1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1919 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

VIP lounge at B.C. Place. Mr. Blencoe –– 1919

Mr. Skelly

Ms. Sanford

Unemployment action centres grant. Mr. Reynolds –– 1920

Funding for Legal Services Society. Ms. Brown –– 1920

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 11). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1921

Mr. Stupich –– 1923

Mr. Veitch –– 1936

Mr. Howard –– 1939

Mr. Reynolds –– 1943

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1983

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is a great pleasure for us to have

visiting today in the galleries, Mr. Stanley Stephenson, the

consul-general from Britain. I would ask all the members to extend to

him a most cordial welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: I have been waiting for this day for some time,

because it was over 25 years ago that a very kind couple offered a poor

little teenage British Columbian a ride into downtown Mexico City. I

have been waiting to repay that debt of hospitality for some time, and

it is with great pleasure today that I would ask the House to welcome

Señor Ramon Marron Frisbie and Señora Betty Vales de Marron. My son

Sean is also with them in your gallery, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PELTON: In the members' gallery this afternoon is a

friend of mine from Maple Ridge, a staunch supporter of the government

and the Social Credit Party. I would like to ask this House to welcome

Mr. George Litauszky.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: My colleague the second member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and I would like the House to

welcome two couples from the city of Vancouver who are visiting our

gallery today, good friends: Elaine and Mel Lorimer and Garda and Bill

Cowan.

MR. STRACHAN: I would ask the House today to welcome

respectively my second and third cousins; Mr. Stan Robson and Mr. Gary

Robson are visiting me this weekend from Penticton. Would the House

please welcome these people.

Oral Questions

VIP LOUNGE AT B.C. PLACE

MR. BLENCOE: This afternoon I have a very serious question

regarding the government's restraint program. Over the last few months,

the government has decided to cut certain programs like the allowance

program for the handicapped, the child abuse team programs and a number

of services generally for children and families in this province. Yet

we have learned that the government has decided to utilize the VIP

Lounge at B.C. Place. Given the restraint that's currently in place for

the province of British Columbia, I would like to ask the Minister of

Municipal Affairs how much government money the minister spent

yesterday at the VIP lounge of B.C. Place during the Edmonton-B.C.

football game.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, any expense that I may have incurred there would be charged back to me personally.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the minister will table that information for the House.

I have a supplementary for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On August 11

the minister responsible for B.C. Place tabled a policy statement which said

that government members may use the VIP lounge "when conducting government

or Crown corporation business." What government business was conducted

by the minister and his four cabinet colleagues who were present during the

Edmonton-B.C. football game?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to that member

that any business that I conduct with any group in this province is

private business as far as the ministry is concerned.

[2:15]

MR. BLENCOE: I have a further supplementary. The people of

British Columbia paid for that particular stadium; therefore what you

do there should be public information.

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The policy statement put out by the

minister responsible for B.C. Place states: "A voucher system is in

operation for services." Will the minister advise whether any of the

services he consumed during the game will be paid for from public

funds? If so, will those vouchers be made public?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: All such vouchers are made public.

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Forests. Did this

minister use the VIP lounge at B.C. Place for the Edmonton-B.C.

football game on Sunday, and will the minister advise what public

business he conducted at the meeting?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, I certainly did attend the game, and

I was very happy that the B.C. Lions won that game. Yes, Mr. Speaker,

members of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development hosted members

of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association yesterday at that football

game. I am sure that if my experience there is shared by my colleagues,

we had many very interesting discussions on policy matters and things

that must happen in British Columbia in the future. I think it was a

very productive time for me and, I am sure, my colleagues, and at the

same time we happened to watch British Columbia defeat the Edmonton

Eskimos.

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Agriculture and Food regarding the government's restraint program. I am

wondering how much money the minister saved the taxpayers yesterday by

wining and dining at the VIP lounge at B.C. Place stadium during the

Edmonton-B.C. football game.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I was present at the game. I watched the

B.C. Lions beat the Edmonton Eskimos, for which I was overjoyed. As I

understand it, the reason for that particular lounge being there is for

the hosting of various groups. Yesterday we hosted the Canadian

Manufacturers' Association, and I understand that any billing that is

due to me personally will arrive at my desk.

MS. SANFORD: We have been told that the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development was the host for this particular event.

Does that mean that he will be picking up the tab for the Canadian

Manufacturers' Association and also for expenses incurred by various

government ministers? I understand that each seat is costing $80 per

game and that

[ Page 1920 ]

beverages would be charged back to the appropriate government department.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The answer to that question is that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development was not the host.

UNEMPLOYMENT ACTION CENTRES GRANT

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that a front-page story in the Coast News

confirms that the unemployment action centres are being used by the

Solidarity Coalition for offices and organizational headquarters, can

the minister advise the House if he has filed any protests with the

federal government to protest the use of public funds for this blatant

partisan tactic?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I thank the member for that question.

The

article to which he refers was handed to me earlier, and I thank

the person who handed it to me as well, whoever that was. It might have

been the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead); I am not sure. It is an

article in the Coast News by

the unemployment action centre urging all groups to join Operation

Solidarity and asking them to call a Priscilla Brown at the

unemployment action centre in order to sign up for Solidarity. That

only solidifies the need for some answers from the federal government

with regard to the $600,000 grant.

In direct answer to the member, I have written to the Hon. John

Roberts, Minister of Employment and Immigration, just indicating that

there is certainly more and more evidence coming forward that

Solidarity activity is taking place in the unemployment action centres.

I raised the question with him, too, that one of the opposition members

— I believe it was the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) — had

raised some serious concerns in the House during question period about

the funds being used for political purposes prior to the May 5

provincial election. I have asked him to investigate that as well. I am

sure the member for Burnaby North will appreciate that action on her

behalf.

I have also written to the Hon. Serge Joyal, Secretary of State of

Canada, regarding their $19,000.50 grant to a group which is

politically oriented.

I will file these letters, Mr. Speaker, but just paraphrasing, I

simply said that we in British Columbia are dismayed about these

actions of a federal minister and that we must condemn the actions of a

senior government that would provide funding aimed mainly at the

overthrow of another duly elected government within our confederation.

I cannot but believe that this is an action unprecedented in the

history of Canada, and it must not go unchallenged.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would.... Perhaps I have to

wait until after question period. I will file these after question

period.

FUNDING FOR LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Attorney-General is as

prepared as the Minister of Labour to answer my questions, and that he

has all the documents ready to table when he is through as well.

The Legal Services Society is in a kind of crisis situation as a result of

the government's financial restraint program. I want to ask the Minister

a couple of questions. First of all, in view of the fact that the Law Foundation

turned down their request for emergency funding, is the ministry now prepared

to give the Legal Services Society some emergency funding? Secondly, did the

A-G's representative on the Law Foundation support the application of Legal

Services for emergency funding from the Law Foundation?

HON. MR. SMITH: No little bird dropped me the answers to

those questions before I came in here, but the answer to the first

question is no. That didn't come out very well. It was a long week, Mr.

Speaker.

The Legal Services Society has been funded to the same operating

level as last year — slightly over $13 million, which is less than they

actually got from the government, because last year their deficit of

over $2 million was paid off. I told the Legal Services Society some

time ago, when I first assumed this portfolio, that there would be no

more than the $13 million that was in the estimates, and that they

would have to live within that amount. I think they understand that.

The second question: I believe that yes, my representative did vote

for that funding and did support that funding. I supported it, and my

representative went with that support to the meeting of the Law

Foundation.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, again to the Attorney-General. In

view of the fact that the Attorney-General initiated a task force to

look into the whole area of funding for legal services, and that it's

due to bring its report down on March 31; and also that the federal

government is in the process of completing a detailed evaluation of the

delivery of legal services and will be bringing its report down quite

quickly, is the Attorney-General prepared to give Legal Services the

interim financing that it needs to continue its job until those two

reports are in?

HON. MR. SMITH: The long-term need is really to examine legal

aid and the needs, not just on a short-term basis but on a long-term

basis; and to examine as well the whole rationale for the priorities

and funding of legal aid and the federal government assistance to legal

aid, which, while it has been there, has been somewhat wanting, I

think, in the face of rising costs and increased demands.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as my critic knows, many of the

demands on the legal aid system are demands that arise not only from

federal legislation but from new federal initiatives. When the federal

government proclaims, as it is going to do, a young offenders act, it

will bring enormous increases in the demands on the legal system in

British Columbia, and may bring increased demands for legal aid. So I

think we have to take a thorough, long-term look at where we're going

in this province in terms of legal services for the poor and for those

who can't afford it. I intend to broaden the task force that is now in

existence and increase the membership of that task force from members

of the bar and the legal services community so that we can have some

long-term recommendations.

MS. BROWN: Which is a very salutary concept, except that in

the meantime Legal Services is in a crisis situation, to the extent

that a number of offices in Cranbrook, Vernon, Smithers, Nanaimo and

Maple Ridge are closing.

Interjection.

[ Page

1921 ]

MS. BROWN: My question is not nearly as long as the answer that the

Minister of Labour gave.

Mr. Speaker, is the Attorney-General going to take any steps to keep

those offices open while his task force is embarking on embarking on

its very good evaluation? I'd support that.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I'm not going to interfere with decisions

made by the Legal Services Society, which is independent of government,

to take measures — as they did — to live within their budget.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table documents referred to in question period.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 25

and ask leave of the House to proceed to deal with Motion 32, which I'm

sure Your Honour would like to have dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as the member for Skeena can

recall, this matter was dealt with last week, at which time it was

outlined that the prerogative of the business of the House is at the

discretion of the government. Although I have grave reservations that

to ask leave is not in accord with our standing orders, nevertheless,

on this one final occasion I will ascertain the will of the House.

Leave not granted.

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

Leave granted.

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 11.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading

now of Bill 11, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983, a

bill which was introduced in the Legislature on July 7 last.

May I begin by saying that I take great pleasure in introducing this legislation

and discussing it briefly this afternoon. Also, I reflect with pleasure on the

fact that in 1982 I had the opportunity to introduce the original Compensation

Stabilization Act and to hear debate on it. When the Premier first announced

the compensation stabilization program in February 1982, it is correct to say

that he ensured that British Columbia would take a leadership role in the national

effort to rebuild Canada's economy. It has to be observed — indeed, I observed

it last week in the course of meetings in eastern Canada and the United States

— that this government was the first to recognize that the economic downturn

was so severe that direct and decisive action was urgently required. This government

was also aware that the economic times were so uncertain that a degree of flexibility

was necessary, so that after passage of the legislation the government could

adapt its policy instruments to relatively quickly changing circumstances.

Reflecting again on 1982, beyond the immediate and pressing need to

combat a severe recession, last year the government acted out of a very

firm conviction that British Columbians wanted a new approach to

government itself. Those economic hard times brought home a lesson

which, as others have observed, the public was well on the way to

learning already. It is correct again, I think, in this context to

observe that from time to time the public does lead the government of

the day with respect to a particular philosophy, or the recognition of

the need for a particular act. So the public was again leading the

government with respect to the difficulties in which all British

Columbians found themselves. The government was no exception through

the winter of 1981-82. The lesson was that the indefinite expansion of

the structure of government would not of itself sustain economic growth

or produce continuing economic growth. In fact, in many instances that

structure was impeding rather than encouraging economic development.

It was out of this combination of concerns — the need to fight a

serious downturn and the determination to alter fundamentally the role

of government — that the restraint-in-government measures of last year,

starting in February, were born. The compensation stabilization program

was the keystone; it was a key factor in that overall coordinated

approach.

This year the government's commitment to change has been confirmed

in a very resounding manner by the electorate. Clearly, the government

has received a mandate to continue, and to expand, its initiatives in

this regard. As the Speech from the Throne indicated, the government

has a mandate both to encourage private sector confidence by continuing

to rationalize public sector activity and to give taxpayers full value

for their hard-earned tax dollars by striving for maximum efficiency

and effectiveness in delivering its programs.

All of this, by way of background, brings us to the amendments to

the CSP now before the House. It is generally recognized that the

program has been an outstanding success and that other Canadian

governments have watched it very closely; some have borrowed from it

freely. As of September 26, 1983, the office of the commissioner, Mr.

Peck, had received 966 compensation plans — a number which speaks to

the fairness of the program. Of these individual plans regarding public

sector compensation –– 895, or 93 percent, were found to be within the

guidelines. That certainly speaks well of the two parts of the program:

guidelines and, if necessary, regulations.

Perhaps even more striking than this exceedingly high approval rate

is another measure of the program's acceptance. Members will recall

that the CSP has that two-stage format: voluntary guidelines — and I've

indicated already that the very large majority have fallen under those

voluntary guidelines — and the mandatory, legally binding regulations.

The fact is that since the program's inception, the CSP commissioner

has not been forced to subject a single compensation plan to the

regulations. In a year and a half of operation — in fact, it's perhaps

closer to 19 months — this is truly a remarkable record. It is a

tribute to the commissioner and to the nature of the program, which

has, as I said last year and in

[ Page 1922 ]

the election campaign, that element of fairness —

that significant degree of flexibility — that is not to be found in

some other wage restraint practices.

That's a remarkable record, and so is the level of increases that

the program has produced. The figures so far for 1983 show that the

weighted average compensation increase in approved compensation plans

stands at 3.63 percent. Commissioner Peck and the small staff who work

with him in the office of the commissioner are certainly to be

commended for that result. I think the public of British Columbia will

thank them in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, it should be noted, however, that just as with the rest

of the restraint-in-government campaign, we cannot rest on our laurels,

because there is much yet to be done. The compensation stabilization

program, as this bill indicates, must now be adapted to meet new

economic conditions and to do justice to the government's renewed

mandate. Underlying the proposed legislative changes to the program are

two key — centrepiece, if you will — policy decisions taken by the

government. These aspects of the program were always present, but now

they've risen to even greater prominence.

First, the government believes that the paramount consideration with

respect to setting levels of compensation in the public sector should

be the employer's ability to pay. I want to add that this amounts to a

recognition that most taxpayers have a decidedly limited ability to pay

at the moment — a limited ability to send money to governments, whether

local, regional, provincial or federal — and that the last thing the

provincial economy needs during these early steps towards recovery is

for the taxpayers' spending capacity to be reduced or interfered with,

if you will, through unnecessary taxation.

Secondly, the government believes that the fundamental justification

for increases in public sector compensation should be, and I would say

also must be, greater productivity. What this means in practice is that

if employees anticipate receiving wage increases, then they and their

employers must devise ways of saving the taxpayer money. In the private

sector, as we all very well know, workers have had to face a multitude

of controls generated in the marketplace — some cruel factors:

bankruptcies, unemployment, layoffs, low or nonexistent wage increases

and, in fact, in some instances, wage decreases. When one views the

situation objectively, as I'm sure many British Columbians do, it seems

little enough to ask employees in the more sheltered public service to

try to give taxpayers better value for their money.

With this background in mind, may I therefore run quickly through

the main legislative changes to the compensation stabilization program.

I realize that this is speaking in principle to the bill, so I will

save more detailed remarks for the committee stage. However, I think

these are fundamental to the principle: first, the insertion of a

purpose clause making clear the centrality of the ability-to-pay

concept and specifying that the main justification for any compensation

increases in the public sector will be the increased productivity to

which I've referred; secondly, the indefinite extension of the program;

thirdly, revision of the act so that arbitrators are more clearly bound

by its provisions; and, fourthly, amendments throughout the legislation

to contemplate decreases as well as increases in compensation and then

inclusion of a provision making it an offence to implement the terms of

a compensation plan before it is approved by the commissioner.

Taken as a group, it will be evident that while some of these

changes could be described as fine tuning, others are more profound and

more significant. As before, the amendments to the act will find their

way into the daily operation of the program through the CSP guidelines

and regulations. Basically, these two sets of rules will operate in the

same two-step or two-stage fashion mentioned earlier: voluntary

guidelines backed up by mandatory regulations.

There are three broad areas in the guidelines and regulations.

However, I think some comment might be warranted in terms of the impact

of these legislative amendments. First, the guidelines and regulations

will reflect the renewed emphasis on the ability to pay. The

responsibility for ensuring that this particular criterion is applied

will rest with employers, with employees and with arbitrators. The

government's role will be to establish, through the budget process,

expenditure targets which will set the pattern for determining the

public sector ability to pay.

Secondly, in view of the paramount importance to long-term economic

growth of productivity improvement, a productivity factor will be

separated from the existing special circumstances factor. This new

productivity factor will stand alone as the most significant component

of possible wage increases. It may be included at the discretion of the

commissioner, and it will have no upward limit. The onus will be on the

parties concerned to justify a claim for a higher level of compensation

based on that increased productivity. In judging the acceptability of

such a claim, the commissioner and his staff will take into account a

revised definition of productivity which includes a range of possible

changes, such as the removal of restrictive work practices.

[2:45]

Third, the numerical aspect of the guidelines and regulations will

be amended. In calculating the changes in compensation, the cost of

increments will now be included under the guidelines as well as under

the regulations. I want to repeat that in order that members will be

quite clear, and that those people we serve will also recognize it: in

calculating the changes in compensation, the cost of increments —

usually annual increments — will now be included under the guidelines

as well as under the regulations. I want to emphasize that under the

guidelines — that is, the voluntary side of the program — employers and

employees and, where necessary, arbitrators will be expected to set

compensation levels on the basis of ability to pay and productivity.

These two considerations must be taken into account; they must be

considered paramount.

As for the commissioner, when he becomes involved, under the

guidelines or at the guidelines stage, he will not define ability to

pay. That will be left for the parties to determine between themselves.

The commissioner only has the power to decide if the employer has an

inability to pay a given increase in compensation. Now if the employer

and employee group agree that there is no ability-to-pay problem, the

commissioner will not consider this question. In fact, as a practical

matter, since the commissioner can only review completed compensation

plans, the "ability-to-pay problem" will generally arise only in

connection with arbitration awards.

Turning to the regulations, the level of acceptable changes in

compensation will range from minus 5 percent to plus 5 percent. The

numerical breakdown by factor will be substantially as before: the

basic income factor –– 1 percent; the experience adjustment factor —

plus 2 percent to minus 3 percent; the special circumstances factor —

plus 2 percent to

[ Page 1923 ]

minus 3 percent; and the new productivity factor — an indefinite amount, at the discretion of the commissioner.

The amendments that I have just outlined and which comprise Bill 11

are the logical extension of this government's previously expressed

determination to keep public sector expenditure under control. At the

same time, the self-administering aspects of the program have been very

carefully retained, as has the flexibility of the program, about which

I spoke at the start of these remarks. This has been done both to avoid

the build-up of a large enforcement bureaucracy and to keep the main

responsibility for the program where it belongs, and that is on the

employers and the employees themselves. It is again significant to

note, and I'm sure that this will be discussed in due course when my

estimates are presented, that we have avoided that large enforcement

bureaucracy which has been seen to develop in other jurisdictions with

a program which has some basic elements of this, but does not have the

flexibility which has been a cornerstone of the whole program. Mr.

Speaker, we're extending it indefinitely. I'm satisfied that the

program, in its amended form now before this Legislature, offers a

reasonable and fair way of dealing with a very difficult situation.

More than that, I firmly believe that the program lays the foundation

for what, in the final analysis, may turn out to be a new and more

productive compensation policy in British Columbia's public sector. To

do less would be to break faith with the voters of British Columbia,

I now move second reading of Bill 11, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a recognition.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have just received a note that Australia II

has won the America's Cup yacht race. This is the first time in 132

years that this has been won by anyone other than the United States of

America. I think it's a most tremendous accomplishment. I know that all

members present today would like to extend our heartiest

congratulations to the crew, the designers and all connected with this

great victory, and most particularly to our sister Commonwealth

country, Australia, and all of its very lively citizens. I think

tonight there is going to be a lot of splicing of the main brace and a

little more than just fair dinkum. I say well done, and it's terrific

news. Congratulations, Australia.

MR. STUPICH: To get back to Bill 11, if we needed anything to

convince us, certainly the minister's description of the legislation we

are now discussing would convince us and every thinking person in

British Columbia that this bill must be opposed, should be postponed,

should be withdrawn completely.

If I could sum up very briefly the minister's description, in the

first place, I think he would admit that his bill completely

centralizes within cabinet any level of salaries paid, not just to the

friends of government, but to everyone involved in the public sector —

a total number of employees that the Provincial Secretary said at one

point in the House was in the neighbourhood of 300,000. It centralizes

control of the incomes of both friends in the high places and also of

the lowest-paid worker, completely in the hands of cabinet.

Secondly, I heard him say there will be no more meaningful

negotiation. There will be the facade. There will be discussions, but

they will mean nothing because the decisions will be made by cabinet.

Thirdly, he is saying that our program of restraint has failed

completely. Therefore, we are now saying that instead of having this go

on for a limited period of time, it's going to go on indefinitely.

There's no end in sight, because we failed completely to control what's

happening in the province of British Columbia.

I heard the Premier speak in February, 1982. By coincidence, I was

invited to speak to a political science group at Malaspina College —

the arrangement was made about a month before I was to appear there —

the evening that the Premier was on TV with his program. I watched it

with the class and afterwards led a discussion in which I criticized

the program completely, criticism in which I was joined by everyone

present, including the instructor of the class. They all recognized at

that time that it was interference in a process developed over

centuries, but refined much more recently; a process that has been

working in British Columbia, yet a process that the government felt

bound to change because the Premier had some grand scheme in mind. More

likely, what he had in mind was an election campaign, and felt this

would be good campaign strategy. The conclusion of the class was that

it was a program bound to fail.

The program said then that the decisions were going to be led by

cabinet; not made by cabinet, as they are going to be now, but led by

cabinet. The level of income for so many people was going to be

established under the influence of the cabinet, and yet it was a

program that offered nothing to the people who were going to be

affected by it, a program that gave them no indication at all that the

government was going to do anything about their cost of living. It

didn't say to some 300,000 people in the public sector that the rate of

interest they would have to pay when they renegotiated their mortgage

was going to be controlled. There was legislation introduced much later

that did offer some assistance, but at the time the Premier spoke on

this subject he offered nothing to give the 300,000 people in the

public sector any indication that the government had any concern at all

about their ability to pay.

It's all very well to talk about the government's ability to pay and

to say that government doesn't make any money on its own, that it's

really the taxpayers' money. But we're talking about individuals. As a

group, we do have the ability to pay for certain things, for programs.

Even as a group, we can afford to pay for five cabinet ministers to

entertain people at the VIP lounge at the stadium during a football

game. We can afford to pay that as a group. But there are many

individuals in our community who can't make that decision individually

when it comes to meeting a mortgage payment, who can't make that

decision individually when it comes to buying food, who can't make that

decision individually when it comes to paying rent.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Agriculture smiling about this. I

don't know what kind of people he has in his constituency, but I know

from personal experience, having talked and listened to many people in

my constituency, that many people out there are wondering where they

are going to get next month's mortgage payment; wondering how they are

[ Page 1924 ]

going to be able to meet the rent payment when it

comes due, or how much of it they'll be able to meet; wondering how

they are going to send their children to school. Older students are

wondering how they are going to be able to continue their education,

because grants are being cut back, loans are being cut back.

Educational opportunities are being denied them, all in the name of

restraint — restraint that the Premier spoke about as long ago as

February 1982, without offering any hope to those people that the

government had some interest in their concerns, some interest in the

individual's problems in meeting his or her expenses, the expenses of

living. When I say living, Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking simply about

eating. I'm not talking simply about a place to reside. I'm not talking

simply about clothing. Certainly in 1983 in British Columbia we would

describe living as being much more than those essentials of life.

The Premier had no concern about any of those problems when he spoke

in February 1982. I believe all he was concerned about then was the

prospect of fighting an election campaign, and he came up with a

program about which there were no details. Mr. Speaker, the Premier at

that time spoke for 18 minutes on television. He had nothing to offer,

other than a broad description of a program. When he was pressed

subsequently by the press, by individuals, by media, by politicians

wanting to know just what he had in mind, he really had no kind of

program to offer, except that he was going to impose some kind of

restraint program upon the public sector and was going to limit wage

increases for a limited period of time, because that is all that would

be necessary. Limiting wage increases in the public sector for a

limited period of time was going to turn the economy around in British

Columbia, so it was necessary to implement that for only a short time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, by saying today that now there shall

be no time limit on this program, the government has admitted that its

program is a complete failure and they have to pretend to be doing

something else. Because that's all they're doing, Mr. Speaker: they are

simply pretending. They are taking more power unto themselves, but they

have been exercising that power already. There's nothing really new

about the way they're acting. They have been rewarding their friends.

There have been no limits on pay increases for the people who have

supported Social Credit. We've gone through this before, but it's worth

reminding ourselves about a couple of examples.

[3:00]

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the shirt-tail relation of the

Premier who became a government agent overnight, in spite of the fact

that he had no qualifications for the job except that he was well known

to the Premier. No one ever suggested that he had any other

qualifications. You'll remember the $15,000 a year increase awarded to

one Mike Bailey. He was reclassified, giving him a different title, but

still, $15,000 a year. Did that go to Mr. Peck? It did subsequently,

but only when the member for Victoria urged that it should go. The

increase to Mr. Heal? Up to $65,000 a year, I believe it was. Did that

go to Mr. Peck? Only when there was public pressure for it. And what

did Mr. Peck do with it? He did what he was told to do. In one instance

he approved the increase and said it was in line with the program. A 50

percent increase was in line because it was a government-supported

increase. The ability to pay? The taxpayers have that ability to pay.

If the Premier wants it for his batman or the communications officer,

or whatever he's called, then the government has the ability to pay.

Ability to pay means simply that the cabinet wants that decision to

go forward as they have made it. It means nothing else. Ability to pay

in any part of the public sector is something that is defined in the

rooms of cabinet. The cabinet decides whether or not a school board

will have the ability to increase salaries for the teachers, or to

decrease the amount of money awarded to individual school districts or

to education in general, to the administration. All of the money

awarded to any one of the ministries is a decision made by cabinet.

It's brought into the House, and eventually we may even get around to

discussing some of those expenditure items. We haven't dealt yet with

expenses. We haven't dealt with estimates. Ability to pay means nothing

except that the cabinet has made a certain decision that extends to

every person working in the public sector, including all 300,000 people

spoken about by the Provincial Secretary.

The minister spoke about the success of the program, and about the

way in which it's being copied in other provinces. No details. In what

way has it succeeded? Mr. Speaker, since that program was first spoken

about in February 1982 — it wasn't introduced until some months later —

B.C. started leading the rest of the provinces. The rate at which

bankruptcies were taking place in B.C. started going ahead of the

national rate and every other provincial rate. It escalated in B.C.

faster than in any other province. The unemployment problems in British

Columbia, from that date on, started to get worse faster than in any

other province, and that hasn't changed to this day. The cost-of-living

increases went up faster in British Columbia than in almost any other

province. That's not just because the government declined to restrain

itself. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1982 the government, while

it didn't increase taxes that year to any degree, did increase user

rates and fees for government services at an amount that was estimated

— not by the NDPers, but by outside economists — to bring in an extra

$500 million to $600 million a year. I've asked for details about that.

I put questions on the order paper last year asking for details about

just how much money was going to come in as a direct result of the

increase in user fees and charges for government services. The minister

said he would answer that question. I took him at his word and I still

do. I believe he intended to answer that question and would have, but

eventually the House was prorogued and we had a new election. The

question is back on the order paper. When we get to dealing with the

minister's estimates I'll ask him again. I'm quite sure he will one day

answer that question.

In the meantime all we have, Mr. Speaker, is an estimate that the

government took out of the economy of British Columbia in 1982, a year

that was a bad year economically, an extra $500 million to $600 million

and we ended up the year with a billion-dollar deficit, although the

minister predicted that we would break even. That in itself tells us

that the program failed. The government's actions failed. Before

talking about restraint they estimated that it would be a break-even

position. They started talking about this particular method of

restraint and started implementing it, and the result of it was that

instead of breaking even we ended up almost a billion dollars in the

hole.

Mr. Speaker, is that what the minister meant when he talked about

the success of the program? He talked about the way it's being emulated

in other provinces. Well, which

[ Page 1925 ]

ones? I don't know of any other province that's

following the route of the province of British Columbia in imposing the

kind of restraint program that was introduced here. The minister may

want to comment on that when he speaks in closing second reading. The

minister said that the program of restraint that they introduced with

the Premier's speech in February 1982 — a program, incidentally, that

the Premier himself lacked confidence in to the extent that he didn't

dare go to the electorate until April of 1983, some 15 months later; a

program that he thought was so politically popular he dilly-dallied

about calling the election.... Certainly he was close to doing it some

three or four months after he introduced that program. There was no

question that he intended to go in the fall. He was just waiting for

the right moment. He finally did go in the spring. He didn't have a

budget until after the election, and he did not announce the program

upon which he now says his government was elected until after the

election was over. The minister said the program was confirmed by the

electorate. During that campaign the Premier spoke about no mass

firings. He talked about the rate at which people were leaving the

public sector employment but said that it was the natural course of

events. People were retiring; people were going on to other employment

opportunities. In government employment there was a 15 percent drop in

one year, so they were well on the way to their target of 25 percent,

perhaps not in the total public sector, but certainly in government.

That part of the program was working. He said this during the campaign.

There was no need for firings. Time alone would take care of his goal

of trying to reach a reduction in public sector employment.

He said there would be no tax increases. He ridiculed the idea of

tax increases. When the economy was such as it was in the spring of

1983, he said it was the wrong time to talk about tax increases. Merely

talking about them was bad for the economy. Well, Mr. Speaker, you will

recall that in the budget of July 7, 1983, one of the notable items was

an increase in the sales tax. If there's anything that shouldn't be

done at a time when the economic conditions were as they were in April,

May, June and July of 1983, when, as the Premier himself said and as

the minister and government spokesmen have said, there was a fragile

sense of recovery in the province.... Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we were all

led to believe there was. Such being the case, that was the wrong time

to impose a tax increase. People should have been encouraged to believe

that the tide was turning. People should have been encouraged to

believe that the economy was improving. If the economy was improving,

then there would be no need to impose tax increases because the

improvement in the economy itself would mean that government revenues

would increase and we would be able to finance the kind of government

services to the level that British Columbia citizens expect and that

British Columbia citizens deserve.

He promised there would be no tax increases. In the budget, a short

time after the election, he did bring in tax increases. He promised and

even ridiculed the idea that the government was giving any

consideration at all to health user fee increases. Memos that were

found to have been circulating within the Ministry of Health were

described as something that might have been tossed around among the

people in the lower echelons of the ministry, but certainly nothing

that was ever taken seriously by the government or by the Minister of

Health himself. Certainly I never heard the Premier and the Minister of

Finance speak about it. They ridiculed the idea that they were giving

any consideration to it. They hadn't even heard about it. Certainly

they wouldn't think of doing it at a time like this.

So when the Minister of Finance stands up and tells us in the House

that their program was confirmed by the electorate, he forgets that

they promised no mass firings. He forgets an agreement that was

negotiated between the employer and the employees, the BCGEU, in which

it was promised there would be no firings. It was promised there would

be negotiations, as provided for in that agreement. The government has

indicated since, in this and in other legislation, that it has no

intention at all of living up to that agreement. Nevertheless, the

minister forgets that that promise was made during the election

campaign, in addition to the written promise that was given to the B.C.

Government Employees' Union that there would be no mass firings. The

minister forgets the promise that there would be no tax increases. He

might even have been planning those tax increases at the time the

Premier was going around saying that it was the wrong time to impose

tax increases and that his government, if re-elected, would not

institute any tax increases. The Minister of Finance forgot — or didn't

know; perhaps he wasn't listening to the Premier during the election

campaign. Perhaps he didn't know that the Premier and the Minister of

Health were promising the voters in the province that they had no

intention and would not increase health user fees.

The government, by its own admission — by bringing in the budget

that it did by bringing in the legislation that it did — proved to the

people of British Columbia that it had plans before the election

campaign for action that it was afraid to trust to the electorate and

did not want the voters to know about.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Nonsense!

MR. STUPICH: The hon. member for Surrey is shaking her head,

disagreeing with me. I challenge her to stand up, when she speaks in

second reading on this bill, and say that in her riding she said that

if Social Credit were re-elected, there would be mass firings to get

public sector employment down to what they consider reasonable levels.

I challenge that member or any other member on the government side

of the House to say that when he or she campaigned in that election

campaign they promised that there would be tax increases as soon as

they got re-elected. I challenge her or any other member to tell us in

second reading — or at any other time — that, contrary to what the

Premier and the Minister of Health were saying, if they were re-elected

one of the first things they would do on taking office was to increase

user fees for health services.

The member seems to have quit shaking her head, for the time being at least.

How are we going to measure whether or not we are getting full value

for hard-earned tax dollars? There have been many examples, some

presented in this House and others presented elsewhere, of people

receiving very short notice to the effect that they were going to be

fired at some day in the future, or immediately. No one was looking at

their work record. No one was inquiring whether or not in that

particular instance we were getting full value for our hard-earned tax

dollars. The question was not put to anyone, to the best of my

knowledge, whether the institution at Tranquille was not giving full

value. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether

[ Page 1926 ]

you have had the opportunity ever to go through

that institution. I did. I saw the kind of people who were being served

by the government employees in that institution some years ago. I can't

imagine how those people are going to get anything from the government

if they're going to be dumped onto the community in any other way. That

institution, I believe, was serving the people of British Columbia in a

way that no alternative could. There were people there who were

handicapped — some mentally, some physically, some both. But they were

led to believe that they had some purpose in living. They had

opportunities there to develop to the fullest of their individual

personal ability. That was fostered by the kind of people they had

working with them: the people working in the public sector; the people

who were given notice that their jobs no longer existed. Having seen

the institution and spent a few hours there, going around and seeing

what was being done, I was completely satisfied that in that instance

we were getting full value for our hard-earned tax dollars.

I visited Colony Farm. I saw some of the people who were working

with animals there, to the best of their ability as individuals. I know

something of the program. I visited there several times and was very

impressed with what was being done in that particular institution. Are

we closing it down because the people working there were not giving us

full value for the hard-earned tax dollars, or are we closing it down

simply because the government believes that it can sell off one more

asset and get a few more dollars for it that it can pour into some

sinkhole like northeast coal? Why are we closing it down, Mr. Speaker?

I'm satisfied that there was no time between May 5 and July 7 for

anyone to have done any kind of an investigation to see whether or not,

in that instance, we were getting any kind of value — full value or

otherwise — for hard-earned tax dollars. I'm satisfied that we were.

[3:15]

There are programs to cut down on the minimum levels of social

assistance. Programs for the poorest people in the community are to be

cut by $50 a month. Is it giving us full value for hard-earned tax

dollars to say to the poorest people in the community: "You,

individually, have to give up $50 a month"? That's not giving us value

for hard-earned tax dollars. We were getting far more value for our tax

dollars by keeping it going to people like that rather than by giving

it to a cabinet minister to spend in VIP lounges. That was much greater

value for hard-earned tax dollars, in my estimation and, I hope, Mr.

Speaker, your estimation, and I hope that before my colleagues and the

people on the government side of the House are finished the government

itself will realize that there are better ways of spending hard-earned

tax dollars than to start by saying that the poorest people in the

community have to start doing without to a greater extent than they

have been so far.

They're cutting back on the lowest-income people and saying to them that

they have to give up their renter's tax credit as a way of getting more

value out of our hard-earned tax dollars. The renter's tax credit and the

low-income tax credit involve a total amount of some $91 million, according

to the budget. Mr. Speaker, that $91 million would have been turned over and

over and over again if it were paid out to the poorest people in the community.

That would be giving us better value for our hard-earned tax dollars than to

simply cut back on that one item of expenditure so that more money might be

available for some of the cabinet programs, and they'd have to come back

again to financing northeast coal — to hurry up and get that coal project when

we know that the prospects for marketing the coal get worse day by day.

Mr. Speaker, the government hasn't tried to justify the firings of

any of the people that they have given notice to or have talked about

giving notice to so far. They haven't tried to justify, in any

instance, that the taxpayer is not getting value for tax dollars;

they've simply cut programs as a way of revenge. They've cut programs

that were instituted by the NDP administration not because they weren't

good programs but because they're something that the Social Credit

administration sees no need for in today's conditions.

If people are hungry, they don't need human rights — that would seem

to be the government's attitude. So they're going to save tax dollars

by doing away with the human rights program. That's no way of getting

full value for our human rights program.

What kind of incentive do they give? The minister talked about incentive and production.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm on Bill.... Mr. Member, do you know what bill we're on right now?

Mr. Speaker, we really shouldn't be discussing this bill today. We

should be waiting until we see the estimates and discuss with ministers

exactly how they intend to spend the tax dollars they're going to have.

Until we've done that we have no way of knowing whether the

implementation of Bill 11 is going to be good or bad. All we have to

date are the bad results. All we know so far is that the government's

restraint program has resulted in B.C. being in worse shape and getting

progressively worse compared to other provinces and the country as a

whole. In almost every way in which progress, or lack of it, might be

measured, the program has been a failure. There can be no question

about that.

Speaking in support of the program, the minister said that

Commissioner Peck's office has had 966 plans submitted to it and that

895 of these are found to have been within the guidelines. Mr. Speaker,

I wonder why the other 71 weren't. If 895 of them were within the

guidelines, why do we need Peck's office? If we're talking about

restraint, why not get rid of that institution, at $400 a day for one

person? Eight hundred and ninety-five were found to be within the

guidelines, including the 50 percent increase to Mr. Heal. Mr. Speaker,

if we needed any question answered about the credibility of that

office, when Peck's office has said that a 50 percent increase to one

person is within the guidelines,

whereas a 5 percent reduction to

someone else is also within the guidelines, can there be anything more

obvious than that the guidelines, item by item, are set not by Mr.

Peck's office but by the cabinet? We don't need the program if 895 of

the plans were within the government's guidelines without the review of

Mr. Peck. Why weren't the others, I wonder? They were outside of the

guidelines, and therefore they had to be rolled back. What were they

doing? They referred them back to the people who had produced them in

the first place and said: "Take another look at it. We don't like it."

It certainly postponed the process, but to what end? I wonder how much

money we really have saved as a result of Mr. Peck's office, and how

much it has cost? That's the question I'd like to put to the Minister

of Finance, and I will when we get to estimates.

I tried to make notes as the minister was speaking. Perhaps they

seem disjointed, but I took them down as he was speaking. He emphasized

this: the paramount consideration

[ Page 1927 ]

of the legislation before us now is ability to pay.

Taxpayers have a limited ability; I grant you that. This government has

taxed to the limit the ability of taxpayers to pay. They taxed it this

year by increasing the sales tax and the rate of taxation on rural

land. They taxed it this year by applying the tax to meals and to

long-distance calls. They taxed it by increasing the user rates for

health fees. They taxed it last year by increasing user rates and

service fees, as I said, by an amount calculated to raise some $500

million or 600 million. So they certainly seem to have been doing

everything they could to go as far as they could to see just how far

taxpayers would go. They've done that. But they haven't worried about

ability to pay when it comes to looking after their own comforts.

I have to come back again to the question during question period about the

entertainment of people in the VIP box. I'm told it cost $60,000 for the

box alone; that has nothing to do with the entertainment costs in addition to

that. The same taxpayers who are saying to the poorest people in the community,

"You're not going to be able to get that $50 a month any more,"

are paying that. The same taxpayers who are saying to people on social assistance,

as the minister has said, that there will be no increase — and I'm not sure

whether that's for a year or for an indefinite time as well.... Those

are the same taxpayers who are paying both bills. The same taxpayers who have

said to the low-income people and the renters: "You're not going to

get your income tax credit any more. As taxpayers you can't afford it. You

can afford what we, the cabinet, want to do. Any largess we want to grant to

ourselves or our friends, you can afford. But we, the cabinet, tell you that

you can't afford to look after the needs of the poorest people in the community.

You can afford only to continue the grandiose projects we have and to keep the

programs going that we like. You can't afford to continue to look after

the poorest people in the community...."

"Fundamental consideration for increases must be greater productivity."

How do you measure that greater productivity? What opportunities are there for

measuring that greater productivity'? I have talked about a few instances,

and I'm sure many of my colleagues will come up with many other examples

where people are being fired without any question at all as to whether they

have been individually productive, whether their program is productive or whether

what the government is doing in total is productive.... I think we have

some measure of that in the outcry from the community about the government's

plans to make certain cutbacks.

What encouragement is there for someone working in the public

service to increase his or her productivity if he knows that at any

time the government may decide that the taxpayers as a whole can't

afford to continue that service? Is that going to encourage

productivity? No warning; all of a sudden there's no job. It would seem

to me that it would increase the desire of people to find employment

elsewhere, outside of B.C., rather than to be more productive at the

job. It seems to me that rather than being more productive, they will

be trying in any way they can to be friends with the people who might

keep them in their job until they can find another. They won't be as

concerned about the quality of the work they're doing as they will

about whether or not they're going to be working at the job tomorrow,

the next day and as long as they need it to sustain their families.

The minister talked about employees in the public sector being more

sheltered, so therefore they should accept a lower increase. There's a

lot of fiction about that. In another debate, I quoted from an American

business publication to show that there's less job security on the

North American continent than in any other western nation. As I say,

that came from an American business magazine. So we don't have job

security on the outside world, that's true. But how much do we really

have in the public sector?

I think I spoke in an earlier debate about a young fellow I met who

has been working for the government for nine years and is still

considered to be a casual. I'm not sure what the term is. It's not

"casual"; it's "ancillary employee." There's absolutely no job security

at all. He could be told tomorrow that his job is at an end, even

without this program. In this case he's still working and, so far as he

knows, is still working. He has no job security, and he's been working

for the government for nine years. He told me of others who had been

there much longer than that. Even for the ones who do have — or are

supposed to have — some sort of job security.... Look at the agreement

reached between the BCGEU and the government. The government could at

any time in negotiation with the employees arrive at a conclusion that

a certain job was no longer going to be done and could then, in

negotiation, in proper communication between the two groups, decide on

an orderly layoff without the shock treatment of the legislation before

us now; without the kind of bill we have before us today. That decision

could be made at any time by negotiation, without anybody getting

upset, without the need for the kind of demonstrations that we've had

in the province and without the need for the kind of demonstrations

that cannot do anything less than have a bad effect upon the economy

and upon the appreciation of what's happening in B.C. In other

jurisdictions. After all, we can't have a demonstration of 20,000

people in Victoria and 40,000 in Vancouver and hope to keep it quiet.

The rest of the world knows what's happening, and the rest of the world

knows that you can't get that many people together for a demonstration

unless there's something seriously wrong in the community.

It's all the result of the attitude of the government as reflected

in Bill 11 before us today. That's what people are reacting against:

job security. The opportunities are there in the agreement; the

opportunities have always been there for there to be proper layoffs if

circumstances warranted, proper negotiation so that there would not be

the kind of response that we've had from the community.

The minister spoke again, and I have to repeat it — he repeated it,

so I'm following the notes I made of his speech.... One of the

fundamentals — the first fundamental — is that the purpose of this

legislation is to recognize the taxpayers' ability to pay. It's not so

much that I want to go on repeating it, but the minister repeated it. I

have to say that it's complete fiction, and he knows it. He knows that

he and the cabinet make the....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you designated?

MR. STUPICH: That's what I'm trying to decide right now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you want me to close?

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Finance is asking whether or not

we would like him to close. We would, yes. Not immediately, but I'll

keep going for a while.

[ Page 1928 ]

Coming back to the question of the ability to pay, the minister kept

referring to this as the fundamental.... It was the first one he spoke

of in each case, and he spoke of it as the fundamental every time he

went over and over the points he made with respect to this legislation.

If we're talking about a Crown corporation such as B.C. Hydro, B.C.

Hydro is controlled by directors appointed by cabinet, and cabinet

ministers sit on that directorate. The ability of B.C. Hydro to meet

wage demands or any kind of demands from employees doesn't depend upon

the ability to pay. It depends upon the cabinet's appreciation of the

ability to pay. Cabinet's decisions as to just how much the increases

should be, if any, or whether there should be a rollback or a cut in

service.

[3:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There are people who are fond of saying that there are far too many

people working in the public sector. There are some who will say that

there are far too many working for B.C. Hydro. That may be true in some

instances. Mr. Speaker, you live in a part of the province where from

time to time you experience the kind of winters that result in power

curtailments. As a matter of fact, that happens all over the province.

In my own constitutuency of Nanaimo, I know the extent to which staff

working for Hydro have already been curtailed. I know that the number

of people who are available to meet emergencies has been cut down

seriously.

Nanaimo is a fairly small constituency compared to some in the

province, and yet there are parts of the Nanaimo constituency where in

the past, before we were subjected to the kind of abuses that are in

the government's program announced this year, power has been off for a

substantial number of people for several days. Gabriola Island, for

example, has had power outages several days long. There are a couple of

thousand people living there.

There are things much more serious than that. But when that power is

cut off, I like to know there is someone at B.C. Hydro ready to go to

work regardless of what the weather conditions are, regardless of their

personal needs and comforts, regardless of whether they're leaving

their Christmas dinners — because that's the time of year when these

storms happen. I'd like to know that there are people there ready to go

to work, capable of going to work and able to do the kind of work

necessary to have that service resumed as quickly as possible. That's

the kind of expectation we have in British Columbia, and we do have the

ability to pay to meet emergencies like that.

There may be some opportunities for cutting back in head office.

People are often fond of looking at head office and saying that there

are too many people running around there, because they're so visible. I

just don't know whether that's true or not. I do know that when it

comes to working out in the other parts of the province — when it comes

to working in other communities — there should be no cutbacks in the

size of those crews who are ready to meet emergencies. That's just one

example — B.C. Hydro itself. As I say, when the minister talks about

ability to pay, he knows that the decision as to whether or not B.C.

Hydro has the ability to pay is a decision of cabinet —

cabinet-appointed directors or cabinet directly. For him to say that

Mr. Peck has no right to look into the question of whether or not B.C.

Hydro has the ability to pay is right. It doesn't make any difference,

because the decision about the ability to pay with respect with B.C.

Hydro is made by cabinet.

B.C. Rail. Who makes the decisions there? B.C. Rail is a Crown

corporation that is subsidized annually by the taxpayers of British

Columbia. No question is put to the taxpayers as to whether or not they

can afford the $70 million payment for interest that was made last year

so that railroad could keep on going. I'm not suggesting for one moment

that we would stop that railroad. Indeed, we kept it going while we

were in office. We kept the Dease Lake extension going while we were in

office. That was stopped by the present administration. The present

administration threatened to cut off Fort Nelson, but backed down

because of the protests. Ability to pay? If B.C. Rail depended upon its

own ability to pay, everyone working for B.C. Rail would be laid off.

It's cabinet that makes the decision. Cabinet makes the decision that

we must have that rail service in British Columbia. I agree with that

decision. It's cabinet that decides how much money B.C. Rail will have,

apart from its operating revenues — how much of a subsidy will be paid,

how much they'll be allowed to go in debt. It's cabinet that borrows

the money that keeps B.C. Rail going. It's cabinet that makes the

decisions about what expansions there shall be in the B.C. Rail

service. It's cabinet that makes the decision as to just how much money

should be available to meet operating expenses, including salaries and

wages. The directors are appointed by cabinet. For the Minister of

Finance to say that the fundamental question in the event that B.C.

Rail employees start negotiating — in the event that there is any

negotiating at all, meaningful or otherwise.... For him to say that the

decision about whether or not B.C. Rail employees will get an increase

depends upon the ability of B.C. Rail to pay is simply rubbish. The

ability to pay is a determination that is made by the Minister of

Finance with his colleagues. It's not made by anyone else.

There's a very essential service in this province that is not a

Crown corporation. However, as an Islander, I suppose I would look on

the B.C. Ferry Corporation as providing a more essential service, but

economically perhaps that's not the case. But the B.C. Ferries service

really is an essential service. The mainland needs it. They need to

have that communication with Vancouver Island. There are some Islanders

who would like to have some communication with the mainland as well.

It's much more important for mainlanders to be able to get to the

Island. But what about the ability to pay? Who appoints the Crown

corporation directors? Who appoints the manager? Who makes the real

decisions as to whether or not B.C. Ferry Corporation will be able to

pay? Who made the decision that three B.C. ferries should be sold in

1976 in order to finance some other government spending program? The

government made that decision. Cabinet made the decision. It was

supported in the House; they had a majority. The government,

cabinet-inspired, made the decision to sell three new B.C. ferries. If

that kind of decision is made by cabinet, can the minister really stand

up and tell us that when it comes to paying a salary to someone working

in the kitchen on the B.C. Ferries, that is going to decided by someone

else — going to be decided by the people who are paying the fares, the

taxpayers? What garbage! B.C. Ferry Corporation's ability to pay is a

decision that is made by the Minister of Finance and his cabinet

colleagues and nobody else.

People working in this building. Who's going to decide whether or

not the government has the ability to pay them? Does the minister

pretend that the taxpayers are going to have a vote on that? That

whether or not the people working in the

[ Page 1929 ]

building on 24-hour shifts — not individually 24

hours at one time — are going to be paid will be put to the taxpayers?

That if the amount of sales tax revenue coming in from the sales tax

recently applied to meals is up, then the people working in the

buildings are going to get paid, and if it's down, they're not? If the

minister seriously thought that ability to pay is something that we

should be considering in detail, then the minister should be coming

before us with his estimates and with the estimates of every other

minister and answering our questions, leading a discussion, showing us

how they intend to spend the money that is being voted for them. Then,

perhaps, we would have some better idea as to whether any particular

ministry had the ability to pay or didn't have the ability to pay. Once

we've voted the money, then we have some measure of that ministry's

ability to pay. Until we can look at their spending programs, we have

no measure at all. The only one that has any measure is cabinet. The

Minister of Finance and his cabinet colleagues are the only ones who

have any measure at all as to whether or not anyone working directly in

the government service is going to have his salary or his promotion or

anything else influenced by the ability of taxpayers to pay.

The minister mentioned again, among his "fundamentals," the

indefinite extension. I have to say again that all he is saying, when

he tells us that the program is going to be continued indefinitely, is

that so far it has failed, and it's going to be necessary for us to

keep it going indefinitely. It's not working; it's not improving the

economy in the province of British Columbia; and surely, Mr. Speaker,

that was the name of the game.

When the Premier introduced this program in February of 1982, he

said that it was necessary for the economic survival of British

Columbia, or at least for economic improvement. I don't think he raised

the question of survival or non-survival. But he did say that for the

sake of economic improvement in the province it was necessary to impose

these controls for a relatively short period, and that because of the

effect of these controls, it would soon be possible to remove the

restrictions of the compensation stabilization program.

There was no indication then that we would come to the day when we

would not only be limited to the increases he suggested then.... And

you remember, Mr. Speaker, that we were talking about increases as high

as 12 percent. That was in February of 1982. Things were bad then, so

we had to make sure that in no situation would there be any increase to

any public sector employee of more than 12 percent. Well, we now come

to the point where some people may experience a decrease of as much as

5 percent. Is there any way of describing the program other than to say

that it must be a failure if some 17 months after the program has been

talked about and later instituted, things are so bad that, rather than

talk about an increase of as much as 12 percent, we're saying that in

some instances there must be a decrease of as much as 5 percent?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure to introduce a guest in the gallery today, Mr. Stan Rogers.

Mr. Rogers is an owner of the Rogers flour mill in Armstrong. I might

say that it's the only flour mill in the province of British Columbia,

and I can assure you that Mr. Rogers certainly knows a lot about the

subject at hand today — the ability to pay. Would you please make Mr.

Rogers welcome.

MR. STUPICH: The government recognizes that its program is

failing in other ways. One of the ways in which they've recognized the

failure of their program is by admitting that the public really doesn't

understand what they're trying to achieve, by admitting that it's

necessary for a cabinet minister to travel around the province trying

to explain to people why they are treating the poorest people in our

community in the way they are and why it is necessary to cut back on

income tax credits and social assistance payments, and increase health

user fees. So they're setting out on a program to sell restraint

programs.

I'm looking now at a photocopy of a story from the Province ,

dated Sunday, August 21: "Victoria to 'Sell' Restraint Plans." It

reminds me of another example of restraint, Mr. Speaker. Did anyone ask

the taxpayers of British Columbia whether they had the ability to pay

for the million-dollar plus campaign to advertise the weatherman in the

spring of this year, for several months before the election was called?

Where did ability to pay come into that question? Who made the decision

as to whether or not the taxpayers had the ability to pay for that snow

job? That's what it was: a program to try to tell everyone in the

province how great things were in B.C. In spite of everything they

could see going on around them, in spite of the increases in

bankruptcies, the cost of living and unemployment. We were all told:

"Isn't it great to be living in B.C." And apparently the electorate

bought it. The government didn't tell the electorate what it planned to

do the moment the election was over, and now that the election is over

and they have revealed their program — given us the details — they

recognize that the public they spoke to before the election campaign,

from whom they withheld all these plans, doesn't really understand why

the government finds it necessary to act in the way that it is today.

So the cabinet is going out to explain. Cabinet ministers and MLAs will

soon be sweeping through B.C. preaching the gospel of restraint.

Mr. Speaker, everyone recognizes the political need for a restraint

program right now. Is there any economic justification for cutting back

on the poorest people in the community in the name of restraint? If

you're going to cut back, how about some of the higher echelons? How

about making sure that some of the people who are not paying income tax

on large salaries, or are paying the very minimum, should be

contributing more? Look at the bank profits these days. We used to be

told that the banks make more profit when interest rates are going up

because they've got fairly long-term investments at lower interest

rates and are able to lend it out on higher...and it's only when

interest rates are going up that they maximize their profits. Well,

interest rates have remained fairly steady in the past year, Mr.

Speaker — and perhaps you've seen the articles that I have about the

very large increases in bank profits. What about getting some more

money from people like that instead of taking it out of the poorest

people in the community?

[3:45]

"Premier Bill Bennett told the Province

that he will play a pivotal role in getting his government's message

out. That includes a 'good possibility' of a provincewide television

speech, he said in his first interview here" — in Victoria — "since the

budget was brought down." There's something in

[ Page 1930 ]

that itself, Mr. Speaker. The budget came down on

July 7, and the Premier gave the press the first opportunity to ask him

questions about it on August 21. He couldn't have been terribly

interested in the budget that came down or in his own program, or

perhaps he hoped that it would get through very quickly before anybody

noticed what was happening.

"He admitted his government has done a poor job in selling the package."

Well, it's a pretty hard package to sell, isn't it? It's a package

that doesn't stand up to any examination when you look at the figures —

and I feel some freedom in talking about this, since the government has not

given us any opportunity to discuss estimates. It predicts a deficit of $1.6

billion, and in my opinion and in the opinion of others from outside this House

who have looked at it, the government is seriously overstating the amount of

the deficit. That makes it very hard to sell the program.

When it's apparent to everyone who looks at it — that is, everyone

who does not wear the blue or whatever colour of glasses the Social

Crediters wear when they look at the budget — that the government has

thoroughly underestimated its revenue and overestimated its

expenditures, and when it would appear the restraint program is going

to have no influence on government expenditures other than to have them

increase at just about double or triple the rate of inflation, where's

the restraint? That's why I say that if we had some opportunity to

question the ministers during the process of estimates, we would know

just how this restraint program is working and how it's being applied

in each ministry. We're not having that opportunity. So we're dealing

with Bill 11 today in somewhat of a vacuum, not really understanding

what the government has in mind — not really having had an opportunity

to question each cabinet minister about the restraint within his or her

ministry.

In any case, the government is going to try to sell a program that

up to now, it believes, has not been well sold. "'Yes, we got caught on

style,' he said. 'It's not because we're clumsy, but because we were

anxious to get on with the job.'" Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, anxious

that the electorate not find out about it before May 5 and anxious to

get on with it as soon as they were safely re-elected; clumsy because

they felt that if they brought everything in on the one day — the

budget and 26 pieces of legislation — and dumped all of it on the

public at once, it would go through before anyone really had an

opportunity to find out what it was doing to them. Well, Mr. Speaker,

it didn't work. I wouldn't accuse them of clumsiness, because certainly

during the pre-election campaign that went on for several months — a

campaign that was financed by these taxpayers, who never had an

opportunity to say whether or not they had the ability for this grand

program — they didn't show any clumsiness. I think it's just a program

that can't be sold on the face of the evidence that we have seen so far.

"The government will also launch a major advertising campaign on

television, radio and in print, promoting its package." Where's the

approval for that program and what are the details of it? Many people

have tried to find out. Bill 11 talks about restraint, and we're all

told about the need for restraint. The government is going to embark on

a massive advertising program to tell us the details of that restraint

— why it's necessary and how it's going to work. Where's the money

going to come from? Are they really going to ask the voters: "Do you

have the ability to pay for this program?" Are they going to ask them:

"Do you really want to pay for a program to tell you what we're doing

to you?" That question won't be put to the taxpayers and they won't be

asked: "Do you have the ability to pay?" They're told, collectively,

that they don't have the ability to pay an extra $50 to the poorest

people in the community; the government is making that decision for

them. And when they say that they have a mandate to do that, they

certainly never said during the election campaign that that was going

to be one of their first acts. That was never threatened or promised or

mentioned.

Going on with this quotation: "'I think there's a legitimate reason

to sell government programs in a matter as important as this.'" What

reason could there be for telling people that there isn't enough money

in the budget to continue programs such as the Human Rights Commission?

If it's something that has to be done in the name of restraint and if

it's felt that human rights are no longer important enough to pay for,

even at the cost of — and I believe it was the hon. member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) who said three postage stamps per day per capita would

cover the complete cost of the program.... If it's necessary to cut

back that far, how much money is going to be spent advertising the need

for that cutback? Before that program is embarked upon, we should see

the estimates and have some opportunity to discuss with the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), or whatever minister is going to have

charge of that program, how much is going to be spent on it, whether or

not it is a legitimate expense, and whether or not the taxpayers have

the ability — and willingness — to pay for it.

"And, he added, he doesn't think he'll be criticized for spending

public funds on the ads." Well, he seems to have the idea that whatever

he does or his cabinet ministers do when they're entertaining themselves

and others is okay. The taxpayers have lots of money for that. There's no

question about their ability to pay for such programs. The question about ability

to pay only comes up when we're looking after....

I'm trying to catch him; that's why I keep hesitating. When I stop

for a moment, then you speak, and then I'll hear it, and then I can

perhaps comment. Mr. Speaker, this is going on between me and the hon.

member from somewhere or other who wants to speak from his seat.

All of the government members seems to like.... It appears to me as

though the orders have come down that you are not to take up the time

of the debate; you are not to lengthen the sitting in any way. Any time

you want to speak, you do it on a point of order or you do it from your

seat, and then it's okay. But don't dare get up and speak on the debate

itself. Don't dare stand up and say that you believe in what is

happening, because we are going to do that by spending a lot of money

advertising. The Premier has said: "We are going to go out into the

community, and we're going to spend money advertising and telling

people what a great job we're doing." So there is no need to waste your

time in the House.

Don't take up time in the session talking about the program. Let's

wait until the cabinet ministers travel the province. They'll tell the

people out there what we're doing and why we're doing it. They won't be

faced with any embarrassing questions such as might be asked by the

opposition in the House. Don't speak in the House, because what you say

in the House might be responded to by someone who knows something about

it. It is safe to go out into the community where you're speaking to

people. It is safe to go out into the community on an advertising

program where there is no opportunity for anyone to respond. So save

your comments till you get out of here. Leave it to the cabinet

ministers if we are going to talk about something like Bill 11

[ Page 1931 ]

and the need to exercise restraint in the way that is suggested to us in Bill 11.

"Bennett said that despite opposition his vision will continue to unfold."

I have to laugh when I saw that. I wonder what his vision is. Is his vision

of B.C. a province where all decisions will be made in the cabinet room? Bill

11 takes all decisions about payment of public sector employees into the cabinet

room, and other legislation before us went in the same direction. Is that his

vision of the way the country should work? Is that his vision of the way B.C.

should work — that all decisions about public sector working conditions and

remuneration, benefit plans, and all of that should be made not by the boards

of directors of the various corporations but rather by cabinet? Is his vision

of British Columbia a place in which the school boards will no longer have any

real authority but the decisions will be made, as we are told in Bill 11, by

cabinet? Not directly sometimes; they'll let Peck be the mouthpiece, but

cabinet will make decisions. Is that his vision of British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker, it's not a vision that I like to consider. It is not a

vision, I'm sure, that you would like to consider. It is a vision, if

it exists, in the mind of one person only. "It started a year ago

February, and in about a year from now, he promised, it will culminate

with government members flying around the world selling B.C. as a lean

machine in control of public spending and taxes." We've seen some of

that already. Fortunately for all of us the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is flying around the

world now telling somebody something about us. It is a much better

House without him, so I'm pleased that that one particular minister is

flying around the world. But I wonder what he is saying. We've heard

nothing about it, and perhaps we are just as far ahead not having heard

anything about it.

How lean a machine are we? Inflation is expected to be in the

neighbourhood of 6 percent this year. Government expenditures,

according to the estimates, are going to go up by 12 percent; 16

percent if you look at the estimates that were presented in the House,

but 12 percent if you look at the revised estimates. That's a lean

machine? I don't know of another government that has increased its

spending estimates in 1983-84 over 1982-83 by as much as 16 percent.

Yet the ministers are going to go all around the world telling

everybody what a lean machine we're running here in B.C.

MR. HOWARD: It's a mean machine.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, it's a mean machine. I thank the hon.

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It's not lean, but it is indeed a mean

machine. That's the vision that the Premier has of British Columbia —

that it shall be a mean machine running the province, rather than a

lean one.

"In control of public spending and taxes" — certainly they're

in control of public spending. They make the decisions about attending VIP lounges

at the B.C. Place stadium; they make the decisions about spending money on northeast

coal, they make the decisions about spending more money on B.C. Rail. They do

make all those decisions. Cabinet makes them. Taxes — they make those decisions.

Cabinet made the decision to increase the sales tax and to increase its application

in other areas. Cabinet makes those decisions. Cabinet made the decision to

increase the health user fees. A lean machine? It's a mean machine, Mr.

Speaker.

"That in turn will lure industry, jobs and prosperity from

places too weak to stop the growth of government.... " Well,

Mr. Speaker, I spent a lot of time being interviewed by the publisher

of one of the papers in my riding. One of the concerns he had was that

if the NDP were elected as the government in the province of British

Columbia, industry that was considering establishing in B.C. would be

frightened away and wouldn't come in. I've had an opportunity to talk

to him a bit since then, and he has made up a list of his own of

industry that was talking about coming into the province before the

election and has since decided not to come. He's also aware that since

the budget and the package of 26 pieces of legislation came down, our

credit rating has been downgraded in New York. It was only when people

who the cabinet are going to be flying around to talk to saw what was

really happening in B.C. that our credit rating was downgraded. And

that's supposed to lure industry.

The international appreciation of what's happening in B.C. is proof

enough of what's happening in B.C. and is proof in itself that the

program isn't working. There's no new industry coming to the province;

indeed, industry is still leaving the province. We're not getting new

jobs. Unemployment is still increasing. If we had prosperity, we

wouldn't be discussing the legislation that we are today. There would

be no need for cabinet to take complete control of all working

conditions in the public sector. There would be no need for legislation

stating that it's going to be necessary for the government to maintain

this control indefinitely. If the program were working, we could have a

cutoff date, an earlier date than was originally settled upon. Instead

of that we find it necessary to say that this program will go on

indefinitely.

"Bennett said he's getting strong support from the 'silent

majority,' and the issue of cutbacks in the public service 'never

became a problem until people decided to make it a political problem.'"

Mr. Speaker, it's the government that made it a political problem. The

government broke its promises. I don't know how often I have to say

that to try to get through to some of the members on the back bench.

The government did indeed break its promises, and I challenge any one

of them to stand up and say otherwise.

When the Premier himself intervened, interfered, got involved in the

discussions between the BCGEU and the employers' representatives, and

made certain promises to the BCGEU representatives, they took those

promises back to their members and got support for them. That's what

happened. The Premier interfered and made promises that he apparently

never had any intention of keeping. He made promises during the

election campaign that there would be no mass firings, and broke those

promises as well. He has strong support from the silent majority — like

the 40,000 who got together in Vancouver and the 25,000 who came to

Victoria to protest. The silent majority? Where is that silent

majority, Mr. Speaker? We've seen no evidence of them saying: "Yes, we

like what you're doing." We've seen lots of evidence, not just from

large numbers of people here in the province, but from letters that

have been written — letters that the Premier, in some cases, hasn't

bothered responding to; other letters and telegrams that we've

received. There is a great deal of evidence to the effect that the

majority do not support the way in which restraint is being implemented

in the province of British Columbia.

[4:00]

"Bennett called harsh words such as 'jackboot' and 'Hitler-like'

from organized labour 'highly offensive to me. I take a lot of personal

insult from those paid ads by the B.C. Federation of Labour'" Well,

there are a lot of people who

[ Page 1932 ]

took offence at paid ads prior to the election

campaign. I kept hearing about those ads every time I spoke. I

travelled around different parts of the province and on every occasion

people resented the fact that their hard-earned tax dollars were being

used to finance the weather man in election ads. The Premier takes

offence and I take offence, Mr. Speaker. Many people in the community

take offence at many of the actions of this government. If the

government does follow its plans to start another advertising campaign

to tell the people of the province what a great job they're doing, when

all the evidence is to the contrary, then I think people are going to

take offence again, and with good reason.

"Bennett said the government has hired outside consultants to help smooth

out the tough job of layoffs, and said 'it's possible' the most

controversial of the government's new legislation will be changed."

I suppose we have to wait for that. It's possible. There may be some changes.

A couple of words were removed from one bill that made no difference to the

legislation. The effect of it will be just as bad as it was before those words

were removed. What else can we look forward to? What other changes? We don't

know. We're really starting at the back end of things. Before we start talking

about things like this, about the effects of these restraint programs, and before

we get into the details, we should really be looking at the estimated expenditures.

"That will depend on the type of consultation the government gets from

outside groups. 'We're working on amendments ourselves on some of the

bills ourselves,' he said. He wouldn't disclose specifics." That's

something like the regulations that were promised us in the middle of August.

We're now past the middle of September.

In the Times-Colonist of Saturday, August 20, the headline

was: "Restraint Part of Problem, not Solution." The legislation before

us now is part of the problem in British Columbia. It's no solution. By

being provocative, it's part of the problem. By threatening to take

away all prospects of any kind of negotiation, it's part of the

problem. By saying that things are so bad that it's going to continue

indefinitely is adding to the problem. By saying that compensation in

the public sector for some 300,000 people, less the 25 percent who are

going to be laid off, which brings it down to 237,500.... Saying to all

of those people that this is what's going to happen to them is creating

a problem; it is creating a lack of confidence that is, indeed, a part

of the problem.

"Incomes are being squeezed and there are 'worrisome'

signs that could choke off economic recovery, a Statistics Canada report to

be released next week warns." Incomes in B.C. are indeed being restrained,

Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately it is the lowest-paid people who are being restrained

the most. Those are the ones who would spend the money in their communities

if they were being paid. I can appreciate the need for private employers to

exercise that kind of restraint, but government has a responsibility and an

opportunity to look after the poorer people in its employ and the poorer people

that it is serving.

To restrain the incomes of people such as that is working contrary

to the interests of the total community, because by paying money to

people on social assistance, you improve economic conditions in the

province. You get the money circulating; you increase confidence. Above

all, Mr. Speaker — and the Premier has said this on occasion.... That's

why he is going to embark on his massive education program —

advertising campaign — because it is necessary to make people think

that things are better. Giving money to the poorest people in the

community who are going to spend it living in their communities would

work toward greater economic opportunities in every one of those

communities. That would be the way to go if the Premier wanted to

establish a solution. The kind of restraint he is imposing is part of

the problem, not of the solution.

This

article goes on: "Federal and provincial restraint programs

appear to be part of the problem and not part of the solution. Little

or no growth in wages and salaries and continuing high unemployment

were depressing consumer spending, Philip Cross, chief of Statistics

Canada's current economic analysis section, said Friday." It is bound

to. After all, if we are going to increase economic opportunities in

our province or in our country, we have to get the wheels going. People

aren't going to be able to buy unless they have the money to buy.

People aren't going to spend even if they have the money, unless they

know there is another dollar coming in. So when you threaten 300,000

public sector employees with mass layoffs, you are saying to all

300,000 of them: "You, individually, may be out of a job tomorrow. So

whatever you do, don't spend any money. If you are getting any, hang

onto it. Save it. Hoard it, because tomorrow you may be out of work."

What does that do to retail spending in our province?

I have a friend who is an automobile salesman, and he works at it on

and off, depending upon economic conditions. Up until July 7 he was

working and doing quite well. He kept his job for a week after July 7,

and then gave it up because nobody was buying automobiles after that

date. I don't know what's happened since.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sales are going up.

MR. STUPICH: The member over there says sales are going up.

He'll have an opportunity to stand up.... No, I'm sorry, not to stand

up. He's been told he can't stand, but he can say from his seat later

on what evidence he has for sales going up. I'm simply reporting one

example in my own community where a top salesman, who was doing quite

well until July 7, gave up his job shortly afterward because there just

were no more sales after the sales tax increase was implemented. You

will remember, Mr. Speaker, that it wasn't just a one-point increase

with respect to automobiles. It depended on the size of the automobile.

In some instances it was substantially more than a one-point increase.

So that is one example. The member says sales have gone up since. Well,

I would like to see some figures on that. I have yet to see them.

"'It's all adding up,' said Cross. Disposable incomes were

not rising to match economic growth in other areas and that would definitely

hurt the durability of the recovery. There were already signs that consumer

spending slowed in the second quarter compared to the first quarter of this

year and the final quarter of last year, Cross said." I would like to see

some figures for B.C. I would think that those figures would show an even worse

situation in the province of British Columbia than in any other province as

a direct result of the July 7 budget, the 26 pieces of legislation and bills

such as Bill 11, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, which promises

to make things worse for 300,000 people, rather than to make them better for

anyone.

[ Page 1933 ]

"Economists agreed that greater consumer spending was essential to a

strong recovery." We can't have greater consumer spending if we say to

the B.C. Government Employees' Union: "Many of you are going to be laid

off, and the ones who are currently working may experience a decrease

in salary." If we say to the people receiving social assistance: "Some

of you are going to experience a decrease of $50 a month, others can

look forward to no increase...." If we are saying to low-income people,

"Your income tax credits are gone," you don't get greater consumer

spending, because in saying things like that you are influencing not

only the people directly involved but everybody with whom they come in

contact. So it is bound to have a tremendously bad effect upon consumer

spending, and as this author says: "Economists agreed that greater

consumer spending was essential to a strong recovery." The government,

in its budget and 26 attendant pieces of legislation, couldn't have

done anything worse than what it did if it had in mind true recovery in

the province of British Columbia.

Going on with this article, the economists said that such consumer

spending accounted for two-thirds of the country's gross national

product. Two-thirds of the gross national product is dependent upon

consumer spending, so the government of British Columbia says: "We are

going to cut that out." The other one-third may carry on but we are

going to make sure that two-thirds of the country's gross national

product is adversely affected by making sure that some 300,000 people

know they are going to get hit. Not just the 300,000, who are public

sector employees; a lot of other people who have been receiving some

help from government are also going to be affected.

"Cross said there was no reason to expect a strong boost in consumer spending

unless there were significant increases in wages or employment, and that didn't

appear to be in the cards." Of course, we know there is to be no increase

in B.C. We know that in some cases there will be a decrease of 5 percent, and

we know that in all cases the decisions for those 300,000 people are going

to be centralized, made in cabinet. "Labour income as a whole grew by only

3 percent between April 1982 and April 1983, while during the same period inflation

was twice that rate, 6.6 percent." At this point we don't know what

it is going to be in 1983-84. We know there is still some inflation, but we

have no idea just how much that will be; yet we have said to so many people

in our community that they will have to get by on less. We haven't told

them how they are going to get by on less. We haven't done anything at all

to control inflation; we have simply said: "It is up to you, the people

whom we can control, the poorest people, to make our program work."

"That meant consumers had even less money to spend

last April than in the depths of the recession last year. In part, that

was due to the fact that increases in earnings slowed to a virtual

standstill, encouraged by federal and provincial wage restraint

pressures and programs."

Other pressures and programs were announced by

other governments and by the federal government, but nowhere in Canada

were they the kind of programs announced here in the province of

British Columbia; certainly nothing to compare with the July 7, 1983,

budget and the attendant 26 pieces of legislation.

"And Finance Minister Marc Lalonde has recently

stepped up Ottawa's restraint program, warning that unacceptable wage

increases will lead to renewed inflation and an end to economic

recovery.

"Cross said there had been only very weak increases in employment."

Certainly none at all in B.C.

MS. SANFORD: On a point of order, I am quite concerned that

while the member for Nanaimo is making such excellent points, the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has been absent for some period

of time during this member's debate. I wonder if we could have a recess

until the minister can be found. There is no one else on the cabinet

benches to take any notes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member. I also note that the Minister of Finance is in the chamber.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, here he comes.

MR. STUPICH: I can appreciate that the Minister of Finance

does have some continuing responsibilities that are bound to take him

out of the chamber from time to time. However, he still has a job other

than that of MLA — which is to represent this ministry in the House.

I did say earlier, during the course of my remarks, that if

restraint has to be exercised, there are others in the community who

could better afford to do so than the ones being hit by legislation

such as Bill 11. There was an

article in the Vancouver Sun ,

August 19, headed: "Rich Should Pay the Restraint Tab, Bishop

Suggests." I talked earlier about the banks, but there are others. "The

rich and powerful should pay for the Social Credit government's

program, not the poor and weak, says Bishop Remi de Roo." Of course,

the weak are relatively defenceless, so it is easy to pick on them. The

poor are relatively defenceless, so it is easy to pick on them. The

rich have a bit more influence. You will remember the talk during the

election campaign about the committee.... Was it $30,000 a year they

gave to the Social Credit Party so they would have the ear of the

Premier? Some kind of a club like that. They have influence, Mr.

Speaker; we can't pick on them. The people on social assistance don't

have that kind of influence, so they can be picked upon.

[4:15]

"The Roman Catholic bishop of Victoria was responding

to accusations by Premier Bill Bennett that he criticized the

government's restraint program because he distrusts the private sector

and disagrees with the concept of profits.

"Nobody argues with the need for restraint, de Roo

said in an interview Thursday, but critics of his recent remarks are

missing his point: who should pay for the program.

"De Roo is chairman of a commission of the Canadian

Council of Catholic Bishops, which released a controversial statement

last December calling on the federal government to recognize its moral

obligations when setting economic policy."

I don't know why this

article calls it a controversial statement.

What can be controversial about that? Surely we should all recognize

the responsibility of every level of government to recognize that it

has moral obligations when

[ Page 1934 ]

setting economic policy. The government, in

bringing in legislation such as Bill 11, in saying to its 300,000

public sector employees that it is going to control their wages — and

may in some cases reduce them — has a responsibility to those people.

It has a responsibility to the total community, because frightening

those people affects the whole community. It does have a responsibility

to the people directly affected, as well as to the total community.

"De Roo said Monday that the Socred's legislative package hurts people and contains a structural disorder that is evil."

Legislation that hurts people who are relatively

defenceless is bad legislation. Many of the people under the control of

Bill 11 are unable to do anything at all about it, especially when they

negotiate, through their representatives, agreements with the

government, which that government then proceeds to ignore.

"Bennett replied that de Roo should come up with

concrete proposals on how to produce income and wealth, instead of

criticizing government."

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I'd like to announce to the chamber that a fellow Commonwealth country has just won the America's Cup.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. That was announced in the House about an hour ago.

MR. STUPICH: It's good news anyway.

"But de Roo said Thursday, 'the problem lies not with spending in

itself, but what it is spent for, and who benefits from the spending.'"

Again we have questions about spending, questions that to this point we have

had no opportunity to raise. I believe that has to be the root of my argument.

Until we can look at the expenditure program in detail, and at the estimates

of the various ministries, we have no appreciation of the way in which this

program is going to work.

I don't believe in restraint for the sake of restraint alone. I'd

like to have some details. I'd like to know how this is going to be

implemented, ministry by ministry. I'd like to know what the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has in mind when we talk about

restraint in that particular ministry. What kind of services are going

to be cut? What kind of child-care programs are going to be abandoned

in the name of restraint? Without asking the taxpayers whether or not

they want to continue the operation of such services as rape relief

centres, without asking them if they can afford to continue paying for

that, is that program going to be amended or dropped? We should have

the answers to questions such as how this restraint program is going to

be implemented, ministry by ministry, before we write, in effect, a

blank cheque, and say to the government: "Go ahead; do whatever you

want. We don't really care. When the time comes we'll find out some of

the details. We'll find out what we agreed to. We'll find out sometime

later the effect of what we voted on previously." We should be finding

that out ahead of time. As the bishop said, what we spend the money on,

and how we spend it, should be our main concern. Or, in his words: "The

problem lies not with spending in itself, but what it is spent for, and

who benefits from the spending."

When the poorer people in the community are given larger allowances

and when they get tax credits.... In my constituency I talked to a

group of students who met me by appointment during the election

campaign, and then after.

Their concern was about the tax credit they had expected to get, and

that they hoped would help them pay their tuition fees to go on

attending Malaspina College. Those people were being seriously affected

by the restraint program. It's what we spend the money on that counts.

Nobody is against restraint. The heart of the issue is who is going to

pay for the restraint program, the poor or the rich? The bishop answers

this by asking the next question: "The weak or the powerful?" As this

government sees it, the weak are going to pay. The powerful are not

going to be touched.

"De Roo said his views are traditional church teaching,

not political ideology as Bennett claims. At no time have any church leaders

I know ever said that profits are not correct or acceptable or legitimate —

in fact, the social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and most Christian

bodies have, over the last century or so, been insistent on the right to private

property and private profit. 'The thing that is frequently forgotten is

that the capacity or power to make a profit has social obligations attached

to it.'"

Where the social obligation is not accepted by those people who have the ability,

authority and opportunity to practise it, then government has to interfere —

not on the side of the powerful but on the side of the powerless, the side of

the people who need that kind of assistance.

"A restraint warning for Bennett and a pat on the back." Times-Colonist

of August 9: "Think Again, Lawyers Urge Premier." Wherever you turn,

publication after publication is attacking the government's restraint

program, the budget and the legislation, saying it was the wrong thing

to do, the wrong time to impose tax increases, the wrong time to impose

tax cutbacks on levels of government service. The wrong time to cut out

services for the needy.

"A group of 25 Victoria lawyers wants the provincial government to

reconsider its restraint legislation. The lawyers are alarmed at what

they said is an attack on individual and community rights." That's not

directly connected with Bill 11, so I won't go any further with that.

Of course the lawyers are concerned with that aspect of the program, as

opposed to some of the economic aspects.

One of the problems — we'll get around to it when we get to

estimates, I'm sure — is that the ministry which proposes to get a

greater increase, in terms of dollars, than any other ministry is the

Ministry of Human Resources, because they anticipate that there are

going to be more people on welfare. You can't threaten to lay off 25

percent of some 300,000 people and not expect that there will be many

more people receiving social assistance. It takes time to work through

the system, but eventually they'll be on social assistance. What are

those people going to do to increase consumer spending? What are they

going to do to the people with whom they come in contact? All of those

people are going to be completely without confidence with respect to

the future, and confidence is the thing we need above all else.

"Restraint's Truth Clear in Six Months." This

article is by Stephen

Hume. There's a picture here of a fellow by the name of Walker. "The

B.C. government's restraint program has launched the province on a revolution

marked by bold political courage, Michael Walker, director of the Fraser Institute,

said Friday. 'After six months or a year, when people see the world hasn't

come to an end, the changes will be seen as pathbreaking and incisive,'

Walker said in an interview." I wonder where he's been since February

1982. He says in six months or a year everything is going to be great because

[ Page 1935 ]

this program being implemented in July 1983. By

that time the program had been in effect for some 16 months already. Is

he not aware of this? Does he not know what's happening in the

province? Does he not know that since that program came into effect

B.C. got relatively worse, compared with the other provinces? Does he

not know that since the budget and pieces of legislation came down and

have been discussed, the more people became aware of them the more

discouraged they became, and the less confidence they had? Does he not

know that very soon after the introduction of that budget and the

attendant pieces of legislation, B.C.'s credit rating was downgraded?

What does he expect to happen in the next six months to change all

that? Everything we have seen would indicate the picture in B.C. is

getting worse as a result of what this government has done, starting in

February 1982, and yet this guru, who supports the present

administration, tells us that things are going to get better.

In the Times-Colonist of August 20 the headline is: "Dean Labels Socred Restraints Penny-Wise and Pound Foolish."

"The Social Credit program is 'penny-wise and

pound-foolish,' and could cost taxpayers more in the long run, says a

University of Victoria professor. Brian Wharf, dean of the university's

faculty of human and social development, said cutbacks to social

services announced so far have focused primarily on preventive programs

such as family counselling and juvenile diversion centres. Without

these support programs the stress and uncertainty of economic hardship

could lead to neglect or abuse of children, and then to court action

and foster care far costlier than the services being chopped."

That message should be listened to by the

government. They should be looking at some of the services they're

cutting not just the social services mentioned in this article.

I've spoken about this previously and I'd like to do it again. I

can't think of any time when it's more important to provide more

educational opportunities than in times such as we're going through

now. This is when they're needed. This is when we should be providing

more opportunities for people to upgrade themselves, and more

opportunities for people to simply exercise their minds. This is the

time it should be done; otherwise it will be much more expensive in the

long run. This is the time when the colleges have room to teach people

new skills, and when the economy does improve we will need those

skills. I remember reading stories about the northeast coal, and that

when that coal came on stream we would have to import miners, because

we just don't have people trained to do that kind of work. We're short

of trained, skilled work. We should be training them now. They are

unemployed, ready, anxious, able and willing. Everything is there

except the training facility itself, and the budgets for all of these

facilities have been cut back. That is being penny wise and pound

foolish.

Going back to this particular article:

"'It might be seen as penny-wise, pound-foolish

philosophy,' said Wharf, whose faculty includes the schools of social

work, nursing, child care, public administration and health services.

'It doesn't seem to be in any way, shape or form a reasoned set of

cuts. They have been in preventive programs, which in the long run

appear to be effective from both a cost and a human point of view.'"

It is cheaper to look after people in the way in

which we have been looking after them with the various services the

government is talking about cutting out. Cheaper in the long run.

I started out my remarks earlier in the afternoon by talking about

Tranquille, and in my mind and from what I have seen, that is the most

economic way of looking after people like that. It's not only cheaper

from an economic point of view but the best way from the point of view

of the people going through the system. It's pound-foolish to change

programs like that. It saves very little money but there is a

tremendous cost in terms of the human experience.

"Wharf said the family support worker program, eliminated in a

torrent of cutbacks in the Ministry of Human Resources that resulted in

599 employees being fired, provided crucial counselling that often

prevented child neglect or abuse." How can we measure the cost of child

neglect and child abuse? Some 599 employees have been laid off, and we

haven't had an opportunity to discuss with the minister the effect on

individuals, and I am sure every one of us in the House could stand up

and talk about the way that program has served the needs of people in

our own constituencies. Yet it has been chopped, we are told, on the

basis of ability to pay. The electorate were not asked during the

election campaign: "Do you believe in firing 599 employees who have

been working in these fields of child abuse, child neglect?" Perhaps

the electorate, if they were asked that question, would say: "Yes, we

do want to continue that service; we would far rather have those people

working and providing that particular service, because in the long run

we know that it is going to be pound-wise and it would be penny-foolish

to get rid of that program now."

[4:30]

I could go on all afternoon giving examples of how this program is

contrary to the best interests of the community. I don't understand the

government's arguments at all. The Minister of Finance today, in

introducing the program, did nothing to convince me that he really

believes in the program that he introduced.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says he really does. It disturbs me

that he thinks that it is that important to centralize so much

influence over the lives of so many people in the hands of cabinet,

that this form of dictatorship is best for them and best for us, that

we can't really rely on democracy to get us out of the mess that the

government has gotten us into. He says he really believes that this

level of dictatorship is the route to go. He said he really believes

that the ability to pay should be the determining factor. Yet I think

he would have to admit that in every instance in the whole of the

public sector, ability to pay is a decision that is made by cabinet,

not by anyone else. Using ability to pay as an excuse for determining

remuneration, working conditions or anything else about employees is

simply an excuse for the government's own decision.

In saying that the program is going to be continued indefinitely he

is admitting that the program to date has done nothing to turn around

the economy. We look at the evidence as to how badly B.C. has fared

compared to the rest of the country. B.C. was the first, they are proud

to say, to get into this kind of a restraint program. If we are the

first and we are

[ Page 1936 ]

also doing the worst, Mr. Speaker, how can the

minister say that he really believes that this is the route to go? It

isn't the route to go. Ability to pay means only that the cabinet is

going to make the decision. It is centralism at its worst. It does away

completely with any process of consultation or negotiation and it is

going to be bad for the economy.

I have produced enough material, I believe, to convince anyone who

will listen.... Anyone of any authority would say that the wrong time

to increase government revenues is during a period when there is a

fragile sense of recovery. The worst thing to do to that process is to

impose tax increases. It is a way of putting on the brakes. You don't

put on the brakes when the vehicle just starts moving. If you want to

discourage consumer spending, if you want to slow things down, then you

cut back on salaries and you threaten people with job layoffs, and that

is what we are doi