1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, MAY 17, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7607 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman's annual report, 1981.

Mr. Speaker –– 7607

Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 41). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 7607

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 7607

Oral Questions

Foreclosure writs. Mr. Gabelmann –– 7607

Arbitration in the public sector. Mr. King –– 7608

Mr. Barrett

Northeast coal master agreement. Ms. Sanford –– 7608

Quarterly estimates of gross provincial product. Mr. Stupich –– 7609

Confidential government studies. Mr. Stupich –– 7609

Transpo 86 board nominees. Mr. Macdonald –– 7609

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates,

On vote 5: minister's office –– 7609

Hon. Mr. Williams

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 29). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7610

Mr. Lauk –– 7610

Mr. Leggatt –– 7611

Mr. Lorimer –– 7612

Mr. Levi –– 7612

Mr. Mussallem –– 7612

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7613

Mr. Mitchell –– 7613

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7613

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

section 9 –– 7614

Mr. Barber

Mr. Levi

Mr. Lea

Ms. Brown

Ms. Sanford

MONDAY, MAY 17, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. DAVIDSON: In the gallery today

from Tsawwassen Junior Secondary School we have several students with

their teachers, Mr. Beach, Mr. Peacosh and Mrs. Looije. We also have

several students from St. Foy, Quebec, and I'd ask the House to make

them very welcome here this afternoon.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today two visitors from

Japan. These visitors represent the town of Ishikari, which is on the

northernmost island of Hokkaido. Our guests are Mr. Sukeyuki Aoyama,

who is the manager of promotion and self-government for the town, and

Mr. Mansahito Miyamori, who is the general manager of affairs in the

town office. Ishikari is in the process of twinning with our own city

of Campbell River, and I'm sure this will be of great interest to some

of the members on the other side of the House. Their hosts from

Campbell River are also here with us today, and they include Mr. Warren

Peterson and Mr. Ron Barnard, who are co-chairmen of the Campbell River

Chamber of Commerce twinning committee. They are accompanied by Mrs.

Junko MacKinnon of Brentwood Bay, who is acting as their interpreter. I

thought it would also interest members to know that our Japanese

visitors come from a city of 16,000 people which is known as the salmon

capital of their country. It is on a bay in the Sea of Japan, and I'm

told it is strikingly similar to Campbell River in many ways. I would

ask all members of the House to ask our visitors to join us today and

wish them well in their visit and twinning with Campbell River.

MR. GABELMANN:

The Leader of the Opposition was trying to teach me a few words of

Japanese, but I am afraid that I am a slow learner and I didn't quite

pick up on them.

I too would like to join with the Minister

of Tourism in welcoming Mr. Barnard and Mr. Peterson from the Chamber

of Commerce in Campbell River and especially Mr. Aoyama and Miyamori

from the city of Ishikari in Japan. I am sure that all members will

join with both of us in welcoming them here to Victoria on such an

important day in their lives and an important day, I might say, for

Campbell River in its program of twinning with the city of Ishikari.

MR. SEGARTY:

In the gallery today is a very dedicated public servant from Cranbrook,

deputy government agent Mr. Martin Reid. Along with Martin is Mr.

Murdoch McIver from Cranbrook. I would like the House to give them a

welcome this afternoon.

MR. BARRETT: What I was going

to suggest to the member was that in expressing our very great

appreciation for the twinning program between Japan — particularly

Hokkaido's cities — and British Columbia, just a personal message:

watakushiwa hontom arai gatadesu.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: On behalf of our two members for Vancouver–Little

Mountain — the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — and my seatmate the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

and myself, would members join in welcoming students from Osler Elementary School

in Vancouver who are in the precincts today with their teacher, Mr. Banks,

and are also accompanied by one parent, Alderman Helen Boyce of the city of

Vancouver.

MR. HANSON:

In the gallery today there is a retired registered nurse from my

riding. Her name is Lillian Knighton. I would ask the House to welcome

her.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are two

gentlemen from the city of Penticton — Mr. Bob Klatt and Mr. Jake

Friesen. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Students from my constituency are here today, from Vedder Elementary School. Please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker tabled the 1981 annual report of the ombudsman.

Introduction of Bills

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Family Relations Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FORECLOSURE WRITS

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing. In the first four months of this year the number of

foreclosure writs served by the sheriff's office in Vancouver was 979.

This is more than a threefold increase over the same period last year.

The sheriff's office is now serving in excess of three foreclosure

writs each working hour. Can the minister advise what action the

government has decided to take to alleviate the impact of vicious

interest rates upon B.C. homeowners and small business people?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Well, that's news to me. I wish the member would identify whether he is

referring to small business industry or to homeowners, and I wish he'd

separate the numbers into homeowners and small business, and industrial

as well.

[ Page 7608 ]

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, the minister may well wish that I ask the question in a

different manner because he's afraid to give an answer to a very

dramatic increase in foreclosures. These are foreclosures in both small

businesses and in homes, which have tripled from the first four months

of last year to the first four months of this year. Has the minister

decided to introduce legislation particularly to protect homeowners

against this wave of foreclosures by the banks?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, my ministry doesn't include small business, so I would

suggest that the information he's conveying is more relevant to the

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development than it is to the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. Very few concerns on this issue

have been expressed to me by homeowners in British Columbia.

ARBITRATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour. On Friday

last, Norman Spector, the deputy minister in the Premier's office, was

reported as saying to two public-sector arbitrators, paraphrasing the

Premier: "If you guys can't do this — if you can't do the job — then,

believe me, I reserve the right in exceptional circumstances to recall

the Legislature and deal with these matters." Has the minister decided

that government officials should try to influence arbitrators through

thinly disguised threats?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr.

Speaker, I presume this was published in the paper on the weekend. I

haven't seen the publication, and I'm really not in a position to make

any comment whatsoever.

MR. KING: Since the Minister

of Labour is the person responsible for appointing public arbitrators,

is it his policy to allow intimidation of that arbitrator by the

Premier or any other official or the Premier's deputy? It's a very

simple question.

MR. SPEAKER: A further question from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the senior public servant in the

Premier's office is now authorized to threaten and influence

arbitrators, can the Minister of Labour advise where he hopes to find

people to take on the responsibility of arbitrators in the province?

MR. SPEAKER: A new question from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, in view of Mr. Spector's comments that the integrity of

the arbitration process is relatively unimportant, can the minister

advise what new methods of resolving labour-management disputes without

strikes he is contemplating? The arbitrators themselves are crying out

and objecting to the type of intimidation which the Premier's office is

trying to force on them. Is the Minister of Labour going to sit in

cowardly fashion and allow that to happen to reputable people in the

province?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The question is out of order. Hon. members, questions

need to be phrased in a fashion not prone to create disorder in the

House. Does the Minister of Labour wish to answer?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, as I advised the member, I haven't had an opportunity to

read the comments or have them confirmed. I cannot verify anything

that's been said. I will tell you that the integrity of collective

bargaining and the integrity of the arbitrators who are selected will

be preserved within the province of British Columbia.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to hear that response from the very

tough-minded Minister of Labour. Can he assure the House that he was

consulted before Mr. Spector and the Premier threatened the arbitrators?

MR. BARRETT:

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

Labour. Can we interpret his answer as meaning that there will be no

interference with an arbitrator's award, even if it's outside the

guidelines announced by the Premier in the hallway?

NORTHEAST COAL MASTER AGREEMENT

MS. SANFORD:

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

of Labour frequently talks of his special interest in manpower

training. Can the minister tell us what provisions there are in the

master agreement between the government of B.C. and the northeast coal

companies to provide training programs?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will have to take that question as notice.

MS. SANFORD:

I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not there is a clause

in the master agreement to provide assistance to unemployed native

people in the Prince George region. That's his area, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this public knowledge?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last question, I'll have to take that

as notice as well. I gather it was something about people in the Prince

George area and the natives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the question is taken as notice, it can be taken from the Blues .

MS. SANFORD:

I'm wondering if the minister could tell us if there is a clause in the

agreement requiring the companies to provide training and hiring of

women.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will take that question as notice.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister will undertake to table the comprehensive agreement so that we could all see it.

[ Page 7609 ]

QUARTERLY ESTIMATES

OF GROSS PROVINCIAL PRODUCT

MR. STUPICH: I have a

question for the Minister of Finance. Private-sector forecasting

agencies continue to produce B.C. growth forecasts which are seriously

at variance with the forecast upon which the minister's budget is

based. In this regard, Mr. Bill Hamilton, president of the Employers

Council of B.C., has noted that we do not have any provincial

government measure of quarterly provincial product. Has the minister

decided to publish a detailed quarterly estimate of gross provincial

product?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Most quarterly reports that

I recall, I think, make reference to our variation or targeting of

gross provincial product. I'm a little puzzled by the statement

contained in the member's question. Certainly I recall a quarterly

report last fall specifically in which there was discussion flowing out

of that report, if not actually contained in the report, with respect

to the downward revision of our forecast for the fiscal year just ended.

MR. STUPICH:

The question was with respect to a detailed quarterly estimate of gross

provincial product — not just the targeted figure but the details

behind that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will take that under

consideration as a possible expansion of an already quite comprehensive

reporting mechanism through the quarterly reports, introduced by this

government when it first took office. We always look for ways in which

the quarterly report can provide more information to the people of

British Columbia. This may be one of those cases.

CONFIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES

MR. STUPICH:

I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. In reply to written requests from the opposition to

officials of the central statistics bureau to obtain copies of two

specific publications concerning British Columbia's economic

performance, the minister wrote: "These reports are for internal

distribution within government only. They are not available to the

general public." Why is the minister hiding this information from the

members of the Legislature?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The

member for Nanaimo should know full well. I think he served very

briefly as Minister of Finance in the government, when he took over the

sinking ship when the Leader of the Opposition gave it to him. He knows

there are internal studies done that are not totally finalized or

backed up. He also knows that in my department, as well as in Finance,

we are continually monitoring the situation and obtaining information.

Some of that information has to be cross-referenced between departments

and checked out, and the information he is talking about, when in his

hands, would not give the final picture.

This government

brings out quarterly annual reports, we put out a departmental

forecast, and the public of this province receives more information

today from government than they've ever received before.

MR. STUPICH:

One of the reports I was inquiring about is a bi-monthly publication on

current statistics. Another is a monthly economic statistics report. My

question is: is this minister hiding that information from the Minister

of Finance?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know whether

or not that is a facetious question. In this government all departments

work together as they've never worked before, not like when they were

government and the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.

Ministers were off spending money like it was going out of style. They

didn't know how to run a government. They even said so in the report.

Norman Levi said that in his report: "We're a faceless ship — we don't

know where we're going in this government." Indeed we do work together.

Certainly my department and the Department of Finance and all

departments of government work together.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

TRANSPO 86 BOARD NOMINEES

MR. MACDONALD:

The Transpo 86 bill eliminates the appointment by the city of Vancouver

of three nominees to the board. What I ask the Minister of Municipal

Affairs is: did he consult with the city of Vancouver or even the two

nominees who are now appointed for the city of Vancouver before the

introduction of that change?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am not the minister responsible for Transpo.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with leave I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave not granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

On vote 5: minister's office, $164,608.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. HOWARD:

I rise pursuant to the provisions of standing order 37, inasmuch as the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) both rose at the same time to seek the

floor. I would move that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke be now heard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must again indicate that the acting House Leader, the Attorney-General, had been

recognized by the Chair, had been given the right to proceed,

[ Page 7610 ]

and

while that member was still speaking he had the floor and made the

motion accordingly. The point of order raised by the member is

therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, one that cannot be raised at

this time.

MR. HOWARD: That sure can't be accepted here. I challenge that preposterous ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Speaker, during committee a matter was raised challenging the

Chair. That matter had to do with standing order 37 and the Chair's

ability to recognize a member while on his feet.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

NAYS — 23

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

The House in committee of supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 29.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I have a few brief remarks with respect to this amending act. In this

bill the government seeks amendments to assist in the control of what

is clearly a quite serious situation which could undermine the tax

revenue base of the Tobacco Tax Act. It will be known by some, if not

all, hon. members that due to the very low tax rate on cigarettes in

the province of Alberta and the current tax levels on tobacco products

in all of the other provinces of Canada, including British Columbia, it

has now become profitable for some individuals to purchase cigarettes

in large quantities in Alberta and sell them in other parts of Canada,

not just in B.C. As a result, the provinces in which these

out-of-province cigarettes are sold lose their proper tax revenues on

the sale of these cigarettes. The government regards this as a serious

situation which should be corrected at the earliest possible time.

One

section of the act requires all persons who sell tobacco products at

wholesale to be registered with the Ministry of Finance consumer

taxation branch. Further, through this bill we would enable the

consumer taxation branch, which is charged with the administration of

this act, to impose a penalty equal to the amount of the taxes that

should have been collected where a dealer has failed to collect the tax.

Section

7, if I may just refer to it briefly, increases fines to levels which

will serve as a deterrent to those persons who fail to report the tax

payable on cigarettes purchased out of province for resale in British

Columbia, for destroying or altering records or for making or

participating in the making of false or deceptive entries in their

records in order to evade the payments of tax.

Mr. Speaker,

there are other comments which could be made in committee. I think the

members, however, will understand the problem which is being

experienced in a number of provinces, not only in British Columbia,

because of the absence of a significant tax rate in the province of

Alberta. I might also say that in discussions relative to this matter

we have found my counterpart the treasurer of Alberta, and his

officials, to be very sympathetic and understanding with respect to the

situation. I therefore move second reading of Bill 29.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in second reading of the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act,

1982, to bring to all members' attention a very unsavoury tendency on

the part of this government. They seem to have the solution to a

problem uppermost in their mind: that is, the collection of taxes and

the forthrightness of those dealers collecting the tax on the

government's behalf and transmitting that tax to Treasury. The

unsavoury tendency I'm talking about is the question of minimum fines.

I raise that under second reading because it's a far-reaching and

pervasive new approach. It's not the idea of a minimum fine that's been

raised from time to time, but it's that the widespread usage of a

minimum fine is an extremely dangerous approach by this government. It

indicates a tendency on the part of the government to have more

interest not in the protection of the individual under the law and the

flexibility of a judge to make a proper disposition of a case upon

conviction but the tendency of the government to dictate a minimum fine

in a sweeping, insensitive and arbitrary manner under these

circumstances.

[ Page 7611 ]

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

have travelled all over this province and talked to small business people. One

of the major complaints they have is the tremendous amount of paperwork they

have to do for federal, provincial and municipal governments, They're fed

up to the cars with that kind of thing. If there's a technical conviction,

for example, the provisions of this kind of quasi-criminal statute.... I

suggest that the onus is not quite as heavy on the Crown to prove substantive

offence. Here we have these business people throughout the province dragged

before the courts who could quite easily be guilty of a technical offence or

a misunderstanding of the law. But in a quasi-criminal section, mistake of the

law is no defence, even though there may be a legitimate reason for that person

to be mistaken about the law. The complexities of this statute and other red

tape that small business people have to go through across this province could

easily lead to many small business people being prosecuted, hauled up like

criminals and given a minimum sentence of $500 in one case or $1,000 in another

case.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a $5,000 minimum sentence.

MR. LAUK: A $5,000 minimum sentence in terms of imprisonment imposed at the discretion of the court.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There's one minimum here of a $1,000 fine

The

others are $500, $200 and $300. I just think minimum fines are a bad

idea. I don't always like what judges do in the courtroom, but I do

feel that the judge has an opportunity that we don't have. We're

deciding here for all possible cases, but a judge looks at each case on

its individual facts and makes a decision about disposition. I think

that's at least an opportunity for a fairer hearing for individuals

that come across the law. I really don't like minimum sentences in

these kinds of things.

There's a strong argument to be made

under the Criminal Code for particular offences, but we're not arguing

criminal law in this Legislature. That's a federal responsibility. I do

think that this unsavoury, dangerous tendency on the part of the

government reflects a philosophy that shows a lack of regard for

individuals. They only have regard, as a central government, for

solving the problem that they have in collecting taxes, and I think

that the balance of convenience here has been misconstrued by the

government. I think that the balance of convenience should be in favour

of the individual taxpayer and not in favour of the government, acting

on the public's behalf as a whole. I think that in this situation not

enough regard for the individual small businessman has been taken by

the government.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

deal with the same

section of the proposal,

section 9. The old

legislation, which the minister is attempting to change, had

section

27, which provided, for a first offence, a fine of not less than $100

and not more than $500, or a term of imprisonment of not less than ten

days and not more than 30 days, or both fine and imprisonment. That's

the old

section 27. The new

section that we're now about to pass

increases the minimum fine to $500.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member understands that we are not on this section.

MR. LEGGATT:

I realize that. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker. the principle

of the bill, however, is contained within this section. The principle

of the bill is to make sure that the sanctions are large, and by making

them large, they are making them certain. I'm sure the minister would

argue that by putting a minimum fine in, he's making the amount of the

fines more certain. In fact, as the first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) has pointed out, this is a trend that's gone on for a long

time. It's not just this particular bill; there's a whole series of

bills that this Legislature is constantly exposed to which, in essence,

express a lack of confidence in the judiciary. In essence, those bills

are saying: "Well, we think that the people we have appointed as

magistrates and judges in this province do not know what they're doing

in these areas. Therefore we're going to tell them what the minimum

fines are, and we're not going to give them any discretion to go below

a certain number."

When you're dealing with non-criminal

legislation, which is this kind of legislation — and to a large extent,

the liquor act has the same problems within it — that's when you need

some discretion, because non-criminal offences are not venal offences.

They're not the kind of offences that go to the traditional feeling of

criminal law — the feeling in the community of being offended by an

offence. This is a wrist-slapping kind of offence — the kind of thing

that we really should have discretion on the part of the magistrate

about, so that he can judge a case. If it's a flagrant case, he'll

reflect that, and it's fine. But if it's inadvertence on the part of a

merchant, for example, why should he be faced with a minimum of $500

over something that's relatively trivial and unimportant?

This

is a trend that's been going on with a lot of governments, but with

this one in particular. We can go through the statutes one by one and

we'll find that more and more the judges of this province are losing

their jurisdiction to use their discretion to help the individual or to

exercise a little equality of compassion and mercy in the courts by

removing this minimum fine.

The bill, of course, does not

deal with the question of the evil of tobacco itself, which is now the

greatest health hazard that we face in North America. The concern of

the government is to make sure that it maximizes its revenue and

doesn't let any of those dollars slip through its fingers. What it

should be doing is talking about tobacco and presenting us with some

legislation which demonstrates a way to reduce the greatest

cancer-causing agent that we have in society. We still promote

cigarettes to an incredible degree by advertising in newspapers and

magazines, promoting a lifestyle which is literally killing people all

across this country. If you want to reduce health costs, just go into

any hospital and ask any person working in surgery, and the first thing

they will tell you is: "Don't smoke cigarettes." In fact, when you talk

to a surgeon, he'll tell you that when people come into an operating

room he knows immediately whether they're a smoker because of the way

they react to the anesthetic. It's an incredible health hazard. This

bill doesn' t do anything to discourage it, that's for sure. It is an

attempt to add to the revenues. In the process, of course, it is

resulting in an injustice to small businessmen who handle this product

by taking away the judge's discretion to impose a fine.

[ Page 7612 ]

also increases the power of the police tremendously. When you have

minimum fines, the police handling enforcement are given tremendous

power that they don't normally have. It means, for example, that where

a person is facing a very large minimum fine, the offence is going to

be addressed very differently than if there were some discretion on the

part of the magistrate. It is bad legislation to continue to put in

minimum fines. I have confidence in the judges of this province. I have

confidence that magistrates will exercise their judgment fairly and

properly and take the fact patterns into consideration when they render

their decisions. This idea of the Legislature constantly eroding that

jurisdiction is wrong. It is a mistake, and it offends against the

normal sense of justice that most of us have.

MR. LORIMER:

I want to add my words of support to those of my two previous

colleagues in regard to the question of minimum fines. I am sure that

the Attorney-General sitting there agrees with what I am going to say.

That is that, normally speaking, most statutes with minimum fines make

for poor legislation and poor law. The number of people who are going

to be charged with this particular offence is going to be very varied,

and the circumstances are going to be very varied indeed. Some may

deserve a penalty of a far greater amount than the minimum, while

others may not be that culpable and probably should not reach the

minimum sentence. More justice may prevail if the offence is not

proceeded with. Provincial judges should in my opinion decide whether a

penalty should be levied or not.

If we keep on having

minimum sentences in our legislation, we are giving the judges no

discretion whatever. Our justice system could eventually end up being

run by computers to read out the figures. I would hope that you discuss

this matter with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). I am sure he

will agree that the minimum sentences in statutes such as this....

These are not in any way major crimes — they may be financial crimes

and so on — and justice would prevail just as well without minimum

sentences, so that the factors could be taken into consideration by the

judge in determining what the penalty should be. I can see little value

in this legislation setting out minimum standards.

MR. LEVI: On behalf of the non-legal fraternity.... While

my colleagues were making their comments about the application of

justice, I was thinking about the kind of thing we get involved with in

another area involving a drug — when we talk about heroin. Here we are

using a sledgehammer approach on businessmen, particularly in these

times when businessmen are having a tough enough time anyway. The kind

of fine that is inside this legislation could literally bankrupt an

operation, yet this is the kind of economic warfare that you want to

wreak on businessmen who many times unknowingly get involved in this

kind of offence. I wish the government would take the same sledgehammer

approach in dealing with heroin traffickers. It is very rare that we

ever give a heroin trafficker a big fine, a wallop — $100,000 or a

quarter of a million dollars. We know they've got the money; it's out

there somewhere. So we select businessmen....

AN HON. MEMBER: They get seven years, Norm.

MR. LEVI:

Well, my God, seven years in the prisons that we've got these days

doesn't answer in any way the kind of things that are going on here. If

this is the way the government is going, somehow they're going to wreak

this incredible sledgehammer legislation on small business people.

The

other thing is that time and time again, for those people who appear

before the courts who represent offenders, we're often told.... You

hear from the appeal courts that there is an opportunity to talk about

mitigation of sentence. There is no opportunity to mitigate anything;

if you're convicted, that's it. You might pay the big number of $5,000

or, if you haven't got the money, you might go to jail for three

months. It's the order of the importance and the gravity of the nature

of the offence that is somewhat confusing to me. Is this an attempt at

a deterrent effect to stop this kind of thing going on? It's not

consistent with the application of law. This is a quasi...well,

it's a criminal offence, except that it's being brought in as a public

statute. It's seen as something which is criminal, and yet the

application in those that are actually under criminal law offences are

dealt with in a more evenhanded fashion.

The other thing

which the minister might comment on and we'll ask him in committee — is

the purpose of the retroactivity. They want to make the thing

retroactive. Presumably there are people before the courts in respect

to these offences who will be dealt with in the new way rather than the

old way. Perhaps he can give us some comment on this. This is an

entirely even-handed approach, given the general application of the way

we deal with other kinds of criminal offenders. Why this should be the

exception, why it should be directed at small business people and more

particularly, Mr. Speaker, why in this particular time — in this

tremendous economic depression — we've got the minister come in with

this incredible sledge-hammer legislation....

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that I am delaying the House. I know the

minister is anxious to close debate on the bill; but there is something

I have to say that cannot be said at another time, and I request this

opportunity to say it. The hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Levi) said that tobacco is the number one killer in this country. I

submit to the honourable House that what is happening here today is

making the sale of tobacco just a little more difficult, a little more

restrained and a little more dangerous, recognized in this overriding

principle. But I'd like to bring to the attention of the hon. members

on this side who have already spoken about the inconvenience to the

small businessman. I charge them, in replying to the principle in this

bill, with expediency, and expediency rests in this way. During a

previous Social Credit government we passed the Tobacco Advertising

Restraint Act. It was a good act, and all we said in that act was that

we were going to hold back on the pushers of tobacco. There was a

principle similar to this act. We're doing it through a different

route, and it's not the same thing, because that deal was lost. That

process of slowing down this dangerous drug that was killing our people

was slowed down immeasurably, and perhaps reversed, by that party until

we find ourselves in this position today.

No sooner were

they in office in 1972 than they said in the Speech from the Throne

that they would repeal the Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act, which

they did forthwith. The NDP reversed the course this government was on

in attempting to restrain the sale of tobacco, which is actually a

dealing in death, and so I appeal to this party that they should not be

speaking out of both sides of their mouths and that today they should

join with us in the necessity of passing this act without

[ Page 7613 ]

question. It has a purpose, and the purpose is the health of the people.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the debate on second reading of Bill 29

just to address myself to some of the remarks from members of the

opposition who, being lawyers, have made their presentation and have

disappeared. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we don't like minimum fines

either, and they are only to be employed in those circumstances where a

very clear message must be given to those who might flout the law and

flagrantly avoid the clear implications of the statute.

far as the small business person is concerned, we considered that very

carefully. We know that in the tax gathering divisions of the Ministry

of Finance they are not anxious to proceed with offences against

persons who are legitimately engaged in business and are prepared to

follow the very simple rules that are set out, and they're prepared to

take any steps to assist people in ensuring that they can obey the law.

It is, however, unfortunate that there are some people in business —

not necessarily only in small business, or perhaps not in small

business at all — who, when the law has been made very clear to them

and they know what their obligations are, flagrantly offend. It is for

this reason that maximum fine contain not a sledgehammer, as the member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) called it, but a gentle tap on

the knuckles to indicate that maybe that shouldn't be done.

There

is one

section where the minimum fines are much larger. Those sections

deal with people who are engaged in contraband activities. In that

respect, I wish to make it abundantly clear that we are prepared to

specify very high minimum fines for people who want to deal in

contraband. They may in the course of their dealings not offend against

the Criminal Code, but if they offend against the taxing statutes by

dealing in contraband, then they can expect to receive a very

significant penalty.

Yes, the judges in the province are

capable of carrying out their responsibilities in sentencing, But it is

only when you provide meaningful minimum penalties that the courts

themselves are able to indicate to persons who appear before them how

severe this Legislature has considered certain offences, and it is in

that light that these minimum fines are provided.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would just like to join with some of my colleagues of the non-legal

fraternity on this side. I think that when you look at this bill you

should review the development of the court system throughout British

Columbia. One of the important developments within the court system

over the last 20 years has been the pre-sentence record that we have in

conjunction with judges and prosecutors. I believe that it is within

this part of the court system that we can properly establish what

degree of offence took place. The pre-sentence report, in conjunction

with the presentation by the prosecutor, can establish the intent of

the person. I feel that in this legislation you may find a lot of

little people, i.e., fishermen or sailors returning from sea, who may

have brought a few extra cartons of cigarettes ashore and sold them to

their friends, or they got into a store, and it really isn't an

organized process of dealers trying to make a fortune. I feel there are

a lot of small stores that may get tied up in this off-sale dealing,

and if it is of a minimum nature, and this comes out in the

pre-sentence report, then the fine can be established properly with

that research. I feel that the minimum fine — and I here

must join with the legal fraternity who sit on this side of the House —

takes power from the pre-sentence reports that come in from the social

workers. They may be a part of the court system, but they do deal with

people as individuals. I think that to bring in a high minimum fine in

the legislation is to roll back the years it has taken to develop that

within our judicial system.

At one time all things were the same for

rich and poor, and I feel that we have got away from that philosophy. I

feel that this is legislation we don't need. I think the court system

and the prosecutors can establish the minimum fine in their

presentations. The minimum fine is taking away something that has

developed over the years. I feel this is not necessary. I sincerely

recommend to the minister that he look at it from the practical point

of view and look at how it's going to affect individuals.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks by those who

are members of the legal profession in British Columbia and by those

who are not, particularly with respect to minimum fines.

There

were one or two other items raised. There has been a minimum fine with

respect to the Tobacco Tax Act for some time, and I think some members

opposite alluded to that. The minimum fine has been $100. and this

would see an increase of the minimum fine to $200 in the less serious

cases, if I may put it that way. My colleague the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams) spoke with respect to the more serious offences

which are also dealt with here, where, quite frankly, I think most of

the problem exists: that is where there is deliberate tax evasion

through the altering or destruction of records, deceptive entries or

failing to collect the tax. Certainly the Ministry of Finance has a

role in government, regardless of the party in power, to ensure that

the revenue base remains relatively intact. We've spoken of that in

here, and our predecessors have spoken of that. The fact remains that

because of the significantly lower tax rate in our neighbouring

province — and the problem is not restricted to British Columbia alone

— we have seen a rather significant increase in the amount of

deliberate evasion of taxes. That, I submit, should be of concern to

members of both parties, and should be of concern to us because of the

loss of tax revenue in terms of what that revenue can do for the people

of British Columbia.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Levi), I think it was, alluded to retroactivity. It should be

pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that obviously there is a retroactivity;

however, it is only to April 6, 1982, which is the day following the

introduction of the provincial budget. I wonder if he was referring to

some other retroactivity which is lost on me. This, along with a number

of other taxation measures, is retroactive to the date of the

introduction of the budget, and both parties have followed that process

in taxation measures over the years in British Columbia.

think these amendments will enable us to reach those people who are

moving cigarettes on a massive scale, and that is where we are

particularly concerned. It's a very massive scale, with cigarettes

moving across the border by the truckload. I have heard the comments.

Nonetheless, in the interests of the revenue base which is important

for the people of this province, I certainly feel we must take this

step.

I move second reading of Bill 29.

Motion approved.

[ Page 7614 ]

Bill

29, Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole house for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 9.

MR. BARBER:

The Social Credit government's so-called restraint program is falling

apart. The collapse began when the Premier began contradicting himself

and when he contradicted the Minister of Finance. It began when the

government was discovered to be a party of wine-guzzlers taking

advantage of ministerial expense accounts. It began when people in the

press started writing articles such as we saw in the Times-Colonist on Saturday, authored by Jim Hume.

Mr.

Hume is a well-known right-wing commentator who has no love for the New

Democratic Party, and who has frequently endorsed many of the actions —

but not all, it should be said — of the Social Credit government. He

certainly rarely endorses anything the New Democrats do. But that's

fair enough. At least he's honest about his bias.

Mr. Hume felt compelled to write a whole column entitled "Confusion reigns in Bennett restraint program" in the Times-Colonist

of Saturday. When persons who by and large support the Social Credit

government editorially feel compelled to author comments of the order

of those in Saturday's Times-Colonist , then I think we have increasing evidence of the collapse of the political strategy of Social Credit.

The

problem with the bill is the problem with this section. Debating the

section — as we have been doing for three days, going into the fourth —

is a problem of fairness and practicality. The practical consequences

section 9 include the massive shutdown of hospitals in British

Columbia. The practical consequences of this

section include the

collapse of a health-care system that we have come to appreciate and

require in our province. The practical consequence of

section 9 is one

of the reasons why the Premier's so-called restraint program is falling

apart. It's falling apart because of internal contradictions. It's

failing apart because of real and publicly understood unfairness. It's

falling apart because of the deserved reputation of Social Credit as a

government of wine guzzlers at public expense. It falls apart as well

because of the deserved reputation of Social Credit as a government of

incompetence — witness Seaboard, the Princess Marguerite , the Ministry

of Deregulation, and so on. This is provably the most hopelessly inept

government that has ever attempted to administer the public interest in

British Columbia.

The practical consequences of

section 9,

however, are most tragically illustrated by an event that occurred this

morning in the capital city. Together with my colleague the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), we attended an

unprecedented demonstration of concern at the Royal Jubilee Hospital.

This morning at the Royal Jubilee Hospital an estimated 1,000 employees

— in shifts, so as not to interrupt patient care; during lunch-hours,

at their expense, not hospital expense, so as to guarantee that medical

supervision would be maintained at the highest level possible — took to

the streets of Victoria. They did so because of the practical

consequences of

section 9, which we are now debating.

This

morning the employees of British Columbia's second-largest hospital —

doctors, nurses, lab technicians, radiotherapists and members of the

board of directors — took to the streets in record numbers in the

capital of British Columbia to stand up and tell the people that there

is something fundamentally inhumane about Social Credit and something

fundamentally inhumane about the practical consequences of the

section

which this opposition has been holding up the passage of for the last

three, going on four, days. Under the disguise of this section, it is

not humane to allow persons to be denied access to cancer clinics,

maternity wards, long-term care centres and surgery. When we see what

this

section does, it is not humane to tolerate a policy which has seen

the shutdown of what is now in excess of 1,200 hospital beds across

British Columbia.

The so-called restraint program of Social

Credit, a key

section of which we are debating right now, includes

restraining public hospitals and cutting back on health care, while it

allows massive expenditures and massive overruns for projects like B.C.

Place and northeast coal. There's something inhumane about a government

so cold and heartless as to tolerate hospital shutdowns, while it

pilots a

section like this through the Legislature — at least,

attempting to do so under the guise of restraint.

The

restraint program of Social Credit is phony; it is hypocritical; it is

inconsistent; it is selfish; it is self-serving. And it is not, day by

day, doing anything other than losing popular support.

The

editorial criticism of Social Credit and its performance in its phony

restraint program has been severe. On February 18 it started out not

bad. It is almost May 18, and it is collapsing in their faces. Their

strategy is serving them badly. Their Premier is serving them very

badly. The hysterical, red-faced, arm-waving performances of the member

for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) have done enormous damage to the

credibility of the so-called restraint program of Social Credit. They

got off to a good start on February 18; their polls told them they were

winning public acceptance for it. But as the human consequences of the

so-called restraint program became more clear, the final consequence

was that public support fell away.

If Social Credit started

restraining cabinet ministers and their wine-guzzling habits, their

personal junkets, they would be more credible.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. The odd reference to

section 9 while a

member is canvassing subjects that are not within those guidelines is

not in order in debate. The member must make his remarks strictly

relevant to

section 9 and would well remember that in his continuing

remarks.

MR. BARBER: I completely agree, Mr. Chairman.

The

practical consequence of

section 9 is that when it is enacted this

government, through the concurrent powers of the Hospital Act, will be

allowed to set the salaries and wages of hospital employees — those few

who remain available to the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 7615 ]

The

practical consequence of the whole restraint program, an operating

principle of which is found in this section, is that Social Credit will

have to bear the burden of people falling ill and dying because they

cannot get into hospitals.

The president of the B.C. Medical

Association, Dr. Ray March, who is, to say the least, not a New

Democrat, said publicly just 72 hours ago that as a result of this

phony restraint program — restraint applied to hospitals but not to

northeast coal or to B.C. Place — citizens of this province will die

while awaiting access to public hospitals.

Section 9 gives this

government awesome authority to impose a program of restraint in the

public sector — a program they are not prepared to apply to themselves

personally, but a program which they insist will be applied to all of

their intended victims.

The primary victim of this program

of phony restraint is the health-care system of British Columbia. The

primary victim of such restraint is the elderly and the sick, that

group of persons who cannot speak for themselves on the floor of this

House, but whose advocates were speaking for themselves at the Royal

Jubilee Hospital this morning.

It is provably the case that

the phony restraint program of Social Credit, under the guise and

through the mechanism of

section 9, which is the operating

section of

the bill we're generally debating, is such that human health will

deteriorate in British Columbia. The health of B.C. Place and northeast

coal will not deteriorate; those projects are getting all the money

they want. What are hospitals getting? Far less.

The

official opposition is objecting as strenuously as we can to

section 9

because this

section is the primary instrument of government control

over — among other institutions — hospitals and health services. If it

were not so, the bill would not be before us and collective bargaining

would proceed as usual.

The strategy that the coalition has

tried to find an election issue with is blowing up in their faces. On

February 18 it didn't look too bad. It's almost May 18 and it's

beginning to look pretty darn ridiculous. This

section is key to what

was the re-election strategy of Social Credit. But they're backing off

from it now for obvious reasons. The Premier has said, lo and behold,

that he will call the Legislature back into session. Now it may be a

reflection of his poor attendance record in this House that he doesn't

know we're in session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member,

personal allusions of any kind in this debate are out of order, and the

member must remain strictly relevant to

section 9. The member has been

informed repeatedly that we are on

section 9 and that he must be

strictly relevant, and if he's not going to be strictly relevant to

section 9, then he is going to have to take his place and someone who

will be relevant will take a place in debate.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely.

The

Premier said that he was prepared to call the Legislature back into

session. The Premier did so while making a comment about this bill and

the key

section which we're now debating. I don't think it's an

improper aspersion on the Premier to ask him — although he's not here —

why he would make such a statement. He hasn't debated this section. I

wish he would, because he's responsible for it. He, rather than the

Minister of Finance, is the primary author.

We charge that through

section 9, this government is undermining the guarantees

and the quality of health care in British Columbia. We charge that Social Credit

is condemning sick people to get sicker longer as the result of the practical

application of this section.

This

section, in combination with the Hospital Act, is the key means by

which Social Credit will be cutting back health and hospital services

in British Columbia. The Hospital Act by itself does not give them this

power, but

section 9 of this bill which we are debating and opposing

does.

We oppose

section 9 because it is unfair and because

the government strategy is totally inconsistent. We have repeatedly

asked the Minister of Finance in regard to

section 9 to tell us which

statements are operative: those of February 18 made by the Premier when

he talked about the formulas of 10, 12 and 14 percent, or those of the

Minister of Finance when he introduced this bill for second reading.

However, subsequent to that statement by the Minister of Finance, the

Premier made altogether another statement in this House, and then he

made yet another statement outside this House. There are four, and over

the weekend we learned there was a fifth statement, and that too

contradicts the previous ones. It is that statement which I was

mentioning briefly, Mr. Chairman. The Premier has said that he'll call

the House back if need be in order to deal with the problems that he

has created himself through this bill and, in particular, through the

operating device of this bill, which is

section 9.

The Minister of Finance, the alleged author of the bill, has consistently refused to answer questions about....

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's not correct. You're wrong again, Charlie.

MR. BARBER:

It is provably correct. When it comes to you and your errors on the

floor of this House, this opposition is yet to be proved wrong. It is

clearly the case that the Premier's statements about 5 percent, the

Premier's statements about rollbacks to zero and the Premier's

statements outside this House have done nothing but confuse, distort

and damage his own government's program, the operating

section of which

is number 9 in this bill. The Minister of Finance said one thing in

second reading. The Premier came along some hours later and said

something else. The two statements do not coincide. Therefore one or

the other of them must be operative; one or the other of them must not

be. It's the only logical posture.

For his political

purposes, this minister has refused to even discuss the contradiction

which is obvious even to a guy like Jim Hume. Jim Hume ordinarily

supports Social Credit; he certainly rarely supports the NDP. When Mr.

Hume, who doesn't bother to conceal his biases — good for him; he's

open about it — is compelled to write the kind of editorial he did on

the weekend, then surely even this minister knows that something is

wrong with the goofy stories, the blatant contradictions and the

internal inconsistencies of the fiction that Social Credit is trying to

feed people about its real intentions. We argue that the real intent is

to get re-elected at any cost. We argue that their intent is to go for

the megaprojects at any cost. We argue that their intent is to push

through, against all rational opposition, a

section like this at any

cost.

Apparently

they don't care about what happens in the

lives of sick and dying citizens who are denied access to our

hospitals, because they're cutting back on our hospitals while they're

prepared to pay anything for northeast coal and B.C. Place. No

government that inhumane is fit to remain in office. No government with

priorities as cold and twisted as that is fit

[ Page 7616 ]

remain in office.

Section 9 should be withdrawn.

Section 9 is the

mechanism which allows that cold-hearted coalition, through its own

force and the coincident force of the Hospital Act, to impair, reduce

and fundamentally compromise the qualities of and access to hospitals

and health care in British Columbia. No citizen concerned about the

quality of health care in this province should remain unaware of the

desperate impact of

section 9 on the architecture of health care. No

one who cares about the issue of health care should be unaware that

section 9 is the most compassionless and damning evidence of what

Social Credit is really up to in its desperate attempt to get back into

office next time.

As an aside, one can point out that the

Socreds know that they're down in the polls. There are all sorts of

reasons for that.

Section 9 is one of the reasons they are going down

even further in the polls. It is inconsistent; it is arbitrary; and it

is deceitful in that no specific figures are named, even though the

Premier said that figures would be named in his announcement of

February 18. He even named the figures during the course of that

announcement. Deceit aside, what is now clear is that this

section will

be used, and is already being used, to cripple the health-care system

of British Columbia. That is completely unacceptable.

charge that this

section is unworkable. We advise the government that

every labour expert you have consulted has told you the same thing in

private. Some of the leading labour-management negotiators and

arbitrators and some of the leading academics in the field have told

the government the same thing about this section. It is arbitrary,

capricious, entirely political and entirely unworkable. We are always

entitled to debate the practicality and workability of any

section of

any bill, and we argue now, as we argued before and will continue to

argue until we get a satisfactory reply, that this

section will not

work, cannot work and should not be made to work. It is simply unfair,

and either this government has a sense of fair play and is prepared to

bring it to bear and into force, or they haven't and they won't. It is

unfair to give this cabinet the power, arbitrarily, to issue

compensation guidelines to a very small percentage of the working

people of this province and at the same time do nothing whatever to

deal with the human circumstances that will be caused as a result.

This

section doesn't deal with interest rates or foreclosures, bankruptcies

or unemployment; all it does is give Social Credit the right —

arbitrarily, in cabinet, in secret, without reference to any public

process — to set wage controls on the backs of its own employees. They

are imposing wage controls while at the same time they are abandoning

rent controls. They are imposing wage controls on their own employees,

but not on anyone else. They are imposing wage controls through this

section in a way that is so fundamentally arbitrary, narrow and unfair,

that they are offending the sense of fair play that most people in this

province have.

If the government doesn't find a sense of

fair play within itself, at least it can look elsewhere to find it.

They can look to the membership of their own party if they like,

because lots of those folks in my riding, who are themselves public

servants and who know what the human consequences of this

section will

be, are coming to us and saying: "We're not NDPers; we're Socreds.

We're not going to vote for you, but we sure as heck might stay home

next time and not vote for them either, because what they're doing to

us is unfair. It is unjust. It hurts us in a way that cannot be

rationally defended."

Maybe within a narrow range of public

opinion, it is still acceptable to attack public servants. Social

Credit is always and traditionally has been willing to attack minority

groups. They've always done that. It's their pattern; it's their

tradition. It's guys like those who denied the Japanese the vote and

put out their hysterical advertisements during the Second World War.

They've always been happy to do that, and now they're doing it again.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Section 9, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: Don't get twitchy, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm chatting to the Chair, hoping that we can stay on

section 9.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: That doesn't bother me. I was hoping the member for Kamloops might pay some attention.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Oh, you don't like that either. Will you tell him so?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, we address the Chair in this chamber, and

we are currently on

section 9. I draw that again to the attention of

the member currently speaking, so that he knows that we are on

section

9 and its strictly relevant aspects in committee.

MR. BARBER:

As a reminder, I've put it on a sheet of paper, Mr. Chairman. It's

right in front of me. We're on

section 9 and we're debating the human

and practical consequences of the wage controls that Social Credit is

imposing on public employees. We're debating the practical consequence

of a program that is seeing the shutdown of hospital beds and the

undermining of health care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. Hon. member, you are wrong. We are debating — and I think maybe

it would be appropriate if we read the strictly relevant.... I would

commend to the member that we have already discussed the principle in

second reading, and now we are on the "strictly relevant" section.

Otherwise, hon. member, there is no point in having a second reading of

a bill to cover all the various aspects which the member is now going

into debate on. I'm sure it's not necessary for the Chair to read the

section to the members, but if you take a look at that particular

section and apply the "strictly relevant" aspect to it, you will see

that by straying, for example, into health care or other aspects, you

are not within its confines and are straying more into discussion best

canvassed in second reading.

The member continues on

section 9, being strictly relevant thereto.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree entirely.

Among

others, the employees who will be affected by this

section are hospital

workers. This is provably the case. Among others, the victims of this

so-called restraint program will be citizens who formerly had access to

hospitals. They are victims because hospitals will have to lay them

off; they

[ Page 7617 ]

are

victims because of the policy of this government; and they are victims

because of the impact of this section. Mr. Chairman, I think that's

totally relevant. This

section gives the cabinet power to set

compensation stabilization guidelines....

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in order to assist the member, who

is once again caught up in his own rhetoric, I should point out that

the

section which is before us in committee, as you observed a few

minutes ago, deals with compensation guidelines. It would take a

considerable stretch of the imagination to relate this to every other

aspect of the public sector in the province of British Columbia,

including — and I only use it as an example — the amount of money which

might be transferred to a hospital or to a municipality in terms of the

expenditure restraint which is now coming into place throughout the

province of British Columbia. This is the compensation guideline, as

you have observed, Mr. Chairman —

part 2,

section 9. It has absolutely

nothing to do with the expenditure restraint, which is undoubtedly

going to be appropriate at some other point in discussion of the bill.

MR. LEA:

On the same point of order, when we all realize that approximately 85

percent of the money in the hospitals is for wages, I think it would be

stretching our minds to the limit to think that cutting back on that 85

percent expenditure wouldn't have some effect on the kinds of services

that are offered through medical institutions. I think it's completely

relevant that the cutbacks in hospitals can be tied to

section 9 of

this bill.

Further to the point of order, in second reading

we, of course, discussed the broad principles of the legislation. In

committee we discuss the principle of each section. It has to be a

principle that's relevant to the section; but you cannot rule, Mr.

Chairman, I submit, that we can't talk about the principle of a

section. We can't talk about the other broad principles of the bill,

but the principles of the

section we have to; otherwise there'd be no

discussion or debate at all.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On the

same point of order, and certainly not attempting to be repetitious,

Mr. Chairman, this

section has nothing to do with the amount of money

which is transferred from one level of government to a group of

public-sector activities, be it hospitals, municipalities or whatever.

It sets out the guidelines for the amount to be paid to individuals,

and that's a very clear point which somehow seems to have been lost on

at least two members opposite, in terms of the context of this section.

MR. BARBER:

On the same point of order, with respect, the comments of the Minister

of Finance are political and have nothing to do with the rules. Could I

draw his attention and yours, Mr. Chairman, to the

interpretation

section of the bill we are now debating, because I think you'll find

that it is through this

section that our debate on

section 9 is totally

relevant.

Page 2 of Bill 28 describes a public-sector

employer, and you will note that the very same phrase appears in

section 9. A public-sector employer is defined under subsection (

h) of

the

interpretation section: "...a hospital as defined in the

Hospital Act or the Hospital Insurance Act which receives funds from

another public-sector employer..." — that being the government

itself. When we look at

section 9 of the bill which we're currently

debating, you will see, Mr. Chairman, that 9(

l) reads quite clearly:

"The executive council shall issue compensation stabilization

guidelines to stabilize the compensation plans of the public-sector

employers...."

Mr. Chairman, the minister's comment is just

absolutely immaterial. We have a definition of a public-sector

employer, and that very phrase is found in

section 9. We are now

inquiring into the practical consequences of the government's own

definition for that public-service employer, hospitals.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. Good points of order were made by all members

who spoke. Nonetheless, the Chair is bound by our standing orders and

the key word in

section 61(2) is "strictly" — "strictly relevant." It

would be virtually impossible for us to continue debate in this chamber

in committee if we were to allow the same broad scope of debate that

was permitted in second reading. There would then be little purpose, if

any at all, to meet in committee to discuss the strictly relevant

aspects of each section. I would commend that to each and every member.

MR. LEA:

On a point of order. After listening to you, Mr. Chairman, I can't do

anything but agree with you. When you say "strictly relevant," could

you tell me exactly what it is that we can discuss under this

section

that would be strictly relevant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is

not appropriate for members to enter into discussion with the Chair. It

is merely appropriate for the Chair to try to adhere to the rules that

are before us.

MR. LEA: I'm not doing that. I'm just

asking for help. If we can't talk about the principle of

section 9,

then what would be strictly relevant? Can we discuss whether you dot

the i's, cross the t's? We have to know what is strictly relevant. I

don't want Mr. Chairman to fall into the trap of repeating "strictly

relevant" without having something in his own mind as to exactly what

that means. It's only too easy to keep using the term "strictly

relevant" without even in your own mind having firmly in place what you

mean.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a good point. If

members will open Bill 28 and read

section 9 carefully, we will see

that this is what the Chair is bound by. It is the strict relevance to

what is spelled out before us in

section 9, and we cannot permit

ourselves to stray into the principle, which has already been canvassed

in second reading.

MR. BARBER: The

interpretation

section of the bill itself makes it quite clear that hospitals are

designated as public-service employers.

Section 9 allows the government

to impose wage controls on public-service employers; and hospitals and

public-service employers are one and the same, for the purposes of the

application of this section. That being the case, we're concerned about

the practical consequences of the application of

section 9. That's all

there is to it, Mr. Chairman. It is no broader than that. It is as

strictly and narrowly relevant as that.

The practical

consequences of applying

section 9 to a public-service employer called

a hospital is a consequence we do not accept. It is a consequence that

is cold and inhumane and heartless, one that the official opposition

rejects totally. It is a consequence that no decent or compassionate

[ Page 7618 ]

government

would allow even for an instance. We are not debating the principle of

the whole bill; we are debating the practical application of

section 9.

The practical application of that

section is to allow this government

to impose a phony restraint program and to impose, as it turns out, a

tragically effective cutback program on public hospitals. It's phony

when it comes to northeast coal and B.C. Place and wine-guzzling; it

is tragically effective when it comes to hospitals. This is the

inconsistency of the government's posture. The government told us that

the

interpretation

section is to include hospitals; the opposition

tells the government that there's something wrong with that. There's

something wrong with the priorities of the government, And with any

section of any bill that would see the deterioration in health care

that is already underway in British Columbia.

Social Credit

stands condemned for its heartlessness, its coldness, its inhumanity

and its unwillingness to assign the proper priorities to health care.

For that reason, among many others, we have been opposing this

section

for the last four days; and we will continue to oppose this

section

until it is withdrawn and until government adopts a policy of fair play

for hospitals and public servants.

The Socred strategy to

impose wage controls has begun to fall apart because people now see and

understand the connection between that program and the collapse of

hospital care in British Columbia. It is falling apart because the

people of British Columbia will not tolerate having such vicious

cutbacks imposed on hospitals, and they increasingly comprehend what

section 9 means in terms of applying that rule of thumb and rule of law

to hospitals and their employees. We don't accept it; doctors, nurses

and other health service personnel don't accept it; and the great

majority of the people of British Columbia I think don't accept it

either. It may still be narrowly popular to attack public servants. It

is not popular or wise, and most of all it is not humane, to attack the

health system of British Columbia.

The tragic outcome of

section 9 is that this will give the government the power to continue

to undermine health care. That is an unacceptable power which they have

no business asking for in the first place and which no opposition has

any business granting to them. We will not grant it today or any other

day.

MR. LEVI: Well, the minister is back. He looks

as though he had a drink out there — a drink of water, that is — to

wash the ashes out of his mouth from the debris that this bill is

creating.

To be strictly relevant, Mr. Chairman, the

definition of relevancy as far as the minister.... I just want to quote

the minister on Thursday, May 13, and then move on to some of the

observations that he made. He said:

I think that one point

which has not been mentioned and which would certainly be relevant to

section 9 is that we undertook extensive consultation after February

18. We invited any group or individual which felt themselves affected

or likely to be affected by the Premier's announcement on this topic to

submit briefs. We did not receive a large volume of briefs, but we

received a good number. The precise number escapes my memory at the

moment, but it was something just in excess of 30. Many of them were

very well thought out, and they were from all parts of the province.

Mr. Chairman, we got that from the minister. The minister talked about

the briefs.

Earlier on, following the announcement of the

whole restraint question by the Premier, the Ministry of Finance issued

a compensation bulletin number 2 called the "Stabilization Program

Consultation." On page 2 he says: "Draft regulations will be issued by

March 31. Requests for all information on the program in general and on

the consultative process in particular should be directed to

information services, Ministry of Finance, Government Street,

Victoria." Having read that, I just hied over to the new Ministry of

Finance

section and said to them: "Can I have a copy of the draft

regulations as stated in the bulletin number 2?" I was told that they

were not ready and that I couldn't have a copy of the regulations.

However, they said: "If you like, we can give you something else." So I

said: "Well, anything you've got will be appreciated." So they gave me

five sheets of paper, and it says....

MR. BARRETT: "Write your own."

MR. LEVI: No, au contraire, it says: "Matrix Guide to Procedures under the Compensation Stabilization Act."

Mr.

Chairman, for your benefit, for the benefit of my colleagues and for

the minister, let me give you a definition of the word "matrix." I had

a little trouble with this word; I couldn't really spell it, but I'm

going to try this. It says: "Something within which something else

originates or develops." I'm going to restate that because it's very

important. "Something within which something else originates or

develops." That's the first clue we've had with respect to this

section

that the minister was talking about on May 13 — he's been talking about

it many times — when he said: "Go and look at the consultative process

that we have. We actually urge people...."

Mr. Chairman, I would refer the minister, if he's interested in edification, to a very interesting

article that was in the Times-Colonist

on May 16 by William Safire. It deals with what was referred to as

"Origin of the Snake Check." The minister may not know about that term.

When I was a soldier, we didn't have a "snake check"; we used to refer

to it as a "scorpion check." When we were in the Far East, before we

put our boots on we tapped them out to see if there are any scorpions

in there. We didn't want to get any surprises. They use the same kind of

terminology in America and call it the snake check." I've been doing a

snake check or a scorpion check on this legislation over the weekend to

find out just what's there.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I haven't stopped doing snake checks since 1945, but I did a snake check on this one.

The

minister made reference to the fact that there were a number of briefs

submitted, and there were. For the minister's edification, there were

some 29 briefs submitted. Some of them really weren't briefs; they were

just little notes saying, "Good on you, Mr. Minister," and things like

that. As a matter of fact, except for two briefs, every communication

to the ministry had only four pages.

There was one which I

think is very significant to this debate. It was submitted by the

British Columbia Health Association. On page 1 they make a direct

reference to the way the program is introduced and what you do with the

regulations. This is a letter to the Minister of Finance, March 12,

1982, signed by Dr. Hugh McDonald, president of the B.C. Health

Association. In the second-last paragraph he says: "This association is

also concerned that inadvertent,

[ Page 7619 ]

ill-conceived

applications of the program would result in a loss of valuable and

experienced management people from the health-care institutions of

British Columbia."

We've had some points of order before in this House as to the relevance of the health question.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

MR. LEVI: We have a new chairman. Where's Charlie Barber?

Dr.

McDonald's statement is completely relevant to what we're debating

under

section 9. Later on in their letter to the Minister of Finance,

they said: "While the announcement of general guidelines for

expenditure is the prerogative of the government, specific guidelines

about compensation encroach on the historical and legal

responsibilities of the board of trustees. This interference is

particularly evident in the proposed directive mentioned by the Premier

regarding stricter guidelines for specific senior management

positions." That's within the health-care system.

You have

to remember the chronology of what took place. The Minister of Finance

made mention on May 13 of the fact that there had been consultation

with people in the province. Frankly, that is a lot of nonsense. What

were they consulting about? They were consulting about the sentence

that had already been passed, not the nature of why the legislation was

brought in. Everything had been set up. They moved in. They brought in

the ground rules, and then they said: "We'd like to consult with you."

Here's a piece of consultation particularly related to the health

system, in which the minister was warned as early as March 12, 1982,

that "inadvertent, ill-conceived application of the program would

result in a loss of valuable and experienced management people from the

health-care institutions." He knew that two months ago. He also knew

two months ago that while the general guidelines were the prerogative

of the government, "specific guidelines about compensation encroach on

the historical and legal responsibilities of the board of trustees."

That's the very issue we are debating on this section. This principle

is the question of the guidelines.

The minister keeps

getting to his feet and telling us that he's answered the question.

Well, we didn't get the question answered last week. The week before,

the Premier moved the goalposts, and on Saturday the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) also moved the goalposts; he gave his

version of what the guidelines were going to be. And here we are

debating this section. Just what is going on with this section?

my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said, what do

you do in respect to a debate that you're involved in over a period of

three days, when you see a headline in the paper which says "Confusion

Reigns in Bennett's Restraint Program ? That's it; it does. Great

confusion reigns. In the midst of this confusion, when nobody is

looking after the store, literally thousands of people are being laid

off as a result of the restraint program. It's happening out there

every day; everybody knows. Every MLA in this chamber has received

letters from people urging us to urge the government to do something

about the unemployment problem. They particularly urge us to do

something about the unemployment created as a result of the restraint

program, particularly in relation to the health system. Yet after three

days the minister has not said anything.

The

article in the Times-Colonist

ends in an indication to the government by the author when he says: "It

isn't possible, is it, that politically you want us confused and in a

bewildered position of confrontation? Maybe you shouldn't answer."

That's the last thing, addressed to the Premier.

What have

you done out there? What have you created? The minister is adding to

the chaos that exists over there by his complete inability to answer

the questions put to him in respect to these guidelines. He simply

won't answer them. What's happening? He's being preempted all over the

place. He's being preempted by the Premier; he's being preempted by the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) who now wants to give his

version of what's going on. The point is that out there, people do want

to know what's going on.

What has he really said to us with

respect to the guidelines? On Thursday, May 13 he was talking about the

briefs again, that those briefs were taken into account in the

preparation of the legislation. We heard from trade unions. The

minister should tell us what they said to him. I'm looking at the list

he received. He got two pages from the brotherhood of Railway, Airline

and Steamship Clerks, two pages from the Canadian Union of Public

Employees, and that's it. I don't see any other labour unions there.

What

did the minister get from people who were concerned? Tragically and

ironically so, particularly with respect to the health system, he got

advice which he completely ignored. He completely ignored the advice of

the British Columbia Health Association, which is a preeminent

association in this province in respect to the administration and

delivery of the health system. They warned him. What did he say to them

when they said: "This association is also concerned that inadvertent,

ill-conceived applications of the program will result in the loss of

valuable and experienced management people"? Not only has it resulted

in that; it has also resulted in the loss, as a negative byproduct, of

literally thousands of jobs in that whole health system. Part of that

is because of his inability to tell us just what he has in mind in

respect to the guidelines. He hasn't told us that at all.

What

did he tell the B.C. Health Association when they said: "While the

announcement of general guidelines and expenditures is the prerogative

of the government, specific guidelines about compensation encroaches on

the historical and legal responsibility of the board of trustees"? How

is that government ever going to be able to get anybody to serve as a

trustee on a hospital board, having done to them what they've done in

this respect? Here they get sound, experienced advice on how to deal

with the health-care system of this province, and they've completely

ignored it. The upshot is not only chaos in terms of the delivery of

this bill and chaos in the province; what is worse and, frankly, more

dangerous is that we have absolute chaos in the health-delivery system

of this province. That is dangerous; and it's unforgivable in terms of

the inability of that minister to stand up and tell us what you mean

when you are talking about guidelines, without all this fatuous

nonsense you keep repeating which doesn't answer the question at all.

We know you're in a mess with the government, because the Premier took

the ball away from you. The Minister of Education is having a little

dribble with it, and you're standing on the sidelines.

As my

colleagues have said, it's not our intention to let this

section go.

Some years ago we dealt with a similar kind of distasteful

section in

another piece of legislation relating to the health-care system: the

arbitration

section in relation to the medical plan when they wanted to

get at the doctors. Long

[ Page 7620 ]

and

studied debate went on for some days, finally until the government

withdrew the section. That's what's needed here: the long and studied

debate. The minister has banked very heavily in his speeches on the

question of consultation. I put it to you that there was no consolation

whatsoever. There were no discussions about regulations. There was

certainly correspondence regarding regulations, which the minister

proceeded to absolutely ignore. He set out to destroy what is referred

to in a very venerable way in this province, because we've had our wars

with the collective bargaining system.

They talk about the

historic and legal responsibilities. That's what's being destroyed in

here. The minister hasn't answered that, partly, I think, because he

doesn't understand what principles are being destroyed in terms of the

collective bargaining system in this legislation.

He said in

March that the regulations were going to be ready on March 31. He put

that in a bulletin. When I went to get them they weren't available.

Here we are in the middle of May, and they're still not available. Why

did he say that the regulations were going to be available? It is not

usual for this government to produce regulations in respect to a piece

of legislation at the same time that a bill is brought in, but he said

it. He said: "We'll make the regulations available." Where are the

regulations? If he is going to tell me that this piece of gymnastic

equipment which he calls a matrix....

The matrix is issued

as a general guide only. For the details of the seven basic steps and

requirements listed in the matrix you've got to refer to the act. This

is it. That's what I was able to pick up. They've got the whole ball of

wax here, but the regulations aren't there. This is of no value to

anyone who is debating this bill. Without knowing exactly where the

goalposts are going to rest, we will never know what the application of

this bill will do in terms of its basic intention or in respect to this

regulation section.

I would be interested if the minister

would do us a favour and table us the numbers in respect to his version

of what the regulations call for. What is he talking about? He's had

three days. Surely he is now prepared to put this in a ministerial

statement which states very specifically what he means by this section.

That is the important thing. Is he prepared to stand by what he says?

think we've demolished the consultation aspect of this, which he

offered up as an excuse for the veracity of the legislation and for the

implementation of the regulations. Yet he was cautioned strongly by the

health association: "Don't do what you're setting out to do, because

you're going to destroy the system. You're going to destroy the system,

because you're going to scare off employees. We will not be able to

hire the people who can administer, and gradually the system will

crumble." We've seen it happen. The system is crumbling. My colleague

from Victoria gave a rather graphic description of what took place in

Victoria, which is usually considered a rather sleepy suburban area.

There were people protesting right on the edge of the minister's

constituency.

What is he talking about? That is basically

what we want to know, because the onset of this legislation has created

great panic out there among people who are working. We have seen the

beginnings of the destruction of a health system that took over 30

years to put together. Never in such a short period of time has any

government taken the health system of this province to the brink of

almost total destruction and, what is even worse, a loss of public

support and trust in that system. That is the dangerous thing about it.

If this legislation and this

section which deals with the regulatory

aspect of it had any merit to it, then people would be paying

attention. The minister is on the spot. He has to get up and he has to

tell us how this

section will be interpreted. We know what the effect

of this

section is at the moment. How is he going to interpret it? Has

he decided to take another look at it? Has he decided to heed the

advice he got in what he considers to be a consultative process, when

he got some briefs from interested people around the province and

particularly from the health association? That is what he has to do.

have a lot of time, because we have an enormous amount of time invested

in the development of our health system in this province — over 30

years. In the space of 30 days we have seen reduction, destruction and

lowering of morale in a system that was the most important system in

this province in terms of human beings. If the minister is prepared to

ignore that, then the government ignores it at its peril, because that

is the beginning. How often do we hear members of the medical

profession get up and say the kinds of things that Dr. March said? If

one of us over here had said it, there would have been a scandalous

outbreak. But because it was done by a professional who works in the

system, who knows what the effect of this restraint legislation is,

nobody said a word, because they knew he was right.

That

is the total question we are dealing with here — the credibility of the

government and its ability to bring in a piece of legislation. We've

listened for the last three days to the minister. We had a rather

fatuous reply from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt), but nobody else has got up. They don't want to defend what

they maintain is a keystone of what they consider to be the economic

recovery of this province: putting people out of work. The only thing

they've learned from Reagan is that we'll practise Reaganomics, we'll

create more unemployment, and eventually we'll wrestle inflation to the

ground. The only thing that they've wrestled to the ground right now is

the health-care system. It's on the ground and they're trampling on it.

Part of the blame lies directly at the feet of the Minister of Finance,

who, as he rushed to bring in a piece of legislation which he probably

knew nothing about until the Premier announced it, cannot now tell us

the basic guidelines. There are basic guidelines — not just because

it's the health system, but because people have to plan their lives in

terms of what their expectations can be in respect to the money they

take home. That's all gone. Everything is up in the air. That's the

kind of chaos that this legislation has created. It's made even more

chaotic by the minister's inability to give us the facts.

don't consider what the minister said in terms of the consultative

process to be worth anything, because everything was settled before

they got to writing the briefs. They knew where they were going, and

they're moving relentlessly towards that end. They're going to try and

ram it through here. Well, you're not going to ram it through this

House. We'll have to stay here for days and days and days until you get

up and you tell us. We know that things are only getting worse out

there, and that's terrible. You've not offered one rational explanation

of this section. That he has not done, Mr. Chairman — no rational

explanation at all. If you can't do that, then you had better turn it

over to somebody else, because your performance in terms of the

delivery of this bill and comments in relation to the questions that

have been asked has been abysmal.

This is the destruction of a piece of legislation that was worthy of destruction at its inception. But it's also destroying

[ Page 7621 ]

the minister in the process. His credibility is on the line here, not just the credibility of the government.

Mr.

Chairman, I've got to congratulate you. You are the best Chairman we've

had in that chair for the last three days. You have exhibited skill and

understanding. When debate is going on, you listen carefully and you

keep very quiet. We're indeed very fortunate that you're in the chair.

request of the minister is to ask what impact the consultative process

had on his drafting of this bill when they didn't get to put in their

briefs until six weeks after the plan had been announced by the

Premier. Did you pay any attention to any of the observations? Did be

particularly pay attention to the people in the health-care system? I

ask the minister that. Did you pay any attention to the briefs that you

got? You cannot tell us, because I would not accept that this list —

that's the list of the briefs that you got.... Some of them are not

available; they're in the hands of the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and we can't get hold of them. But those

we can get hold of — one-page and two-page.... We'll address ourselves

to the main brief from the health association. Did you have a

discussion with them? Did anybody in your department call them up and

say: "Listen, what you're saying here is a very serious critique of our

legislation"? Did you have that kind of a discussion with them? Because

if you're trying to foist on this House the suggestion that you had

consultation with the kind of stuff that was submitted, it's not an

argument that is credible in any way.

Going back to the

health association: did you have a discussion with the health

association people when they pointed out in their brief the impact of

what could happen to you? You've got a copy of the brief. It was sent

to you on March 12, 1982. To refresh your memory, I'll remind you that

they said: "The association is also concerned that inadvertent,

ill-conceived applications of the program would result in a loss of

valuable and experienced management people from the health-care

institutions in British Columbia." It's a major citation saying to you:

"This is what's going to happen if you're not careful." Later on, in

respect to the regulations, they said: "Regulations should not detract

from the boards' responsibility to provide a high standard of care and

treatment for the patient." That's what you've done: taken away the

power of the boards, the volunteers, the people that serve on the

boards. Did you discuss that with them? It becomes very difficult to

understand what you mean when you say there was consultation. I put it

to you, Mr. Chairman, that there was absolutely no consultation, and it

is unacceptable the way he is presenting it.

He's on the hook to defend this bill, and so far he hasn't defended it in any way or offered any answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, with the consent of the committee, the member for Cowichan-Malahat wishes to make an introduction? Is it agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm sorry to interrupt the debate to do this, but I felt that I owed it

to the 20 students from Brentwood College who are sitting in the

gallery together with their teacher, Mr. McLean, to welcome them.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I think that if the galleries were full and if we had

television cameras in this House so that the public could see what's

going on here, they would be shocked. For three days we have been

discussing

section 9 of Bill 28.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do so.

MR. LEA:

Section 9 has no details to it.

Section 9 doesn't tell us what is going

to happen after this

section is passed in the Legislature. It doesn't

tell us what the ceiling is going to be for wage raises. It doesn't

tell us what the floor is going to be. It doesn't tell us anything. All

it does is tell us that we're going to be giving the cabinet the

authority to make those decisions. All the cabinet wants us to do is

pass

section 9, and they'll take it from there.

On February

18, when the Premier made his announcement about this program, he gave

us some goalposts. Since then he's taken them back. They call that

changing the goalposts, and in this case, in midstream.

MS. SANFORD: That's hard to do.

MR. LEA: It is hard to do. That's why people are so confused.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What

are we voting for or against here? It is whether we should give cabinet

permission to set any guidelines through regulations that they feel

they want to set. What has been the hint from the government as to the

depth of those guidelines? Are they going to be a 14 percent ceiling,

or is there going to be an actual cut in the wages offered? Briefly,

I'd like the members of this committee to take a look at sections 22

and 29 of this same bill. Those two sections again allow this

government to do anything they want. The Premier said about this

section: "If this doesn't work out the way I want, I'm going to call

the Legislature back, and we as the government will ram through what we

want to do." The Premier doesn't have to do that if we pass sections 9,

22 and 29. They can do any darn thing they want in the cabinet room:

rollbacks, cutbacks, higher ceilings, lower floors.

This has

been a story that we have witnessed over six years by this government.

The first move they made was the one where they centralized most things

into the cabinet room; I think it was the government services act.

Every piece of legislation that this government has brought in has

taken away from the democratic process in one way or another, either

taking powers away from this chamber and putting them in the cabinet

room, or taking powers away from the school boards, the hospital

boards, the municipal councils and non-profit societies. A piece of

legislation hasn't come through this House in six years that hasn't

taken power away from different groups in society. Why would a

government want to do that? Only the government can answer that, and

the minister won't talk. The minister won't get up and tell us exactly

what's going to happen when this passes. And it will pass. We say that

we can stop it, but when it comes right down to it, we know we can't. In

the end, this

section and this bill will pass, and the government will

go into the cabinet room and they'll set them any place they want, from

5 percent, to 10 percent, to 14 percent.

The minister argues that this

section has nothing to do with hospitals.

[ Page 7622 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I didn't say that.

MR. LEA:

Oh, the minister didn't say that. Well, he kept calling for us to be

relevant and stick to

section 9, because he said that

section 9 would

have nothing to do with the quality of health care. At the same time,

section 9 passes, there's going to have to be a lot of layoffs in the

health-care system, but the minister insists that's got nothing to do

with health care.

I think we have to discuss the principle

of this section. From the government's point of view, it is that if

this

section passes, they will be able to cut back or limit to some

degree the wages of the public service. They say they want to do that

because they would like to stop inflation. They'd like to reduce and

limit inflation, and that's why they want

section 9 passed. How are

they going to do that? They say they're going to do that by limiting or

cutting back the wages of public employees. What would happen in the

economy if that was done? Limiting the wages of public employees means

that public employees have less money to spend in the economy. We'd all

agree with that. We're not talking now about the savings the government

would make; we're talking about what would happen in the economy. So if

we limit, curtail or cut back on the money to public employees, they

have less money to spend in the economy. By so doing, the government is

saying they'd like to put less of a demand on the goods and services in

our economy, therefore hoping to bring down the prices to match this

new, lessened demand. In other words, what they're trying to do is to

bring about further recession. That's their economic plan: if they can

put less money into the marketplace and into the economy, then they

will lessen demand for British Columbia goods and services and

therefore bring down the price of goods. That's what they're saying.

the same time, the government is saying to the federal government: "Why

don't you bring in some sort of taxing policy that will bring about

economic recovery?" They say that's what they're trying to do, too;

they say that what they desire to do is to stimulate the economy and

bring some sort of economic stimulus to the economy of British

Columbia. Yet how can they do that, Mr. Speaker, when they want to take

money out of the marketplace to purchase goods and services? I think

it's incumbent, Mr. Chairman, that the minister, because he is the

Minister of Finance as well as the minister who is bringing in this

legislation and

section 9, explain to us exactly how they can bring in

legislation designed to further bring about recession and at the same

time have some sort of economic recovery program. You realize, Mr.

Chairman, don't you, that it's an impossibility. You can't do both at

the same time.

What this

section does is take money out of

every local economy in the province of British Columbia. It means that

there isn't as much money for working people to spend in the

small-business community shops; it means that there won't be as much

money for people to pay the high interest rates on their mortgages. I

just renewed my second mortgage the other day at 20.75 percent.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Double. It was 10.25 percent.

The

government is saying that if we pass

section 9, it's somehow going to

have something to do with lessening inflation, that it's going to be

good for us as British Columbians. At the very time when government

should be stimulating the economy in every way possible, they are

causing recession, in trying to bring down the price of goods and

trying to curb inflation, by having an anti-recovery program. It

doesn't make sense, and I think that the government owes it to the

Legislature — and to you, Mr. Chairman, as a backbencher and as an

ordinary member like ourselves — to tell us how it's going to work.

How

is it going to help Prince George to have less money in the Prince

George economy than there presently is? There is already 20 percent

unemployment in Prince George, and

section 9 will cause further

unemployment. Further unemployment will cause less money in the Prince

George economy. Less money in the Prince George economy will mean that

more small businesses will close down. It's a domino effect.

AN HON. MEMBER: It hurts the MLAs.

MR. LEA:

Yes, it hurts the MLAs. I don't believe there is one MLA in here who

isn't honestly concerned about the people and the economy in the riding

he represents. I just don't believe that. I don't believe the member

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) wants unemployment in his riding; I don't

believe he wants a bad and sick economy. I don't believe there is

anybody here who does. Yet because of partisan reasons, backbenchers

are going to vote for a

section — specifically

section 9 — which is

going to hurt the economy in their own regions. I know there is nobody

in here who would do that consciously, purposefully, but they can do it

accidentally by not querying their own government as to exactly what it

means. What's it going to do for the regions of this province that we

all represent? Is it going to help or is it going to hurt?

You

see, it is very easy, Mr. Chairman, through sections like

section 9, to

attack public employees, lay the blame on them and say that they are

the cause of inflation. Too much spending by government is the cause of

inflation. Already too many people believe that, so it is easy to

believe. I have been in the back bench, and I know that there is a

tendency, when your own government brings in a bill, not to examine it

thoroughly, not to really think about it, but to trust them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Trust them?

MR. LEA:

That goes without saying. But I warn all you government backbenchers

that this particular piece of legislation, especially

section 9, is

going to hurt the communities you live in and your friends and

neighbours. It is not going to help anybody. It is going to bring about

cuts in health care and educational services. It is going to hurt the

small business community. It is going to hurt everybody in the

community, because you cannot hurt sections of a community, like this

section of the bill is going to, without hurting everybody in that

community.

This is not the time to further aid the

recessionary downturn. This is a time to stimulate the economy. The

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), when he rose in the

budget debate, said to the minister: "I think what you are doing, Mr.

Minister, is practising neo-Keynesian economics." All neo-Keynesian

economics says is that when you are in a recession, government has an

obligation and a duty to

[ Page 7623 ]

stimulate

the economy. It doesn't say that you have an obligation to dampen the

economy. It doesn't say that wherever you can you take bucks out of the

economy. The small business people, when they get a dollar in their

till, don't know if that dollar comes from the private- or

public-sector worker. All they know is that they've got another dollar

in their till. It means that they can maybe meet their high interest

payments at the end of the month. It means they may be able to pay

their staff and not lay someone off.

MR. SEGARTY: They may not be able to pay their taxes.

MR. LEA:

That is absolutely correct. We are not advocating higher taxes. What we

are advocating is a different priority of spending by the government.

The

minister is fond of comparing the macroeconomics of a province to an

individual household. Let's compare the individual household and the

economy of the province and see if any household would be dumb enough

to bring in

section 9 on themselves. Let's compare the province to the

household. You are a household in Prince George. You have decided,

because you want to do a capital expenditure project around your home

because you need it — or at least you want it.... It might be for

recreational purposes. It might be a swimming pool; it might be a

garage that you need to protect your vehicle from the snow in Prince

George. You have decided that that is what you want to do, but somebody

in your family loses their job. In other words, it is hard times, like

it is in the province, What do you do in hard times? Do you say:

"Regardless of all the consequences, we're going to go ahead with the

garage or the swimming pool, even when we might not have enough money

to operate our family in terms of food, clothing and transportation" —

the things that you absolutely have to have? That is what the

government is doing. They are saying: "Those essential services, like

adequate health care, must suffer because we want to build the swimming

pool." They call it the B.C. stadium. They say: "We don't care whether

we have proper education for our children. It's not a priority for us

in spending because we want to put money into northeast coal." There is

a time for northeast coal, B.C. stadiums, B.C. Place and Pier B-C, but

it surely isn't when you can't put food on the table.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I will ask the hon. member to be strictly relevant to

section 9.

MR. LEA:

That is what I am doing. I am talking about the cause and effect of

section 9 on the economy of this province, and what's going to happen.

For the minister to sit there and not get up and explain from his point

of view, as the Minister of Finance and the fiscal agent for this

province, what this

section is going to do to the economy and the

people of this province is a little bit hard to take. We know

section 9

is going to harm the economy. What we are asking is how much. Are we

going to have a football stadium at the expense of some baby's life?

Does that make sense? Are we going to have a tunnel going through a

mountain for northeast coal at the expense of a year of education in a

child's life? Are those the priorities? We're not saying: "Go out and

gouge the taxpayers." We are saying: "Assess your priorities of

spending." We said that in our Let's Get to Work program.

our Let's Get to Work program we on this side of the House said: let's

go for economic recovery. They say: let's go for recession; that's how

to cure inflation. We say: to cure inflation, start building a healthy

economy. Let's get some jobs. Let's get some more tax dollars coming

into the coffers from an expanded economy, as opposed to taking the

same amount of tax dollars out of a fading economy and driving it

further into the hole. I don't think there's anyone in this chamber who

doesn't know that what I'm saying is the truth. We know it. The

minister knows it. But for political purposes they are determined to go

this way. Mr. Chairman, you have to ask yourself: should you be a

minister of the Crown and make that kind of political decision,

especially when you're Minister of Finance, at the expense of the

economy of the province you’ve sworn to serve?

The member

for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) is smirking because he doesn't understand. I

ask everybody to forgive him, including the people in his own

constituency, because he just doesn't understand. But I know you do,

Mr. Chairman, because you've had some experience in other

administrative bodies — school boards at the local level. You know what

budgeting is all about. You also have a little bit of an idea of what

the economy is all about. You know what I'm saying is the truth: that

section 9 will hurt the economy, because it's designed to bring about a

deeper recession than we already have.

When they say they're

going to restrain government spending in order to somehow decrease the

inflation in the province, we have a right to ask: how will that work?

But the minister won't get up and say how it will work, because there

is no explanation. This bill is designed to add to the recession we're

already having. They're hoping to cut down demand for goods and

services, for the things we manufacture and supply in this province.

This

government cannot make the difference. They can't understand how the

budget of the province of British Columbia is an instrument to be used

in the general economy of the province. They think they're separate.

They think the economy out there is somehow all private sector and that

the budget of the province is the public-sector side. They don't

understand that the policies of government determine whether or not

you're going to have a healthy private sector. It's not a case of

saying they're going to set the proper climate and then doing nothing.

They think they can honestly get into government and say: "You know, we

really like business people. Isn't that a good climate? Now it will

pick up." Because they have that very narrow view of what the world is

all about, they bring in

section 9, which will go a long way to

destroying local economies around this province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Can

you tell me how laying off 3,000 nurses in a recessionary economy is

going to help? Can you tell me how laying off people in the public

sector and cutting down the amount of money that they're going to spend

is going to help the general private-sector economy' I challenge any

one of those Socred members to get up and tell me how it works. How can

you take money out of the economy that is being spent directly into the

economy, through

section 9, and help bring about some sort of downturn

in the inflationary spiral? You can't do it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: There's a man who has worked in a credit union.

[ Page 7624 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Is that the way you want it to go?

MR. LEA:

No, no. I'll tell you how you stop inflation: you stop putting up the

user fees; you put on some price controls in necessary areas. That's

what you do. You don't take money out of the economy; you help it.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The minister says: "There's the expert in economics who used to drive a taxicab."

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's immaterial in any case, hon. members.

MR. LEA:

It is a little immaterial. But I want to show you that that is the

depth of thinking of a cabinet minister in this province. And we're

going to have legislation on economic affairs pass through his cabinet.

Is that what we're going to do? The Minister of Finance knows better.

He has been involved with municipal politics and municipal finance

authorities for the last 20 years. He's been involved with government.

He's been involved with the finance area of North America. He's been

involved with the economy of this province. I challenge the minister to

get up and tell us how

section 9 is going to help the economy of this

province — not in some superficial terms talking about the climate; I

want to know specifically what is going to follow when

section 9 passes

and how that's going to bring down the inflationary rate in this

province. It won't. And you cannot continue to pour money into capital

projects and take away from the local communities. That's what you're

doing. Yes, you'll create pocket wealth in the northeastern part of the

province for those people from Alberta who are working up there on

northeast coal.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, on a

point of order. I've listened to the lengthy remarks by the member for

Prince Rupert and the previous speaker, the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who is not in his seat, and I

wonder if, in fact, the Chair has not had some difficulty in relating

this to the "strictly relevant" clause.

MR. KING: You're bullying the Chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I don't think the Chair feels bullied, Mr. Chairman. I leave it to you

to tell me if I am bullying you. I wonder how the MFA, the

international markets and so on can be related to a single

section in

Bill 28.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. minister. Hon.

members, the Chair must again point out that we are in committee and we

are on

section 9, and our standing orders necessitate that we be

strictly relevant. To recanvass what was discussed in second reading is

not appropriate at this stage, or we really wouldn't need the committee

side. I would ask the member speaking if he could be strictly relevant

section 9.

MR. LEA: Out of the remarks that I

made, I have a very simple question for the minister. They say that the

intent of this entire legislation that will be carried out through

section 9, which is limiting and cutting back the wages paid to public

employees, is to dampen the inflationary spiral in the province of

British Columbia. According to the government, that's the thrust of

their entire legislation around this bill, Bill 28. I would like to ask

the minister exactly how he hopes to curb inflation by taking money out

of the local economies through the wages of nurses and public employees

throughout this province. He won't answer that; he'll get into

technicalities.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm

not sure that I can answer the question within the standing orders of

this House, as I indicated just a few moments ago, but I would refer

the member — if in fact he's listening — to page 7343 of Hansard

for May 3, 1982. If I might just briefly recap the comments made that

day — albeit in second reading, but related to

section 9 — I spoke

about the guidelines which are dealt with in

section 9. The Chair and

other members will recognize that there are 36 sections and there are

many more matters to be canvassed in committee. They can't all be

discussed, I suggest, with respect, under this particular section.

Back to Hansard :

the guideline stage these limits will have three components: a basic

income-protection factor of 10 percent; an experience adjustment factor

of 2 percent, which could be added to or subtracted from that figure;

and a special-circumstances factor, which is a possible additional 2

percent. So the commissioner (that is, Mr. Peck) will determine whether

the increase proposed in a compensation plan conforms to the limit

provided for in the guidelines. The commissioner may work with the

parties to assist them in meeting the guidelines. As part of this

effort, he may even authorize his compensation mediator to suggest an

acceptable settlement in writing. It should be noted, however, that the

onus lies on the parties to work out an acceptable solution within the

parameters of the guidelines, which are written so as to give the

parties and the commissioner considerable leeway in trying to reach a

successful conclusion.

To the extent that parties work

constructively within the framework of the guidelines, a considerable

degree of freedom to bargain collectively will in fact be retained.

Mr. Chairman, that is a relatively brief excerpt from the remarks made at the time of second reading regarding the guidelines.

determined to set out reasonable guidelines, to provide flexible limits

that would allow the parties — that is, the employees and the employers

in schools, in municipalities, in hospitals, within the provincial

government and its agencies — to negotiate a settlement that would

allow a reasonable wage for all workers through work-sharing or other

innovative schemes, while not causing layoffs or service reductions.

Mr.

Chairman, I have to observe after a number of hours of debate.... If

the debate is to continue, fine; that's perfectly acceptable, and that's

what it's all about in this committee and in this chamber. I have the

feeling that the lack of understanding of

section 9 of Bill 28 rests

not on the government side of this House but on the opposition side. It

is very difficult to assist those who do not wish to understand

precisely what is stated.

MR. BARRETT: Come on now, don't patronize us. Why don't you answer the questions?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The insults come in a torrent from the other side. Occasionally, one has to trickle back.

The

point is, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think the members opposite really

want to understand what is in

section 9 of Bill 28. They recognize the

serious situation which exists not only in British Columbia but across

the country and in North

[ Page 7625 ]

America.

Section 9, while not the entire thrust of Bill 28, is one of the key aspects of this particular piece of legislation.

the members opposite wish me to give them more details on

section 9,

perhaps they could point out where I've been deficient. Again, we're

simply dealing here with

part 2, the compensation guidelines. I've

mentioned repeatedly, notwithstanding claims to the contrary from the

other side, the percentage figures which form one of the main aspects

of this piece of legislation. The guidelines that were announced on

February 18, which have been subjected to some

interpretation and

subjected to some remarks made occasionally in the heat of the

moment.... The statements which were made on February 18 by the Premier

and the statements which I have made on a numb