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 )

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1977 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Committee on operations of ICBC. Mr. Macdonald –– 1977

Mr. Barrett

Tenant listing service. Mr. Blencoe –– 1977

Colony Farm. Ms. Sanford –– 1978

Grouse Mountain logging. Mrs. Wallace –– 1978

Liquor store openings. Mr. D'Arcy –– 1979

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

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 1979

Mr. Skelly –– 1979

Mr. Kempf –– 1984

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1985

Mr. Mowat –– 1991

Ms. Sanford –– 1991

Mr. Michael –– 1994

Mr. Lockstead –– 1995

Mr. Pelton –– 1998

Mr. Barnes –– 1999

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1983

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Edith

Gorman, a local writer and teacher from Argenta, British Columbia. I

wish the House to bid her welcome.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two

distinguished municipal politicians. I would ask the House to give a

very warm welcome to Mayor John Agnew and Alderman Ray Johnston from

Mission.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join with

me in welcoming nine girls from Dunsmuir Secondary School, which is

part of the Sooke School District. They are accompanied by their

teacher, Mr. Beinder.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the sixty-second annual report of the liquor control and licensing branch.

Oral Questions

COMMITTEE ON OPERATIONS OF ICBC

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. On September 19, the minister told us about the

committee headed by his deputy to look into ICBC and its privatization.

Has the minister now had an opportunity to review the actuarial study

that was prepared for that committee, which stated that the

consequences of privatization would be an increase in premium rates of

about 30 percent?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver

East keeps talking about the privatization of ICBC. I've told him and

this House before that that committee's function is to review the

policies and programs of the Insurance Corporation, to report to myself

and through myself to cabinet, and for cabinet to deal with any

recommendations they wish to make. That is the role of that committee,

Mr. Speaker. With regard to the actuarial report, no, I haven't had the

opportunity to review it, if in fact there is one,

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to jog the minister's memory, I

may say that the actuarial report ordered by this committee was

prepared by Mr. Guy Cloutier, who was the actuary for ICBC from 1978 to

March 1983. He was asked to prepare this report on what the rate

consequences would be of the privatization of ICBC. Does the minister

seriously tell me that he doesn't know about the Cloutier report on

ICBC that predicted this horrendous increase in rates?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat difficult to respond

to the member from Vancouver East, because he is attempting to raise concern

with regard to some statements that he is not fully aware of — the ones he made

concerning massive increases, etc. I have told him before, and I shall repeat

it, that the committee's role is to review the policies, programs, etc.

of the Insurance Corporation, and then to report to me and through me to cabinet.

Until such time as any policy change is made by cabinet, by government, it will

be business as usual at ICBC. I wish the member would not try to raise concern

in the public by making statements in this House such as he has done in the

past several days.

MR. MACDONALD: In view of what the minister says, he should

be concerned. This committee ordered an actuarial study of the results

of dismantling ICBC and it came back with figures showing a 30 percent

increase, which I say is horrendous. Does the minister know about the

Cloutier actuarial study?

[2:15]

MR. BARRETT: Yes or no, are you going to fire them for doing what they were told?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I take silence to mean yes, that

he does know all about it. Has the minister decided to table that

report so that something paid for by the taxpayers can be considered by

the taxpayers?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the member's comments.

He attempts to play Perry Mason in this House from time to time and

it's rather humorous, to say the least. At the appropriate time that

committee, in dealing with all aspects of its role, will come forward

with recommendations. It is an internal committee working on behalf of

the minister responsible for the corporation, and until such time as

their job is through I have no further comment with regard to any

actuarial report, any recommendations, any expressions of concern with

regard to rates.

MR. MACDONALD: Does the minister not know that Perry Mason investigates crimes? I am not suggesting that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, I was in error. It was Inspector Clouseau I was referring to.

TENANT LISTING SERVICE

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the same minister, in his

capacity as minister responsible for the office of the rentalsman. The

minister may be aware that a new business has recently been established

in British Columbia called the Tenant Listing Service, which maintains

a central list of so-called "undesirable tenants." For a fee of $10,

landlords may screen prospective tenants to see if they are on the

private blacklist. Does the minister not agree that the Tenant Listing

Service is an undesirable replacement for the services of the office of

the rentalsman?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am aware of the service that the member

mentions. I can advise the House that my staff have been in touch with

the principals of that service and have considered, in discussions with

the individual, that it's possible that that service falls under the

ambit of the Credit Reporting Act. The individual involved, I am told,

has advised that he will not continue the advertising. We have sent him

application forms to be completed, to see whether or not he should, you

might say, be licensed under that piece of legislation.

It is a new service that evidently somebody has figured is of value. I feel

the member is unjust in stating that it's a

[ Page 1978 ]

"blacklist," but if it does fall within the

jurisdiction of the Credit Reporting Act, he would, of course, have to

file under that act. I guess, as with any other service provided to the

public, the public will deem whether or not it is of value; if not, of

course, the service may well fail.

MR. BLENCOE: I spoke to the manager of this Tenant Listing

Service this morning, to discover the criteria by which they would

place a tenant's name on the private blacklist, and I was informed that

any landlord could add the name of any tenant whom he didn't like.

That's a quote from the person operating that operation. That very fact

has to concern the minister, I'm sure. If you don't like a tenant, you

can list him. This practice is a violation of tenants' rights in the

province of British Columbia — no question about that. Will the

minister launch a thorough and immediate investigation of this

business, or any other such business, to ensure they do not violate

tenants' rights in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what statute,

etc., the member refers to. However, I am sure he is as aware as I am

that a service providing a "blacklist" which has names of individuals

on there and which could be construed as discriminatory or inaccurate,

runs the very real risk of being challenged by an individual whose name

is on that list and possibly facing prosecution.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, when I asked the owner of this

operation how a tenant would know that they are on the list, he said:

"The tenant has no way of knowing they are on the list."

Mr. Minister, I ask you again: do you not consider that a violation of tenants'

rights, and will you do something to correct this situation in British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: That seeks a legal opinion, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: does the minister

not agree that the elimination of the office of the rentalsman will

endanger tenants' rights, given the situation that has currently come

to the forefront? Has he now decided to reconsider the termination of

the office of the rentalsman?

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to the office of the rentalsman,

Mr. Speaker, there is a bill before the House, and the member is

anticipating the outcome of the debate on that bill. There is, as I

mentioned to the member, the Credit Reporting Act. My staff have been

in touch with the individual involved with this service, and after

receiving his application, we may be able to make some determination,

if we feel that he is, in effect, in contravention of the act that

we've referred to.

COLONY FARM

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Agriculture and Food. The minister has reported to this House that

the details of the future of Colony Farm have not yet been decided.

I'm wondering if the minister can now assure us that Colony Farm will remain as a viable, operating farm.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, some of the details of the

sale of the assets of Colony Farm have now been determined. The assets

will not be sold at one time or in one aggregate, but cattle will be

sold on one day and machinery and equipment on another. As far as the

land itself is concerned, it is in the agricultural land reserve and

I'm not aware of any application to have it removed.

MS. SANFORD: The minister has not given us an assurance that

that land will remain as a viable, operating farm. If the minister

cannot give his assurance to keep the farm as a viable agricultural

entity, will he not at least reconsider his refusal to direct the

proceeds of the sale of the livestock and equipment, to which he just

referred, to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture's proposed research and

development corporation?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The first part of the question, which has

to do with what a government may or may not do in the future, would be

out of order in question period. Answering the second part of the

question, it has not yet been determined what will happen to the funds

realized by the sale of the assets.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the

expenditure of those funds has not yet been determined, yet he has

already refused the request by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to

have those funds used for their proposed research and development

corporation. If the government, which is always talking about the

utilization of the private sector, has turned down the request by the

B.C. Federation of Agriculture, why is the government not prepared to

utilize the private sector for purposes of research through the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture's research and development corporation?

They've already refused it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a fairly open question, hon. member, which begs an open answer.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I find it really difficult to answer "if" questions.

GROUSE MOUNTAIN LOGGING

MRS. WALLACE: A question for the Minister of Environment, Mr.

Speaker. Some two weeks ago, on September 13, the minister confirmed

that the government has refused to use its powers to prevent logging on

the southern slope of Grouse Mountain and that it has also refused to

provide funds and preserve the property. In view of the government's

failure to take those actions, has the minister now taken steps to set

up a contingency fund for disaster relief, given the inevitable result

that severe flooding will follow destruction of the watershed on Grouse

Mountain?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, I don't accept the concept

that the government has failed. We have made a decision. Secondly,

there are funds available when emergencies occur, and so we have not

planned to set up a contingency fund, and there is no assurance

whatsoever, with proper logging practices, that the dire consequences

that member predicts will ever happen.

[ Page

1979 ]

LIQUOR STORE OPENINGS

MR. D'ARCY: To my friend from Boundary-Similkameen in his

capacity as minister responsible for the promotion and sale of alcohol

in British Columbia: why has the minister decided to expend in excess

of $4 million in public money on new and expanded liquor marketing

facilities at a time of stagnant sales growth and general government

cutback?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's a very broad question.

MR. D'ARCY: I would say it was very direct, Mr. Speaker. Why has he decided to spend $4 million on new liquor stores?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The liquor distribution branch, of course,

evaluates the need for marketing outlets in areas where there is growth

in population, consumer demand, etc. We attempt to provide adequate

service in those areas. Decisions with regard to capital expenditure on

behalf of liquor distribution are done by the management with reference

to my office.

MR. HOWARD: Pursuant to the provisions of standing order 35,

I ask to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of

discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, the

decision yesterday that only the government House Leader has the

authority to have the House proceed to the item "motions and adjourned

debates on motions" and the refusal so far of the government House

Leader to move to have the House consider notice of Motion 32, which is

a motion of censure against Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. May I, for the benefit of the member, read from our Votes and Proceedings

yesterday: "Mr. Speaker stated that the order of business was the

prerogative of the House Leader." As such, it was not in order for the

member for Skeena to make such a request.

Hon. member, that was not only the decision of yesterday and, I

believe, of two days before that but also, I believe, of three business

days prior to that. For the member to seek the floor at this time, to

do something one way which he obviously has not been able to do in

another, could not, hon. member, be ruled as anything but out of order.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

[2:30]

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of

Bill 11.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to take just a few moments to

sum up some of the points I was trying to make this morning with

respect to Bill 11. The compensation stabilization concept has proven

itself. It does work; it has worked for the past year. That concept has

been picked up and has spread throughout the country, with beneficial

results. The continuation of the compensation stabilization concept in

Bill 11 will work, and I think the public recognizes that. The public

of this province and, I think, of this country is very rapidly coming

to recognize that the ability to pay is a major determining factor in

our economic well-being, and the ability to pay is contained in this

bill. The opposition, those socialists opposite, are afraid that this

will work. They are afraid they are going to be even more wrong than

they were last year, when they condemned any attempt to stabilize the

amount of increases, particularly in the public sector, and the example

that this gave to the private sector in order to compete. I think the

socialists are afraid that some of their socialist myths that are being

tested will be found badly wanting.

As I indicated this morning, if they feel this legislation is so

bad, surely they would then see it as an advantage to put into effect

so they could gain the support they hope to gain because it wasn't

acceptable to the public. But I think they are afraid that it will be

well accepted, and they are afraid that when we and they are judged by

the results of the positions taken, they will again be found wanting.

This morning I made the point that it has been expressed by the

opposition and their Solidarity wing, or coalition of dissent.... I am

reluctant to use the term " Solidarity, " because I think it has a

better meaning than that for which it is being used in British Columbia.

Lately, we constantly hear that this program must not be allowed to

proceed, this legislation and the direction taken by the Social Credit

government, because if it succeeds it will spread across the country.

So they say it must be stopped here. If you analyze that statement....

I'm surprised that those people would make that statement. In a

democracy this program can only succeed if it's widely accepted by the

people in that democracy. If it spreads, it will spread because it has

gained acceptance first in British Columbia, and then across the

nation. So it naturally follows, then, that if it succeeds it is

because the majority of people in our democracy accept it. We think it

will succeed; they are afraid it might succeed. Otherwise, why would

they be so desperate as to try to stop it?

The concepts in Bill 11, the concepts of compensation stabilization,

have worked. They have proven beneficial and they will continue to

work. I think the public knows this and supports it, despite the

hysterical protestations of the socialists.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'll try not to make an hysterical

protestation. I'm very surprised, though, at the comments of the

minister who just spoke. He seems to have changed his mind from this

morning. Maybe he was advised by the research staff as to just what's

happening with this bill.

[ Page 1980 ]

This morning he said that the program had been a success and had

been copied all across the country. This afternoon he says "it will

work," and "if it succeeds, it will spread across the country." It

represents the confusion not just in that member's mind but in the mind

of the whole Social Credit caucus as to just what's happening with this

bill and what it is designed to do.

HON. A. FRASER: Tell us about the confusion in your leadership race.

MR. SKELLY: The members opposite are confused about that as

well. But things will become absolutely clear. I'd hope, Mr. Speaker,

that you would stop these hysterical protestations coming across the

floor — remarks that are entirely irrelevant to the present debate. I'd

be very pleased if Mr. Speaker would stop these hysterical

protestations coming across the floor, remarks which are entirely

irrelevant to the present debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're doing a good job....

MR. SKELLY: Thank you. That one's all right.

In any case, it's possible to make some sense out of this speech.

When you read the speech from the minister who just spoke in the Blues,

even you, Mr. Speaker, with your ability, will have some difficulty

making sense of the previous minister's speech.

The minister did say that this bill will work. He's probably right

on that score because it all depends on what the objectives of the bill

are. If the objectives of the bill are to cut the wages of the public

service in British Columbia, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind

that this bill will achieve that objective. By its compulsory

mechanisms, by forcing all collective agreements to be arbitrated by

one office, and by establishing not simply guidelines but required

limits on the wages of public employees in the province, there's

absolutely no doubt in my mind that it will achieve that objective. In

this Legislature we should be concerned about the broader objectives.

That's why we're here in the first place, not to further the vendetta

that Social Credit seems to be following against people who work for

all of us, people who work in the public sector.

Our reason for being in the Legislature over the last several years,

as I've been a legislator, is the general benefit of the people of

British Columbia. How does an attack on civil service wages benefit the

general public of British Columbia? Does it correct the problems of

unemployment? We have hundreds of thousands of people unemployed here

in the province of British Columbia. This program hasn't produced a

single job for them. Has it protected jobs in the public service, as

the minister originally said it might? He said that if we,

collectively, as a group of public servants lower our wages, then the

government will have more money and more people will be able to work.

Then he came in with a new ideological package which said that we

should cut down the civil service anyway. These wage cuts and wage

limitations do not create or protect a single job, either in the civil

service or in the public sector. Does it help the taxpayers? We all

know that the wages of the public service in British Columbia — the

civil service I'm talking about, the people who work directly for the

provincial government — represents only 12.7 percent of the total

expenditures of the provincial government, according to last year's

Ministry of Finance annual report. Depending on who you believe, Mr.

Speaker, the budget this year has increased somewhere between the 12.3

percent figure given to us by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

or the 16 to 17 percent given to us by the House Leader of the

opposition. Clearly, the taxpayers haven't benefited from this attack

on civil service wages or public employees' wages, because our

expenditures are increasing at a tremendous rate, regardless of the

cutbacks.

MR. SKELLY: If we are here as legislators....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr.

Schroeder) says: "Think how much the increase would be if they weren't

there." This is a government that can't hold back its increases whether

they're there or not. That is what we're trying to say. The government

appears to have absolutely no ability to control expenditures. But they

do want to control the expenditures of wage earners in this province,

especially those wage earners in the public sector that they have a

particular vendetta against.

It has become clear to British Columbians in the last two or three

years that in a recession they do want restraint. There's no question

about that. It's just a question of how restraint is to be implemented.

There's no question about that on our side. Mr. Speaker, you may not

recall, but other members who were in the House over the last two years

do that the NDP proposed a number of changes in the estimates that

would have saved the taxpayers of this province approximately $150

million over those two years.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, can we let the hon. member continue without too many interjections, please.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the people who need the most help always try to help those who need it least.

Everybody in this province accepts the need for restraint at this

time. It's strictly a question of priorities, expressed in this way:

should we send cabinet ministers to Broadway to buy expensive wines,

watch expensive shows and stay in expensive hotels? Should we build a

$60,000 executive VIP box in B.C. Place stadium so that cabinet

ministers and Crown corporation executives who are appointed by the

government can entertain their friends at public expense? This is the

kind of concern that the public has about restraint, and as the member

for Cowichan suggested....

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you said that small businesses were not our friends.

MR. SKELLY: I understand he was entertaining the Canadian

Manufacturers' Association — not exactly the representatives of small

business in this country. I have nothing against the Canadian

Manufacturers' Association, Mr. Speaker, but it's my experience that

they certainly don't represent small business in this country. Even so,

it seems that the CMA, representing those big manufacturers all across

Canada, can at least afford to buy their own beer or their own drinks

and not have them bought at government

[ Page

1981 ]

expense in a $60,000 VIP box built for the

ministers and the Crown corporation executives at B.C. Place. That's

not an example of restraint in government expenditure, Mr. Speaker.

As a result, in a poll that took place across this province through the offices of the Vancouver Sun

and an agency that they employed, it was indicated that 69 percent of

the people in this province accept the need for restraint. We don't

question that. Most of our members agree that restraint is necessary at

this time. Most of the government members accept that there is a need

for restraint at this time. Where the division took place was in the

methods of imposing restraint.

If you do away with the Human Rights Commission, which costs most of

the people of this province the price of two postage stamps a year, is

that restraint? Or is it doing away with effective protection of human

rights in this province under the cover of restraint? And that's the

method that people disagree with. When you cover an ideological

position of being opposed to human rights by using the term

"restraint," that's when people get concerned.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Gee, these members are agitated today. What were

they serving down in the dining room today? Hysterical soup. Somebody

took the minister's Teddy bear away — that's it. Mr. Speaker, I am

concerned about these people.

[2:45]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, seeing

as how no one else seems to know that my Teddy bear has been missing,

the confession by that member that he knows it is missing is a

confession of guilt, and I would ask him to please return it to me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, that's not really a point of

order, but the Chair appreciates your concern over the Teddy bear and

will ask the member to continue speaking to the Compensation

Stabilization Amendment Act.

MR. SKELLY: I'm getting to that, Mr. Speaker. What I'm

talking about is the method employed by this government in imposing

what they call their program of restraint. According to the Vancouver Sun

article, 75 percent of the people in this province oppose the methods

used by this government, and this bill relates specifically to one of

the methods.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I realize that the minister lost his Teddy bear.

Just after Perry Mason left the hall, he brought up his point of order.

I just ask the minister to remain calm. I'll get through this speech in

probably 40 minutes or less.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: You're not being a very successful Speaker, Mr.

Speaker. Does this mean I'll be able to extend my time, after all these

interruptions?

As I was trying to point out, 75 percent of the people are opposed to the methods

used by this government under the guise of restraint, and this bill is one of

the government's methods that's questionable in achieving restraint.

Can people believe this government is interested in restraint, and that this

bill is necessary to achieve restraint, when, as I've pointed out, they're

not getting restraint from this government? The budget has gone up from 12 percent

to 17 percent; taxes, sales tax and property taxes have increased; ferry rates

and health user charges are going to increase; and there's going to be an

increase in ministerial travel expenses. Can people believe that this government

is interested in restraint and that this bill is necessary for restraint when

there is virtually no limit on the amount that this government is willing to

spend for the entertainment of its ministers?

There's no question that the issues of incomes and compensation in

this province have to be addressed. There are people in this province

who are making very low incomes and people who are making very high

incomes, and that is a problem. Some people have done very well over

the last few years through the current recession; and by establishing a

fixed percentage increase on their incomes, they've done very well with

those increases. Some people have been living very poorly. As the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) pointed out, many of those

people are women. And many are single-parent family heads, most of them

women. Restraint forces them into a position of continued poverty.

There was a way out of it. There was a light at the end of the tunnel, possibly when this legislation included a sunset clause.

"And when the recession was over" — I'm quoting the member for

Cowichan-Malahat — "and the sunset clause in this Compensation Stabilization

Act took effect, then these people who are willing to sacrifice salary increases

during the recession, when they saw that everybody else was having to sacrifice,

would have been able to look at some improvement in their own position with

respect to salaries and working conditions at the end of the Compensation Stabilization

Program and at the end of the current recession."

What this bill does now is create those recessionary conditions

forever. There is no end to this legislation now, Mr. Speaker. The

sunset clause has been eliminated, and all of those people who were

willing to make that sacrifice for the period of time there was a

depression in this province are now going to be faced with making that

sacrifice forever, ghettoized forever in a certain position with

respect to wages and working conditions forever in the foreseeable

future. That's one of the unfair things about this legislation and one

of the reasons we, as an opposition, can't support it. Even though we

support restraint, even though we join with the 69 percent of people in

this province who advocate restraint, we do not accept this as a bill

that is necessary for restraint, because of the way it is currently

written.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have asked on three separate

occasions now if the hon. members on the government side would practise

a little restraint in interrupting the speaker. Please let the speaker

continue.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that.

Many people in the public service.... Over the past few years, as

the depression hit, we've seen wage-earners make concessions freely in

areas where free collective bargaining is an option. Although not

necessarily in this province, we have seen wage-earners make

concessions in

[ Page 1982 ]

wages freely. Companies like Chrysler Corp., both

in Canada and the United States, have been subsidized. The bad

management of that corporation was subsidized by its own wage-earners

in order to improve the company's profitability and bring it back to a

position in the marketplace where it could compete with other

companies. And it's done that; the concessions made by wage-earners for

that company have brought Chrysler back to a profitable position, to

where it's now a real competitor in the marketplace and to where it's

paying off the loans it obtained from various governments both here and

in the United States.

It was wage-earners' concessions freely arrived at in collective

bargaining negotiations that resulted in bringing that corporation back

to profitability. There are many other cases throughout Canada, the

United States and around the world where workers have done that.

Workers in collective bargaining negotiations in this province have

agreed to take zero wage increases provided there was some end,

provided they could see some light at the end of the tunnel, when the

recession would be over and their wages would be increased. They are

doing this in spite of the fact that over the last two years, according

to Statistics Canada, wages have not kept pace with consumer price

index increases, not merely in the rest of Canada but also here in B.C.

So even though these workers are falling behind in the purchasing power

of their take-home wages, they are still willing to make concessions.

It is only when we get legislation like this, Mr. Speaker, that says,

"We are going to limit your right to bargain collectively," or, "We are

going to limit the effectiveness of your collective bargaining

procedures and impose all of your collective agreements to the scrutiny

of one agency of government" — which has guidelines and even

restrictions imposed upon it with respect to wage increases, and that

type of thing....

While workers will accept market conditions when they are allowed to

negotiate freely, when you impose these kinds of compulsory wage limits

on them, then of course they get their backs up. They are treated as

second-class, irresponsible citizens, and the facts have shown that

they're not — the facts with Chrysler Corp., the facts of bargaining in

the forest industry sector in B.C. All of those experiences have shown

that workers are willing, given that the only compulsion upon them is

the compulsion to bargain within the terms of reference provided under

the Labour Code in British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The minister said, when he introduced this bill, that many people

are affected in this province by what he called market controls. That

is the new Fraser Institute-Social Credit buzzword for bankruptcy, wage

reductions, unemployment, business bankruptcies, etc. They are now

given the new buzzword called market controls. He said the reason we

have to have this type of legislation is that the government is not

affected by market controls. Even this would be an acceptable reason

for bringing down this legislation, or an acceptable reason for

reducing wages without this legislation. But if employees could see

that others were paying the price as well, that we were all shouldering

our load during this depression, then I think they would be more

willing to make concessions. They would be more willing to take pay

cuts and to see limitations put on their increases if they could see

that everybody in society was doing the same.

Let's look at an

article in the Province for yesterday, September

26: "Bank Profits Soar Despite Economy." The

article says that bank

profits are up 14 percent in this quarter ending in July; profits

increased by $451 million over the same quarter in the previous year.

In the first nine months of this year, bank profits are up 29 percent

over last year, or $1.389 billion. Can the banks be said to be limiting

their profit increases? Can the banks be seen to be shouldering their

load during the depression? The banks seem to be doing okay during this

depression. The banks are doing all right $1.389 billion net profit in

the first nine months of this year, 29 percent above the same period

last year. At the same time as bank profits are soaring, according to

the Province's headlines of September 26, we are saying that those

workers in the British Columbia government and in the public sector,

workers who, according to the Minister of Finance's own annual report,

represent only 12.7 percent of the expenditures of government, have to

be cut back.

[3:00]

What we are seeing here is concrete evidence of the unfairness of

this program which singles out one sector of employment and attributes

to them all the causes of the recession, all the causes of the

government's problems with respect to expenditures, all the causes of

the government's problem of debt. All of the government's problems are

being focused on this one small sector — 12.7 percent of the

government's expenditures, according to the Minister of Finance's

annual report for the last year — and this is a Minister of Finance who

talks about productivity in vague terms. He's even got it reduced to

the point where he knows how much it costs to transfer payroll vouchers

from employees to employees. In the beginning of the year, the office

established efficiency standards for payroll voucher and personnel

accounting forms of 50 cents and 24 cents respectively, based on past

performance and volume forecasts. The branch bettered these standards

by processing vouchers and forms at a cost of 49 cents and 21 cents

respectively. This is a government that talks about productivity in

terms of the cost of shovelling vouchers around in the government. They

know how much it costs to pass a piece of paper from one employee to

the other, but they have absolutely no understanding of the human

concerns of people working for the government.

Here they are, as they're focusing their attack on one sector of the

economy — on those employed by all of us to do a service to all of us —

and yet those people see that the government's program doesn't apply to

anyone else but them or to anything else but salaries. Bank profits are

soaring: 29 percent in the first nine months of this year over last

year. Corporation profits are now soaring as well, according to the

same

article in the Vancouver Province : 375 companies surveyed

were up 38.7 percent from levels established a year earlier. A year

earlier, everybody was in pretty bad shape, so 38.7 percent does not

even bring corporate profits back to the level they were at during 1980

and the first part of 1981. They're still down.

On the other hand, if you accepted the government's argument that

restoration of profitability would also result in an increase in jobs,

that hasn't happened either, Mr. Speaker, because along with the

increase in bank profits and corporate profits we've got increased

unemployment. So there is no relation between what the government is

saying and the reality that once private profitability has been

restored, then jobs will be restored; it is absolutely false.

[ Page

1983 ]

This goes along with the government's assertion that what they're

doing in the public sector is privatizing; they are taking jobs from

the public sector and privatizing those functions formerly done by

government into private industry. What they are actually doing, Mr.

Speaker, is simply sacking government employees. The private sector is

not taking up the slack that the government says they're taking up, and

those people are remaining out of work.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris

backs up what I'm saying. "Unemployment in Canada will remain in the

range of 12 percent into 1984," says a report that was tabled on

September 23, 1983. "Canada's unemployment rate stood at 11.8 percent

in August, representing about two million Canadians. Economic recovery

will do little to stop growing structural or institutionalized

joblessness," the report said, "and although unemployment has eased up

in the past year, it will generally swing up again in 1984."

So all of these efforts at privatization and cutting back in the

government service appear to be doing nothing more than increasing

unemployment throughout the economy and creating greater demands on

government transfer programs and a greater revenue expenditure crunch

in the government and will be totally counter productive to our desire

for economic recovery. The minister talks about relating wage demands

to the employer's ability to pay, but we've also seen, during this

session, bills which allow ministers to interfere in the fine details

of budgeting procedures in such local governments as school boards and

municipalities. The Ministry of Health has always had that option with

hospital boards.

They seem to concern themselves with the ability of public employers

to pay wages demanded by their employees. As I said, they also take

upon themselves, from local government, the right to manage the fine

details of local government budgets. An example is Bill 6, where the

Minister of Education now has the power to reach down into the

authority of local school districts and to change the details of the

budgets. I'm talking about the provision here for the government's

ability to pay, which the minister mentioned in his introductory

remarks. But he failed to mention that the government has now

manipulated that whole principle of ability to pay so that the

government can reach down and take money out of local budgets, reducing

their ability to pay certain salaries. For example, here's what has

happened in a hospital in Port Alberni in my own area. The Ministry of

Health already has that right to establish the pay. They set up the

budget in two ways: part of it is allocated to equipment and

part is

allocated to salaries. This year they cut back on the salary budget, so

the hospital was forced to cut back on staff. However, they left some

wiggling room for the hospital. They said it could transfer money from

the salary side of its budget over to the equipment side, so it could

fire people and buy more equipment. But they said it couldn't do it the

other way; it couldn't sacrifice equipment to hire more people. This

happened in every hospital district in the province, so the members

opposite will probably be aware of that happening as well.

So it appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that this government has a

vendetta going against those who work for wages in the public sector

and that this bill is simply a carrying out of that vendetta. Why? I

ask any government member to stand up and explain to me why, in a local

hospital budget, where you're allowed to transfer the salary portion to

buy equipment, which involves laying off staff, you cannot transfer the

equipment part of the budget to salaries, which involves hiring more

staff. Why would the government impose that on a hospital board?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you may be discussing items that

might be better discussed under the estimates of a ministry or under

other legislation. Bill 11 is quite specifically the Compensation

Stabilization Amendment Act.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm relating this directly to the

Compensation Stabilization Act. As I have been saying, this bill

appears to be based not on the need for restraint but on the

government's desire to follow through on its vendetta against people

who work for public bodies and people who work in the public sector.

Let me restate our major objections to the bill. First of all, it

doesn't appear to affect government expenditures at all. The

expenditures for salaries in the government represent such a very small

percentage that even by cutting back and reducing the salaries of

public servants by 5 percent we're really not going to accomplish very

much to reduce government expenditures, and in fact expenditures of

this government would still increase beyond the rate of inflation and

well beyond the rate of growth in this province. It doesn't even meet

the criterion that a restraint program would demand, so it must demand

it for some reason other than restraint.

The government also occasionally talks about job tenure in the

public service. It was mentioned by the minister in his introductory

remarks as well that public employees are protected from market forces.

But that's not a fact either, because the government admits that

thousands of its employees have been laid off over the past year and a

half or two years as a result of declining revenues, especially from

the forest industry and from the natural resource sector as a whole —

also from income tax and corporate income tax, as a result of the fact

that fewer people are working now than prior to the recession taking

place. Also, expenditures have increased in the areas of Human

Resources and Health as a result of hundreds of thousands of people

being put out of work, making some government services more necessary

than they had ever been in the past. So there is an argument that we

actually need more government employees in certain areas than we have

at any time in the past, and yet those are the very areas where the

government is cutting back.

It's a question of priorities, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) says we can't afford it. We

can afford to entertain people in a $60,000 box in the B.C. Place

stadium reserved for VIPs in the government and Crown corporations, but

we can't afford services to the poor and the unemployed — those whom

the government's policies have forced into that position as a result of

economic mismanagement. That's the reason why, even though 69 percent

of the people in this province favour restraint, 75 percent are telling

this government that they don't agree with the methods or the

priorities.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, one of our major objections is that we cannot

accept a measure which attacks a single sector of the economy, a single

sector of society, in the belief that attacking that sector will solve

the economic problems of this government. What the government is doing

is simply making that sector a scapegoat for all of the economic

problems that this government, through its own mismanagement, has

brought this province to.

[ Page 1984 ]

As I've mentioned before, this party supports restraint and we will

continue to support restraint, as we always have supported restraint.

If the minister will examine the restraint methods proposed by this

opposition over the past two or three years, he cannot argue with this

fact. What we are opposed to in this bill, as well as in a number of

the other pieces of legislation brought down, is the fact that this

government is covering repression with the term restraint; that they

are applying restraints unfairly to one small group in society; that

they are not making restraint fair by requiring it across the board, by

imposing the same limits on all forms of income. They are not making

the restraint program fair by imposing it on all people who receive

income.

During the last depression, there were people who went to work for

governments that were fighting for reconstruction. I'm thinking of the

United States: people who went to work as dollar-a-year men, people

from large corporations who realized that in order to change the

economy of the day and in order to create employment, they would have

to change the structure of the economy of the United States. The

president of the day hired people from large corporations doing

business in the United States for a dollar a year — not like Ed Peck,

who's making $475 a day; not like Donald MacDonald, who's making $800 a

day. If this legislation were fair, it would be supported by all of the

people in the province, including our caucus.

[3:15]

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to follow the

member for Alberni, because it's very easy to put together any kind of

speech or reply to a debate after listening to that sanctimonious

socialist rhetoric that we have heard in this House so many times. Bob

Williams — and I'm sure he's haunting these hallowed halls somewhere —

would be very proud of that member were he here to listen to that

debate today.

It's a great pleasure for me to stand in my place to support Bill

11, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act. In doing so, I stand

to express the feelings of those workers both in industry and in

business in the private sector in my constituency and in this province,

workers who for more than two years now have felt the sting of world

recession, have felt the effects of natural restraint on their jobs and

incomes. World economic conditions have, in the last two years in the

private sector, caused plant shutdowns, job losses, wage freezes and,

in many cases, wage rollbacks. Those in the private sector know all

about restraint. They knew about restraint long before this debate in

this Legislature. They see absolutely no reason why their brothers and

sisters in the public sector shouldn't share, in that respect, their

plight. I agree with them: there should be no difference. Equality for

all, favour for none.

Mr. Speaker, I see that the member for Alberni has left the House.

With his philosophy, I don't blame him for not wanting to hear the

truth about real restraint in this province, in this country and, in

fact, in the whole world at this time.

As I have said on other occasions in this House, the members

opposite — and in particular a member such as the one who just spoke —

have missed the message. The message has passed them by completely. I

guess it could be said that there are none so blind as those that

cannot see. That goes for hearing as well. I don't know what it is that

those members opposite are listening to, but the message from the

people from the province of British Columbia is loud and clear. I heard

one of the members opposite quote just a few minutes from a newspaper

headline from last week, or yesterday, that made it quite clear that in

a very extensive poll that was taken, 75 percent of the people polled

were in favour of restraint. That's absolutely true. I don't understand

how the members opposite have missed that point. I don't understand why

the members opposite are not listening to the real people of this

province, who have, not only while this debate has been going on — that

was proven in the election of May 5 — but for some time in this

province been crying out for restraint and the kind of legislation that

is being brought into the House, not only through Bill 11.... I know I

can't speak of the other legislation that is now before us in the

House. They've been looking for this kind of action by government for a

long time, and they'll be looking for this kind of action by other

governments for some time to come. We have set a trend in this province

— a trend that will not soon end, regardless of the pious rhetoric that

comes from the members opposite.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I know what's going to come out of that comer

seat, Mr. Member, when you do. We've heard it so many times. Do you

listen to yourselves? Don't you listen to the people of this province?

Hang your head in shame, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald). You profess to speak for the downtrodden. I heard that for

many years, because I came from a family that spouted that kind of

philosophy. It taught me one thing if it taught me anything: it taught

me that that's not the philosophy to follow in this life, not for one

second.

Bill 11 and legislation like it are supported by the vast majority.

I know that that's hard for the members opposite to grasp, because they

have never listened to the majority in their lives. They have always

been in the minority, and that's what they've always listened to.

That's what they will always listen to. But the vast majority of the

people of this province — not only of this province, but of many other

jurisdictions — at this time believe in it. They know that it's

necessary. They know it's our only salvation, and that is to tighten

our belts. The people out there don't take exception to that. They're

willing to do that, but they recognize the use of those that the

members opposite profess to support. They know the use of the

downtrodden is not the way in which to act today.

I just can't understand the members opposite, Mr. Speaker. I guess

the debate that we've heard for three months now in this Legislature is

just a continuation of an election campaign that we saw prior to May 5.

It's a continuation of that fight. They haven't recognized and they

won't accept the fact that they lost that election, that prior to that

election they made a deal with the union bosses of this province and

they feel, by what they say in debate in this House....

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the member

for Omineca relating any of his remarks at all to Bill 11? He doesn't

appear to be at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the member knows the rules of relevancy.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as much as anyone who spoke from

that side of the House did. They made a deal with the union bosses

prior to May 5; they had it made long before

[ Page 1985 ]

that, and now they continue, regardless of what the

majority of the people in British Columbia feel, think and say, to

follow that view. It's a sad day for the province of British Columbia

because that was once a proud opposition, and this province — and any

jurisdiction, any government — needs good opposition. More than they

need a lot of other things, they need good opposition.

The citizens of this province know that the cupboard is bare. They

don't have to be told. They not only know that the cupboard is bare,

they know that to borrow ourselves into oblivion is not the way to get

out of the problems we are in today.

MR. HANSON: The cupboard is bare; the trough is full.

MR. KEMPF: To borrow our children and our children's children

into debt and into oblivion is not the way, and the young first member

for Victoria doesn't realize that yet. He hasn't been around this world

for long enough. But he'll learn.

The members opposite are in the past. We hear them talking about the

thirties and the forties when the once-proud CCF was at its best — and

I say "once proud" because some of the founders of that party, were

they here today, would hang their heads in shame.

I've heard members opposite say: "You're not doing what you said you

were going to do in this restraint program prior to the election of May

5." Well, I don't know where they were during that time, but they sure

weren't following me around in my campaign. That's exactly what I was

telling the people of Omineca was going to happen should this

administration be re-elected. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you, and I

would make a wager on this right here and now in this chamber, that if

we went back to the people in the province of British Columbia

tomorrow, half of those members over there wouldn't return to this

chamber. The members over there seem to march to a different drummer,

and it's an ever diminishing drummer. It's sad that they haven't

awakened to that fact. The defenders of the downtrodden say they're in

agreement with restraint, that they believe in restraint, merely

because they have stood in this House for a couple of sessions and

suggested to the government that there were areas in which budgets

could be cut. That's how they believe in restraint. I remember them

from 1972 to 1975, when they doubled the budget of this province in

three short years. Did they believe in restraint then when they were

government? I think not. Merely because they stood in this House and

made some remarks across the floor about certain areas of the

government's budget, they now say: "We're defenders of restraint."

[3:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't talk about it in April.

MR. KEMPF: That's right. I remember the night on the 6

o'clock news that I watched their leader in the Kootenays talk about

restraint. I remember the all-candidates meeting that I attended not an

hour after that announcement was made. They believe in restraint all

right. They had some support prior to that, but after that remark was

made in the Kootenays that he would do away with the restraint program

in the province of British Columbia were he elected Premier, he lost

that support.

There's a definite need for logical, straightforward and honest

restraint in the province of British Columbia, and the electorate knew

it prior to May 5 and know it now. We only have to look at the federal

by-election in Mission-Port Moody very recently — and I won't go into

the details of that, Mr. Speaker — to know exactly what the people of

this province feel at this time.

I could go on and on, but I feel this chamber and the people of this

province have heard enough about Bill 11. They say: "Pass it and pass

the other legislation which pertains to restraint....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: And you, too, Mr. Member, have been listening to

the wrong people and marching to the wrong drummer. Let that be on your

head, because we are here as elected representatives to listen to all

of the people — not just to a few small groups, not just to the labour

leaders of this province, but to everyone, however they voted on May 5

or however they ever voted, or whatever their philosophy is. That is

the responsibility that I took on as an elected representative, and I

would hope that that was the responsibility, Mr. Member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann), that you took on as well when you not only ran

for but were elected to office.

I heard the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) say that there was

confusion among the government members in regard to the restraint

issue. Well, just maybe, Mr. Minister of Finance, that might be, from

time to time. We're all human; it could be. But there's no confusion in

the minds of British Columbians out there as to what it is that is

needed in regard to restraint in this province — none whatsoever.

I've said enough. I say pass this bill and pass others, regardless

of what methods have to be used in this House, because the government

members in this party and this government have the support of the

majority of the people in British Columbia. On their behalf, and

particularly on behalf of those whom I represent, I support Bill 11.

MR. D'ARCY: I certainly enjoyed listening to my friend from

Omineca. I want to make one brief comment about one of his remarks. I

know that charge and counter-charge in this chamber often pass for

political rhetoric, and I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are fairly

tolerant of that sort of thing from both sides, but I want to challenge

his statement that the Leader of the Opposition or any member of this

party ever made a deal with the trade union movement either before or

after the May 5 election — or with any other group. One of the

fundamental differences between the government party and the opposition

party in this chamber is that the opposition party represents all the

people in the province, however they voted. And government members,

when they're in their own riding, do their best to represent all the

people in those ridings too, but down here in the chamber government

members only look after their friends.

The member for Omineca said that the cupboard was bare. You're

damned right it's bare, with Social Credit running the show, and the

loss of the triple-A credit rating and the $14 billion in borrowing

over the last seven or eight years, but I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the

trough is still full for the pals of government. I doubt that the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was very pleased to hear the

member for Omineca raise the question of provincial government debt,

because the member for Saanich has been a member of this chamber since

[ Page 1986 ]

1972 and he knows full well that when the present

Socred administration came into office, the total accumulated debt was

barely $4 billion. Now, at the end of this fiscal year, it will be

approaching $18 billion under Social Credit.

Yes, there's been a lot of borrowing, and it's been Social Credit

borrowing. And yes, there's a lot of debt, which has increased more

than fourfold, and it's been Social Credit debt. And they did this

while squandering assets of this province acquired by previous

administrations — Social Credit, New Democrat, Liberal and Tory.

Directly related to Bill 11, Mr. Speaker, the minister and other

members across the way know full well that in real terms, the present

Socred administration, going back to December 1975, has done more to

increase the size of government than any previous administration. They

can yack all they want about 72 to 75, or any previous government, but

the fact is that they are the ones who have increased the size of

government relative to the gross provincial product in British

Columbia; they have increased the size of debt relative to gross

provincial product in British Columbia. They are the people who have

created this necessity for cutting back on public spending, because,

yes indeed, with their maladministration, the cupboard is bare. And we

agree with restraint.

I think the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) earlier talked about some

straw poll done over the weekend. I don't know how subjective or

objective or scientific it was, but he talked about some straw poll

that said that 75 percent of the population were in favour of

restraint. Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that it's not 100 percent. In

fact, I would wonder at the accuracy of that poll, because I don't know

anybody who isn't in favour of restraint. It's like saying: "Are you in

favour of motherhood," or "Are you in favour of not being cruel to

animals?" Of course, everybody is in favour of restraint and everybody

is in favour of motherhood.

Mr. Speaker, it's quite interesting that what normally is a

positive, up-tempo term like restraint has been given a bad name in

British Columbia. According to this poll.... A poll is just a poll; we

don't know its accuracy, and I would agree with those who do not take

polls very seriously. And I'm quite surprised that Social Credit, by

its actions, has given the word "restraint" a bad name with 25 percent

of the population in the province of B.C., because I can't believe that

that 25 percent are not philosophically in favour of restraint.

Every time the Social Credit party decides that they want to savage

some sector of society, they say: "Oh, it's restraint." You know, we're

about to shoot somebody, so we'll give him a blindfold and a priest and

we'll call it restraint. I don't think everybody is agreeing with that

any more.

I know that most of the press and most of the rhetoric surrounding

Bill 11 has related to the provincial government service and the 16

percent of the people affected by Bill 11 coming under the compensation

stabilization program at this date, not because of the bill, but

already by the previous program.

I want to talk for a minute about some of the agencies, public

corporations and government authorities that employ the other 84

percent. How do we continue to have in this province — we'll just take

ICBC, as I see the minister's in the House — an effective Insurance

Corporation of B.C.? The minister is very proud that that corporation

is tremendously productive; its workforce is very productive relative

to other insurance companies. I don't question that; I think that's

probably true. We also know that many people get rather exasperated

when they have to deal with ICBC, in part due to circumstances beyond

anybody's control and in part due to some insensitive policies that the

minister had laid down over the years. However, will that corporation

function as effectively if its employees — and I'm going from top

management right down to the most recently hired insurance adjuster or

stenographer — in terms of their morale, efficiency and productivity

are not competitive with private sector companies in similar financial

agencies? We do have other insurance companies in B.C. Maybe they're

not selling this general car insurance, but certainly we do have a

private insurance industry in this province selling general insurance,

life insurance and so forth; of course, a small part of ICBC does

compete with the private sector in general insurance.

There are a few questions which have not been addressed by any of

the speakers on the other side of the House: will effectiveness be

lost, will productivity go down, and will the good people be lost? A

senior official — actually he was on the board — of one of the large,

semi-independent government agencies operating under legislation passed

by this House.... We were discussing the extent and nature of the

cutbacks in that agency — and, by the way, this is an agency the demand

for whose services have not gone down at all; if anything, they've gone

up — and he said to me: "The tragedy, Chris, is that we're going to

have to be canning some of the best people." If that applies at that

agency, does it also apply to the British Columbia Railway? How much

downsizing is B.C. Rail going to go through, both in numbers of people

and in wage and salary scales? Is that operation going to become more

or less productive? Is it going to become less efficient? Is it going

to have a competitive advantage over private sector carriers or the

national railways, CP Rail and CN? Are good people going to leave for

greener pastures where they have job security, where they have some

indication...?

[3:45]

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: The member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) said: "What's that?" Job security means that when the company

you work for cuts back, they will take some interest in their employees

and how they are redeployed. The minister might be interested: when I

was still a teenager in the early 1960s, I went to work for a major

multinational corporation based in New York. It was a chemical company,

although I was not in a chemical plant — they had a large, diverse

interest. They were one of those so-called insensitive multinationals,

and it was company policy in Canada, in the United States and in all of

the other nations that that corporation operates in that beyond any

common law, any union agreement or any individual agreement they may

have had with an employee to have plant seniority, job seniority,

departmental seniority and company, seniority, when they closed a

department or a division, they found jobs for people. It may have been

driving a truck in Alabama or something — they might offer a chartered

accountant a job like that — but they found that person a job; they did

not simply can people. When they had to cut back, they cut back the

bottom 20 people and redeployed the rest throughout that company,

nationally or internationally.

So, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that when a cutback has to be made

due to lack of business, junior employees are going to be let go.

That's been the policy of responsible

[ Page 1987 ]

employers, both public and private, for years and

years — as I mentioned, going beyond common law and beyond any

collective agreement that may be in place. But the government has

sought, with this bill and others, to abrogate that principle.

What about other corporations such as B.C. Ferries? Are they to be

at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to retaining skilled

personnel with other companies? What about B.C. Hydro, the largest

Crown corporation — perhaps one of the largest agencies, outside of the

provincial government, directly affected by Bill 11? Is the Finance

minister going to tell the House that through some mechanism the

collective bargaining process relative to Hydro employees hasn't

worked, that their wages and salary levels are far too high, and that

even though there have been negotiations on both sides and signed

contracts....

I don't think that there has been a strike too often, but

occasionally there has been binding arbitration — agreed to,

incidentally, by both sides in advance.... Is the government to tell us

that all of that due process, negotiated in good faith, has been such a

failure, and that wages, salaries and working conditions of that

corporation are unfair relative to the private sector? I know somebody

could say: "Who competes with B.C. Hydro?" Well, I would agree; because

it's a utility in its market area, nobody competes with it any more

than somebody competes with B.C. Tel.

But the fact is that we do have private sector utilities in this

province marketing — retailing and wholesaling — electrical power: West

Kootenay Power and Light is an example. We also have privately owned

retailers of natural gas: Pacific Northern, Columbia and Inland are but

three, and there are a couple of others whose names escape me at the

moment. Are we to assume that B.C. Hydro has somehow had a competitive

advantage relative to these companies and needs its management and

employees to be forced backward by decisions from on high? I haven't

heard — and I haven't heard the government people claim this — these

private companies saying: "You've got to do something about the

collective bargaining process. Is this bargaining in good faith?" After

all, these corporations operate under the same Labour Code and the same

laws, and they presumably in many cases use the same negotiators and

possibly even the same arbitrators, because someone who is acceptable

as an arbitrator, because of knowledge in the field in one area, for

one company and one union is usually acceptable to others. But no

government spokesman has got up and argued that that is necessary.

Are we to assume that this bill on the compensation stabilization

program is necessary to abrogate due process — once again, private

sector negotiators, private sector arbitrators? Are we to assume that

the government feels that all these agencies and all these areas of due

process have failed?

It's strange, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about due process in

downsizing government. I mentioned earlier that the present government

has been responsible for unprecedented growth in government, and it's

rather interesting. The government says: "When it comes to landlord and

tenant disputes we're not interested in any sort of agency, either to

help landlords or tenants, or to cut comers or to save money or time in

settling disputes. We think it should all be left to the due process of

the courts." Regardless of the expense to the litigants, regardless of

the fairness, regardless of whether the landlord sees a lot of damage

being done to his apartment while he goes through the process of

getting an eviction notice — one that he could have gotten, perhaps, in

a matter of hours through the old process — the government has said:

"We don't need assistance for consumers or businesses through the

consumer protection agencies; let due process and the courts look after

that."

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Of course, we know what has happened to the human rights branch and

the Human Rights Commission. Maybe the Human Rights Commission....

Well, that was an interesting body. But the human rights branch only

investigated cases that they were ordered to by the minister, and it's

interesting that some of the ones that government apologists found most

objectionable, such as the Hunky Bill case, they did not want to take

up, but were ordered to by the Social Credit minister in charge at the

time.

In any event, while the government believes in expensive due process

of the courts for these agencies, when it comes to the collective

bargaining process they say: "Oh, to heck with due process. We're not

interested in quasi-judicial decisions, in private sector arbitrators;

in free, in-good-faith agreements; in collective bargaining. We're

going to take all that power unto ourselves. We're going to centralize

it under our authoritarian control in Victoria." That is a double

standard, Mr. Speaker, because that's what Bill 11 does: it takes that

power under control in Victoria.

Under the argument that the minister made steadily for 20 minutes —

or perhaps it was 25 — when he opened debate on Bill 11 the other day,

he said that the reason this bill was needed was because of the

government's inability to pay. Of course, under the auspices of that

argument we know that the government has done away with motor vehicle

testing even though the management of the motor vehicle testing station

said that for an increase of 50 cents on the $5 fee, those operations

would have met their costs.

MR. MOWAT: Not true. It's $15 a car, if you take into account the capitalization.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, the members are attacking their own senior management — people that their government appointed — again.

One of the fundamental reasons the opposition objects to this bill

is because it's a companion piece of legislation with others that make

a large number of people in this province second-class citizens with

less rights and privileges than a non-unionized employee would have

under common law. Thank goodness we do have common law in this

province. I'm not a legal expert, but I do know that common law has

been built up as a series of precedents and court decisions over a long

period of time — perhaps centuries — and has nothing to do with the

legislative or parliamentary process. Employers and employees have

certain rights, responsibilities and privileges under common law. The

fundamental objections that I have to the compensation stabilization

program is that it removes those rights, protections and

responsibilities that employers and employees have under common law in

the province of British Columbia. Sure, if public sector employees —

either in the provincial government or working for one of the other

agencies employing the 84 percent outside of the provincial government

service — have, through agreements or legislation, some sort of special

privilege that private sector employees don't have, I don't believe

you'd

[ Page 1988 ]

find any objection on this side of the House to

removing those special privileges. But when you make those employees

less than equal under the common law of the province, then you find a

lot of objection from this side of the House, and you find a lot of

objection from people all across the province.

I want to talk some more about the minister's remarks on the ability

to pay. I want to give the minister and the government credit — and the

Premier, I suppose.... I don't like to give the government credit for

anything at this time, but I suppose we have to recognize some things

that they do successfully. One of the things that they've done

successfully is to sell the word "restraint" as a justification for any

discretionary cabinet decision that they might decide to make, or any

discretionary legislative decision. That may or may not catch up with

them; I've no idea. But for one thing, it is a sanctimonious thing to

constantly use the word "restraint" whenever you do something

mean-spirited, whenever you do something to a singular segment of

society. This bill relates to that.

It's interesting that what the government doesn't tell us, of

course, is that ability to pay and the ability to borrow money has to

do with the government's own set of priorities, which they make as a

political decision. The public, at least in terms of the public's

perception of that political decision, was prepared to endorse that on

May 5 last — or at least 49 percent were, which was the largest

minority, I suppose. Fifty-one percent didn't like the government's

ideas, but the government, nonetheless, in a parliamentary democracy

has acted as though it had a much bigger endorsation than that. But

again, one thing about a democracy is that those kinds of decisions can

come back to haunt you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the ability to pay and the ability

to borrow. The government has had no problem in borrowing for the light

rapid transit system. Now again, along with restraint, I think you

would find very few people who would disagree that the lower mainland

area needs a light rapid transit system. Historically, I'm told, the

lower mainland had a rapid transit system 75 or 80 years ago. I can

barely remember riding on some of those vehicles in my youth, and they

went a good deal faster, as I recall, than the existing express buses

today. That was 1900 technology. I'm not suggesting we go back to that,

but obviously light rapid transit worked and was practical even 80 or

85 years ago. The government has had no problem finding money for ALRT

even though — and again, I don't want to get into a debate on the issue

here — many people say that a more comprehensive, more productive — and

the government likes the word "productivity" in justifying this bill

and others — system could have been built for hundreds of millions of

dollars less. That has been stated by a number of people. I don't know

whether that's true or not. All I would like the government to know is

that perhaps at some point, in justifying the borrowing of large

amounts of money and thereby affecting the government's ability to pay

for other things, it should give some justification other than

political opinions as to why it was necessary to go the route that

they're going.

The government certainly has had discretion to use up a tremendous

amount of the dwindling borrowing power of the province of B.C. to

build rail lines into the Tumbler Ridge coal fields. Again, that's a

discretionary decision on the part of government. We are finding now

that the contracts for delivery were open-ended contracts which require

us to be able to deliver but don't require the Japanese to take from

those mines, and that the contracts are negotiated between the Japanese

private interests and coal mining private interests. That's fair

enough. The only thing is that there is a large amount of public money

involved in our commitment to get that coal to Tokyo or wherever it's

going to be unloaded, and we find out that really, when you come right

down to it, there's no legally binding commitment for the Japanese to

take any of that coal at the price that was negotiated originally.

Again, that affects the province's ability to pay. That was a

discretionary decision.

[4:00]

We talked earlier in question period.... The Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs himself made a discretionary decision to take $4

million — which, Mr. Speaker, would very nearly pay for the human

rights branch and the rentalsman's offices — simply for a capital

expansion of liquor marketing. That has nothing to do with maintenance,

by the way, Mr. Speaker, or running the existing stores; it's just for

expansion. Now all of these decisions affect the government's ability

to pay.

Over the last two fiscal years prior to this one — and you would

remember this, Mr. Speaker — the opposition from time to time moved

restraint reductions in certain ministerial discretionary spending,

such as in travel, new office furniture and the renting of new space

for the expansion of government, which Social Credit was going through

at that time, as they had done under every year that they've been in

office. Those reductions were only to the previous year's level. They

weren't to limit the ministers' ability to travel to New York or

wherever they wanted to go. It wasn't to eliminate their ability to do

that, only to limit it to the previous level. Those reductions totalled

$80 million in each of two years. We all know that none of the

government members was interested in that kind of restraint in those

two fiscal years. That spending, which went ahead willy-nilly, Mr.

Speaker, affected the government's ability to pay profoundly, added

substantially to the billion-dollar deficit in current account in

'82-83, and added fundamentally to the deficit that we will see in

'83-84.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having made these stupid spending decisions, we

find that the government is going to severely affect the productivity

capacity not only of its own employees but of many people within those

agencies outside government — the Crown corporations, the government

agencies.

I think. the government should show a little more confidence in

people out there. People are prepared to work; they are prepared to

increase the productivity in their working places. The Premier and

other government apologists have talked about a consumer- and

production-led recovery in this province. They've said that that is

what we're going to see. I wish they were right. Certainly Social

Credit is not going to lead us out of the difficulties that we're in.

But we saw, in the latter part of August, a 16 percent reduction in the

number of people going to the PNE. Mr. Speaker, you might say that's a

subjective statistic. Unfortunately it's not. While we saw an increase

in consumer spending, mostly in other parts of Canada in the first half

this year, but not so much in B.C. — but we did see some increase in

B.C. — as noted by Stats Canada, most of that was a reduction in

savings. But what we have going on now, unfortunately — I wish this

were not true, but it is — as we near the end of the third calendar

quarter in British Columbia is consumer apprehension. People are saving

again. They're putting their money into credit unions, into banks, into

trust companies, even into insurance policies. They're not investing,

and that's one of the factors — only one — affecting the record lows on

the Vancouver Stock

[ Page 1989 ]

Exchange right now. People are not investing and

they're not spending. Discretionary spending is down drastically. One

of the problems you have in any depression or recession — a structural

problem, I suppose an economist would call it — is that the people who

have money to buy the goods and services that the economy needs to sell

to get moving again either don't need those goods and services or they

don't want to buy them; they want to sit on their money, they want to

sit on their income. The people who desperately need to buy those goods

and services, which, if they could afford them would help to get the

economy moving, don't have the money.

Unless that velocity of money is increased, unless government takes

some initiative, we are in for a long period of depression in this

province. It's one thing that big companies understand. All of this

affects the government's ability to pay, and why they felt persuaded to

bring in a bill like Bill 11. One thing large companies understand is

that if consumers can't afford to buy their product, they don't sell

any. A company like the major corporate citizen in my riding — Cominco

— understands that if they don't directly sell manufactured goods....

The major buyers of their refined non-ferrous metal are the automobile

industry and other North American manufacturing, and manufacturing in

Europe and Japan. They know that if people cannot afford to and do not

buy let's just take automobiles — they don't do very well.

The government doesn't seem to be concerned about that, though, Mr.

Speaker. They do not seem to be concerned about consumer confidence.

They do not seem to be concerned about the 250,000 public sector people

who right now, even though they may not be individually directly

threatened as far as they know, are being very careful how they spend

and how they invest. They're not investing and they're not spending.

And many private sector people, even private sector small businessmen

who are in a good revenue and cash flow situation, also are wondering

what's going to happen to their retail sales level. They're wondering

about consumers, whether they are going to continue to be able to

spend. So they're not expanding or spending. They're just hanging on

and surviving, even if they're in a profit situation.

Yes, we on this side oppose borrowing, we oppose deficits, and we

are in favour of restraint; but there are a great many ways of

alleviating this situation which Social Credit has led us into in the

province of B.C., other than the methods of the government.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a real drop in consumer spending; a real

loss of 3 percent since 1981. I know in dollars it's up slightly, but

we have still seen a real drop. The government is going to have to

recognize that it cannot encourage recovery by simply bashing the

public sector. Removing any preferences, yes, but not simply by bashing

it. I would like to see the government take some initiative to increase

revenues, to improve its ability to pay; some initiative, especially

with our export industries — all of which are privately owned, I think

— so that they can become more competitive in international markets.

More production by our industries, especially more exports by our

export industries, would unquestionably increase the government's

ability to pay.

To say there are no markets out there for certain of our products is

foolish. Obviously there are markets for all products that we produce;

it's just that in many cases the price is too low for people to be

competitive. I haven't heard of any initiative by the government to

help any industry become more competitive. They agreed not to increase

the water licence royalty as much — not to not increase it at all, or

to cut it back, but not to increase it as much as they were going to.

And they call that an initiative to help our export industries. The

minister knows full well that the B.C. gross provincial product fell by

8 percent in 1982 and we'll be lucky if it goes up or recovers a

quarter of that — 2 percent — in 1983.

Mr. Speaker, why do we need these kinds of powers that put our

public sector corporations at both a productivity and a competitive

disadvantage with companies in the private sector? It makes no sense. I

suppose we could read into the record here long sociological and

labour-relations tomes by people with PhDs after their names, or long

experience in negotiation, saying that when people live under a cloud

of apprehension and insecurity, when their morale is low, they are not

nearly as productive. The Minister of Forests likes to say that smaller

isn't necessarily better. I agree with him. But what is important in

any corporation, any organization, and in any government agency, is

that people have some faith in what they're doing; that they know the

government believes in them. To tell those people they have to be

second-class citizens in wages — arbitrarily enforced by the cabinet —

to tell those people they have to be second-class citizens in working

conditions, is not conducive to productivity within the public sector

area. I'm especially concerned with outside the provincial service.

I have an analogy I would like to use. A few years ago — only four

or five years ago, as a matter of fact — the United States government,

in an attempt to cut deficits, cut maintenance programs on their

highway system. The interstate system — a very good system, as I'm sure

you know — cost billions of dollars, but it returned billions of

dollars in economic activity; it generated wealth. After only a few

years' lack of maintenance, that system has deteriorated to the point

where bridges are unsafe. Special taxes are needed on gasoline and the

sale of trucking and automotive equipment — and even then it barely

scratches the surface — to bring that system back to where it is equal

to the productive capacity of the United States transportation system.

Mr. Speaker, because we are in a short-term economic hiatus, are we

to make our entire public service, including Crown corporations like

B.C. Rail and B.C. Hydro, less productive, less efficient? Are we to

disregard the capital resource, which is the human capital? Once again,

one could read very scholarly, philosophical discussions into the

record here about how, when we think of capital and development and

resources, we always think of the hardware, and neglect our human

capital. Let's keep what we have, and let's keep those tens of

thousands of very fine people in the public service in British

Columbia. When I say "public service, " I'm referring to transit and

rail and ICBC and Hydro — all of those agencies that are never talked

about when we get into this so-called restraint legislation.

I hope the minister has been listening, because the compensation

stabilization program, while it has a nice, high sounding name, in fact

is part of a cutback program that gives people in the public sector in

this province — the entire quarter of a million of them — and their

families fewer rights than they would have if they had no union but

worked in the private sector. That's not the direction that the rest of

North America is going; that's not the direction that the rest of the

free world is going.

I leave the minister with one thought. I think his counterpart, the

Treasurer in Ontario, which is a Conservative province, was recently

asked what he thought about the legislative package. He said: "It

scares the hell out of me."

[ Page 1990 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre.

[4:15]

MR. MOWAT: Little Mountain.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. member.

MR. MOWAT: I know why you said that, Mr. Speaker: because the members for Vancouver Centre are not often in the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to support Bill 11. I'll be very

brief, because I don't think it takes very long for one to see the

value of this bill that deals with the stabilization of compensation in

the provincial public sector.,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, for clarification, I believe the

member who is speaking now should be suspect with respect to the

relevance and accuracy of his remarks. I think he just suggested that

the members for Vancouver Centre are not in the House. Certainly I am

here, and if I am here then that member's comments from now on have to

be suspect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. I think that was a facetious point of order at this time.

MR. MOWAT: I was talking about 5 o'clock in the morning when the vote was taken. They were both missing, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member carry on with Bill 11.

MR. MOWAT: On February 18, 1982, the Premier announced that a

compensation stabilization program that would encourage productivity

and restraint would come into being. This program takes into

consideration the public sector employer's ability to pay, but above

all it considers the ability of the taxpayer to pay and pay and pay and

pay. On May 5 the voters said they wanted no more open-ended increases

year after year.

It is interesting to note that 93 percent of all the plans referred

to the commissioner's office came within the guidelines. The

compensation stabilization program has averaged increases of 3.63

percent, down from 17 percent. The program is working now, and working

well.

It should also be noted that not one of the plans that came before

the commission was referred to the mandatory regulations

section of the

act. The regulations that we see now before us will regulate the

compensation range from a plus 5 to a minus 5. Because the compensation

stabilization program is working, it will be extended indefinitely, to

the benefit of the taxpayers of this province, who continue having to

pay their taxes.

It should be noted that the annual yearly increments that are often

given automatically to many public sector employees will now be

included in the annual allowable yearly increase. I believe the public

often does not realize that when a public sector employee is granted an

increase in his wages, it is on top of what he is receiving yearly as

an automatic salary increment.

The compensation stabilization program has been most effective. With

the amendments that we see in front of us, the program will be more

effective, to the benefit of the taxpayers and the ability of the

taxpayers to pay. We have now been sitting in this House for over three

months at a cost — or, as some people in the community are saying now,

a waste — of approximately $100,000 per day. The majority of the voters

in this province said yes to the restraint programs of this government

on May 5. If the government were doing wrong in bringing forward these

programs — I am sure in my own mind, and I feel very strongly that they

are not; I repeat, they are not bringing forward the wrong programs —

I'm sure that the voters will decide in the next election.

The money being wasted by the opposition in stalling, filibustering

and obstructionist tactics could greatly assist many persons in need.

The cost of running this House for the past three months is coming

close to $9 million. The net cost is at least $2 million a month that

could be given to the needed treasury dollars of the province. This sum

that we could save could assist the government in reinstating a number

of the grants that have been cut, a number of the programs that have

had to be eliminated because of lack of funds. We could stop the

continued increasing deficit. We have listened long enough to the

opposition, and now I believe it is time for action.

Taxpayers who are contacting me daily are saying: "Get on with it.

Save that money you are wasting in Victoria and put it back into

programs for the people of this province." We are now hearing from many

of the public sector employees who understand the fragile economic

condition that British Columbia is in. At this time they want to

cooperate with the government restraint programs and request for

increased productivity. We hear from them more and more each day. I

must say that they are now willing to tighten their belts, like the

private sector employer and employee have done for the past years.

I am very proud to speak in support of Bill 11, because we have the

support of the majority of the voters and the taxpayers of the

province. It is the government's mandate to pass this bill and the

other bills that are in front of this House today.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we again hear from the members on

the government side about the costs of operating this chamber for any

given day, yet the members fail to mention that we have, in this

province, a government that is the most expensive and most costly for

the taxpayers that this province has ever seen. They have been wastrels

from day one. We know about the profligate spending that they have

undertaken, and Broadway trips, and expensive wines, and entertaining

the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to a little treat — seeing the

Lions and the Eskimos play in the new stadium. We have seen them fail

in terms of any attempt to diversify the economy, to develop any sort

of secondary industry in this province. We have seen them rely entirely

on shipping out raw materials in order to bring in revenues to

government. They are now allowing the shipment of raw logs at an

unprecedented rate, while our people go unemployed, while the budget

must have a huge increase to pay for Human Resources expenditures

because so many of our people have to turn to welfare. These people get

up and talk about the expenditures involved in allowing debate on what

is the most repressive package of legislation the province has seen.

Not only that, it is a very costly package of legislation, and it is

going to cost the taxpayers dearly.

[ Page

1991 ]

If we on this side of the House can make the government change its

mind on any of these issues, on any of these bills, then the taxpayers'

money will have been well spent in terms of the democratic process and

allowing the opposition to bring their views before this government.

But the government seems to have taken leave of its senses. It listens

to no one. It is determined to centralize, to control, to operate like

a banana republic. It has the same kind of leadership and the same kind

of deaf ears. Fortunately there is a chamber and there is an

opportunity for those of us who are elected to this side of the House

to oppose the direction that the government is taking. It is

centralist, it is dictatorial, and it's very expensive for the

taxpayers of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We lost our credit rating, which is costing the people of the

province a good deal of money — there again because the government has

failed to show any leadership or any direction in terms of the

development of the economy, the development of secondary industry and

the diversification of the economy. They failed, and the people in New

York who make the decisions concerning the credit ratings of

governments have made that clear to us.

We've never even heard from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), who, when he was Minister of Health, undertook a program

that failed: namely, the heroin treatment program. We told them then

that that program would fail and that it would cost the taxpayers of

this province dearly. And it did. It was a complete failure. Has he

ever admitted it? Has he ever apologized to the taxpayers of this

province?

AN HON. MEMBER: He gave us a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island instead.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or did he?

MS. SANFORD: Well, that's a good question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are straying a bit from the principle of Bill 11.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we've just heard about the costs of

operating this chamber from the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

(Mr. Mowat). He's talking about the costs, and I'm telling you about

the costs of this government to the taxpayers of this province. It's

unprecedented. They have incurred $14 billion in debt and they're

staying up here talking about the money it costs to operate this

chamber for one day. They're a disgrace.

But this bill, along with so many of the other bills that are

designed to make government employees feel like second-class citizens

and to ensure that they become second-class citizens, is one that we

certainly cannot support. There is no doubt that Bill 11 denies the

people in the public service the right to collective bargaining. That's

very clear, and it doesn't matter what this government says about it;

that's what it does. On the one hand we have some people on the

government side saying, "Oh, yes, we support collective bargaining; in

a free society that should be allowed," and then on the other hand they

have a bill that takes away the right of free collective bargaining in

this province. There's no doubt about it; that's the outcome of this

piece of legislation. Just as on the one hand they're saying, "We will

allow locally elected school boards to make decisions about education,"

they then bring in a bill that says that they won't be making any

decisions because they will be making them all here in Victoria. "We in

the cabinet will make those decisions with respect to public servants

in this province. We will say that we support collective bargaining,

but we are the ones who are going to be making these decisions." They

are not even going to allow the proper arbitration process to take

place. That is interfered with through this piece of legislation as

well. So they go through the sham of collective bargaining, the thing

ends up in arbitration, and then you bring in rules regarding

arbitration, just to ensure that this government will have its way.

I don't know what kind of incentive there will be for the public

servants of this province to do the best job they can for government,

when time after time this government treats them in the way they do.

It's being done in the name of restraint, but we know that government

doesn't even know what the word restraint means. We are the ones on

this side of the House who led the fight for restraint. Did they listen

then? Did they listen two years ago? Did they listen last year? We made

all those motions to try to save the taxpayers some money and to try to

ensure at the same time that the valuable services to people would not

be eliminated. We are the ones who led the fight on restraint in here.

Did the government listen? Did they pay any attention? Did they accept

even one motion to reduce the cost of ministerial travel or the

purchase of office furniture? I tell you, Mr. Speaker, they don't know

what restraint means.

[4:30]

The other thing we heard from the member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain was: "It depends on the ability to pay." Who determines the

ability to pay? The school boards don't determine that. The government,

through their centralized legislation, are the ones who are going to

determine what those budgets are going to be. They are assuming this

authority so they can direct every last thing in this province, and

that's why everybody should be worried.

Were the taxpayers approached when some $29 million or $17 million —

I can't remember the figure — was awarded to bail out the Whistler

developers? What about the taxpayers' ability to pay for the developers

up there? Was there any consultation on that? Oh, no, we'll hand over

the money to develop Whistler and to ensure that they're okay, but it's

okay if the other people of this province are put under the guidelines

and legislation of this particular government.

We were told a year ago, prior to an election — very handy, Mr.

Speaker — that the government was so concerned about the taxpayer that

they were going to put a limit on the amount of increase that Hydro

could apply for. But now, suddenly, it's okay for Hydro to have that 6

percent limitation lifted. What about the ability of the taxpayer to

pay those increases? Is that of concern to these people? Of course not;

the only thing they want to do is attack the working people of the

province and promote confrontation. We've seen it time after time.

They're hoping for confrontation. They don't want cooperation out of

their public service. If they wanted cooperation out of their public

service, they wouldn't be treating them in this way: removing

collective bargaining, destroying the arbitration process, and telling

them at the same time not that this is for a two-year period, as we

were told by the Premier a couple of years ago, but that this is

forever — the same way as the Minister of Education will

[ Page 1992 ]

forever set the budgets for school boards. There's no sunset clause; it's forever.

MR. HOWARD: They might lift it just before the next election.

MS. SANFORD: We know what they're up to. They applied the 6

percent limitation on Hydro just before the last election, but now that

the election's over that has been removed.

Have the taxpayers been asked: "Can you afford the ads we are going

to be putting on the television and on radio in order to sell this

package that no one has accepted at this stage"? What about the

taxpayers' ability to pay for those ads? Is it not better that we

ensure that the services of the province are retained — they've all

been removed in the name of restraint — that people are not made

second-class citizens, and that we eliminate that kind of expenditure?

How can those back-benchers sit there and accept money being spent on

advertising while we're discussing so-called restraint legislation?

It's not very often that we hear any opposition whatsoever from

those back-benchers; they were trained very quickly by the Premier. We

know how quickly the Premier trains his dogs. It doesn't take him long

to train back-benchers, either, because not one of them is speaking out

and saying, on behalf of their constituents, that it's better to

provide services to their constituents than it is to advertise on TV a

package of unpalatable pieces of legislation.

The lands branch in my constituency is going to be closed. I want to

pose a question to the government members over there. Many of the

people who utilize the services of the lands branch in Courtenay — and

there are many of them; they're a very busy office in the courthouse in

Courtenay — do not have the ability to pay for a trip to Victoria and

to stay overnight in a hotel room in order to meet with lands branch

people down here and have problems resolved. They talk about ability to

pay and restraint and compensation stabilization, but at the same time

they are placing — on my constituents, at least, and I think on every

other MLA's constituents, because the lands branches are closing down

all over the province.... They say — and it's typical of Social Credit

— that if you have lots of money, if you're quite wealthy, then it

won't hurt you too much to travel to Victoria; in fact, it might make a

nice outing to come down to Victoria, stay overnight and meet with

lands branch officials in order to resolve whatever problems you may

have with the lands branch. But those people who don't have the money,

who have already had removed many of the services that they relied on

such as legal aid, are given no opportunity. What about their ability

to pay? That's not considered by this government at all. The moves that

they are making are very costly to everyone, but those who can afford

to pay don't feel the pressure nearly as much as those people who don't

have the funds in order to make up for the services that this

government has removed.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the government keeps talking

about in relation to this particular piece of legislation is

productivity, yet I have not heard one of the members on the other side

define productivity in so many areas of the public service. For

instance, what does the Minister of Finance mean in terms of

productivity in the school system? I'm confused about that. Is there

increased productivity in the school system if the teachers have

classes of 40 or more? Is that how you increase productivity in the

school system? Or is there increased productivity if the teacher marks

more papers than he marked last year? Is that increased productivity?

Or is it if the teacher gives out more A's than he did last year? Maybe

that's what the government means by increased productivity. The

government has failed to define what they mean by increased

productivity, and they are certainly not going to receive the best

possible service from the public service when they introduce

legislation of this type. What kind of incentive do the public

employees have when they are kicked in the teeth time and time again by

a government that wants to make them second-class citizens, by a

government that invites confrontation and by a government that is a

very costly government for everybody in the province including those

working in the public service.

The public servants of this province were very concerned about the

downturn in the economy and the drop in the revenues that were coming

in to government. They accepted a three-year contract that gave them a

6 percent increase for each of the three years. Yet at the same time

those members were facing increases in their mortgage rates going up as

high as 18 percent, 19 percent and higher. They were facing increased

costs in hydro, bills, in fuel bills and in every other avenue — every

expenditure that those employees had to make was going well above the 6

percent level. Yet they accepted that contract in the interests of the

province, because they were assured that this was a temporary

aberration. When the compensation stabilization program was introduced,

they were also assured by the Premier that it was only for two years.

They expect, on that side of the House, to have cooperation and good

service provided by those employees. What's happening at the same time?

They are asking us in the name of restraint to accept this unpalatable

package of legislation. They say we can't provide services to the

disabled because we don't have the money. They say we can't have a

human rights branch because we don't have the money. We can't have a

human rights commission because we don't have the money. We can't have

a rentalsman's office because we don't have the money. We can't have

legal aid services because we don't have the money. We can't continue

to fund transition houses because we don't have the money. We can't

improve day-care services, we can't provide counsellors who assist in

keeping families together, we can't provide a child-abuse team because

we don't have the money.

At the same time we find this government entertaining those people

of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and we read in the paper

that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at the moment is doing

quite nicely. The profits are up considerably, according to the

business

section of theVancouver Province of Monday, September

26. We can afford to entertain those in the Canadian Manufacturers'

Association at a football game in a facility that's built at a cost of

$60,000 to the taxpayers, but we can't afford the $50 a month that

would go to the disabled under the work incentive program.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, with all due respect, I would

suggest that simply to relate expenditures throughout other avenues of

government does not make those discussions in order while referring

them to the bill at hand. I'm sure if the member extended that argument

she would realize that

[ Page

1993 ]

every conceivable aspect of government could be

covered under any specific bill. I would therefore ask, hon. member,

that remarks be made relevant to the bill before us.

[4:45]

MS. SANFORD: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

I'm trying to give the Minister of Finance a bit of assistance,

because he's talking about the taxpayers and the ability to pay. I'm

trying to suggest that there are ways that he could save money, and

there are also ways where more money could be collected to help provide

the services which this government says it can't afford. They don't

have to turn the people working in the public service into second-class

employees.

We see that the banks are doing quite well. It seems to me that if

the Minister of Finance is concerned about not getting enough revenues,

there is an area that I should bring to his attention. In the first

nine months of last year the banks showed a 29 percent increase of

$1,389 million in their profits. With all of those profits and assets

there is an ability to pay. Surely the minister can come up with some

system, when people who are disabled can't get $50 a month and the

bankers of the world and those involved in the banking system are

making a profit in nine months of $1,389 million. If the Minister of

Finance were to consider that kind of increase and look at their

ability to pay, perhaps he would reduce the number of cuts that he's

had to make to people like the disabled, the seniors and children who

are being abused in our society, and who must now all go without

services because he says the taxpayer doesn't have the ability to pay.

That's one of the reasons that we have this bill — its ability to pay.

It seems to me that there are lots of people with the ability to

pay, and there are a lot without. You're the ones who are charging

those who don't more than you're charging those who do. Just look at

these bank profits. How much are we getting out of those banks to help

finance our programs? The only thing they want to do, Mr. Speaker, is

to ensure that their friends are taken care of, that they're royally

entertained by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and that the

banking system is left untouched. The banking system has lots of assets

— no problems there. They have lots of ability to pay. At least that's

what the Province says.

It turns out that one of the reports issued by the banks had a

mistake in it, and this mistake was a mere $3 billion, less than 1

percent of the assets of the banks, which now total $364 billion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, again....

MS. SANFORD: I'm trying to assist the Minister of Finance.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate that, hon. member, and I'm sure the

minister appreciates it. But, hon. member, the Compensation

Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983, does not give an hon. member

licence, I would suggest, to go into a discussion on the merits or

otherwise of the banking system. While touching on a matter briefly in

an argument, it would not allow the member — again with due respect —

to continue in that particular vein. I would ask the member to bring

her remarks more to bear on the second reading.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, one of the

principal points of Bill 11 is that it seeks to put into the act

something called the purpose of the act. That is pretty fundamental

when you outline what the purposes are. One of them is to ensure that

the paramount consideration for determining compensation is the public

sector employer's ability to pay. My colleague for Comox is saying that

here we have a group of institutions called banks, which last year the

government felt disposed to impose a tax upon, but they have not done

so this year. I think she is arguing that it may not be necessary to

embrace the full principle of the bill if you could find sources of

revenue elsewhere. She is using that argument as a countering force to

what the principle of this bill states.

MR. SPEAKER: The points made by the member for Skeena have

some merit. Nonetheless, I must again advise that to carry the

discussion to a full-fledged discussion of the banking system and

taxation thereof would allow us to canvass the entire spectrum. I

appreciate that from the hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I accept your advice. I have only one more comment to make.

One of the reasons the assets of those banks are as high as they are

is that the Premier of this province went to Ottawa to urge that the

interest rates be raised. He didn't think then about the ability of the

taxpayer to pay those huge interest rates. That is one of the reasons

those kinds of assets and profits are being revealed at this time. The

government has said we must all be in favour of restraint. We have said

over and over again that of course we are in favour of restraint; we

are the ones that urged it three years ago, and they didn't listen. If

only they would exercise some restraint, then I think the government

might obtain some credibility with us on this side. But they have no

restraint; they have no idea what the word means. Look at the fact that

they would appoint Tony Tozer to a position as government agent, at a

huge increase in his salary. That is not restraint.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on now!

MS. SANFORD: Listen, we are talking about compensation

stabilization, we are talking about the public sector, and it should

have been the public sector, the civil service commission of this

province, that made that choice. It should not be the government or the

Premier that makes that kind of choice. We have provisions under the

civil service for employees who are dedicated, who have worked hard for

this government, who have tried to obtain a position, such as a

government agent and are being shunted aside. At the same time, they

are told they have to go under this compensation stabilization program.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has requested on two

occasions that the member return to the principle of the bill. The

Chair has advised that the debate currently engaged upon by the member

does not fall within the confines of second reading of the bill before

us. I again advise the member of the same situation. Hon. member, you

have been a member of this House for a sufficient time to recognize

yourself that the admonishments of the Chair are actually due in this

case to the member's own remarks, and at this point I would ask the

member to return to the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act.

[ Page 1994 ]

MS. SANFORD: I have to disagree with you, although I have to

accept what you are telling me. If you are not going to allow me to

advise the Minister of Finance about finances, when this whole bill is

based on finances, then, Mr. Speaker, I shall take my seat.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, I stand on standing order 42,

which says in part that no member may speak twice to a question except

in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been

misquoted or misunderstood. I feel that the member for Rossland-Trail

(Mr. D'Arcy) misunderstood what I was saying when replying to what I

said in debate this afternoon. He said: "At no time did the NDP make a

deal with labour." I have in my hand a document — in fact it is a

newsletter — called On The Level ,

from a building trades union of the province of British Columbia, that

was mailed on April 14, 1983, to all of the membership....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, clearly at this time

the Chair must advise the member that to seek the floor under standing

order 42 for the purpose of admitting what is in fact new

information.... Also, the time to raise any such objection is at the

conclusion of the member's speech. Inasmuch as there has been an

intervening speaker — namely, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — the

Chair would find it difficult at this time to admit the argument of the

member.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it's

certainly new information. Although I realize that you won't let me

read the document in the House — I'll table it with the House — it

certainly points out that the NDP did make a deal with labour prior to

the 1983 election.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure to take my place in the debate on this bill. The continued

obstruction that we're receiving from the opposition is disappointing

to me, holding up the process of democracy in this House and putting

forward a tremendous number of fabrications regarding the things that

happened in this province in the last year or two.

I look back in the records and think of the policies and programs

put forward by this party prior to and during the election campaign,

and I wonder where the opposition get the evidence, the facts, to cause

them to say that we didn't level with the people, that we didn't give

the people all the facts about the type of legislation we're now seeing

brought forward in British Columbia. Just going over the record for a

few minutes and thinking back over the last couple of years, mainly

over the last nine or ten months, the kinds of decisions that this

party, this government, told the people of British Columbia about and

announced prior to election day on May 5.... It's quite an impressive

list.

I see that the government announced the cancellation of the

recreation facilities fund for the time being. There would be no more

funds spent under that program. It was a substantive announcement, one

that no doubt could have brought this party some backlash from the

people who are interested in those types of facilities. Nonetheless, we

knew that times were tough, and that restraint was necessary, so we

made the announcement. We further announced that the renter's tax

credit would be discontinued for the time being. Also, the tax credit

to seniors was withdrawn. The dental care plan, as announced at one

time, was put on the back burner. We announced and took a very strong

position, one well known to all citizens in British Columbia, regarding

the compensation stabilization program. It's interesting that the

Leader of the Opposition, at a very famous meeting in the Kootenays,

announced he was going to scrap that program. If any single event

during that election campaign put the nail in the coffin of the

opposition, it was that announcement by the Leader of the Opposition. I

believe it was about the second Thursday of the campaign.

[5:00]

We went on to say, and representatives of this party throughout the

province went on to say, that there would be significant reductions in

the public service. There would be more downsizing of government. Those

are the kinds of promises we made to the people of British Columbia. We

further told them that a lot of tough decisions that would have to be

made once this government was returned to power on May 5.

Mr. Speaker, I think of all those things that we announced prior to

May 5, and then I come down to the Legislature and sit in this

parliament and listen to the members of the oppo