose of the act — from the

outset it was clearly the intention of the government last year, with

the first compensation stabilization program, to encourage the

possibility of lower-paid workers, male or female, in the province to

make it possible for them to receive greater increases than their

better-paid associates. This is a basic reason why employees are dealt

with under the CSP in groups rather than as individuals. I would think

the member opposite would applaud that, notwithstanding her resistance

to the essential theme of the public sector compensation restraint. It

has worked. Most noticeably, it's to be found in some large hospitals:

at St. Paul's in Vancouver, the average increase was 7.19 percent — I'm

speaking of a past increase under the program — for the average.

Lower-paid workers received 24 percent, supervisory staff received 6

and executives received 5.85. I think that example would assist the

member in understanding that flexibility is inherent in compensation

stabilization — last year it was, and certainly it is continued as a

purpose in this amending act.

[9:15]

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

NAYS — 7

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 3 approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment identified as 3.1 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

section 4.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) thinks we've already passed this. Let him go back to sleep,

or wherever he is.

I did discuss this at some length in second reading, and the

minister did respond, but at this time I would like to move an

amendment to delete clause (

b) of

section 4. The effect of the

amendment would be to.... Should I wait for you or should I talk about

it while you're thinking?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. One moment, and we'll have a decision.

MR. STUPICH: Well, the effect of the amendment is to remove the 24-month limitation. We still have nine months to

[ Page 2762 ]

go, since the Compensation Stabilization Act was

assented to on June 25, 1982. I think it's too soon to admit that the

government's total economic program is a complete and abject failure

and to say at this point in time that it has failed to the extent that

we have to say we don't know when the government's program is going to

be able to have any positive effect on the economy. So let's leave the

24-month period in for the time being. There's plenty of time to review

that next spring, in the event that we all know by then that the

government has failed in its program to try to turn around the economy

of the province of British Columbia. So let's not admit it's a failure.

Let's remove this 24-month limitation. Next spring, if the government

insists, they can bring that forward again and admit at that time how

much they've failed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I just have a bit of a problem here.

MR. STUPICH: Perhaps I can help you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't find "24 consecutive months" either in the amending bill before us or in the main CSP act.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, 24 months is under (a), hon. member. That's in the act.

MR. STUPICH: No, it's 9(2)....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to be difficult, but I have it under (

a) in the CSP act.

MR. STUPICH: It is in the CSP act, but in the bill before us

what we're doing is repealing subsection (2) of the CSP act, which

includes the reference to 24 months.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Got it! The amendment's in order.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I trust the government will accept it.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the government will not accept

the amendment, even though the member has indicated reasons why.

Fundamental to the compensation stabilization program and the budget of

1983 was the indication that the program would be extended

indefinitely. I believe that it will be a continuing part of public

sector compensation, not only in this province but in other parts of

the country in time to come.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering whether I heard

the minister correctly — "fundamental to the 1983 budget"? It's my

understanding that the budget runs to March 31, 1984. Is he telling us

that the budget for the year ending March 31, 1984, is intended to

extend beyond that date — that we won't bother having any budgets any

more?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, not at all. My choice of words was poor. It's

fundamental to the introduction of the 1983 budget and the compensation stabilization

program. Fundamental to budget day was the indication that compensation stabilization

would continue. I apologize for giving incorrect information to the committee

a few moments ago. It was not intentional.

MR. STUPICH: I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the

minister will go one step further then and admit at this time that the

government's program has been a failure and that's why it's necessary

to extend the time-limit indefinitely.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Quite the contrary, Mr. Chairman. We believe that the program is a keystone to the recovery that is underway in this province.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this takes us back to yesterday's

question period and today's question period. All of the evidence, with

the exception of a little bit introduced by the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), is to the contrary. The

minister said, when the Compensation Stabilization Act was being

debated last year, it would be necessary to do this for only two years

because this was going to lead us on the road to recovery. The minister

is now saying that the program is working so well that we are going to

have to keep it going indefinitely — we have to keep these tight

controls on indefinitely because we see no other way out.

To me, the minister is admitting a failure although he is not prepared to put it in those words.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up the debate that

has been taking place, I have one very simple question to the minister.

He thumped his desk and said, yes, the Compensation Stabilization Act

is pushing the province to the road to recovery. Would he give us some

examples of why and how the Compensation Stabilization Act is moving us

to recovery? It might help us in deciding how to vote on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on your amendment, hon. member, and....

HON. MR. CURTIS: I indicated earlier that we are not

accepting the amendment, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps after the amendment is

dealt with, I could answer the member's question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We haven't called for a vote on the amendment, and I presume members are still speaking to it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is trying to keep the

government honest. In other bills at the outset they have had sunset

clauses and have removed the sunset clauses. In one they have

reinserted it. As I recall that was an education bill — finance

(interim) etc. What we are talking about here is giving the minister an

opportunity to at least introduce a sunset clause into this bill —

there was one in the original — which means that at a certain point in

time the bill is no longer relevant. This kind of artificial

manipulation of people and the economy has never proven satisfactory.

They tried it in the Dirty Thirties and it didn't work. I'm just

suggesting that he should leave a sunset clause in, and that's what the

hon. member for Nanaimo is suggesting with this amendment.

[ Page

2763 ]

[9:30]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 7

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Rose

NAYS — 29

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 4.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, since the amendment wasn't

accepted we simply have to oppose this section, which really states

that for all time, as far as this administration is concerned, until

there is some change in administration or change on the part of that

government, the cabinet will determine compensation stabilization

guidelines. They may determine them as often as they like, as

frequently as they like during the year, every year. Bargaining will

cease to exist, or cease to have any meaning — it will be a mere

charade as far as wages are concerned. It will be the cabinet that will

set the guidelines; it can change the guidelines at will, from day to

day, week to week, month to month or whatever. That kind of legislation

has to be opposed.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, during discussion of our amendment

the minister was asked to give examples of how the Compensation

Stabilization Act has improved the economy. He assured me he would give

me some during the major part of the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was partially on my feet

just a few moments ago to cover that off. The compensation

stabilization program introduced in 1982 has proven to be, in the view

of the government, and I think in the view of many observers — I

believe that I am speaking to the section, because it deals with the

extension — eminently successful. There has been a very high approval

rate under the guidelines rather than through the regulations: 87

percent approved initially with a further 10 percent approved later.

Speaking to the economy, the level of public sector settlements has gone from

around 13 percent in early 1982 to less than 4 percent now. For every drop of

a percentage point in public sector settlements there is a $45 million saving,

initially to public sector employers but ultimately to the taxpayers, whether

at the municipal level or provincial or whatever.

The other point I would like to make is that there was that

fundamental need to bring public sector and private sector settlements

more into balance. That had not been the case for some years. That

balance has been achieved. That balance is a very precious thing to

maintain. That is one of the key reasons for the extension.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister for answering, but I have a

further question for him. He has pointed out how this has saved money.

I wonder if he would follow that up by telling us how it has improved

the economic recovery. What examples do we have? I presume that is the

object of this whole act.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think it was the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea), who is in his place now, earlier and debating another

section, but it is probably apropos here. As he saw it, there were

three options open to government: borrow more, increase taxes or a

combination of the two.

MR. LEA: Or a change of priority.

HON. MR. CURTIS: But you dealt specifically with those, Mr.

Member. Clearly the beneficial results to the economy are in a reduced

burden on the taxpayer, who has said quite clearly: "Look, we've sent

you all the money we have at this particular point in time."

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just one word. I noted that the

minister was comparing private and public sector settlements. The

private sector, without all the falderal and bully tactics, have

settlements that are running lower than the public sector. So what is

the minister talking about? The fact of the matter is, if the minister

would let the economy dictate the kind of settlements that are there

and are available, then it can be done. But you see, Mr. Chairman,

these people don't understand that. They're afraid to bargain.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

NAYS — 7

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[9:45]

section 5.

[ Page 2764 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I won't be long on this, but I

wanted to make sure the minister and I agree as to the implication of

section 5. Firstly, it refers to public sector employees as defined by

the Compensation Stabilization Act, and the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Chabot) informed the House some weeks or months ago that that

totalled some 300,000 employees. I admit that the government is hoping

to reduce that by 25 percent — to put 62,500 people on unemployment

insurance or social assistance. So we are talking about all of those

people. Their compensation will be determined by the specific

employer's ability to pay, and the ability to pay will be controlled by

cabinet either directly by allocating funds to the particular agency or

employer and thereby limiting the ability to pay, or by its influence

on the board of directors of every one of the Crown corporations that

the government controls either by appointing directors or by having its

own directors at meetings. So when we say "ability to pay" we are

really saying that the cabinet will determine just what will be the

compensation guidelines for every one of the entities that is involved

in the employment of some 300,000 people less 25 percent.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member for

Nanaimo, this is a new

section to the act, and it spells out the

importance in the program of the consideration of ability to pay. I'm

not sure that I would place the same complexion on it that the member

for Nanaimo has in describing it. But that responsibility rests with

both parties: employees and management — if I may use the term; it may

be a council or whatever — as well as the arbitrators, as we discussed

in an earlier section. I think I used examples before the dinner break

with respect to some instances where the executive council, as such,

has relatively little involvement in the final revenue level of a

particular agency. I did deal with that in debate on

section 2, ability

to pay. As I say, the member opposite will place his complexion on the

section, but it says to both parties and to the arbitrators or an

arbitrator, as the case may be: "You must take into account ability to

pay." That is correct.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take up the time

of the House now reading all of the agencies and Crown corporations and

municipalities and school boards and all those institutions that are

included in this definition of public sector employees. Would the

minister give me one of these organizations or agencies or whatever

that is not controlled by the executive council as to its revenue?

HON. MR. CURTIS: As I described earlier, Mr. Chairman,

virtually any municipality, which, while it receives revenue-sharing

grants introduced by this government, does decide, through a variety of

taxes, the level of the burden that will be placed on the people who

reside or do business in that municipality. I think that has been

debated at length. So that would give you 142 examples right there.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, is there any one of the

municipalities that is not required to submit its budget to the

minister for approval? Not to the Minister of Finance — to the Minister

of Municipal Affairs and hence to the executive council.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No municipalities are required to submit budgets to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would have you note that the

minister said, "to the Minister of Finance." But budgets are all

submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They all have to be

approved by bylaw. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, at last count,

was a member of the executive council, and I believe he confers

occasionally with the Minister of Finance.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the

section is part of the parcel

that we see before us. We know who calls the shots with respect to

ability to pay: the Minister of Finance together with the Treasury

Board and their control, of course, over the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. They will decide just exactly what the availability of cash

will be as far as their separate and different agencies are concerned

and therefore place the arbitrator, the employees and the employers in

a position where they must do the bidding of the government.

Centralization all the way is what we see here. If you can't do it any

other way then do it with the full power and authority of government.

I would just like to suggest to the Minister of Finance that if

something like this were introduced in the federal House and applied to

the provincial authority there would be heck to pay. Can you imagine

those Socreds jumping and thundering and screaming their little heads

off? But it's quite different when they use their muscle on a lower

level of government. Then it's okay, because they have all the virtue,

all the sense, all the wisdom. We just don't believe it. Certainly

nothing that has happened in the past two years has given us any

confidence whatsoever in this government to call the shots as they have

decided to call them: widening their sphere, increasing their muscle

and eventually affecting the lives of every British Columbian. It's a

shame. You made a mistake. You should admit it and start all over

again. But you won't do that, will you? You've got this precious

mandate. Mandate or no mandate, I would like to go back to that example

I used. I can just imagine the thunder if another level of government

imposed the kind of restrictions on this government that this

government deigns to move on lower levels and agencies.

MS. BROWN: What this

section is saying is that it is not

taking into account the commitment made in an earlier

section which had

to do with productivity. It also isn't saying anything about

establishing priorities. It seems to me that when you're working out

compensation those three things have to be taken into account, not just

ability to pay — we all know that you can't pay if the money isn't

there — but certainly in terms of establishing the priorities as to who

gets paid and how much and what programs or people get priority. That,

in addition to productivity, is best worked out through bargaining,

cooperation, dialogue and working together. Instead of that, this bill

— and this

section in particular — concentrates all those decisions,

control and power in the hands of the government. I think that's

unfortunate.

Section 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

[ Page

2765 ]

NAYS — 7

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

Section 6 approved.

[10:00]

section 7.

MR. STUPICH: If I may read the explanatory note, this

section

"makes it clear that the compensation regulations of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may limit increases in, maintain or

reduce compensation in the public sector." This

section says that from

now on, with no time limit at all, cabinet will have absolute authority

— I think the minister came awfully close to admitting that the

decisions are going to made in the executive council — to set the wage

rates for some 300,000 public sector employees. Yet in other

legislation the government has said that they intend to let bargaining

between government employees and the various employment agencies

continue. They have said that bargaining will still be going on and

mean something under the other legislation. The only thing left to

bargain is wages and working conditions, and this

section says that

even that is out because the cabinet will have the absolute authority

to impose increases or decreases or to keep salaries level. It's a very

reprehensible section. There might be some rationalization to have it

in effect for a limited period of 24 months, but certainly we have to

oppose, to the limit of our ability, anything that gives that much

authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's important for Hansard and for

the record to point out that we have moved now to the portion of the

act that deals with the regulations. This is modelled precisely as the

1982 act was modelled, with guidelines and regulations. It is, in my

view, a tribute to public sector employers and employees that thus far

983 plans have been approved since the introduction of the program, and

none have been under the regulations.

We spoke last year of "jump safely or be pushed," and I tried in the

interval to think of a phrase that might not provoke some reaction on

the other side, but apparently that might not be happening tonight. The

guidelines are the mechanism under which the parties can negotiate and

reach conclusions. The regulations are there if they are required. I

didn't offer that as idle flattery to the system, but I think it speaks

again for the program as introduced in 1982. No one has been forced,

under the regulations. There were those three or four senior officials

in Surrey who had their salaries rolled back, but that wasn't as a

regulation. The fact of the matter is that legislation of this kind has

to have the other force, and those are the amendments that are placed

before us in

section 7 and subsequent sections.

I trust that we will continue as we have, under the guidelines, rather than under any regulations.

MR. STUPICH: I feel the minister is proving my case. The

system, as he describes it, has been working up to this time. So now we

say that something that's been working has to be tampered with. We have

to say to people who have lived under this system, knowing that it was

going to be for a 24-month period — that by then there would be no

longer a need for this kind of program — that "you've proven you can

work with this program for 18 months and the reward is that you're

going to live under this program from now on."

Beyond that we've said that up to this point in time we've had the

authority to limit increases. We're now saying to them that we may

impose decreases. I suggest to you that the program is being

dramatically and drastically changed. To say that it has worked

successfully in the past 18 months — when it was put to people as

something of an emergency situation with which they were going to have

to live for two years and that there would be limits to increases in

pay — is one thing, but to say to them now that they are going to live

from this day on under the threat of cabinet regulations, subject to

change daily or weekly — changes that may impose up to 5 percent

decreases with no sunset clause at all — is presenting a program that

will not have the success rate up to this point in time and will

destroy the admitted effectiveness of the program. I am concerned that

the government is so anxious to tamper with something they feel has

been working well. If it has been working as well as the minister says

it has, why on earth is he changing it to this extent?

MS. BROWN: I want to suggest, as my colleague from Nanaimo

stated, that it doesn't seem that, if this act goes through, we will

have any place in our system any more for collective bargaining. I am

not reflecting on another vote or talking about another piece of

legislation, but when we look at the package — those three pieces of

legislation, Bills 3, 11 and 26 — we see that all we need is Ed Peck to

decide on all the wages of all of the public sector workers everywhere.

Earlier in the bill we've had a statement about productivity and how

that's going to be taken into account in terms of deciding

compensation. We find that this is all nonsense. In fact you may be

penalized simply on the whim of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

regardless of whether your productivity is up or not or whether you may

have negotiated anything in a contract. This is very dangerous.

I wonder if the minister has taken into account the impact of this

kind of legislation on the business community. People who never know

from one month to another whether their wage is going to be rolled back

are not going to be secure consumers of either goods or services.

Everyone is going to start hoarding, because they never know when their

salary is going to be rolled back by 5 percent one month and then two

or three months later by an additional 5 percent again. I think that

that is not a good way to treat people who work either in the public or

in the private sector.

One of the things that the minister likes to talk about is that he

is now bringing to the public sector the same insecurities that workers

in the private sector have had to live with all along. First, I don't

think that's correct. Second, I don't think that's good enough even if

it were correct. What we should be doing, if for no other reason that

it's good for business, is making the worker secure in terms of her or

his employment and making people feel that they can spend their wages,

that they can go out and purchase services and consumer goods without

worrying that they will turn around three or four months later and find

that a decision which was negotiated by the municipality in terms of

paying them $100

[ Page 2766 ]

a month has been reversed by the government and that they are going to experience a $5 a month cut in their salary.

I know that one of the cornerstones of the theories that govern the

government's decision is that you don't do impact studies on the

economy. You simply go ahead and cut and slash and do what you perceive

needs to be done. But it seems to me that if the minister is really

serious about recovery, he should start looking at all of the

signposts, because clearly the increase in the number of people out of

work and the number of bankruptcies in the province should be an

indication to him that something isn't right. The thing that isn't

right and isn't working is that the insecurity of people in the public

sector and the spinoff from those workers is being reflected in the

economy at large.

Business is the one that suffers — not just small business, but even

department stores and other commercial enterprises that service the

community at large. They're the ones who are being victimized by the

insecurity of the public sector worker. This can be directly traced to

this kind of legislation. I think that subsection (c), in particular,

which is a

section that allows the government to.... The members on the

government benches can smile and relax and feel secure because their

wages, they think, won't be rolled back for the next three or four

years, but I think they should start thinking about the working people

they represent. When I stand on my feet to speak against this section,

it's not because I'm worried that my wage is going to be rolled back,

but I can see the devastation that's being wrought in Burnaby-Edmonds

in terms of the number of small businesses going bankrupt simply

because people are no longer spending their money. They never know from

one day to another whether they're going to be laid off, terminated,

redeployed or whatever other euphemism the government chooses to apply

to them. Even if they are secure, they never know, when this

section

goes into law, whether they're going to find that the settlement that

they have negotiated is going to be rolled back 5 percent by this

government. That insecurity does impact on the community at large. I

think the minister should take that into account and certainly should

respond to it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: One of the very admirable aspects of the

compensation stabilization program of last year, which is continued

into this year, is the range. We started with a range in February 1982,

and altered it in July 1982. It is altered so far as the draft

regulations and guidelines are concerned now. Quite contrary to what

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has said, I think this does introduce an

element of stability. I also would remind her of the earlier

conversation with respect to fairness toward lower-paid workers, male

and female. The range, which gives the commissioner and the parties

flexibility, can be altered as economic circumstances permit — not

dictate, but permit. I think most of us in this province would like to

see the situation whereby the economy has recovered to the extent that

we don't have to have a minus factor. The fact is that under the

present circumstances, we do. Again, I point out to the committee that

these are the regulations. I hope they don't have to be used.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm in the opposition, but I enjoy listening to the minister more than his colleagues do, apparently.

I want to point out in preface to asking a question that the

minister who brought in this bill and is now debating it with us is the

same minister who, I understand, recently announced that the cap is

going to be taken off utility price increases. So I have a question for

the minister. How can he consider this a fair and equitable piece of

legislation when he is restricting the wages of one sector of our

society at the same time that he is not restricting the price increases

which they are going to have to pay for?

[10:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't know how I can answer that question

under the restrictions imposed on anyone in debate on a

section of a

bill that deals with compensation stabilization. I would be happy to

take the question in question period or in estimates, insofar as my

ministry is concerned.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister would explain to me

exactly the ramification of subsection (c), where you're taking out

"increases in." It now says: "limitations on compensation."

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary to

look at

section 17,

part 3, of last year's Bill 28. Clause (

c) deals

with the changes throughout the section, allowing for decreases as well

as increases in compensation. I think it is important to note that

clause (c), clause (

d) and clause (

e) are related.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the

section that I was

expressing some concern about, because if I am interpreting it

correctly, which the minister just told me I was, this

section allows

the minister to impose decreases. Is that it? Is that what the minister

is saying?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, that is not a matter for the Minister of

Finance, whoever that may be, to impose. Again, these are the

regulations rather than the guidelines, and it permits the commissioner

to review a compensation plan and to introduce a negative factor, as

was announced much earlier on. This is the action

section with respect

to the commissioner should he find it necessary to put a group under

the regulations rather than under the guidelines, and to do so in a

minus factor of up to 5 percent.

MS. BROWN: The terms "negative factor" and "minus factor"

mean a 5 percent decrease — that's all I was trying to clarify, Mr.

Chairman. It is this right now being given under this particular

subsection that, I think, creates the insecurity that I was discussing

earlier, and it is this particular subsection (

c) that I was addressing

my remarks to in speaking about the

section in its entirety. I don't

know whether my colleague is going to move that amendment or not

but.... Do you want me to move it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Be my guest.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to move an amendment which I think you have at the table.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't see it but I'll look.

MS. BROWN: What the amendment says is that

section 7 should

be amended by deleting clause (c). The reasons for that were embodied

in the comments which I made earlier, so I won't repeat myself.

[ Page 2767 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I heard the member speaking of subsection (c), but your amendment says "by deleting clause (b)."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, this is the previous one we dealt with. We'll correct it here, hon. member. The correction reads....

AN HON. MEMBER: We've heard that before!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Trust me. I have it under the name of the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds to amend

section 7 by deleting clause (c).

We have it now. The amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 7

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Rose

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

Schroeder

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

NAYS — 7

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

section 8.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this

section again brings up doing

away with the 24-month limit. I sincerely believe this is a bad mistake

on the part of the government. I think it is going to work against the

success of the whole program. I have tried unsuccessfully to use my

arguments on the minister up to this point. A limit could be imposed at

any time; it needn't be done now. I would strongly urge the government

to reconsider its position with respect to this 24-month deadline and

move an amendment to delete

section 8, to give them an opportunity to

take a second look at the 24-month limitation feature. I realize it

would affect other parts of the bill, but I move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with the greatest regret, I must

declare the motion out of order, as it is a straight negation of the

section itself. I so rule.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate what we have said

on a previous

section about the whole question of the limitations, they

were placed there in good faith in the first place. They were accepted

by much of the community in good faith, and now the limitations are

removed. The fact of the matter is that there is another minister in

this government who in fact reintroduced a sunset clause, and it

strikes me that the Minister of Finance, with a little grace, could

institute a sunset clause in this particular piece of legislation. It

is far-reaching. It says that negotiations are no longer possible; that

we are no longer dealing with freedoms, we are dealing with arbitrary

decisions made by an arbitrary government. I feel that the 24-month

aspect of the bill should be left in.

[10:30]

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think there must have been a

typographical error here, because this

section says: "A decision or

order made by the commissioner is final and binding." There's no

appeal, absolutely no recourse whatsoever.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It seems to me that for it to be fair, even-handed

and just, there has to be an appeal procedure. I would like the

minister to assure me that somewhere in the act I have missed that

there is an appeal procedure. Would he show me what

section it is? Is

the appeal procedure hidden somewhere else in the act?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that there is

an opportunity here for the commissioner's rulings to be upset for good

and sufficient reasons — as an example, denial of natural justice. I am

not legally trained, but I have been informed that this is a relatively

mild, privative section, and I believe it ensures that those matters

could be taken further where it is clearly demonstrated that the

commissioner has denied natural justice. So there is appeal.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I just can't resist this. I was on that side of the House and the minister was on this side

[ Page 2768 ]

of the House when I advanced the same argument with

respect to Bill 42. I accept what he says, because I know it to be

true. He didn't accept it when I said it, although I believe at that

time he knew it to be true.

Sections 11 through 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. STUPICH: We're doing well. We're at

section 16, and I have an amendment to delete

section 16, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. STUPICH: I'm opposed to retroactivity in general,

although I support it on occasion when it's necessary. In this case I

don't believe it's necessary. I don't believe it adds anything at all

to the legislation to make this particular bill retroactive, and I

would urge the government to accept this amendment.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, the Chair must rule that amendment out of order on the grounds that it is a direct negative.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking in opposition to this

section. As I said before, I don't want to repeat any of the arguments

I used earlier, but this

section is not only to be retroactive, but

even a decrease can be retroactive. In other words, an award can have

been made and been in place between July 7 and now, and then it can be

reversed up to a maximum of minus 5 percent. What happens to that

money? Do they have to repay that? Is it necessary for them to repay

that if the decision is made that they have been awarded 5 percent more

than they should have received?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, no. The circumstance which the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds has outlined could not happen. If a plan has

been filed with the commissioner before the date that the guidelines

and regulations carry, then it is to be accepted under the old rules.

The date to which I refer is October 11. That was the date on which we

released the amended compensation stabilization guidelines and

regulations. They are now in draft form, but if the member might care

to examine page 3 of the covering release, it indicates in the last

paragraph that the amendments to the guidelines and regulations will

come into effect on October 11, 1983. We looked at this very carefully.

It was one of a series of bills presented on budget day. There is an

element of continuity required. But the commissioner cannot reach back

into July 7 or 8 with a plan that was accepted by him through that

interval.

MS. BROWN: I understand that the commissioner cannot reclaim moneys already paid, but can the commissioner overturn a plan?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, he cannot, not if he has received it. And there are a number which fall into that circumstance.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to try another amendment

on the same section, line 3: delete all words after "act" — that's the

second to the last word in line 3 — and add "shall take effect upon

proclamation."

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would appear that we're going to have a problem with this one as well, and I'm sorry I have to rule it out of order.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I give up.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, there's no question that as far as

we're concerned, whether or not the amendments that we might put

forward may negate what the government wants to do with respect to this

section, the fact is that we would like to negate what the government

wants to do with this section.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Precisely what I'm going to do. And I'll speak against it too — interminably if you keep that up.

In any event, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Do you need some sleep? I'm just as bright and chipper as ever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You look that way too, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Thank you. I'm feeling fine.

Mr. Chairman, the retroactivity practised here and elsewhere is

becoming habitual with this government. Every move they make, it would

appear to me, they want to make retroactive moves. It's mainly because

of the fact that there's no planning ahead. There never has been any

planning ahead. Everything is moving from chaos to chaos, one step

closer to the edge of the precipice, or the edge of the abyss. In any

event, this

section is offensive. As the member for Nanaimo said, on

rare occasions when there is an emergency that demands that this kind

of thing take effect, that's one thing. But if you look at the bills

that this Legislature has been debating, not only this year but for the

past two or three years, we have been debating this very kind of

section where retroactivity is invoked in order to clean up the mess

that they have created prior to a situation.

Mr. Chairman, we oppose the entire proposition here, but we

particularly oppose retroactivity as we see it in

section 16. We will

be prepared, as the minister suggests, to vote against it.

MS. BROWN: I need some more clarification from the minister

about just how retroactive this

section is going to be, because it says

that a guideline under these two pieces of legislation may be

retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on or after July

7. That means it can go back further than July 7. Is that what this

section is actually saying? It may be retroactive to whatever extent is

necessary to give it effect on or after July 7. Does the

section say

that the guidelines made prior to July 7 can be…? Will the minister

explain? It says in the notes that it's "self-explanatory," and

obviously it's not.

[ Page 2769 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, let me quote

section 16:

"A guideline made under

section 9 of the Compensation

Stabilization Act, as amended by this act, or a compensation regulation

made under

section 17 of the Compensation Stabilization Act, as amended

by this act, may be retroactive to the extent necessary to give it

effect on and after July 7, 1983, but no guideline or compensation

regulation may, six months after the date the Lieutenant-Governor

assents to this act, be made retroactive."

So I state again that following the same pattern as in 1982, the

draft guidelines and regulations which were released on October 11 and

which contain the numerical limits become effective on October 11. Now

they're draft, and we invite public participation and comment. But as

amended, or as issued in draft form, they will become effective on the

11th day of this month. So I can't be of any more assistance to the

member on that point. The retroactivity is in the bill; it's not in the

numbers, the percentages, which have been issued as of yesterday.

Section 16 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

NAYS — 8

Macdonald

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[10:45]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 11, Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983, reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:50 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada