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 10, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7467 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government advertising. Mr. Barrett –– 7467

Mr. Cocke

Possible conflict of interest of VGH board member. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies 7468

Government advertising. Ms. Brown –– 7468

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Hall

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 7470

Mr. Skelly –– 7472

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 7476

Mr. Ree –– 7479

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 7480

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 7482

Mr. King –– 7485

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7489

Tabling Documents

Columbia River Treaty permanent engineering board annual report.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 7489

MONDAY, MAY 10, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I am very pleased

to have the honour to introduce to the House today Mr. Graham Bell, who

has just taken up his duties as the new managing director of the

Southwestern B.C. Tourist Association.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Bell actually wasn't associated with the telephone company, hon.

member, but he was the managing director of the Vancouver Youth Hostel.

Accompanying

Mr. Bell is Mr. Rick Antonson who is the former manager of the region

and who will now be employed as general manager of the Vancouver-based

publisher, Douglas & McIntyre.

It is also a great

privilege for me to introduce to the House Miss Irene Rouse. Miss Rouse

is visiting us from Toronto and is no stranger to British Columbia, but

it will interest the House to know that Miss Rouse and her family were

missionaries for many years in China. I am sure this will interest you,

Mr. Speaker. They were there before the war and some of their family

were interned along with some of our family during the war under the

Japanese occupation. I would ask the House to warmly welcome all three

people.

MR. BARRETT: In the gallery today is a former

member of this Legislature for Kamloops, Mr. Gerry Anderson. He is

accompanied by his wife and two friends from California. I would ask

the House to welcome the member and ask that his short absence will be

ended shortly.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Last weekend Canada

lost one of its finest athletes and ambassadors, a citizen of the

province of Quebec. When he was overseas he spoke very highly of Canada

and always considered himself a citizen and spoke as a citizen of this

country. He was a gentleman who within his own speciality was extremely

highly regarded and put the name of this country on the map. In moments

like this it is often the case where you, Mr. Speaker, request of the

members that we send the appropriate message. I would ask that that

message be sent to the Villeneuve family on behalf of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that the wish of the House? So ordered.

MR. GABELMANN:

I would like the House to welcome two delegations from North Island who

are here today. The first is a group of IWA members: Cliff Lovestrom

and Willie Fleming from Zeballos and Nick Bos from Local 185 of the IWA

in Alberni. Also with us are: the mayor of Port Hardy, John Davis; his

administrator, John Spanier; and Alderman Eddie Forsch from Port Alice.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mr. Malcolm Mitchell, a longtime

supporter of the British Columbia Social Credit Party and an active

worker at the appropriate times. Would the House make him welcome.

MR. KEMPF:

In the gallery this afternoon is a very good friend and supporter of

mine, Mr. Gene Jack, and I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce today an outstanding high

school from Maple Ridge School District 42. Garibaldi Secondary School

has 50 students here, and the teachers are Mrs. Sue Wagner, Mr. Dale

Hewitt and Mr. John Misurelli. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. BARRETT:

I have a question for the Minister Of Finance. Mr. Speaker, I wish to

draw to the minister's attention an advertisement which appeared in the

Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province this weekend at

a cost of $12,751. I wish to ask the minister first if he authorized

the expenditure of these funds for this full-page ad.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition would know full well,

having served as Minister of Finance, individual ministries undertake a

number of activities within a block vote.

MR. BARRETT:

A supplementary to the minister. Does he approve or disapprove of the

expenditure of public funds in this blatant political manner, endorsing

a political party slogan out of taxpayers' money?

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a further question?

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, in light of restraint asked for by this government, is it

the minister's opinion that it is a valid expenditure of behalf of this

government to exploit for political purposes another person's successes

in the depths of their own defeat politically? Does the minister

approve of this ?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is out of order directed to the Minister of Finance.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, the minister is in charge of the restraint bill. In light

of the request for restraint in every government department, does the

minister approve of this type of expenditure?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE:

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

the number of hospital bed closures, when we're looking at an

expenditure of $12,751, which could have provided ten people with five

days each of hospital care, I ask the minister whether he condones the

highly political use of money to endorse a Socred campaign slogan.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I suppose one can relate any expenditure to any other

expenditure. You could bring into question any government expenditure,

if you wish to relate it to health, education or some other specific

need for funds. I don't see how the ad relates to hospital beds, and I

[ Page 7468 ]

disagree with the member that it's blatantly political. But he can reach his own conclusions, as he often does.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm standing, perhaps I could respond to questions raised by the same member, I believe it was last Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: Taken on notice?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, taken on notice.

POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

OF VGH BOARD MEMBER

He asked a question about the director

of Computech Consulting Canada Ltd., a director of information systems

for the Ministry of Health. According to the member for New

Westminster, he recently made a presentation to senior hospital

officials for the creation of an integrated computer system or hospital

system centre. The member asked: "Does the creation of a new

bureaucratic entity to provide computer services to hospitals reflect

the minister's policy?" Mr. Speaker, the person in question, Mr. Bob

Hawkins, is a vice president of Computech Consulting Canada Ltd. I

don't know whether that would make him principal director, but none of

the principals apparently owns a controlling share. Mr. Hawkins

assisted in the presentation. The presentation, had it been accepted by

the hospitals, would not have created a new bureaucratic entity, but

possibly an improved management information system. So the answer would

be no, the creation of a new bureaucratic entity is not the policy.

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a new question. He said: "In view of the

fact that the first target of the program I described is the Vancouver General

Hospital, did the minister take into consideration the possible conflict of

interest of appointing Mr. Hawkins to the Vancouver General Hospital board on

February 5, 1982?" Mr. Speaker, there was no first target. The computer

proposal was placed before administrators representing 16 hospitals — not to

the hospital boards. I don't believe there is necessarily any consideration

of conflict of interest in Mr. Hawkins serving on the Vancouver General Hospital

board, which did not receive the presentation. Should the proposal have been

presented to the VGH board for consideration at any time, Mr. Hawkins would

have abstained from voting on the matter had it gone that far.

The

member said: "This is becoming more interesting all the time. Mr.

Hawkins' firm, Computech Consulting Canada Ltd., was only registered in

British Columbia five days prior to Mr. Hawkins' appointment to the VGH

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

company will benefit from the creation of the new hospital system

centre?" I am advised that Computech Consulting Canada Ltd. was

registered in B.C. on October 1, 1966 — not five days before Mr.

Hawkins' appointment, but approximately 5,600 days before Mr. Hawkins'

appointment in February 1982. I am also advised that Computech

Consulting Canada is a wholly-owned B.C. company with headquarters in

Vancouver.

As to whether he would receive any benefit, the

answer is apparently not much at all. The proposal was not accepted by

the administrators of the hospitals. Should any such proposal be

approved or reconsidered in the future, it would be subject to the

usual tender proposals. Mr. Hawkins would have no role to play in the

decision concerning the awarding of such contracts or series of

contracts.

Finally, the member for New Westminster said:

"This is a significant sum that I'm going to be talking about. Who

authorized Mr. Hawkins to offer $5.5 million over the next three years

toward this project at a meeting of April 19, 1982?" The information

I've received from senior staff is that "offer" would be an incorrect

word. The proposal which was put forward stated that it could be

activated as funds became available. Mr. Hawkins was authorized to

present his proposal by senior ministry officials in the Ministry of

Health.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I ask Your

Honour to consider this between now and when question period ends. The

minister has just taken up one-third of the time available, and, I

submit, the answer should have been provided at the end of question

period or question period should be extended to make up the requisite

time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. As

the Chair understood it, a series of questions was answered, none of

which by itself was long enough to call for the intervention of the

Chair, although I was on the verge of intervening.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MS. BROWN: That was a clear abuse, Mr. Speaker.

question is to the Minister of Human Resources. In view of the fact

that children involved in child abuse, custody and access cases are

going to have legal counsel curtailed, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Human Resources whether she protested the spending of $12,751 — which,

incidentally, would have supplied 300 hours of legal counsel to these

children — in this pathetic attempt by that government to try to

improve its tarnished image by associating itself with the outstanding

achievements of the Vancouver Canucks.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

The assumption on which the question has been asked is entirely

incorrect. The suggestion that there is a curtailment of services to

families and children involved in child abuse is completely incorrect.

Also, I want to address myself to the remark made by the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds relating to a $12,000 expenditure. I would just like to

say that this ministry is very pleased to know that the government of

British Columbia did spend $12,000 on advertising. I think it's very

nice that in a time when there are very many problems — not the least

of which was the one highlighted in the member's question — we are able

to have an expression from the people of British Columbia to a group

that exemplifies the spirit of this province and its people.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, time is fleeting.

MS. SANFORD:

Can the Minister of Labour tell this House how many jobs under the

youth employment program could have been provided with the money spent

on that full-page ad?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised the Minister of Labour will not answer that question.

[ Page

7469 ]

I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the minister

responsible to this Legislature for the B.C. Ferry Corporation tell us whether

the $12,751 to pay for this ad we've been discussing — this blatantly political

Social Credit ad that they've taken for their own political purposes at

the expense of the Vancouver Canucks — is being raised from the nearly 15 percent

increase in the cost of food on B.C. Ferries that went into effect this weekend?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, there is no connection whatsoever, and I'm amazed that the

opposition is opposed to the success of the Vancouver Canucks.

MR. HALL:

I have a very simple question to the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Speaker.

Did the $12,751 to finance this government's political piggybacking on

the hard work of the Vancouver Canucks come out of your budget?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. But I would like to advise the hon.

member that before the Canucks won the Smythe Trophy they were all

presented with Good Show pins for their outstanding contribution to

tourism in British Columbia, and that the owner of their team was

presented with a framed Good Show award, and they were recommended for

this award by Mr. Earl Bradford on behalf of and with the support of

thousands of British Columbians. We're very proud of them.

I'd

also like to tell the hon. member, Mr. Speaker — and I know you'd like

to know that the Vancouver Canucks, through their sportsmanship —

notwithstanding the odd little hassle that they had last Saturday

night; generally their conduct is excellent — are incredible and very

lucrative ambassadors for British Columbia. We have to remember that

because the Vancouver Canucks are playing in the United States, first

Chicago and then New York, literally millions of people are having

their attention drawn to British Columbia as an area of sport activity

and strong positive citizenship, and most certainly as an excellent

place to spend their vacation in this coming year. We fully support the

Canucks. On behalf of our government and the people of British

Columbia, I'm sure I can thank them for what they are doing for

tourism, job creation and capital investment right here in British

Columbia this year.

MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker, could you rule on whether or not the last speaker was

abusing the rules of the question period, and if so, may I have my

question?

MR. SPEAKER: We do have another question

period tomorrow. The Chair will do everything in its power to try to

keep both the questions and answers in order. It is difficult, I have

to tell you.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

point of order in order to correct a statement. The minister puts words

in my mouth. I gather he's talking about federal registration Of....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: The minister attributed words to me....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I do not know of any vehicle that we can use to make this kind of correction, hon. member.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.)

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, standing order 42 provides me with an opportunity to

correct the statement. Thank you, I'll correct it in the hall.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps debate will in due course offer an opportunity.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek

leave for the adjournment of the House to debate a definite matter of

urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly

MS. BROWN:

The rights of children in this province have been violated by this

government. As of May 1, 1982, lawyers will not be appointed to act for

children 12 years and older who are involved in custody, maintenance or

protection disputes. The family advocate, as defined by the Family

Relations Act, has been effectively eliminated by a memorandum from the

Ministry of Attorney-General. The family advocate acts as a mediator

and counsellor as well as a lawyer to those involved in family

disputes. Their work as conciliators in these highly charged emotional

battles is well recognized. This government is now denying children

from the age of 12 and over this service. Children are being denied

their basic rights.

Secondly, the new policy discriminates

against those children who are abused and neglected and who are the

wards of the Minister of Human Resources. Lawyers representing these

children are having a time limit placed on them. Children's lives and

futures are being measured by minutes of legal service by this

government. These guidelines, arbitrarily set, deny children proper

representation; these guidelines deny children proper protection.

The motion, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion will be forwarded if the matter is found to qualify. If we

would bring both the statement on the matter and the motion itself to

the table, I will consider the matter and return a decision to the

House.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

[ Page 7470 ]

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Before I start my speech in favour of

this bill, I would like to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition

doesn't know whether he is against the Vancouver Canucks or whether he

is against the Vancouver Sun , but he and his little band of

socialists over there are not sure where they stand on many issues. Of

course, this is just another one of those issues. I have to recall that

when the Leader of the Opposition was Premier of this province — thank

heavens it was for a very short period of time — he travelled to Japan

at the taxpayers' expense, not to play hockey but to play rugby ball.

That might have been fine if he'd just travelled to Japan to play rugby

ball, but not only did he play rugby ball but, indeed, he did the

province a great disservice by preaching socialism while he was there.

It has taken numerous other trips by the Premier and my other cabinet

colleagues to rectify the situation with our second largest trading

partner and to point out that, indeed, British Columbia is interested

in doing business and interested in exporting our products to them so

that we can create jobs, so that there will be taxes and so that we can

pay for our social services.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the trip to China and the Great Wall?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

No, no. I wasn't even going to mention the trip to China at taxpayers'

expense, where he took one of the members for Vancouver Centre. He

didn't go to China to play rugby ball. He went to China to plant trees.

Did he come back with any orders? Was there any followup? Because he

was supposedly over there doing business for the great province of

British Columbia. No, not at all. He went over there to plant trees. He

went to Japan to play rugby ball at the taxpayers' expense and to China

to plant trees at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Speaker, I am

going to be brief today, but what I am going to say will be very

positive and very meaningful, unlike the opposition have been during

debate on this bill. Their debate has really been based on — I really

hate to use this word in this Legislature — short-term political

garbage.

This measure was introduced on a Thursday. Friday

night I was in my riding — the great Peace River country. Two civil

servants whom I didn't know met me on the street. They recognized me

and they said: "You are Mr. Phillips, aren't you?" I said yes. "I want

to tell you, Mr. Phillips, that we like what your government said

yesterday. We realize that if we're going to have long-term employment

in this government, if we're going to have long-term employment in the

province of British Columbia, and if we're going to have economic

stability in the province of British Columbia, somebody has to stop

somewhere. Somebody has to say: 'Look, we're living too high off the

hog.'" They went on to further say that they recognize that if we don't

live within our means now, it won't be long before we are out of a job

altogether. That, Mr. Speaker, happens to be the nuts and bolts of the

bill.

Through this bill, we are allowing those who have the

permanency of a job in the civil service to be able to look forward to

continued employment. If we don't chop somewhere, it will mean chopping

programs and cutting civil servants out of their jobs. That's what will

happen. Every responsible government has a duty to all of the people of

this great province. It's a responsibility to look beyond the

immediate, to look into the future, and to plan for tomorrow. That, Mr.

Speaker, is exactly what this legislation is all about.

want to keep the civil servants that we have today gainfully employed.

We want them to have the security of working for the government.

Unfortunately, those who are working in the private sector don't have

that security at the present time, because they are being curtailed by

the economics of the marketplace. We could have chopped programs, Mr.

Speaker, and we could have experienced a large number of layoffs in the

civil service, but this government chose the responsible route.

After

listening to the negative, carping criticism of the socialist

opposition opposite last week, I got to thinking: my gracious, British

Columbia must be a terrible place in which to live. So I did a little

research. Do you know what I came up with? Over the past three years,

British Columbia's population has increased more rapidly than that of

any other province in Canada, save and except, possibly, the province

of Alberta. In 1979, British Columbia's population increased by 1.62

percent while Canada's population increased only by 0.88 percent. The

same holds true in 1980. British Columbia's population increased by

2.68 percent while Canada's population increased only by 1.08 percent.

In 1981, British Columbia's population increased by 2.6 percent while

Canada's population increased by only 1.06 percent. To me, that means

that people would rather be living here in beautiful British Columbia,

under the policies of this government, than elsewhere in Canada,

There

must be a reason, Mr. Speaker. The reason is that this government has

been doing things right during the last six years. This province

happens to be the best place to live in Canada. It's not only the best

place in Canada but, indeed, the best place in all of North America.

From

1977 onward, British Columbians have enjoyed the highest per capita

personal disposable income of anywhere in Canada. I want to repeat that

so that everybody grasps what I'm saying. From 1977 onward, British

Columbians have enjoyed the highest per capita personal disposable

income of any place or anybody in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is

the responsibility of this government to see that our policies are such

that we are able to look forward to prosperity well into the future,

and such that British Columbians will continue to enjoy a very high per

capita personal disposable income.

That is what we are

proposing in this bill. We want to keep things the way they are,

because we think British Columbians are entitled to the way of life

that they enjoy today. Almost 5 percent more people were working in

this province in 1981 than in the year before, which means an increase

in our labour force. That compares with a national average of only 3

percent.

As I listen to the socialist opposition, I have to

keep asking myself this question: where in the world has socialism ever

worked to the benefit of the people that it supposedly serves? Can you

name me one jurisdiction in the world where socialism has been good for

the workingman? Can you name me one place in the world where socialism

has been good for the businessman? Can you name me one place in the

world where socialism has been good for the civil servant? You can't

name one place in the world where socialism has been good for the

population at large.

The free-enterprise system has given British Columbians the best social services to be found anywhere in the world.

[ Page 7471 ]

Again,

that's what this bill is all about. We want to ensure that future

British Columbians will also enjoy these social services that indeed

are the highest standard of those found in any jurisdiction anywhere in

the world. We want to ensure that those social services continue well

into the decades ahead. and if we keep on spending money the way we

have been doing, with no lid on it, it will not be true. It's happened

in socialist jurisdictions, where they think money can buy security and

can solve all the problems. Pretty soon they run out of money and the

programs have to be cut, and the people who enjoyed those programs have

to be chopped. That is not what this government wants. Sure, we have to

tighten our belts for a little while, but it's far better to tighten

the belt a little now and have the security of those social programs in

the next decade. That's what this bill is all about and that's why I

have no hesitation in supporting it.

It also happens that

the free-enterprise system has brought about, for British Columbia

workers, the highest wages paid in any jurisdiction in North America. A

socialist is a socialist, no matter where he is, and unfortunately, one

of the ills we have in this country is the socialist who heads it in

Pierre Elliott Trudeau. That's the root of the problem. A socialist is

a socialist, whether he's in Ottawa or Victoria, and no matter what

government he's in. A socialist is a socialist, and socialism has never

worked for the benefit of all the people in any jurisdiction. Who

started a lot of the social programs that we enjoy today? They were

started under this government. And it is this government, through our

policies, that will ensure they stay. But along with the social

programs that we brought to the people of British Columbia, we also

brought a good economy. This government has worked day and night for

the last six years to ensure there would be prosperity in British

Columbia.

While we're working to ensure that we have a

strong economic base, factors in other jurisdictions have been working

against us, and I refer to the type of socialism that Trudeau is trying

to force on Canada.

We talk about cutbacks. Who started the

cutbacks? It was the Trudeau government that started them. As I said, a

socialist is a socialist is a socialist; I don't care whether he's in

Victoria or whether he heads the government in Ottawa.

talk about policies. The policies this government has brought in are

policies that would ensure there is a climate for investment here: a

climate in which people could work, a climate in which our industries

could function, a climate that would allow us to be competitive in the

international marketplace. If we're not competitive in the

international marketplace, and without exports, our economy will fail.

Other

jurisdictions in Canada, because of their policy of bringing

instability to government, because of their policy of wanting to tear

Canada apart, have failing economies, and I refer to Quebec. Quebec is

today the economic slum of North America, the economic ghetto of

Canada, because of their policy of instability in government and their

separatist policies in wanting to break away from Canada. That's why

Quebec is the economic ghetto of Canada today.

Let's not

break Canada apart; let's get rid of the man at the top, because that's

where the real root of the problem is. You will not help the economy of

Canada by trying to divide this country, but you will help this country

by getting rid of the socialist who for the last X number of years —

far too long — has led this country into.... What he is trying to do to

bring about his own new society hasn't worked in Canada in the past and

won't work in the future, because Canada, like the province of British

Columbia, has to be an exporting nation. Political instability has

driven capital to more secure bases. That's happened in the past. That

happened in British Columbia between 1972 and 1975. We all know what

happened when the socialists were in British Columbia; our country

ground to an economic halt. It became the economic ghetto of Canada

during those three years.

It's very difficult for me to

determine what policies the NDP stand for today. I've listened and

listened, and not one solid policy has come across the floor from the

socialist side of the House. One minute they are against a project; the

next minute they want to change it. They remind me of their cohorts

down in Ottawa — Ed Broadbent and his gang of socialists who are in bed

with the Trudeau government. A year ago when Ottawa was talking about

the megaprojects they said that they shouldn't go ahead. Now that the

projects are cancelled they say that they should go ahead even if the

taxpayer has to foot the bill. What I'm trying to say is that it

doesn't matter whether you're a socialist in Victoria or Ottawa — you

don't have a sound policy. You just try to find something to criticize,

being negative and harping all the time. The gloom and doom boys from

across the way. The reason they're so weak in their negative criticism

is that they don't have a policy. The reason they are against this

bill, even though I think deep in their hearts they realize it's the

only way to go, is that the socialists are in bed with the labour

bosses.

I was quite astounded some time ago to listen to the

leader of the IWA on "Jack Webster" say: "Yes, I'm a socialist. I'm the

greatest socialist of all." He's not interested in working for the

workers in the IWA. No, he's interested in politics. He's more

interested in politics than he is in the well-being of the lumber

industry. The well-being of the lumber industry is very necessary in

this province if those who are working in that industry are going to

have their jobs. Now we hear a great deal of criticism about the

layoffs in the lumber industry. Jack Munro wasn't too interested in the

workers in the lumber industry last August when he took his workers out

on strike when we were in a tough spot in the economic markets and the

marketplace. Was he interested in security of supply to the places we

export? Not at all. The only thing the big labour bosses and the NDP

are interested in is politics. They're certainly not interested in the

well-being of the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) come to order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask myself why it has been such a boring debate.

It's because the opposition members find it very difficult to really

and truly criticize this bill. I hope they realize, as I give them

credit for having enough common sense to realize, that this province

must be competitive if we are to keep our standard of living and the

lifestyle we have worked to achieve. The NDP, as I said, would like to

support this bill because even they realize that it's based on common

sense, but they have to attack it because of their political ties with

organized labour and labour bosses in this province.

Can you

imagine a meeting between the Leader of the Opposition and the big

labour bosses, including Jack Munro? The Leader of the Opposition is

sitting in the meeting saying:

[ Page 7472 ]

"Look,

we really have to support this bill, because in the long run it's best

for the workers and civil servants of this province." The labour bosses

are saying: "If you're going to be in bed with us, you've got to stand

up and you've got to appear to fight for labour." So that's why the NDP

are against this bill.

As I said before, they're negative,

they're carping and they're destructive. They talk about creating jobs,

yet they want to close down every job-creating project in this

province. They want to increase government efficiency, yet they attack

the government's restraint bill, which is designed to ensure that the

taxpayer gets the very best value for every dollar spent. They want to

hold down taxes, yet they support the government employees' union's

demands for a pay hike of over 30 percent. They want to turn business

and profit into dirty words. Who do they think is going to pay the

bill? They don't realize that without business there would be no jobs

for their socialist supporters, except for those employed caring for

the unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, I said I was going to be brief,

but I have to bring up one last point, and it's been made during the

weeks of debate that we've had since this Legislature opened. It

appears to me that the socialists think the solution to every problem

is to shovel taxpayers' money out the back of a truck. They think that

more money is going to give us a better standard of health care. More

money is not necessarily going to give us a better standard of health

care. They try to tell us that more money is going to improve the

education system. I want to tell you, you could dump a billion dollars

into the education system and not be guaranteed that the system itself

would produce a better student. But that seems to be their philosophy.

want to say again, Mr. Speaker, that this is indeed very fair

legislation, and it's a little bit hypocritical for me to listen to the

opposition talk about excesses. My heavens, all I have to do is remind

myself of the years 1972-75 when they were government. You talk about

living high off the hog! You talk about excesses in spending! I want to

tell you about desks that could sleep ten and twelve, and three and

four to a drawer. They had to bring it in through the roof; they

couldn't get it in through the doors. Either that or maybe they built

it in the room. You talk about travelling and travel expenses! I

wouldn't have minded spending the money as a taxpayer on them

travelling if they had done some good for British Columbia. But we had

to travel throughout the world to rectify the bad publicity they gave

us. We had to tell them: "Hey, we're interested in doing business."

What they wanted to do was put a picket fence around British Columbia

and have their own little socialist kingdom here — the little fiefdom

that the hired member for Vancouver East.... What's his name? The guy

they paid $80,000 to get....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, the guy who paid $80,000 to Bob Williams to find him a seat. He

wanted to put a picket fence around British Columbia and create his own

little fiefdom. We had to travel around the world and say: "Hey,

British Columbia is still a free enterprise state. We're interested in

doing business with you. This isn't the Chile of the north." I want to

tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, although I speak of this in jest, I want

to refer it to the bill. As I'm trying to point out, without exports we

will not have any money to pay any civil servant in the decades to

come. So I had to go around.... As I say, I spoke of this jest, but

it's a very serious matter, because there are still people in the world

who haven't got the message that the socialists are no longer in

government. So we've had to go around and repair the damage.

closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to leave this thought with you: we

have to export our products into world markets or this economy of

British Columbia cannot be maintained. We live on exports, and the

reason we live on exports is that we haven't a sufficient market at

home to maintain the standard of living we have today. If we cannot

export and be competitive in price, we will not export and we will not

have those dollars to maintain our standard of living. We cannot be

competitive if we do not maintain our costs. If government takes more

out of the manufacturer's Pocket, takes more from those who produce

goods and services than is normal and logical, takes more than our

competitors take, then we will not be competitive. That is why it is so

very important that government not take more than is absolutely

necessary from what the taxpayers earn in this province. That is why we

must ensure that the taxpayers of this province get value for their

dollars. At the present time we are into some tough economic times, but

I am not pessimistic. As a matter of fact, I am optimistic. I'm

optimistic that the world is not coming to an end. British Columbia is

poised and ready to go back to work when the economy takes off again.

We can be competitive, but only if everybody tightens their belts

during this period of restraint.

This bill has a time limit.

We didn't say "forever and ever." We have given hope. We have given

light at the end of the tunnel. The government doesn't necessarily want

to do this, but for the long-term benefit of the taxpayers and the

civil servants of the province of British Columbia, this period of

belt-tightening is absolutely necessary. We live by trade. Exports are

our lifeblood, and unless we can remain competitive in the

international marketplace.... We think we've got problems now; you

haven't seen anything, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is very necessary to

maintain in British Columbia and Canada an atmosphere and climate where

people can invest, can go into business and be competitive. Mr.

Speaker, that is why I support this bill wholeheartedly. I think it's a

good bill. It's very timely, but it may be that only history will prove

the total benefits of this bill. History will pass, and as it passes

people will look back at this legislation and at this short period in

history, and they will say: thank God that the government of the day

had the guts to do what was necessary, in spite of what the political

repercussions might be. This government is here to serve the people,

not just today but for decades to come.

MR. SKELLY: I

appreciated the minister's brevity, at least. Unfortunately, he didn't

bring too much of his speech to the principle of the bill. I think the

one thing that we should be discussing today in this Legislature is the

bill before us, which has to do with restrictions on bargaining rights

of civil servants and public-sector employees in B.C.

The

minister said that history is going to show us the benefits of what

we're doing here today. Of course, he's making the same error as have

many politicians over the years: asking history to vindicate them.

Generally, it ended up exactly the other way round, as I'm sure it will

in this case.

The minister talked about excesses.

Interjection.

[ Page 7473 ]

MR. SKELLY:

This is the member who speaks from his seat in debate but can't answer

a question in the Legislature. I'm surprised the minister has the guts

to pass comments across the floor from his seat in the back row, when

he can't even answer a simple question in the Legislature concerning

serious problems of unemployment in this province. What kind of

Minister of Labour do we have? He can't answer a single question in the

Legislature, yet from the anonymity of his seat in the back row he's

always willing to holler across the floor at speakers who are adhering

strictly to the principle of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I

appreciated the prayer we received today at the opening of the

Legislature, especially one line. I've written it down, and I will pass

a copy to you, given your close contact with divine authority. It says:

"May our ministers receive divine guidance as they face the problems of

unemployment." There are a few ministers across the floor who in the

near future, Mr. Speaker, are going to require that divine guidance,

and I hope you're there to assist when that event takes place. I'm sure

one will be the Minister of Labour, and one will be the minister who

has just spoken. The people of this province aren't going to tolerate

that kind of nonsense much longer, the kind of nonsense that's

represented in this bill and in the speeches that have been made

relative to this bill by government ministers and government

representatives across the floor.

In some of the relevant

sections of his speech, the previous speaker talked about policies and

lack of policies. The New Democratic Party does have a compensation

policy, but it's an all-encompassing compensation policy; it doesn't

direct itself at one sector of the economy and punish that one sector.

Anyone who believes in economic planning for the betterment of any

society will have to believe in a compensation policy that encompasses

not only wages, but prices and profits as well. The NDP has never

backed down from that policy. It has always enunciated that policy when

legislation such as this has come before the federal House of Commons

or before this Legislature. Anyone motivated by the desire for better

economic planning and a better standard of living in this country and

in this province would have to have such a compensation policy.

But

this policy is not motivated by a desire to better this society that we

live in, or to better the economic conditions and the economic

situation for all British Columbians. That is not the desire of this

policy; that's not the motivation of this policy. This policy, which is

motivated in quite a different way, was announced by the Premier on

television some months ago, and it was announced as the resulting of

polling, as the result of a political sampling taken across the

province, not as the result of policy developed by his economic

advisers. If that were the case, we would have seen that policy in

printed form and it would have been distributed to back up the

proposals that the Premier is making in this bill. There was no

economic position paper. There was no justification tabled for this

Compensation Stabilization Act. The Premier simply polled the province

and found out there was a possibility of dividing two sectors of the

workforce in British Columbia; of dividing the resource industry

workers in the forest and mining industry, who are out of work right

now as a result of the economic depression and the policies of this

government, against people who work in the public sector providing

essential services. It's interesting that when these people go out on

strike, or when there are labour problems in the public sector, the

government opposite tries to declare them all as essential. Now we're

faced with legislation to try to declare them not essential enough to

be willing to pay the wages they are demanding.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

was suggested last Friday by a speaker that the NDP supports the wage

demands of some particular group bargaining in the public sector. I

would like to say that this is not the truth at all. Our announced

policy is that the government should bargain as toughly and strongly as

it can on behalf of the taxpayers of this province, to get the best and

fairest possible wage settlement for the taxpayers, who have to pay the

bills ultimately, and for the people who work for this government in

the public sector and in other areas. What we are asking is that the

government not stack the deck against those who are bargaining, or not

change the circumstances and the rules in the middle of the game. That

bargaining should be done on a fair and open basis.

The

government should be tough with taxpayers' money; you can expect the

government's employees to be tough in the way they bargain, but the

system should be fair, and should be seen to be fair. What the

government is doing today with this policy is making the system

inherently unfair. It is impossible to bargain properly in a climate

that will be dominated by this act — absolutely impossible. We are

going to create more and more social unrest in the public service of

this province as a result of legislation like this which continues to

come from this government.

It's difficult to get a reaction

at any time from the backbenchers in that government. It's interesting

to see in the galleries today the former member for Kamloops, who used

to be in the Legislature when Kamloops was actually represented in this

Legislature by its MLA, who is now out of his seat. Under the

circumstances of unemployment in Kamloops now, the circumstances of

unemployment in the mining and forest industries, and the serious

problems that are faced by the residents and citizens of Kamloops, the

member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) should be up on his feet day after

day in this House demanding changes in government policy which will

distribute the wealth of this province a little more fairly so that the

citizens and the workers of his riding can be put back to work. What

does he do? We never hear from him. It wasn't like that between 1972

and 1975, and it won't be like that in the future. Between 1972 and

1975, Kamloops had good and strong representation in this Legislative

Assembly. It certainly hasn't had that since then.

One of

the things that these people are so concerned about is when they're

tied in with the Trudeau Liberals. It was funny. The Leader of the

Opposition threw out the suggestion that they are the only government

in Canada that has taken up Trudeau's suggestion to limit the

compensation of public servants and public-sector employees. They are

the only government in Canada that is willing to do that. On that

basis, it ties them in with the federal Liberal Party. I couldn't

believe the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) last Friday.

He got so agitated when he got up to make his speech. He very seldom

makes a speech in this House. He very seldom ever gets agitated. But he

spoke on Friday with such enthusiasm and agitation, it was hard for us

on this side to believe. He denied any connection whatsoever with the

federal Liberal government. He tried to turn the tables and say: "No,

it's the NDP that's tied in with Trudeau. Remember

[ Page 7474 ]

when the NDP sided with the Liberals to toss out the Conservative government back in 1979?"

The

member has been a little selective in his recall of the facts. I have a

brother who was fortunate enough to be elected a representative in the

House of Commons for Comox–Powell River. He was back there at the time,

and I received a first-hand report of the situation. The way it was

told to me was like this: it was an NDP motion that defeated the

Conservative government, as I recall. It was the Liberals who supported

the NDP in that case. But that, in itself, wasn't enough to defeat the

Conservatives. The Quebec arm of the Social Credit Party had been

alienated by the Conservatives to the extent that they refused to

support the government. Otherwise it wouldn't have fallen and we would

still be in the same Conservative morass today as we were in 1979. It

was the Quebec arm of the Social Credit Party that defeated the

Conservative government back in 1979. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) laughs at that. Of course, he's always been a Liberal.

was a selection of the facts that the member for Central Fraser Valley

chose to present to us in the House on Friday. Let's look at the facts

about this government. I believe this Social Credit government has

fallen into the same trap that the Liberal-dominated coalition of 1949

and 1950 fell into. What they've done is they've become a puppet of the

Liberal Party, dominated by the Liberals. When you look at who is

spending money in this government, who is getting all the money and

whose priorities are being met in this government.... Mr. Speaker, who

is in charge of northeast coalfield? Who is the coordinator of that

massive resource giveaway plan? It's Ron Basford.

MR. LEA: Who is he?

MR. SKELLY:

A former Liberal cabinet minister, who represented a Vancouver

constituency. He didn't have the confidence of the electors down there,

but he had the confidence of the Socreds, and they hired him as the

coordinator for the northeast coal development.

Mr. Speaker,

the people who spend the big money in this government aren't the Social

Credit members, aren't the Conservative members who jumped ship back in

1975. They're the Liberals — and the Liberals that they've hired.

Who

is Paul Manning? You remember Paul Manning and who he worked for before

he came to British Columbia to work on B.C. Place. Billions of dollars

of provincial mon are being invested in B.C. Place so that we can watch

American football players and baseball players chase back and forth on

the astroturf. Who's in charge of that project? Why, it's Paul Manning,

former executive assistant in the Liberal government. He worked for Ron

Basford, as I recall. He worked for Pierre Trudeau. The people who

spend the big money in this government are the federal Liberals, who

have this government under their thumb.

It is like back in

the 1949-51 era before the Socreds came in and did away with the

coalition dominated by the Liberal and we had a W.A.C. Bennett rule for

20 years. How did h come into this province? He saw that the Liberals

were ( putting all their money in the urban constituencies in

Vancouver, Victoria and the wealthy ridings like Point Grey and Oak

Bay. All the money was going into a very small area of the province and

the rural areas were being robbed blind. They people who produced the

resource wealth of this province were being robbed in order to have

that money invested for the rich in a few small urban areas of the

province.

That is what brought Cyril Shelford into this

Legislature many years ago. He saw that they were creating huge

megaprojects in his riding up in northern British Columbia, and he came

down here to complain about what Alcan was doing in Omineca. He decided

that he would best serve the residents of Omineca by joining Social

Credit and fighting for his area down here in Victoria. What has

happened since then? Cyril Shelford has seen that organization taken

over piece by piece, step by step, by the Trudeau Liberals to the point

where, if you are a northern representative, you get absolutely nothing

for your riding. In fact, your riding is being drained to support a few

megaprojects that are being handled by Liberals in the province of B.C.

It is a serious problem.

We looked at the ad placed in the

paper by the Premier's office over the weekend, trying to get on the

Canucks bandwagon. When I first saw the ad it looked like the Premier

was throwing in the towel and announcing the election, but underneath

it said: "Get the B.C. Spirit." It was just a case of trying to tie his

star to the Vancouver Canucks because nothing else has worked in his

favour in the last little while and he will tie himself on any

bandwagon that looks like it's going to be successful. Unfortunately

the public is absolutely outraged at the government's attempts to do

that and at the government's priorities in spending money.

riding has a little arts centre called the Rollin Art Centre. They have

been working for years on a volunteer basis. The building is supplied

by the city. Most of the work is done by volunteer labour. A lot of the

artwork is contributed by local artists and donated by citizens who

have acquired their own collections over the years. Last year they got

$3,300 from the provincial government as a partial operating grant.

This year they applied for $5,000, hoping to get the same, and they got

nothing. How do they feel when they see an ad in the paper that cost

$12,000, enough to have funded three arts centres like that? They feel

pretty disgusted, because all of their efforts have been volunteer

efforts on behalf of the citizens of Port Alberni and on behalf of the

arts here in British Columbia. Every bit of the effort was volunteer

effort. To watch the government blow $12,000 on a newspaper ad to try

to attach itself to the successes of a hockey team disgusts the people

in Port Alberni.

We see five schools closing down in Port Alberni, with 30 people

losing their jobs as a result of those school closures. It is another

government attack on the private sector. They see ads in the paper like

that. They see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman) taking trips to Arizona and buying wine that costs $37 a

bottle, and they cannot believe the screwed-up priorities of this

government.They cannot believe the extravagance that the Social Credit ministers indulge

in. They cannot believe the way that these people spend money and, at the same

time, turn around and tell us in the rural areas that we have to tighten our

belts and show a little restraint. At the same time money is being shovelled

out the back of a truck for the benefit of a few cabinet ministers and megaprojects

in a few areas of the e province. It is no wonder that that kind of B.C. spirit

isn't catching on.

This

bill represents another attack on the public sector by a government

dominated by a fundamentalist right-wing ideology, an ideology that

says that the prime motivator of the economy is individual greed and

that anything done by people for people through the government is evil,

is wrong, has

[ Page 7475 ]

be of low quality, has to be slipshod. They are attacking their own

operations, but it is a fundamental tenet of rightwing politics that

you support individual greed and you oppose anything that is done by

people for people through the government, You have to challenge every

other motivation that exists. This is one of the reasons that this

government hopes to capitalize on this type of bill. They did their

polling prior to the announcement of this policy. They found out that

many of the people in the resource industries, such as the forest

industry and the mining industry, were out of work as a result of

worldwide economic circumstances as well as this government's policy

right here in B.C. They sought to exploit what they perceived to be a

division in the workforce of British Columbia between those who work in

the public service and those who work in what they call the private

sector and in the resource industries. I should say that there is a bit

of a basis for that division.

People in the private sector

and in the resource industries are out of work. They are suffering

hardship, and the increased taxes and the increased service charges and

user fees that are being imposed on them by this government and the

increased financial burden that's being pressed on them by this

government are increasing the burden that these people feel. They do

see those public services that are carrying on and they do envy workers

who are able to continue working and apply for increased labour rates

in order to keep up with the cost of living. So there is that bit of

envy there, but that's where it ends. It's not something that these

people are capable of exploiting, and that's what they found out in the

polling since the decision to implement this policy was announced by

the Premier a few months ago.

Take a look at my constituency

at Port Alberni. Most of the people there are employed in the secondary

manufacturing aspect of the forest industry, the manufacture of lumber

and pulp and paper. The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was just telling us that this province

has to be competitive. Well, it's impossible to be competitive at a

time when the economy is so depressed that no one is buying anything.

But he's still talking about competition as if he was operating back in

1977, 1978 and 1979. What he's doing is attempting to exploit the

depression and the envy that those people in the forest industry and

the mining industry feel and try to take that out politically on the

public service of this province. It's a way of attacking the public

sector in this province by using the workforce that's out of work.

Let's

look at what the public sector does, because the member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) implied last Friday that they were not

productive workers, that they were parasites on the economy and that

they were not contributing anything to the economic well-being of

British Columbians. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you

believe the people on that side, you would believe that anything that's

done in the public sector could be done better in the private sector,

and they like to point first and foremost to private schools. They all

believe that private schools are much better than public schools but,

of course, private schools can be more selective than public schools.

They can charge more money than public schools. They can do things that

public schools cannot do, because they don't come under the strict

scrutiny of the parents, of locally elected officials and of this

Legislature. They don't have that kind of scrutiny, and they have more

freedom of action, but these people like to point out what the private

schools can do. They wouldn't be able to do half of what they are

claimed to be capable of doing if they didn't have the public schools

there to support all of the people that they refuse to accept. It's

nice when you can skim the cream, but if you have to accept everyone

the job becomes more difficult. Thank God the public schools system is

there doing a difficult job and doing it well.

What about

those other jobs in the public sector that have to be done? The very

fact that they are being done contributes to the economic well-being

and the health and safety of all of us and contributes to the

productivity of our workforce. Take a look at the jails in this

province, Mr. Speaker. You may have had an opportunity to take a look

through some of the jails in your area as MLA. Who would provide that

service if it wasn't provided by the public? Who would protect the

public from criminals if it wasn't done by the public? What would

society be like? Can you imagine private jails? They do have them in

Alabama. If you own a farm or a highway contracting outfit, I

understand that you can hire a few criminals, put chains on them and

rent them from the government. That's putting private enterprise to

work using slave labour. But here it's a job that's done by people

compensated by the government, and the job is done fairly well.

I used to work at Oakalla prison farm in Burnaby. When I started working there in 1965....

MR. LORIMER: Is it still there?

MR. SKELLY:

It's still there.... I was paid $325 a month, I could get more money

now investing in Carolin Mines shares. There were very low wage rates,

no union — doing an essential job and producing for the people of this

province. What is implied in legislation like this, when the member for

Central Fraser Valley speaks, is that these people are parasites on the

public purse; that they are unproductive citizens; that they don't

contribute anything to the economy of the province and therefore their

wage increases should be limited by legislation,

whereas the private

sector should go uncontrolled. That's what he's saying, that those

people who are providing an essential service are unproductive

parasites. It simply isn't true. Over the years they've been paid very

poor wages, have been expected to sacrifice a number of the fringe

benefits that people in the private sector have enjoyed, and have

willingly contributed to the productivity, economic well-being, health

and safety of this province, and now this government turns around and

slams limits on their rights to bargain collectively for wages and

benefits in order to keep up with inflation. It's simply unacceptable.

would like to say that our party has always believed in compensation

policy. It's an inseparable part of economic planning. If you believe

in economic planning to benefit all the citizens of this country and

province, then you must have compensation policy as part and parcel of

the overall economic planning system, but you cannot plan one sector of

the society and leave the rest to go unplanned. This act came down not

as a part of a whole compensation policy which is a part of a Social

Credit economic plan; it came down in order to exploit a division in

the workforce and to try to range the citizens who work in the private

sector against those who work in the public sector. There's absolutely

no way that we can support this type of bill.

Mr. Speaker,

it was suggested a little while ago, when the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was speaking, that some

people have been living high off the hog. He talked about the labour

bosses,

[ Page 7476 ]

public

servants and everyone in this province but the people who have actually

been living high off the hog at the expense of the rest of us — people

like the cabinet ministers in this government, travelling around the

country and world, spending millions of dollars in public money. Talk

about desks that sleep 12 and two and three in the drawers, according

to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Every one

of these cabinet ministers has thousands of dollars in his budget each

year for new furnishings. Every one of these cabinet ministers has

thousands of dollars in travel, most of which doesn't go to any

productive benefit for the citizens of this province. Every cabinet

minister in this government has thousands of dollars in grants that are

handed out to personal and political friends.

This cabinet

is living high off the hog at the expense of the citizens of this

province, Mr. Speaker, and they're blaming everybody but themselves.

They're blaming the federal government, yet they're part and parcel

tied in with the federal government. They're blaming the United States'

interest-rate policy, yet their economic policy is identical to the

policy being enunciated by Ronald Reagan and the United States

authorities. The reason for this bill is that they blame the civil

servants and the public-sector employees of the province of British

Columbia who have contributed so well to the productivity, health and

safety of the citizens of this province over the years, and to the

education of the students of this province over the years. These are

the people being blamed by the Socreds for their financial

incompetence. We cannot support this bill, and I'll be voting against

it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have been

listening to the debate on this bill, and I've been wondering just how

low debate can get. I found that out with the previous speaker, the

member for Alberni, when he took the lovely prayer that was delivered

to us by Brigadier Underhill this afternoon and dragged that prayer

into partisan debate in this House. I think that is as low as any

debate can go.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to try to relate

Bill 28 to the jails in Alabama, as was done by the previous member.

How he managed to distort the debate to such an extent I will never

understand. I will say that, yes, I do support the Vancouver Canucks,

and I support the ad that was put in the paper which will encourage

them and help other people in British Columbia — those who perhaps

don't pay too much attention to hockey — to recognize what the Canucks

have done. I think the Canucks have done a great thing; I'm proud to be

a part of a government which will pay for an ad that will acknowledge

the things that they have done so far. I, along with my colleagues and

most people in British Columbia, will urge them on to success and to

finally win the Stanley Cup.

Bill 28, the Compensation

Stabilization Act, is a bill which I have no hesitation whatsoever in

supporting. It is a bill that places some constraint on the amounts of

money that can be bargained for by all public-sector employees. I think

that any of us who look at what is happening in the world economy today

must recognize the fact that we are in a very serious international

economic recession. We in British Columbia know that we depend upon the

world marketplace and the world economy to sell those goods which we

produce in this province — produce from the resources which we develop

in British Columbia. We depend upon those markets, and those markets —

or the lack thereof — place very serious constraints on the ability of

our industries in this province to pay the wages which may be demanded

by private-sector employees. There are definite constraints on the

private sector, and this government has seen fit to put some constraint

on the purse-strings of the taxpayers of British Columbia, so that

there will be a recognition of the fact that revenues to the government

drop as our international markets fall off, as they have done now.

We've

been criticized by the last speaker, the member for Alberni, who

suggested that we in the government should not be travelling to other

countries in the world for the purpose of developing markets and

opening up those areas which we can sell into. Last fall I was in

China, and I was amazed when I came back to see a report in a newspaper

quoting the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) as saying that the

government members should be out trying to develop new markets in the

world for our products — and I guess he was thinking of forest

products, which I was in China trying to promote with that country. The

next day I read in the papers that other members of the opposition were

decrying the fact that we in government were out travelling and trying

to promote British Columbia products in world markets. On the one hand

they say: "Don't do it." On the other hand they say: "Go out and do it

because we need the markets." I really have a difficult time following

their logic.

Mr. Speaker, there are tremendous constraints

on the private sector in British Columbia. These constraints right now

are brought forward in the form of layoffs and reduced work weeks,

plant closures and bankruptcies. People in the private sector are

having a difficult time because of the international economic

situation, and they indeed have very cruel constraints placed upon

them. Ask the members of the IWA or the steelworkers, who are perhaps

laid off at this time, if they think there are not constraints on the

private sector. Ask the responsible civil servants — and most civil

servants are indeed responsible. They recognize the fact that this is a

serious economic time and that there is not a bottomless well of

taxpayers' money to pay unreasonable demands for wage catch ups. The

realities of the world are known only too well to those in the private

sector, and the realities of the world are fully recognized by our

responsible civil servants, who, I'm sure, appreciate very much the

fact that they have continuing and ongoing jobs and are not subjected

to the same type of cruel constraint as is the private sector.

Every

time any item appears in any of our media that can be at all distorted

to point out the fact that this cruel government is laying off

employees and causing problems, it's brought to this House. Never does

a member from the socialist side look at what is really happening. For

example, last week the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) brought

up the fact — what he called a fact, or it's a made-up fact — that the

Ministry of Forests is laying off dozens of nursery workers in the

province at a time when we should be growing more seedlings. Well, Mr.

Speaker, in British Columbia this year our nurseries will produce 97

million seedlings, which is an all-time record. Each year for the last

several years there have been dramatic increases in the seedlings

produced to reforest our forest lands in British Columbia.

The

facts of the matter on the case brought up by the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson) are that we in the ministry use casual labour in

the spring and fall to lift, grade and bundle seedlings which have been

grown and produced in our nurseries for outplanting in the province. It

is a fact that the agreement with the B.C. Government Employees Union —

a collective agreement freely bargained with the government — states

that once a person, a casual employee, has not

[ Page 7477 ]

been

on the government payroll for more than six months, he loses his

seniority and then must be rehired, but not necessarily on the basis of

seniority. All the people who weren't employed this spring were laid

off last fall, and their six months had expired. We could not rehire

them at the present time because of the weather and snow conditions at

our nurseries; therefore their seniority expired. But at the present

time, all of these workers have been rehired. Any remaining layoffs are

people who had no seniority and were not brought back because the jobs

were filled by others. So it's a simple matter of people in the

opposition taking a partial fact, distorting it to suit their own

political advantage, and then trying to present it as a fact to the

people of British Columbia.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown) went on at great length about the plight of the poor,

underpaid women employees who work for the government. She said that

these people are making less money than they could on welfare. Mr.

Speaker, people who work for the government get a comparable or better

wage than most similar occupations in the private sector. Not only do

they get a comparable or better wage, but they also have a much better

package of fringe benefits. The fringe benefits available to government

employees are far better than any of those in the private sector. And

their job security, of course, is the ultimate that can be achieved in

any sector of our society.

The three-year contract which is

currently nearing expiry and which was freely negotiated by the B.C.

Government Employees Union and the Government Employee Relations Bureau

was negotiated three years ago during much more buoyant times than we

have now. It is a contract that provided 8 percent in each of those

three years; it was freely negotiated during buoyant times. Now, during

very difficult economic times, those same union leaders, perhaps

because they are embarrassed that they did not do better for their

members in the last set of negotiations, are saying: "We want up to 30

percent in a year. We must catch up and keep up during these very

difficult economic times." Those leaders do not speak for the true

feeling of most government employees. Most responsible government

employees — and most of them are responsible — recognize the facts of

the economic conditions that we live in today and will support a

reasonable settlement that will assure that there's not a great drain

on the taxpayers of British Columbia. The more you have to pay all

sectors of the public service in British Columbia, the more difficult

it is to balance a budget. The only alternative for the excessive wage

settlements, of course, is to increase taxes and to throw a greater

burden on those people in the private sector already suffering from

this economic downturn, and on those people who are least capable of

paying it: people on fixed incomes.

They talk about closing

hospital beds, Mr. Speaker. There is a constraint on the amount of

increase in growth of hospital spending this year, just as there is in

every other ministry of the government. Those people who are

administering the hospitals, of course, will say yes, we must close

beds, because they know that that will be a difficult thing for the

government to live with politically. But you tell me that in an

operation such as our health-care system that expends $2.2 billion of

our tax money every year, there is not a way of constraining costs and

introducing efficiencies to save whatever they perceive their shortfall

to be without closing beds. I think that once they get over this

pressure tactic they're using right now to try to get the government to

back down on constraint in spending, the responsible hospital

administrators will go back to the drawing boards and will find ways of

introducing efficiencies so we can indeed continue to have the

extremely high level of health care that we have in British Columbia

without closing hospital beds.

The member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) was talking about the closure of schools in his constituency. I

read a little item about the closure of a school near Alberni a month

or so ago. The item went something like this. The school trustees had

said: "Because of reduced enrolments in our schools, we may have to

close some of our smaller schools where we don't have enough students

to justify it."

The

article went on to quote someone as

having said: "I guess we're going to have to try to run an efficient

school system." Well, I hope so. I hope that every part of the public

sector that spends public moneys will try to run as efficient a system

as they possibly can, because there is indeed a limit to the number of

tax dollars available for public spending.

We must have

constraint in the growth of government spending now. I hope we will

continue to have constraint on the growth of government spending for

every year on into the future. I hope that we will demand that we get

the most efficient expenditure of government dollars not only during

difficult economic times but during buoyant times as well.

The

engine that drives our economy is the private sector, in spite of the

fact that the member for Alberni calls the private sector a sector that

is motivated by greed. The private sector is the only real area of

production of wealth that we have, and we must not discourage that.

They may call it greed, Mr. Speaker, but I call it initiative; I call

it drive; I call it the engine that has developed our economy, our way

of life, to what it is today. The members opposite feel, I guess, that

every private businessman — everyone who invests in our economy,

everyone who goes into business, who tries to do things for himself and

by doing things for himself improve our total lot in British Columbia —

is motivated simply and solely by greed. He talks about this Social

Credit Party which is right-wing in its philosophy. Anyone who says

that the private sector is motivated solely by greed must certainly be

as far left-wing as you can possibly be.

MR. LAUK: Are you calling us socio-communists again?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, even worse.

Restraint

now and in the future is absolutely essential if we are to continue to

enjoy the way of life that we do in British Columbia. The members

opposite continue to say that there is no free collective bargaining

this year because of the lid put on amounts that can be paid by

government. They say that collective bargaining will not work if there

is an upper limit put on the amount of wages that can be agreed to.

Well,

there certainly are constraints on the private sector. The member

suggested that the private sector is wide open — no constraints are put

on them. Indeed there are. At times these constraints are ignored, as

they were last summer when the IWA and the pulp unions settled for an

amount that I'm sure is going to be very difficult for the forest

industry to pay. However, that was a freely negotiated collective

agreement, and I'm sure that it will be adhered to by both parties as

long as they can possibly afford to do so.

Whenever we think

that there are no limits on the amount of money that can be paid for

wages — either in the public sector or in the private sector — we have

to look very closely to what the end result will be if we exceed the

amounts that truly can be afforded.

[ Page 7478 ]

The

NDP believe that there should be no lid, no maximum amount that should

be available for wages in the public sector. They think that we should

completely untie the purse strings of the taxpayer and just let it go.

Of course a government can always increase taxes to meet whatever wage

demands are agreed upon. There is really no limit, except that the

taxpayer in British Columbia says that there is a limit to the amount

of money that they expect to be called upon to send to governments to

pay the bills for the services provided. We must have constraint. We

must have a limit to the amount of money which we take from the

taxpayer to pay to governments for all the services delivered. We will

accept that responsibility even though it may, in some sectors, have

its political downside. It's very easy to be a government when things

are going extremely well and revenues are coming in and programs can be

expanded. It's a little tougher when things are tough, when the economy

is on the downside.

We were elected to serve as government,

and we will assume our responsibilities even in difficult times. We

won't do as was done in 1975 when things got a bit tough. Rather than

facing the facts with the taxpayers of British Columbia, the government

called an election so that they could get re-elected before they had to

'fess up to the people just what dire financial straits they had placed

the province of British Columbia in. Well, that didn't work. We are

facing it day by day. We are telling the people just where we are. The

Minister of Finance presents a quarterly financial statement each year,

so the people of B.C. are aware just how much money is available, so

the taxpayers know how much they should have to send to government.

The

members opposite say they believe in completely free collective

bargaining — when they're in the opposition, of course. They don't

believe in it when they're in government. In 1974 the government of the

day sent the nurses back to work, in 1974 they sent the firefighters

back to work, and in 1975 they sent all striking workers back to work,

although they profess to believe in a free collective bargaining

system. When they're in opposition it's okay to shout that, but not

when they're in government.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing the

facts now. We are telling the people of British Columbia that there

must be constraint. The private sector already has constraints, and the

public sector must bargain within the limits of the ability of the

public to pay the bills. Our judgment as a government is that the

taxpayers are willing to see government expenditures grow this year by

no more than the increase in the cost of living, and that's what we're

constraining our expenditures to. The taxpaper is sick to death of

seeing government expenditures mushroom year by year with no

constraints whatsoever.

The responsible public servants in

British Columbia know that they are well paid for the jobs they do, and

they know they have generous fringe benefits. The responsible public

servants in British Columbia know that they have job security and good

working conditions. The responsible public servants in British Columbia

know that the taxpayer is hurting, and our industries are hurting. The

responsible public servants know that production in the private sector

is the only source of wealth that produces the taxes that pays their

wages, and they know what the world economy is doing right now. They

know that we must not kill the only source of wealth we have by

unreasonable demands on their part and unreasonable increases in taxes

in order to pay for those demands. They know that we are living in

difficult times and most public servants, responsible ones, know and

support a restraint program.

The NDP say that they believe

in constraint, but they don't believe in constraint on health-spending

increases. They don't believe in constraint in Education, Human

Resources, Forests, Highways, Mines or in Agriculture. They don't want

to see constraint in any of these areas, and yet they somehow believe

in constraint. They say that they want to have constraint and they

criticize this bill because the actual percentages are not in the bill.

I would ask those members to suggest some numbers that could be used as

guidelines for increases in government spending and increases in public

service remuneration. I would suggest that if they don't like the fact

that the bill does not have numbers in it, they should suggest some

numbers. Do they believe in 10 percent, 0 percent, 15 percent or

perhaps 30 percent? They are strangely quiet when it comes to being

specific. We know they are for constraint, but we also know they're not

for any reduction or constraint on the spending in any individual area

of government or public-sector spending.

Mr. Speaker, the

members in the opposition say that we in British Columbia should be

providing more secondary manufacturing. They say we should have

smelters, refineries and manufacturing plants in the province to

further manufacture the goods that we produce so we can create more

employment. That's a very good objective, one that we as a government

are working on right now and having great success with. At the same

time that these socialists say we should have more manufacturing in

British Columbia, they say that we should not build Site C dam, we

should not develop Hat Creek thermal power and we should not develop

the Iskut-Stikine. They were against Revelstoke, they're against the

two-river policy and they're against all sources of power needed by

industry in British Columbia to manufacture the products they're

suggesting we manufacture. Again, they are for secondary manufacturing

and expanding our economy, but they're against the only source of

energy that could be used to do just that. They're against it, but

they're for it, depending upon where they sit and who they're speaking

to.

Mr. Speaker, like their federal counterparts, both the

left-wing Liberals and the slightly right of left-wing Liberals New

Democratic Party in Ottawa, they say they're against the megaprojects.

Their federal friends in the NDP and the Liberal Party were against the

megaprojects related to energy in Canada. As soon as the megaprojects

were cancelled, all of a sudden they're for the megaprojects and

they're giving the left-wing Liberal government in Ottawa blazes

because they were cancelled. A few months ago they were against them.

In British Columbia, of course, they're against northeast coal because

it'll produce jobs and employment opportunities for British Columbians.

They're against the Prince Rupert port development because it too will

produce jobs and opportunities for people in B.C. They're against the

stadium, and it's obvious they're against the Vancouver Canucks, the

Lions and the Whitecaps. They must be if they're against the stadium.

But they're for the jobs that would be created by the development of

the stadium. They're against light rapid transit, but they're for the

jobs that are being created by light rapid transit. They're against

everything that will provide opportunities for the people of B.C., and

yet they say we should do something about the employment problem in

this country. They're against raising taxes and they're against

constraint in government spending. They're against this bill. They say

it should have limited spending spelled out. Well, I

[ Page 7479 ]

say

to them again: "If you think it should be spelled out, suggest a

number. At what level do you think the constraint should be? Should it

be set at zero, 100 percent or 30 percent?" All I get is silence.

have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting this bill. I think it's a

bill that is needed at a time like this and it will set the pattern for

the time when our economy gets back on its feet. We should always be

conscious of the amount of money the government spends. We should

always demand the utmost and ultimate in efficiency and services

delivered for those moneys. We cannot simply equate dollars spent to

services rendered, because there are a great many areas in the

education system, in'the hospital and health-care system and in every

area of public spending that can be made more efficient to assure the

taxpayer of British Columbia that he is getting a bargain for the money

that he sends in taxes. Mr. Speaker, I fully support this bill, and I

congratulate the Minister of Finance for having brought it forward.

MR. REE:

It is my pleasure to stand here and support this bill that was brought

in by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. To me it is a bill of

responsibility, particularly in these hard economic times that we're

going through today. There is a great loss of jobs in the private

sector and a great loss to the government's source of incoming funds

through taxation to provide the services that the people in the

province want. There are not enough dollars in the private sector, and

not enough dollars from the wage-earners in this province for the

increase in taxation that would be necessary if we were to satisfy all

of the demands being made at this time by the various sectors of the

public service.

I don't think it has come out, particularly

in this debate, roughly what the total dollar demands being made by the

various sectors of the public sector are. If you add up the demands

that are being made by the municipalities throughout the province, in

excess of that set out by the restraint program, there is an excess of

approximately $71.5 million. This is a large sum. In addition, the

wages in education — and I'm not talking about post-secondary

education; this is just in the school system — total approximately $38

million. With respect to health services, the operating costs for all

the hospitals within this province — the amount on their wish list that

they say they require in excess of that provided by the province — is

close to $100 million.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Then we are told that the public servants of the province are seeking a 34

percent or 35 percent increase in their salaries in their present negotiations.

The present budget for wages for the public sector today is over $1 billion.

An increase of 34 percent to 35 percent will add an extra $350 million to the

demands on the taxpayers. If there is a settlement of around $100 million, or

10 percent, the government employees' demands at the moment would leave

a surplus demand of $250 million. The total for these demands in the public

sector is over $450 million. This is what the taxpayers of this province would

have to pay if we were not to implement this restraint program. Mr. Speaker,

$450 million equates to 2.5 points on the sales tax that would be required to

satisfy this total demand. This does not include, as I said, post-secondary

and university education. To satisfy this demand would mean possibly increasing

the sales tax from 6 percent to 8.5 percent. Likewise, it would equate to ten

points on the income tax.

have a large number of people in this province at this moment who

haven't got the advantages of security that the public sector has. They

are unemployed and suffering, and in no way can I see levying this

additional tax burden upon that segment in the private sector. That

would be too onerous for those people who are not working and who are

facing hardships — to have to have this additional heavy-handed

taxation laid upon them.

Mr. Speaker, there is the

alternative, certainly, of debt financing, which has been advocated

many times by the people in the opposition — buy now, pay later; buy

now, use it, pay for it later when it's gone. I can't support a

proposition like that at all, because I don't wish to leave any debt to

my sons and to their sons for benefits that I receive today. I think I

should pay for what I get today, and I cannot support this

debt-financing alternative which is common and usual to the left-wing

segment of society, the people who want the free ride — take a free

ride now, as long as I don't have to pay for it. That is the philosophy

set out publicly by their leader, and I can't go for free rides.

Interjection.

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, we get an awful lot of whining from the people about the

wining and dining. They're doing more whining than anyone else.

There

have been suggestions that possibly this party has been in bed, is in

bed or some sort of thing with the Ottawa Liberals, the Trudeau

government. I think this is more by the opposition to divorce

themselves from some social disease they feel they may have caught by

actually sleeping with the Trudeau government. We know only too well

how many times they have spent in bed with the federal government. We

know that the leader of the opposition party, a national party — we're

a provincial party interested in the citizens of this province — has

agreed that they would quite readily turn over all the natural

resources of this province to the federal jurisdiction in order to

obtain nationalization of our natural resources. That is their ultimate

goal — nationalization of the resources of productivity within the

province.

We know how their federal party supported the

Liberal Party in '72, '74 and '75. We know how they supported the

Liberals in defeating the Conservative government in Ottawa. We know

how they supported the Trudeau government in its constitutional plans

during the last two or three years. I think it's from really great

disappointment, because had the desires of the NDP been successful, the

federal government would have had unilateral control over the

constitution of this country; and if, by the greatest disaster, the NDP

became a federal government, we would certainly have nationalization of

all resources. And I think that is why they're trying to divorce

themselves at this time from that social disease and that social

relationship and shift it onto this government. Well, Mr. Speaker,

there is no way that this government has been in bed with the federal

Liberals or the Trudeau party, and in no way do they propose to get

into bed with them, because the disease between the NDP and the

Liberals passes both ways.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the NDP support

nationalization. They supported the PetroCan nationalization. It was a

tremendous deal, Mr. Speaker. I've yet to see anything else where

competitors pay for PetroCan's acquisition, in a sense, by the

[ Page 7480 ]

government.

If I drive into a gas station — shall I say Chevron or Esso — I have to

pay the money to the government so that the competition can be acquired.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm expecting the hon member soon to relate nationalization to the principle of the bill.

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, nationalization is expensive. It is the reverse of

restraint, because the money for nationalization has to come from the

taxpayers. We know the policy of the opposition: to spend money,

whether it be for debt or anything else like that. They do not support

restraint, they never have and they never will, and that is where the

nationalization aspect comes into it. As far as they are concerned, it

is the complete antipathy to restraint — nationalization.

have the ultimate of what we would obtain through nationalization being

proposed in Sweden, the dear heart of all socialists, next to Russia.

We get Sweden thrown at us at all times as to the ultimate socialist

state.

I quote from the Vancouver Sun of May 6, 1982:

"The Social Democrats" — that's the socialist party

in Sweden — "want to set up 24 regional funds financed by a combined payroll

tax and a tax on companies' profits. At first the funds would be run by

boards nominated by the trade unions, later by boards directly elected by all

employees. The funds would buy up shares on the open market and with billions

a year to spend, they could theoretically obtain control of all Sweden's

major industrial companies within ten years."

That is the type of restraint we would obtain from the opposition: increased

taxes at this time on those unfortunate souls who don't have the same tenure

of opportunity as those people in the public sector. They can't afford that

kind of nationalization, nor can we afford to levy a heavier debt on them at

this time to provide all the moneys asked for by the various public sectors.

Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill. I support the actions of

this government and of the Minister of Finance, who I think is to be

complimented.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I see that the

opposition doesn't want to get into the debate at this time. I'm really

pleased today to stand in support of this bill of restraint, this bill

which gives direction to people in British Columbia. When you talk to

people from other areas of this country that are, to varying degrees,

in the same economic state, it's interesting to note that they look

with envy on British Columbia. It alone has taken a direction of

responsibility, one which other jurisdictions have either not wanted to

take or have not had the courage to take, or because it is just too far

down the line for them to even attempt to taking. So I'm proud to be

here today to speak in support of this bill.

I mentioned that other jurisdictions are, to varying degrees, in a the same

state. All the statements of doom and gloom, the negative thinking from the

socialist side of the House, the socialist protestations since we started this

debate — and also on the budget debate, which was the forerunner of these bills

— can't erase the fact that this is the best place in the whole world to

live right now at this time, in this place in our history. It won't matter

how many socialists say things are bad. Let me tell you that our fellow British

Columbians support the restraint program because they know how fortunate we

are to be in this place at this time in our history.

was very interested to hear about the discussions that have been going

on in the marketplace, in households, in kaffeeklatsches and, yes, here

in this Legislature, in which public employees are supposedly concerned

with whether or not they are going to get an increase, and with just

how much that increase will be. The socialists try to tell them that

they need to catch up, that they are going to have a very difficult

time and they must ask for more. As one of my colleagues said earlier

today, it's interesting that the people in the public service are not

themselves making those kinds of statements. Do you know what the

people in the public service feel? They feel they are very fortunate to

be in this province at this time in our history, to have job security,

and to have a government that is going to be able to provide security

in the future, not the airy-fairy plans of the socialists which create

insecurity and disaster, as in the time of the NDP administration.

we talk about restraint, we can relate to those people outside these

walls: people with mortgages, people who are concerned about the

economy. Even in the private sector some very imaginative things have

been done in terms of restraint. For example, there are people who have

decided to share the work between them, to share the hours and, yes, to

share the available resources and available dollars. In some

organizations people are a little selfish and perhaps forget. They

don't have the same concerns as some of the younger people with larger

mortgages at longer terms; they have forgotten that those people need

to be helped. The selfishness we have seen expressed many times over

not just in this province, but across this country in these past few

months, shows that those people who are prepared to share will go

through these tough times in a much easier way, and will make sure

their brothers and sisters in the workplace have a job, have security

and a future. That's the kind of sharing we see expressed in a

restraint program that's responsible. In other words, we can restrain

our spending, we can restrain the kinds of things we are doing in terms

of job payments, so that we can keep everybody working. Surely that

must be our motivation. Surely our motivation should be that all people

be kept on the job if at all possible, with perhaps everybody taking a

little less for this short time. This bill, as one of our colleagues

has pointed out today, is not a long-term commitment. It is for two

years so as to give us a breathing space during this time of an economy

that is lower than British Columbians are accustomed to. Surely we're

able to do that.

About two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of

addressing about 750 senior citizens gathered from the lower mainland

of British Columbia, around the Vancouver area. In addressing them, I

pointed out some of the things that have been said of late. There's

talk of recession. In fact, a few headlines have said recession is even

turning into depression. As I looked around the room at them, I said:

"You must be laughing at all these people, the doom-and-gloomers. You

must get a real kick out of these people who are talking about the

negative times. You must really get a laugh out of the people who talk

depression, because you people know what a depression is all about."

depression is not what we have today. These people lived through the

Depression and the two wars. Those senior citizens are the people who

contributed greatly to our province, and they know what a depression is

all about. I can say to you that they certainly don't believe they're

anywhere near a depression today. We talk about restraint, and it isn't

[ Page 7481 ]

anywhere near the hardship those people lived through in the depression era.

just the last six months, one company in our province that is

experiencing the problems of a bad economy has decided to share their

jobs all around so that all their people have an opportunity to work.

Only one person in that entire industry decided not to take advantage

of the opportunity to give everybody a job. One person decided not to

work; if he weren't going to make the pay he was accustomed to for the

past two, three or four years, why then, that person would rather be

unemployed. But the rest of those employees decided to work together to

build the business up. They achieved the kind of productivity that is

expected of us in this system under which'we live, and which pays in

the system under which we live and provides in the system under which

we live, and in six months time those employees all went back to their

original amount of pay. It took a couple of hundred of them to get back

to that.

That one person is now taking advantage of that

pay, is probably still in pay. During that six months, really the only

publicity was during the time that person made a big fuss about not

getting regular pay. Just a few weeks ago when that firm went back to

full pay, with full employment for all of its people at the level they

had been accustomed to, funnily enough it was hardly given any notice

at all. Certainly we didn't see the people on the other side of the

House standing up and cheering because there was full pay for a group

of people. We didn't hear those kinds of things. We never hear anything

positive from that side of the House, only the doom and gloom and the

fact that these people are not going to be able to draw what they've

been able to draw over the past few years.

These people who

are against the restraint program say that the public servants in our

province.... These public servants are probably the best there are. I

can't think of a better group of people in all of British Columbia, who

have a better record of public service, than those we have in the

province of British Columbia.

The other day we had one of

our members saying — in fact, it was the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown), who is in the House at the present time.... It was

interesting that she made the comparison that a clerk in the public

service gets very little more than somebody on income assistance.

That's an interesting comparison. It is one that was also made by Mr.

Fryer of the BCGEU. That's fascinating, because the same member, who

happens to have responsibility for the opposition in terms of social

services and is the critic for the Ministry of Human Resources, doesn't

get up on the floor of this House and say how good the policies on

income assistance are. They're so good that they're equivalent to a

clerk who is working in the public service in this province. We didn't

hear that comparison. What we did hear was that the wages for the

public service clerk are so low that they should be raised.

This

restraint bill does not keep them low. This restraint program gives

opportunities to bring lower-paid people higher. Those people who are

higher paid can take less money. It's all a matter of adjustment. It's

all a matter of the opportunity that is given to the organization under

our Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for the restraint

program. It gives an opportunity to give a better amount of money to

some. They failed to mention that. They want to have that concern

expressed throughout the width and breadth of this province, just as

they always have over the years. They have put fear in the hearts and

minds of the people who can least protect themselves, and they continue

to do it today with the restraint program. To always tell a different

story. The, simplest way is this: if you tell it often enough, that

which is untrue becomes a fact of life in people's minds. They feel

they can win that way.

As I have viewed the results of the

restraint program since it was announced by our Premier in February, I

can tell you that the restraint program has been very well accepted by

the people in this province. I think that's been a conundrum for the

NDP, quite frankly. I don't think they know how to handle it. I don't

think they know how to handle anything positive. But that has been

accepted by the people. I'll tell you who have accepted it: the people

in small business who are having a difficult time; people who have to

lay people off....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

MR. LEA: Pay your taxes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I pay mine. In fact, I provide more than you or anybody in your family have probably ever done.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, this is an indication of the kind of

interruptions that have a tendency to create disorder in the House.

Let's allow the minister to make her own speech.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I was saying that I think the people of British Columbia are extremely

supportive of the program which we are discussing here today. I do

believe that people who have to go out and pay their taxes, hire people

and fire people — and that's had to be done.... They've had to lay

people off in the province. We all know that. That's no secret. That's

happened in spades in the last two years in eastern Canada. It's

happened right across this country. It's just coming to roost here in

British Columbia. We've been very fortunate that we've been able to put

that kind of bad economic picture aside for a while. We've had some

pretty good years here in British Columbia these past five years.

What

we have now, though, is an opportunity to take the downturn in the

economy and to make that downturn work for us, and to make sure that

all the people become involved in the productivity of our province. I

think that too is no secret, just as it is no secret that there are

people being laid off. It's no secret either that our productivity in

this province — in fact, in this nation — has diminished in recent

years. We have to do something about that. I think that the kinds of

things that are happening in the province do, at this point in time,

make a great difference, and will make a great difference in the future.

would just like to say a word or two, too, about the kind of psychology

that goes with the kind of defeatist attitude that we have. If you keep

telling people over and over again, as the NDP intend to do, that

things are bad and they've never been worse, then, of course, in their

psychology, things will

[ Page 7482 ]

get

worse. This will continue and continue and continue. Although the

members opposite can chatter away about how they're not responsible for

negativism, I can tell you that I don't know of any group of people in

this province which has exuded more negativism than the New Democratic

Party of this province. They are absolute masters at it. We have never

won anything in this province — not any kind of an economic thrust that

we were making in dealing with international customers, and nothing in

terms of dealing with domestic customers — with negativism; only with

the kind of positive thrust and positive programs that can be done by

positive people.

I would just like to venture to say that if

we were to set about to put our house a little bit in order in terms of

our psychological outlook in this province and stop listening to these

negative doom-and-gloomers, these negative, doubting people.... It

would seem to me that if everybody got a different attitude in this

province we could create, just on that alone, many jobs — which would

result in many jobs in this province, because people would have a sense

of confidence which they always had in this province until the NDP was

in power. That is when it was lost. More than anything we find a sense

of insecurity in this province today in people who listen to those who

are on — the other side of this House.

But it is rather

exciting, I think, to know that there are things that are happening in

the province that create jobs and a sense of confidence, and that will

bridge this time, with its low economy, to the time that our colleague

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) was speaking of earlier this afternoon. It is exciting to see

the programs that that minister has put into place. It is exciting to

know the kinds of development that are taking place in that area of our

province where only 2 percent of the population live but where 25

percent of our land base is — the northeast coal project. That is very

exciting. You can talk about all sorts of negativism and doom and

gloom, and you can try to make that northeast coal project.... In their

minds they can do their best. They are the same party who said, not too

many months ago, that they would stop the northeast coal project. Let

me say this: the people of the province don't want that project

stopped. They don't want the positive programs stopped that we have

launched in the province. Thank goodness we have a diversity in our

economy, or we would not have been able to have withstood the world

problems and economic picture that has descended upon us.

am rather interested, as a matter of fact, to see that those same

people who have, in this debate, been so very concerned for the public

service of our province.... We are all concerned. We are concerned

because they are people we work with and appreciate every day. We are

concerned because we know that they are having a difficult time too.

But we also think that because of the generosity of our past

agreements.... This government has done a good job of giving a fair

wage to the people in our public service. Let's not forget that. That

is a point that has never even been mentioned on the other side of this

House by the New Democratic Party. They never talk about the kinds of

arrangements that have been made in the past. In fact, if you were to

go out today to some of the people who pay those bills — those people

in the general public who are not in the public service — let's be

honest: in some cases they'd say that they were a little bit too rich.

Sometimes they would say that they are a little too generous. But

because we have a public service of which we are proud, and because the

people of British Columbia depend a lot upon that public service, we

say that we will be fair with them.

I think that "fair" has

been very well explained in this bill. I think there is a great deal of

fairness in that, and I would like to just say that there are many

people in this province who don't have a job today. They have been laid

off. They might be in the forest industry, or it may be as the result

of a business that has been dependent upon a buoyant economy and now

has had to lay people off. But those people certainly understand that

we have to keep the public sector just as restrained as the economic

reality restrains the private sector. There isn't anybody in the

private sector who wouldn't be very pleased to get the kind of

arrangement or negotiated settlement that this bill portrays for the

public service.

Mr. Speaker, we have a bill before us

which, as I said in the beginning, is a responsible bill. There are

people across this country — in fact, the national government itself —

who, although they have talked about restraint, responsibility and the

kinds of things which are embodied in this bill.... That is exactly all

they have done: talk, talk, talk. In this government we are doing that

which is responsible, that which is fair, and we are doing that through

this bill, which not only will lead us through the economic downturn

that we have but, more importantly, will lead the way out of that

downturn into the most promising decade that we have ahead of us. It's

an exciting time, and we're lucky to be here. We're lucky to have this

kind of legislation at the right time — not delayed, not too late, but

at the right time — and I certainly support this bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I am going to surprise my colleagues and the House by

saying that I reluctantly support this bill. I do so because this bill,

contrary to the criticism that has been levelled at it by the

opposition, who say that it does not allow for collective bargaining,

was our one flexible way of allowing those who work in the public

service of this province, whether they're provincial government

employees or municipal employees, whether they're hospital or school

board employees, to be part of a program that would give some

guidelines to all of them. It put forward guidelines that do not have a

floor and a ceiling — that's where the opposition and the public

perhaps misunderstood the compensation stabilization program. They have

thought, because we said, "10 percent is a ceiling; plus or minus 2

percent is a ceiling," that perhaps there was a floor and a ceiling

between 8 percent and 12 percent. They are incorrect; there is no

floor. We have a flexible ceiling — yes, we have a flexible series of

levels of ceilings — but we have left the floor for the hospitals, the

schools, the municipal governments and our government as low as will

suit the circumstance for that particular category, so that they can

negotiate a settlement that will not cause layoffs in hospitals, in

schools, in the municipalities or in the provincial government.

What

we've done is challenge school boards, hospital boards, college boards,

municipal councils and the negotiators for our own government to

analyze what services we have to provide; to recognize that in many of

those areas such as education and health care, wages or compensation

could be 80 percent to 85 percent of the costs; to recognize that those

costs have been escalating beyond the ability of the taxpayer to pay;

to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that in an international situation such as

we have now, there has been a discipline — the cruellest discipline of

all — imposed on the

[ Page 7483 ]

private

sector: it's called layoff, it's called unemployment, it's called no

work today, it's called bankruptcy, it's called seeing your assets

destroyed after a lifetime of building a business. These are the

businesses, large and small, that have been the target of the New

Democratic Party, who for years have tried to make the word "profit" a

dirty word. Today we know that when there was no profit, or expectation

of profit, jobs have suffered. The ability to send money to government

threatens government programs. What is the answer? The answer, in our

case, was to provide a program of adjustable ceilings for those

negotiating both for union members and for the boards that run public

bodies in this province, to negotiate within the limits of the money

available.

Let's be frank. Our public servants in this

province are on average — and in most cases — the highest paid in all

of Canada, and in many instances the highest paid in North America. In

the past inequities have developed among our public servants. That is

the point of this program. Some have received arbitration awards of 40

percent, and some have been negotiated down to 20 percent, so that

historic relationships have been destroyed among the 200,000 people who

work in the various public services of this province. That's why we

need that flexible and adjustable ceiling to allow them to restore the

historic balance. Those numbers are not a floor.

For the

first time in a time which everyone agrees is a time of economic

difficulty, internationally and nationally, people will be put on their

mettle to see if they mean what they say. When I see a few labour

leaders in some of the public service unions not attacking the

compensation program, but saying the guidelines will destroy

services....

Let me say this. In some of those social areas,

where the cost is 85 percent labour, the competition, then, for enough

teaching jobs and for maintaining or increasing teaching programs is

that a few want to make a lot and they're willing to let the rest

suffer. I don't believe that's the attitude of the rank-and-file

teacher or the rank-and-file hospital worker or the rank-and-file

government worker. I believe they want to play a part, and that's what

this program allows. They get a chance to show just how great their

social commitment is. They get a chance to show that it's not their

hand at the bargaining table in this difficult economic time that's

going to cause the layoff of some of their colleagues who are teachers

or nurses or hospital workers. They're not going to be the ones

responsible for the deletion of programs or hospital beds or some

health facilities. I want to say that some of them aren't being given

the opportunity — or perhaps we have not yet come to the point in this

collective bargaining process that will allow them to do that.

When

I meet with my school board in School District 23, who have received an

arbitration award before the compensation program of 17.5 percent, and

who are crying that 80 Of their colleagues will have to be laid off

under the 12 percent spending guideline, and I ask the school board

what it would take to keep those 80 employed, the board says a I

percent reduction in the 17.5 percent increase. And when I say, "What

about maintaining, or even increasing, educational programs?" they say

another 1 percent. Then I have to question the people who negotiate on

behalf of those teachers and our school board who haven't arrived at

the obvious solution, when the taxpayers of this province do not have

the money to pay. When you're unemployed in Alberni or when you're laid

off at Brenda Mines, because of the international economic situation,

you perhaps don't have the money to give someone a 17.5 percent

increase. It's pretty dam tough on you to hear those people say: "Well,

we'll fire some of our colleagues and we'll restrict the education of

your children, because we're not willing to lower our increase from

17.5 to 15.5 percent."

I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker,

that this program allows collective bargaining and allows the people

who negotiate on behalf of the largest cost of public service — and

that is wages — to show that they do care. They are the competitors for

the hospital beds. They are the competitors for the school-teaching

positions that would be laid off. They are the competitors for the

books and the education. They are the competitors for the health-care

programs. It's not me. It's not this government. The alternative is to

give them all they want and let them, when everyone else is hurting and

the economy's tough, say: "We want all we can get because these

services are essential and people are emotional about them. We'll take

all we can get. Send the bill to the taxpayers, who can't afford to pay

any more, and run up a debt to the province." The NDP have suggested

that they haven't been allowed to collectively bargain. This is the one

chance they've got. It isn't like the chance they were given in

Saskatchewan, where it's "pick 'em off one at a time," and the

government can't successfully put in a program and put responsibility

on employees and employers alike. What do they do? They legislate them

back.

It reminds me of the days when I first came to this

Legislature in opposition, Mr. Speaker. I'd heard a lot about free

collective bargaining and allowing the system to work out there. There

was more legislation putting workers back to work in this province

under the three years of the NDP than under any other government. Now

even if I agreed with that, that isn't fair. There is more than a

single union, there is more than a single assembly of workers and

there's more than a single public service, and that's why this program

had that flexible lid to allow some of the employees — say in the B.C.

Government Employees Union, who say they gave a responsible contract

three years ago and need to catch up, and say, as in the words of John

Fryer, who, two years ago when he saw that 40 percent arbitration award

— and there were headlines in the paper — that irresponsible

settlements like this for one component in the public sector will lead

to wage controls.... Certainly he knew that there had to be some

balance between the different groups to argue against what I say is a

single chance. I want to make this very clear. This is a single chance

for the public-sector unions and the public sector employers to show

that they care. It is a chance — one chance, and one chance only, Mr.

Speaker — for them to bring in settlements not at the ceiling, but

responsibly relating to the amount of dollars that are available, and

it is their responsibility to see that their demands on one side, or

what they negotiate away on the other, do not create the loss of a

single job or a single program in this province. That is where the

responsibility lies, and that is why we've given them this opportunity.

For

years we've heard that those that care most about education are not the

parents or the students but the teachers — those that work in the

system. For years we've heard that it's not those of us that may get

ill or others that care the most and have the greatest social

conscience for health care, it's the people that work in the system,

and that anything that goes wrong is always our fault — collectively,

everyone else — and they're always right. Well, we're giving them a

chance to show that they do care, that they won't make a demand that

[ Page 7484 ]

will

cost a single job, and that the hospital boards or the school boards

won't negotiate a settlement so high under those