1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7417 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Mr. Passarell –– 7417

Mr. Davis –– 7418

Mrs. Dailly –– 7421

Mr. Kempf –– 7424

Mrs. Wallace –– 7427

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

MR. PASSARELL: Yesterday I discussed the ramifications

of this wage control bill on the public employees — a bill that was

devised by the Trudeau government in Ottawa — and how it failed to

address the price increases in this province. But today, through the

graciousness of my heart, I am going to present some positive solutions

so that this government may take my solutions and withdraw this bill.

The

first solution is that the government cut back on travel with

first-class airline tickets and cut back on the buying of fancy

imported French wines at dinner parties. Instead of spending hundreds

of dollars on private cabinet dinner parties for four or five guests, I

have a solution here — a policy that this government should bring forth

to save the taxpayers by the wiser use of tax dollars for government

spending sprees. The solution I have is that this government be

restricted to its entertainment and dining policies by only eating at

Brownies Chicken, McDonald's Hamburgers, Dairy Queen, Dragon Dan's Chop

Suey Kitchen. That way cabinet ministers would not waste hundreds of

dollars for a few friends at a dinner party.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, could you bring the government to order?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may we have orderly debate, please. The member for Atlin has the floor.

MR. PASSARELL: The Premier is talking about buying French wine.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, up there we don't buy French wine either. Porch climber is good enough for the good people of the north.

For travel, I have another suggestion. Instead of many cabinet ministers using

government aircraft to take quick jaunts back to Vancouver for supper every

day, I have three solutions. First, when cabinet ministers go back to their

home ridings in Vancouver, they should take the public bus to the ferry, get

off, walk onto the ferry, take it across to the other side and get on the bus

again. Second, in cases of emergency, when cabinet ministers have to get back

quickly, the government could buy two pairs of roller skates. Third, they could

allow the Science minister to develop a hot-air balloon — it could carry the

B.C. logo on it — and a little basket on the bottom that would be capable of

carrying ten cabinet ministers back and forth between Vancouver and Victoria.

For

wine, a policy should be developed whereby no cabinet minister buys

imported wine at taxpayers' expense. We have an excellent wine industry

in this province. It's about time we used our tax dollars to support

this industry instead of the wine industry of France.

One of

the more positive solutions here, one that I think most members would

respect, is to cut the cost of paper. This government could save

millions and millions of dollars if it would stop duplicating reports.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what's the matter with the Premier today; he

seems to be quite verbal from his seat. I don't know whether or not it

has something to do with being in Alaska, but I would expect the

Premier to come to order and listen to these positive solutions that

could save his government millions and millions of dollars.

example of this duplication is the amount of paper that the government

sends out. I received five copies of the publication called "Northeast

Coal Development News" for April 1982. Wouldn't one do? In Atlin I

received five of these on the same date to the same address. This

government could save millions and millions of dollars by sending one

copy, not five, of the same publication to one address. Many of us

receive three or four copies of the same publications. Maybe the

Premier could talk to his cabinet and get more restraint on government

reports, instead of using tax dollars to send five copies of a report

to one address. Instead of holding down government employee wages

through punitive legislation, this government should show restraint and

leadership by not duplicating thousands and thousands of government

reports, new releases and announcements. One copy to each address would

be sufficient.

In health care, this wage restraint bill has

had a detrimental effect. Yesterday we found out that St. Paul's

Hospital, at 100 percent capacity, was ordered to cut back by $4.4

million, which in practical terms means 165 staff to be cut and 40 beds

to be closed. When individuals in the far north are sick and require

major surgery, in many cases they go to St. Paul's Hospital in

Vancouver. By restricting hospital care in major Vancouver hospitals

through this government's tight money policy, you're penalizing the

residents of this province for getting sick, and I'm opposed to that.

Another positive solution: this government makes over $200 million from the

sale of booze. The percentages on imported wines are higher. Instead of placing

this $200 million in general revenue for the development of football stadiums,

I would ask that this money be placed in an emergency hospital fund so that

not one hospital bed is closed in this province and not one nurse is laid off.

This

week the Premier announced the wage restraint program to our Alaskan

neighbours, and explained that the province would not have funding in

the near future to develop the Dease Lake railroad through northern

British Columbia to connect to Alaska. This project would have supplied

much-needed labour and skilled jobs in the far north to a project that

would return all the benefits to the province of British Columbia and

its residents. It's not like the northeast coal deal that uses B.C. tax

dollars to subsidize Japanese steel companies. Another aspect of the

Premier's visit to Alaska as regards Bill 28, a major topic in that

speech and a concern of the Alaskans' for a number of years, is the

$7.6 billion

[ Page 7418 ]

Stikine-Iskut

project, which has cost this province $45 million in feasibility

studies. As a sign of restraint, this government should cancel

immediately any further studies on the Stikine-Iskut hydro, project.

This money could be used to finance salaries of teachers and government

employees to reach a just settlement through the proper channels of

collective bargaining.

Also in showing restraint, the

Premier said he would exchange information with the government of

Alaska on the Stikine-Iskut project. I wonder why this government and

the Premier are in the position of exchanging information with a

foreign country at taxpayers' expense while denying the residents of

British Columbia that same information. If all the government reports

were made public, it would not be necessary to set up special

committees with foreign countries.

In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, Bill 28 restrains the wrong people and only brings further

hardships upon the public employees of this province. This bill could

only be devised by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his supporters in the

west, the B.C. Social Credit Party. As a final thought, if there's

anything to restrain in this province, it's the Premier and wolves, and

not government employees.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker,

this bill, the Compensation Stabilization Act, in its essentials is a

government restraint act. That at least is its principal intent:

restraint. It will restrain the spending of tax dollars at the

provincial, regional and local levels in this province. It's workable

in that it establishes guidelines which our administrators can use, and

it's realistic in that it will help to tailor the spending of

provincial, regional and local administrations, reduce them and bring

them into line with the money that government, at these several levels,

can reasonably raise from the taxpayers in British Columbia.

have to face facts. Our provincial income, overall, is levelling off.

Even with inflation at, say, 10 percent a year, we're likely to see our

gross provincial product go up 10 percent or less. In other words,

we're at a standstill in real income terms. We have no more real income

to go around in 1982 than was spent in 1981, and yet many of our

provincial administrators — and that includes regional and municipal

people — expect to spend 15 percent or perhaps even 40 percent more.

It's true of our hospital administrations and it's true of some school

districts. It's true of many public servants who've become accustomed

not only to job security but also to a standard of living which

continues to move ahead of the rest of the community.

It's a

well-documented fact that the average wage paid in the public sector in

Canada is higher than that paid in the private sector. At one time it

was the reverse. It was certainly the reverse before the Pearson era in

Ottawa, when public servants gained the right to bargain collectively.

Civil servants then — and that was in the early 1960s — were paid less

because they had security of employment, among other things. They

weren't ever going to be laid off if they had some tenure, so their

rate of pay tended to lag behind that of other taxpayers whose income

fluctuated widely and whose employment could not be guaranteed from one

month, let alone one year, to the next.

Statistics Canada

gives us some interesting figures in this connection: public servants

across Canada became better paid than other Canadians in comparable

vocations in the late 1960s. They had moved out ahead of their fellow

workers by between 6 percent and 28 percent by the mid –– 1970s. Now

the differential is anywhere from 7 percent at the low end to as much

as 60 percent at the high end — and I'm talking about comparable jobs,

jobs which can be compared between the public sector and the private

sector. Public servants, in other words, are now not only secure in

their employment are usually better paid and often much better paid

than the majority of taxpayers in this country and the majority of

taxpayers in British Columbia.

The latest figures from

Revenue Canada also contain some other bits of information, some of

which governments, as employers, may be reluctant to admit. There is a

ranking of 1979 income levels for various categories of employees.

Employees in business rank six, seven and eight. In other words, ranked

in terms of levels of income they rank below the first six categories —

the first six categories all being public-service employee groupings.

Who

make up these six highest-paid groupings reported by Revenue Canada?

They're not all civil servants in the strictest sense of the word. They

include nurses, teachers, hospital technicians and professors, whose

salaries are paid indirectly, rather than directly, out of the public

purse. Interestingly enough, the teaching profession, as a group, leads

all the rest, followed by federal government employees, members of the

Canadian Armed Forces and provincial government employees, in that

order. Taken together — that is, lumping all six groups together — they

earned an average of 30 percent more than their private-sector

equivalents in 1979. The figure for 1981 is more like one-third —

perhaps as high as 35 percent more.

What about rates of

increase of remuneration in recent years? Obviously public servants

have improved their circumstances more rapidly than private-sector

employees have. Let us take the five-year interval between 1974 and

1979. According to Revenue Canada the real incomes of business

employees rose, over that entire period, by less than 6 percent. I'm

talking about real income — purchasing power. Federal government

employees, meanwhile, enjoyed a jump of more than 13 percent.

Provincial government employees, Canada-wide, were up 12 percent.

That's roughly double the rate that the private-sector employees

enjoyed.

Breaking it down into smaller and more easily

recognized groups, we find that the teaching profession achieved an

average annual income boost of 19 percent and health workers were going

up at a 16 percent rate. No wonder the federal government also is

beginning to put a brake on spending of this kind. It's certainly no

wonder that our Minister of Finance, faced particularly with declining

revenues from the resource section, is having to bring in restraint

legislation in British Columbia as well.

I've got some

statistics here that bear more particularly on rates of pay across

Canada for certain categories. These figures relate to 1981. These are

rankings for rates of remuneration in these different employment

categories — rankings as between provinces. The rate of pay of teachers

in British Columbia ranks number one in Canada. It's higher than

Alberta, Ontario and other provinces. Hospital nurses are number one.

British Columbia nurse assistants are number one in Canada. X-ray

technicians are number one. Civic workers — labour category, municipal

level — are number one in Canada. Engineers in government: British

Columbia ranks number two, behind Alberta. When it comes to social

workers, we're ahead of Ontario but behind Alberta.

[ Page

7419 ]

Wage settlements in 1981. Workers in education in this province are up 15 percent;

health workers are up 21 percent; municipal government employees are up 14 percent;

and provincial Crown corporation employees are up 14 percent. Canada-wide, the

average wage settlement in the private sector in 1981, by contrast, was 11 percent.

In the United States the average wage settlement was up 8 percent. In other

words, wage settlements were less impressive in the United States, by a considerable

margin, than they were in Canada. Wage settlements in the public sector were

much greater in this province, and indeed in Canada, than were wage settlements

in the private sector.

These

public sector-private sector comparisons wouldn't be complete if I

didn't also refer to the incomes earned by employers in the private

sector. Incidentally, looking at overall numbers for Canada, it's

interesting to note that industry declined from some 40 percent of

activity in this country in the 1950s to around 30 percent today. While

public-service employees were chalking up their virtually risk-free

real gains of 11 percent, 12 percent or 13 percent in the late

seventies, Canada's business proprietors actually saw their incomes — I

am generalizing over the entire sector — collectively shrink by a

similar amount. Farmers lost more than 12 percent. Self-employed

professionals were even worse off. They suffered a drop of more than 20

percent in their real income or living standards. Small business has

been off correspondingly. So one can understand why restraint in the

area of wage and salary compensation paid in the public sector, at

least, has to be introduced now and practised for the next year or two

at the very least.

Perhaps I should repeat myself. In the

latter half of the 1970s the losers, relatively speaking, were almost

all in the private sector. Their incomes not only fell behind those of

employees in government but they actually declined in real terms — that

is, Canada-wide. Civil servants were up and the bulk of the taxpaying

public — their real employers — were down; down in real terms if we

take the interval from 1974 to 1979 as the interval for comparison. The

inescapable conclusion from these Revenue Canada statistics is that it

pays — increasingly so — to earn your keep in the public as opposed to

the private sector. Become a public servant and you are not only

securing your employment but you are better paid, and increasingly

better paid, than your fellow workers out there in the private sector.

Public servants listening to these figures will say that they are inflated.

They are right, in a way, if we are talking merely about wage increases in any

particular classification or job level. But incomes rise not only because the

basic rate increases but also because there are automatic upward adjustments

within each income pay bracket in the public service, increases which take place

a year or so at a time — as long as you don't get into trouble or commit

some crime or another. This upward migration in income occurs with a degree

of regularity in the public service; marking time in terms of actual income

is rare. Falling back, it seems, is impossible. This is a far cry, obviously,

from the private sector where one can lose his or her job at any time, where

people have to switch from one industry — perhaps even from one vocation — to

another with some degree of frequency. The private sector workers, in other words,

are the risk-takers. Under these circumstances, one really has to wonder why.

In good years they should be paid more than public servants rather than less.

They should certainly gain relative to public servants. But this hasn't

happened in the last two decades in this country, and it doesn't look as

if it is likely to happen in the immediate future either.

There

are marked differences within the public service as well. The pay gap

from top to bottom is wider than it used to be.

Whereas the lowest-paid

public servants in Canada were 7 percent better off, on the average,

than their private-sector counterparts in 1979, those at the top of the

heap, on the average, were 60 percent better off. The pyramid, in terms

of numbers of employees, is also getting fatter at the top. It is not

necessarily narrower at the bottom, but the pyramid is developing

remarkable shoulders of its own. Promotion within the ranks gives us

more senior bureaucrats as compared to junior bureaucrats. More civil

servants are giving orders and fewer civil servants are taking orders.

When

I first became a minister in Ottawa there were deputy ministers and

little else at the deputy minister level. Now there are deputy

ministers, associate deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers.

This organizational change is being copied by provincial governments as

well. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say that our public

service at all levels is becoming increasingly top-heavy. It is a

hierarchy with an increasing emphasis on "high," and it has a financial

and administrative momentum of its own.

As an ordinary

member of this Legislative Assembly I have to be concerned, not only

because of the large number of civil servants — those who are living

better than the average taxpayer — but because the public generally

seems to think that politicians are also able to take advantage of the

improvement in income which is now common in the public service in this

country. That, generally, is not true. Most of us could earn much more

if we worked at our chosen profession, be it law or engineering or

accountancy or teaching, for example. I know that this is true of the

majority of our cabinet ministers, perhaps all of them. I know that it

is true also of some members of the official opposition, who as

hotliners or consultants and with the knowledge of the workings of

government could emulate a Rafe Mair or a Les Peterson or even a Bob

Williams if they retired from politics and put their talents to work in

some other way.

The question at issue in this legislation is

restraint restraint in government and especially restraint at the top.

Back in 1978 when the Crown, in the right of the province, took me to

court because I turned in a few first-class airline tickets and

travelled economy, the order- in-council or regulation governing

cabinet ministers' expenditures included the word "reasonable." The

wording, dating from as far back as 1917. said: "The minister is

allowed an actual, reasonable expenditure." Would you focus, Mr.

Speaker, on "allowance" and on "reasonable." It made sense to me at the

time and it makes sense to me now — allowances that are reasonable.

Shortly

after I lost my appeal, the regulation in question — the effective law

in this matter — was changed. It was changed by order-in-council in

December 1978 to read: "The minister is allowed an actual expenditure."

Please note that the word "reasonable" has disappeared altogether,

leaving the word "actual" to govern from now on.

If a

minister makes an "actual" expenditure, that minister is within the

law. It doesn't matter how large the expenditure is or how incongruous

the expenditure is; it's legal. It can't be upset in court. It's

perfectly proper both from a lawyer's and an accountants point of view.

That bothers me, not just because I lost my case on a technicality by arguing that a "reasonable" expenditure was

[ Page 7420 ]

"proper" expenditure but because we have blown the lid off expensing in

government altogether. All you have to do now is produce receipts. You

can stay in the royal suite at the Waldorf-Astoria or hire the Queen Mary

for a cruise around the world. As long as your expenditure was an

actual expenditure, you're within the law. It might look bad, but it's

watertight from a legal point of view. This is the way the bureaucrats

want it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hope the hon. member will soon relate this to the principle of the bill.

MR. DAVIS: I think it's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that it has to do with restraint in government.

you take the lid off restraint and make actual expenditures the rule,

actual has no limit when it comes to actual expenditure. I am arguing

for reasonable expenditures, reasonable allowances and a limit on

expenditure.

I said this is the way the bureaucrats want it.

This is the way the system wants it. I'm sorry to see that the senior

officials in this administration, who prepared that regulation back in

1978, got their way in this regard. Gone, apparently, are the good old

days of allowances with a ceiling on them. Gone is the idea of

reasonableness. Common sense, it appears, has gone out the window and

detailed accounting of a thousand and one expenses has taken its place.

blanket allowance for a month or a trip or a day has been replaced by

that all-embracing phrase "actual expenses." Ceilings have vanished and

adding machines have replaced them in offices inhabited by a host of

bureaucrats who shuffle paper instead. I realize that we are now in the

age of computers and number-crushers — the more numbers the better. The

more invoices the better. The more receipts the better. Use credit

cards and you can't go wrong. This is bureaucracy at its best.

Unfortunately, it's also a bureaucracy which is out of control from an

overall financial point of view hence the need for restraint.

The

problem with this switch from tidy allowances to multiple expensing,

Mr. Speaker, is twofold. You must now have a large staff tracking along

behind you to make sure that every piece of paper, every bill and every

receipt finds its way into the right file, reported in the right column

in the right way. That's one fault, but the other is even more

disturbing. It removes the legal limit on spending. Anything goes as

long as the bill is paid and nothing sticks on the fingers of the

politician or the civil servant en route. They aren't forced to fit

their spending into total amounts which are deemed to be reasonable.

All they need is a staff to keep track of their comings and going.

Trust, along with reasonableness, has vanished, and we have an army of

people, of clerks and accountants and auditors, whose job it is to nail

down every transaction in all its detail without having to pay

attention to totals, to overall costs and to reasonableness from an

expenditure point of view — particularly a government expenditures

point of view.

This is why I would hope that after this

legislation is passed the government, in its wisdom, will see fit to

introduce some guidelines which bear in on this question of

reasonableness on amounts which, in total, contain the spending of

government.

I touched on three reasons for restraint, Mr.

Speaker. One is the continuing tendency of wages paid to public

servants to run ahead of the incomes earned by people in the private

sector; I talked about expenses in government and about the test of

reasonableness, and I should have said, if I haven't said already, that

the number of public servants in this country — in departments, in

agencies, in Crown corporations and in government institutions — has

also been growing relative to the total number of people employed in

Canada. I mentioned the decline of industry relative to the totality of

employment in this country. Public servants, in all their direct and

indirectly related vocations, now add up to more than 20 percent of the

workforce in Canada — more than one out of every five employed persons

in this nation are public servants. There are more of them, they're

well paid, and I think this is one of the reasons, as this trend from

time to time also appears in our provincial economy, that this kind of

legislation incorporated in Bill 28, the Compensation Stabilization

Act, is necessary, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that government

is getting bigger; the opposition knows that the expenses of government

— salaries, wages, new office buildings, modern equipment, travel, etc.

— are running ahead of the taxpayers' willingness, and indeed ability,

to pay. This has been happening in spades at the federal level. We've

reached the point where Ottawa is spending $5 for every $4 it takes in

in taxes. This profligacy can't go on forever. Our federal masters are

having to tighten their belts at long last, because their credit rating

— our national credit rating — is slipping, and the private sector

isn't anything like as healthy as it used to be.

Still, the

federal government is spending the equivalent of 22 percent of our

national income. The provincial government's outlays are nudging 18

percent; 22 percent and 18 percent make 40 percent. If I add in the

spending of our junior level of government — that of our regional

districts, municipalities and so on — the grand total, even when one

allows for transfers between different levels of government, is of the

order of 45 percent. Government spending is getting on towards half of

all the spending in British Columbia of one kind or another, direct or

indirect. Restrain this expenditure and you restrain what? You give the

private sector some room to breathe; you take less from the people out

there, and they're having more money left in their pockets to spend as

they wish and order their lives in a way closer to their own liking and

less to that of government,

I know that there are those in

the official opposition who would like us to run a big deficit, to

borrow and spend today and let others look after our debts tomorrow.

But surely the federal government, our national government in Ottawa,

is running a big enough deficit already — it's running a big deficit

for all of us. Its deficit spending has become a habit; it's been going

on increasingly since the mid-1970s, and that deficit spending, that

injection of depreciated dollars, is an injection also into the economy

of this province of British Columbia. So we've got deficit spending in

this province now; we've got deficit spending on a massive scale if you

include the spending of all levels of government — federal as well as

provincial and local. So we've got deficit spending writ large in

British Columbia, and we don't need more of it.

This leaves

the official opposition with only one way out if they face what the

people want, which is no further deficit spending: to increase taxes in

a big way — increase income taxes and sales taxes, because they're the

principal sources of income to the provincial treasury. When they say

that a 12 percent budget increase for our hospitals isn't enough in an

economy which is flattening out, they're saying in real, practical

terms: "Increase taxes." When they say that teachers should get pay

increases over and beyond that of the

[ Page 7421 ]

average

taxpayer's income, they're saying the same thing. They're saying, in

effect: "Increase taxes." When they say, "Give the municipalities and

the regional districts more of what they want," they're really saying:

"Increase taxes at the provincial level." Of course, they don't use

those awesome words, but all their fulminations against restraint, all

their opposition to a government spending stabilization act, adds up to

this: "Increase taxes, or increase taxes sooner or later." And if my

comment about the federal government running a big enough deficit makes

sense, then they're saying "sooner" rather than "later." Frankly, Mr.

Speaker, I'm against tax increases of any kind at this time. I think

they would tend to hurt the economy when it's already struggling. So

I'm against the official opposition and their slick packaging of a

disastrous policy for us all. I can't vote for more taxes and,

therefore, I have to vote for Bill 28, the Compensation Stabilization

Act. I hope that every member in this honourable House does likewise.

MRS. DAILLY:

I rise in my place to take exactly the opposite approach to this bill —

believe it or not — that the member who just took his seat has taken. I

usually enjoy the reasoned logical approach of the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour, but something must have happened to him today,

because his speech was really not based on reason and logic but, in my

opinion, on mythology, similar to the myths that have been perpetuated

by that Social Credit government re the whole area of what causes

inflation and how we cut back on the massive increase in public

spending. This, of course, really delineates very clearly the

difference between our whole approach to this bill and the very

ultra-conservative economic approach of the Social Credit government.

I'm glad to see that Mr. Speaker agrees. He's nodding.

Mr.

Speaker, I do not want to bring you into this debate except in the

traditional manner, so I will not make any more references to you and

your nodding your head in agreement. But I would like to say that this

whole bill is based on myths. I want to take a few minutes today, while

taking my place in this debate, to dispel some of the myths upon which

we find this bill is based.

One of the first ones, and why

this bill was brought in, is that the government is pretty sure they

can get away with the myth that it's the working people of this

province and their obsessive, recurring demands for increased wages

which is the basic root of all the evils of our economy. This is the

approach, of course, which has been taken by the present administration

in the United States. It's interesting to note that, in taking this

tack of placing the blame for inflation primarily on the working people

of that country, as the Social Credit government intend to do with this

bill, the American economy is continuing to deteriorate. Yet this

government seems to be bent on following the same conservative approach

based on mythology as the government to the south of us.

First

of all, this myth that inflation is primarily caused by excessive

demands of the working man and woman. I wonder if I could read into the

record a few facts which I really think must be put down here to bring

a proper perspective to one of the major problems of inflation

according to a number of people — in this particular case, Beale's

Letter. In a recent letter he states: "You cannot divorce inflation and

interest rates from defence spending." We know that the Social Credit

government, as a provincial government, has no particular control over

the amount of defence spending. Mr. Speaker, I want you to realize that

I understand that. But at the same time the Premier announced on

provincial television his reasons for bringing forward this bill, he

stated that it was his and the Social Credit government's

responsibility to assist the federal government in reducing spending.

Therefore I wonder why we never hear any concern expressed by the

provincial Social Credit government at the amount of money that is

spent on defence. I think we should realize that throughout history

inflation has followed war. In 1781, 1815, 1865 and 1919, except at the

end of the Second World War, when military expenditures stopped, things

finally sorted themselves out. But military spending has not stopped

since 1945, and more and more is being spent on it. In 1970 the U.S.

spent $77 billion on defence; by 1985-86 it is expected to be $378

billion. There is also the U.S. federal deficit, which could be over

$100 billion. Naturally we have to bring in the American situation,

because it has affected so much what has happened here. In 1970 the

Canadian government spent $2 billion on defence and armaments; we're up

to $7 billion in 1982 — financed entirely by the taxpayer, of course. I

know we're not here to engage in a debate on the need for increased

spending on defence, but it's interesting to note that even very

conservative people in the United States and Canada are beginning to

question the massive defense spending.

The reason I bring

this up — and I will now leave that topic, Mr. Speaker — is primarily

to say it is a myth to suggest that inflation is entirely the fault of

the working man and woman in Canada and British Columbia. We had better

remember that if the country continues to spend massive sums on

defence, inflation and high interest rates follow. So let's stop using

this myth, and let's stop bringing in bills that put the whole blame

for the present situation of the deteriorating economy on the working

people. When we are presented with a bill like this one, which zeroes

in selectively on one group in our province and says that group alone

must have selective wage controls imposed upon it, one begins to ask

why the government has done this. Why have they picked out one group?

It would be all right perhaps, since they have decided to pick on all

public servants, municipal employees, teachers, etc., if those

teachers, public servants and municipal workers were guaranteed that

they would be shielded in the next two or three years, and if they had

been shielded in the past, from all tax increases imposed by the Social

Credit government. This government is going to impose selective wage

controls on one sector of our society, while at the same time that

particular sector will have to face the same increase in taxes as

others in this society who may not have had their wages frozen or

limited. On that point alone, I could never support such a bill, and

the members on this side of the House could not. It is unfair and

unjust.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Shame on you!

MRS. DAILLY: Shame on those over there who think they are in government to impose unfair, inequitable controls on any group in our society.

Speaking

of restraint can become almost ludicrous. Another myth is that the poor

private sector is really having a terrible time, while the public

servants are doing so well. That may be so in some areas, particularly

for small business people, but let's take a look at one of the latest

editions of the Financial Times

and see just how some of those in the top echelons of private industry

are suffering and are imposing restraints on themselves. We really feel

quite upset for Edgar

[ Page 7422 ]

Bronfinan,

chairman of The Seagram Company Ltd. Last year he was making only

$1.042 million, including benefits, but Mr. Bronfman's salary has just

gone up to $2.315 million. That is his annual salary. Westcoast

Transmission's Edwin Phillips was making $234,000 last year. In this

period of great restraint, Mr. Phillips' salary has only gone up to

$421,000 — almost double. Yet that government over there likes to keep

referring to poor private industry and how it is suffering. Although

that may not dribble down to the average worker in the private sector,

even the psychological effect of these salaries is bad news.

The

same analogy applies when looking at the ministers in the Social Credit

government as compared to the public servants. They are bringing in

this bill restraining the public servants; yet look at what happened to

ministers in this government and the increases they have given

themselves. I'm not talking about the basic salary, but remember it was

a good salary to begin with. When you look at the increases they have

given themselves in the whole area of travel expenses, it all becomes a

mockery, Mr. Speaker, when this government and the Premier stand up on

public platforms and say everybody must pull in their belts.

know this has been said before, but I feel it is necessary to repeat it

for the public: look at a government that brings in restraints on the

public servants of this province, and at the same time we have the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), whose travel budget has

increased from $29,000 to $79,000 this year — all taxpayers' money, a

166 percent increase. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is

piloting this bill through the House, gets up and sounds off about the

need for restraint: those public servants must be restrained, as

they're the ones who are causing all the problems. But he gets a 25

percent increase for travel. The Premier, who brought in this bill and

brought it to the attention of the public on a very well-prepared PR

hyped-up television show, has a travel budget 27 percent above what was

originally estimated for his office in the last fiscal year.

They

have the nerve to stand up in this House and ask us to support a bill

that is out to punish one sector of our society. You know, there is no

way. They are basing the success they hope for themselves with this

bill on straight myths. They are hoping that they can use the public

sector as whipping-boys and — girls for this government. I consider it

pretty poor and almost politically immoral for any government to bring

in such a bill because they can't handle the economy in this province.

They have decided they'll pick some people as their victims, and that

is what has happened with this bill.

Let's look now, Mr.

Speaker, at some of the myths that have been brought to the attention

of the public of B.C. by the Social Credit government. I know when they

leave this House and go on platforms back in their constituencies they

will be talking about, number one, the need for restraint and the fact

that the public sector have it the easiest. Let's look at how easy they

have it. Let us also remember that almost every minister and

backbencher over there stands up and says: "Ah, but they have job

security." Let's look at the job security that the public servants of

British Columbia really have — let's look at that myth and dispel it.

First of all, the figures show that on January 31, 1982, there were

28,499 regular members of the public service. Do you know how many

auxiliary employees — in other words, non-permanent with no job

security — there were? There were 10, 290; in other words, 27 percent

of the present employees of the public service. I hope those

backbenchers are listening to this, as maybe their cabinet ministers

haven't told them; maybe the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

hasn't given the figures. Some 27 percent of the public service

employees are non-permanent, auxiliary, not regular workers.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Good.

MRS. DAILLY:

If you consider it good, then don't talk out of the other side of your

mouth and say that all public servants have security. That is a myth

that we want to dispel right now, because 27 percent do not have full

job security. Now what about layoffs? We hear that over and over again.

The member from North–Vancouver Seymour (Hon. Mr. Davis) just took his seat. He talked about the security .

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY:

I'll wait for the Minister of Finance to reply on those figures in

closing the debate. As far as I'm concerned, at the moment they are 27

percent, and if it's being reduced it is probably because of layoffs.

really is interesting. Everybody on that side of the House loves to go

out and say to the public: "Look at the security those public servants

have." Let's look at their security. Let's look at the Forest Service

nurseries. These are public-service employees. In Chilliwack there are

60 casual employees, 54 of whom have been on layoff so long that they

have lost their seniority. In Surrey there are 240 employees; 140 will

be laid off. In the Kamloops area there were 130 employees lost. There

are only 57 left. The other 75 have been laid off over six months and

have lost seniority. This is all in the Forest Service alone. Of the

57, most of them will be laid off, serving their time during the year.

would like to hear the Social Credit members stand up again on any

platform in B.C. and say that all public servants have security. We

will certainly let the people of B.C. know that we have the figures to

disprove it. I am really surprised that the last speaker, who usually

uses pretty straight statistics, did not refer to these.

MRS. WALLACE: That is this government's commitment to forestry.

MRS. DAILLY: That is right. That is their commitment to forestry, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat just pointed out.

The

Provincial Secretary, who is now in his seat, is responsible for the

public servants. I wonder if he is going to take his place in this

debate and say that his employees have security, in the face of these

figures. This is for the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) ; I am

sure you are aware of this. There are 100 auxiliary workers in Campbell

River in the forest; 25 of them were laid off over six months. The

steward there is the most senior auxiliary staff member — 21 years. Can

you imagine it? One particular person has worked for the government for

21 years and he is still an auxiliary member.

In Red Rock there were 85 laid off in November; none are at work right now.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I just heard one of the Social Credit backbenchers say: "Tell her to sit down." He's got his mike

[ Page 7423 ]

up.

Well, at least we're getting them off their feet to take

part in this

debate. We have been really concerned. We know the Premier will have to

get up and do a big show for us today, but really, somebody over there

is going to have to get up and try to defend some of these figures,

because obviously what they are intending to do is to go throughout

this province and use these myths over and over again because they have

no facts to back up the passage of this bill.

In the parks

branch, all these layoffs amounted to four to six months. In Goldstream

there are 35 people on layoff; nine are working. I could go on and on.

In the Okanagan there are 60 laid off in the parks branch; six are

working.

Let's look at the liquor distribution branch. The

total number of employees is 2,477. There are 1,474 regular employees

in the liquor distribution branch. There are 1,033 auxiliary workers in

the liquor distribution branch. Since 1978 there have been 342 layoff

grievances filed by the union but, because of abuse and the fact that

42 percent of the liquor branch employees are casual, only half of the

layoff grievances in the union came out of this branch. That is simply

because of the number of casual employees.

I have one more

myth to dispel, because I know the other members in the NDP also want

to take

part in dispelling these myths with some of these figures. I

want to mention one more thing about the public servants: pensions.

There's another myth. We always hear: " Oh, but they have permanent

jobs." Well, we have pointed out to you, hopefully, that that is a myth

we have dispelled. What about pensions? We hear: "Oh, they have great

pensions." We know who has the great pensions. It certainly isn't the

average worker in the public service; it is those in the higher

positions.

In 1980, 625 people retired from the public

service on the basis of age. There are, as of the end of 1980, 5,412

people on superannuation — pension by virtue of their age. The average

government employee retires with between 10 and 14 years of service.

That is an interesting fact most people are not aware of. The average

government employee pension — this is the important thing — is between

$200 and $299 per month, not integrated with the CPR. Let's have some

of those figures quoted when you are out using the public servants as

scapegoats. Forty-two percent of the pensioners receive a pension

between $100 and $399 per month. Compare that with other pensions in

the higher echelons of the public service.

But that is not

the issue. I am not here to complain about the pensions. I am here to

complain about the myths that the Social Credit members use out there

talking to the public, and are going to attempt to use to get some

credibility for this dreadful bill. It is a bad bill, Mr. Speaker. Not

only is it bad because it's based strictly on myth, but it is equally

bad because of the points very well enunciated by the member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann), when he pointed out that it is also destroying

and taking away the right of free collective bargaining from a sector

in our society.

Mr. Speaker, there is also the Big Daddy

theme of this bill. This seems to be pervading this government

constantly. This is the government that used to talk about the NDP

being the ones who have incurred the great debts. Let's just look again

at the figures. When the NDP left office, $4.2 billion was the

non-operating debt. Do you know what it is now? It's $8.6 billion.

Doubled. Those are the facts. And all that myth about the NDP versus

the Social Credit, and how very productive and efficient....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll have to ask the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) not to interrupt the House.

MRS. DAILLY:

How very productive and efficient they claim they are. Well, if you are

that efficient and that clever and competent with money, can you please

explain to the people of British Columbia how your debt has doubled

since the NDP left office? Let's have an explanation for that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down, and I'll show you how to skate,

MRS. DAILLY:

The Minister Housing has also shouted to me to sit down — he'll have an

answer. That's good. That's two who say they'll get up on their feet

and take

part in this debate. Let's not have myths; let's have some

basic facts. You can't very well back up a bill like this unless you

have facts, and the facts of the matter are that there are none to back

it up — just myths.

Mr. Speaker, the Big Daddy that I was starting to talk about.... There's an editorial in the Province

for April 19, 1982, which says: "...the Social Credit administration

has been giving itself some mighty important discretionary powers....

It's beginning to look insidiously like a Big Daddy government. After

all, these are not the actions" — or should not be the actions — "of a

decentralizing government." They're referring specifically to this

bill. "The more discretionary power" — and this is important, Mr.

Speaker — "a government gives itself, the more it wants."

Power

has gone to their heads. They don't care about the little people any

more. They're caught up in administration. They're caught up in having

a rather good time, let's face it, when we look at these travel

accounts and their spending habits and the waste and the extravagance

of this Social Credit administration, which was outlined very well by

the Leader of the Opposition when he opened his speech. I don't think

anyone could emphasize it better than he did. Complete waste and

extravagance is coming to light. Being in power has gone to their

heads. They've lost touch. But when they get in trouble, the government

has to look for a scapegoat. They've decided to present one with this

bill today that uses the public servants, the teachers and the

municipal employees as scapegoats. It's pretty sad when they've reached

a state of affairs in which they can't handle their own affairs without

using another sector of society as their victims.

The final statement in the Province

editorial says: "The Bennett government should stop now before it

corrupts itself absolutely." Remember, Mr. Speaker, that is from a

well-known, conservative paper. That is not from one of the speakers in

the NDP. But naturally we would not argue with that statement.

The

hypocrisy of the members of the government in bringing in a bill

talking about restraint, when every day it comes to light that they are

living and acting in a manner of complete non-restraint! When the

Premier opened his speech he said: "We all have to pull in our belts."

All I can say is: here is a bill that is unfairly asking only one

sector of our society to pull in their belts.

[ Page 7424 ]

Mr.

Speaker, it is an unfair bill and it's an unjust bill. It's a bill

that's based on no facts. It's based on myths that I have attempted in

these last few minutes to dispel. Now I hope that some of the

government members will take their

part in this debate. If they're

going to vote for this bill, they had better, at least, attempt to

defend it.

This is a bill that, I regret to say, should

never have come before this House, but perhaps I should not be

surprised, because it's just a final bill from a government that has

taken unto itself powers that no government ever should.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, the member who just took her place dared the members of

the government back bench to get on their feet and speak on this bill.

Not only will we speak in favour of this bill on the floor of this

House, but we'll go all over this province, particularly to our

constituencies, and we'll tell the people about this bill, and the

sooner the better, members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to

very strongly support Bill 28. I do that not because I wish to see any

government further direct the lives of its citizens or become involved

in the collective bargaining system that up until now, although it's

had some faults, has worked fairly well in our province. I rise to

speak in favour of this legislation because of a very strong will on my

part to see this province and its people not only survive, but come out

the victor during these times of economic downturn — not to use the

situation to use anything they can as pawns, as I've seen a few on that

side of the floor do.... In fact, member after member from the

opposition benches have taken their place in this debate and used

segments of our society for blatant political purposes. Mr. Speaker,

we're an exporting province....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

Most of all, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), you should know

that we're an exporting province. Because of that and because our

resource industries are having very serious economic difficulties,

sawmills all over this province are either operating on limited hours

or limited days of the week or are shut down altogether. There are many

such situations, members opposite. In my constituency they can't sell

their lumber. The NDP says: "Put them back to work. Let's get back to

work." I've seen the bumper sticker. I suppose they have some crystal

ball or some magic formula that would allow them, if they were in

government, to find non-existent markets.

The mining industry is not much better off....

MR. LEA: ...under Social Credit.

MR. KEMPF:

Well, where would you sell the metals, if you're so smart, Mister

Member for Prince Rupert? Where would you find the markets? Where would

you sell the product? Get up and tell this House. All we hear are

innuendo and garbage from that side of the floor, Mr. Speaker. Let them

get up and say where they'd sell that lumber and where they'd sell

those minerals. They don't know. They only use people out there as

pawns.

MR. COCKE: Build affordable housing.

MR. BARBER: Two-story Jack....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, if members address the Chair and other

members allow the member standing to have his opportunity in debate, it

makes for a much more orderly debating process, confined much more to

the rules of the House.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I've

sat here day after day listening to that kind of innuendo from that

side of the floor, and it's now my time to have my say.

As I was saying, mines in my constituency are taking extended summer holidays. Some, as in the case....

MR. BARRETT: You never worked a day in your life.

MR. KEMPF:

You talk about work! That member over there, the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett), talks about work. All you have to do is look

at him and you know he hasn't done a day's work in his life. They'll

tell you that when you go to Fort St. James on the 14th. They'll tell

you that, if you can get enough people from what's left of your party

to get a meeting together.

MR. BARRETT: How do you know where I'm going?

MR. KEMPF: Oh, I know where you go, particularly in my constituency.

Granisle Copper in my constituency is shutting down altogether.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF:

Where are you going to sell the metal? You go up there and tell them

where to sell the product. You go up and tell them how to do it, mister

smart member for Victoria.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order,

please. I will ask the member speaking to address the Chair, and I will

also ask other members to allow that member to continue uninterrupted.

MR. KEMPF:

Four hundred private-sector workers are out of jobs because the company

can't sell its metals, because they can't sell the product produced by

those private-sector workers. Times are tough. Unemployment is high.

There is a worldwide economic recession. I know the members opposite

haven't realized that yet, but maybe one of these days they'll come to

their senses. The members opposite have blinders on. They can't see

what is happening out there in the real world, that we have a worldwide

economic recession on our hands. What do they say in this debate?

Member after member is getting up and throwing dirt, talking about a

$37.50 bottle of wine. That is their contribution to this debate on a

very serious subject: the need for restraint in this province. They

have the audacity to stand up in this House after the record is laid

down in history of what they did in this province when they were

government for three and a half years — the dismal record that those

people opposite had when they were government in this province, and

after spending the money of the taxpayers of the province of British

Columbia like drunken sailors.

MR. LEA: We did it on beer.

[ Page 7425 ]

MR. KEMPF: Oh, that's not true. I remember what happened during those years; I remember the wild parties on the Queen of Prince Rupert ;

I remember the wild parties in the upper floors of the Harbour Towers.

Yes, I remember. I remember the suites of offices rented by the then

Premier....

MR. BARRETT: Where?

MR. KEMPF: In the Empress. You spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for them.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, they laugh at restraint when they spent hundreds of

thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money to buy up hippie art all

over this province, and if you don't believe that....

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF:

The members opposite laugh. If you don't believe that, go down into the

legislative dining room today and take a look around. You'll see some

of what the taxpayers' money bought. It's a disgrace — a legacy of

those socialists when they were in office, when the people of this

province, for a very short time, made a mistake that they'll never

again make. Never again will they be government.

Mr.

Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition when he came into

this House a couple of days ago and had the gall, after calling the

northeast coal project absurd....

MR. BARRETT: A giveaway.

MR. KEMPF:

Yes, you said it was a giveaway, and if you were government, you'd do

everything in your power to shut it down. We know that, and the people

out there know it too. He calls a project that has created 5,800 new

jobs in the province of British Columbia "absurd." When other

industries are facing layoffs, he calls the northeast coal project

"absurd." He has the gall to talk about $210 hotel rooms.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Well, whatever they were.

just want to dwell on that for a few moments. I want to talk about that

hotel room in Ottawa. He complains to this assembly about the

government booking him into that kind of room. How hypocritical can you

get? When he got his key at the desk of that hotel and went up and saw

the room that was allotted for him, why didn't he go back down to the

desk? If he were serious in what he said in this chamber, why didn't he

go down to the desk and ask for a smaller one and say: "The people of

British Columbia can't afford that big room, and I won't sleep in it. I

want a smaller one"? Did you do that? No, you slopped at the public

trough, didn't you. You didn't go down to the desk and ask for a

smaller room.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: He

said in this chamber that it was too extravagant. What do you do when

you don't like your room at a hotel? You go back down to the desk and

ask for another one. That's what I do. Why didn't the Leader of the

Opposition do that if he thought the room was too extravagant for the

taxpayers of British Columbia? If the Leader of the Opposition was so

concerned about spending taxpayers' dollars on hotel rooms or anything

else at this particular point in time, why did he go to Ottawa at all?

Why didn't he pass up that chance to spend those taxpayers' dollars

which he didn't think the people of British Columbia had?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, I just want to inform the member that I paid that

hotel bill myself. I want the record to show that the government didn't

pay the bill, nor did the Premier. If he's making that point, he should

clarify it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is most

inappropriate for a member to seek the floor on a point of order, when

in fact it is to enter into debate. I would caution members about that,

particularly interrupting another member who is speaking. All members

have an opportunity to gain the floor for the purpose of debate.

MR. KEMPF:

You're absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. If that Leader of the

Opposition was so concerned about restraint and about spending the

taxpayers' money, why did he go to Ottawa at all? Why didn't he say to

the people of British Columbia: "I understand you're having tough

times. I understand that there's a need for restraint out there." On

that basis, why didn't he say, "No, I don't want to go to Ottawa; I

don't want to slop at the public trough; I don't want to spend money,

because the taxpayers haven't got it"? No, he didn't do that, and he

didn't turn in his room either. He didn't go down to the desk and ask

for a smaller room either. If you live in glass houses you shouldn't

throw rocks. If he really was serious and really meant what he said in

this chamber about the taxpayers' money, he'd have done that.

Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and, in fact, all those

socialists opposite don't practise what they preach. "Do as I say, not

as I do." You know, that was their philosophy when they were in

government, and it hasn't changed since. They haven't changed a bit;

they never will. They may have changed their suits. I see that the

Leader of the Opposition hasn't got his blue pin-stripe suit on today.

They haven't changed their philosophy; they're still socialists. They

haven't changed a bit, and the people of this province know it.

The

people of this province are crying out for restraint. They are crying

out for the government to take that kind of action. They are crying out

for this assembly — members opposite as well — to put a stop to this

ever-increasing cost of government, the ever-spiralling tax bill in

this province and country. Yet the socialists opposite speak against

Bill 28. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

know why they stand in this House and speak against Bill 28, against

restraint, against, government spending, against reducing the tax bill

in this province. It is to appease their highly political friends in

the union organizations, in the BCGEU. But they'd better go out there

and listen to what the rank and file members of those associations are

saying, because, should they do that, the tune they would sing in this

chamber would be completely different. Have you checked with those

people lately?

[ Page 7426 ]

MR. KING: Why don't you get a job and do an honest day's work?

MR. KEMPF:

Why don't you get a job, Mr. Member? I know why you don't — you

couldn't. You've never had one in your life. They speak against the

rank-and-file citizen of this province. They speak against the people

out there. They listen to their friends in the union executive. But

they are giving them the wrong story. They still have that heavy-handed

Big Brother attitude. They had it when they were government and they

haven't lost it.

I would like to quote now from Hansard

of Tuesday, October 7, 1975. We heard the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) a short time ago in this debate. What he said in this debate

is on the record as well. I would now, just for the record once more,

like to inform the members of this House now what that member thought

of the rank and file people of the province of British Columbia way

back in 1975: "I don't really care very much, quite frankly, if the

public is overwhelmingly in favour of this bill. I will not stand up in

this Legislature performing my responsibility based on what the public

wants us to do. We have to provide leadership, and I don't believe we

should be responsive, because quite often the public is wrong." That's

what they think today. The public out there want their tax bill

reduced, but they think the public is wrong. Mr. Speaker, they still

have that heavy-handed, Big Brother attitude. They had it when they

were government and they still have it.

Back to the bill

before us. I say again that I fully support Bill 28. I fully support a

government measure of restraint. The private sector is facing automatic

restraint, Mr. member. Go out there and find out for yourself. Don't

just sit around and get a fat fanny in this chamber. Go out and find

out for yourself what the people out there are going through. The

private sector is going through automatic restraint which has been

brought about by world recession.

Mr. Speaker, it follows

that all segments of our society must follow suit and assume some

responsibility — particularly government. We hear from the opposition,

time after time after time, the word "cutback." It's as if it's the

only word in their vocabulary now. That's all they can talk about, when

they know perfectly well that nothing is further from the truth. There

are no cutbacks.

SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF:

Maybe there should be. If I'm getting anything from my constituents out

there, it is that the restraint program is not tough enough. They're

telling me we should have gone back to square one, to zero. That's

right. Because in these kinds of economic times, that's where

government should be — not 10 percent, not 12 percent, but zero. And

that's what my constituents are telling me. Cutbacks, they say.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, I hear somebody over there saying: "Did you give your

money back?" Yes, certainly. There will be a bill before this House.

How are you going to vote on it? There will be a bill that will reduce

your salary as well as mine, back from 11.9 percent to 8 percent. Eight

percent is still too much. I agree with my constituents who say zero.

In these kinds of economic times, the public sector cannot expect wage

raises when the private sector is laying off and there are people out

there in the private sector losing their jobs because the companies

they work for can't sell the product they produce.

They talk

of cutbacks. Maybe we should have cutbacks. Maybe during these

difficult times we should follow the lead set by Proposition 13 in

California. That's a cutback. On behalf of the people I represent, I

wouldn't mind seeing that happen in the province of British Columbia.

You bet I wouldn't. But we haven't cut back, and we're not asking

anybody out there to cut back. All we're asking is that they restrain

increases. There is a big difference, hon. members. I would hope that

one of these days the light will come. Even the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will understand that. I realize that's a very

remote possibility, but I wish it would happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the guy who said he built the hospital?

MR. KEMPF:

Yes, that's the guy who built the hospital. It was built in 1903 or

something. You can't help but worry about an old member like that.

Mr. Speaker, there are restraints on increases, not cutbacks. There is a big difference.

Human nature is a funny thing. I'll tell you a little story.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Listen, Mr. Member for New Westminster, and you might learn something.

I'll

tell you a little story — this actually happened about the public

sector versus the private sector in this province. Teachers in my

constituency very recently — before the restraint program came in —

received increases of 16.8 percent, at the same time as their brothers

and sisters in the sawmill across town were taking a voluntary 10

percent cut in order to keep that operation rolling. That is a

difference of 26.8 percent. I went to the chairman of the school board

when there was talk of possibly having to lay off teachers because of

the miserable provincial government that was cutting back on the funds

available.

You bang your desk. I would listen, Mr. Member.

Possibly

there would be some teachers laid off or some programs done away with

or whatever. I said to him: "What if the teachers in your school

district were to take a 2 percent cut in that 16.8 percent raise they

were given? Would that enable this school district to retain all the

programs and all the teachers?" He said: "It would more than do it."

Remember, I said they got a 16.8 percent raise while, across town,

their brothers and sisters took a 10 percent voluntary cut. Are they

willing — these great believers in brotherhood and sisterhood — to take

that 2 percent cut in a 16.8 percent raise? No, they're not. Those

members opposite wouldn't ask them to either, but I would.

could go on forever, expounding the merits of what this bill will do in

this province during these economic times, but I think we should put an

end to the delay of the passage of Bill 28. We should get on with the

job at hand and pass this legislation for the good of all the people —

not just the union leaders, not just those politically oriented pawns

of the NDP, but everybody in this province. We should get on with the

passage of Bill 28.

[ Page 7427 ]

the NDP and their friends in the BCGEU want to find out who is really

right, how the citizens of British Columbia really feel about this kind

of legislation, I too, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, would call upon

the Premier of this province to call an election.

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill 28.

MRS. WALLACE:

We've had a very interesting performance from two-story Jack from

Omineca: one story down here in the Legislature and another story up in

his riding.

MR. KEMPF: I'll send you my column.

MRS. WALLACE:

I get your column, never fear; I do, Mr. Member. That's the member who

has the colossal nerve to collect $4,000 for doing nothing on the Crown

corporations committee.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: They told me, and some of the staff have told me, too.

stands up in this House and asks the teachers of this province to give

back money that has been awarded through arbitration by a public

arbitrator appointed by this government. That's his kind of logic.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You

were talking about restraint. I would like to urge the Minister of

Finance and the Premier to try to get that member to use a little

restraint. I was really concerned about him: the flashing eyes, the

shouting, the screaming. I don't know where his blood pressure was. We

don't have a doctor in this House any more. Really, they should try to

get that member to show a little more restraint.

When the

member started to speak, I wrote his name at the top of a piece of

paper to make some notes of his remarks in support of the bill, but the

paper is still white. He said nothing in support of the bill. I have

nothing to say in support of this bill either, but I have a lot to say

in opposition to it. On February 18 the Premier of this province

announced on television what appeared to be a fairly detailed program

of restraint. Now we have a bill that tells us utterly nothing except

that there is going to be restraint.

I want to deal with a

couple of local things first. Some people in my constituency are pretty

concerned. On February 17, I think it was, the outside workers who

belong to CUPE had reached an agreement with the North Cowichan

municipality. It was an agreement that, including benefits, would have

given them 19 percent. But the official ratification and signing of the

contract had not yet taken place on the 18th, so they're somewhere out

in limbo. That agreement had been worked out in good faith; there was

good cooperative feeling that was echoed by both the shop steward, Mr.

Spence, and the mayor of North Cowichan, Mr. Bruce. It was a good,

cooperative deal they had worked out.

The key thing is

that North Cowichan is a fairly large municipality which practically

surrounds the city of Duncan, a much smaller area, and that particular

agreement gave the North Cowichan outside workers parity with the

workers in the city of Duncan. But because it was not signed the day

the Premier went on TV, the whole thing is now in limbo. They're going

to be asked to restrain themselves to 8 percent, 10 percent, 12

percent, something or other — nobody know what — which will leave them

below the workers in the neighbouring municipality. So that's one of

the local concerns relative to this restraint bill that is certainly on

our minds in Cowichan-Malahat.

One of the other things that

is completely out of hand is what the restraint program is doing to

centres that are operated by local government, The case in point is the

community centre in Cowichan. That centre is a new and thriving part of

our community. It has been bringing in some very good talent and has

really become the focal point of our community. It has an income of

$700,000 a year. It has been the training centre for the Canucks. Do

you know that in calculating their expenses for that centre, they can

consider only expenses? They cannot offset it by revenue. They have

been bringing a great many good acts into that centre. For the theatre

we have had everything from the Royal Winnipeg Ballet to String Band.

Now we are going to have to keep the costs of those acts within an 8 or

10 or 12 percent increase, without any regard for the income that those

acts would return. We have bought Plexiglas — it is on hand — to

install around the ice arena. The reason? If the Canucks are to

continue to use that centre as a training camp they have to have

Plexiglas. We are now told that we cannot afford to install it. What is

going to happen to the Canucks? I think that is a concern of everyone.

They apparently did very well with the training camp in Duncan. We

would like to have them back, but they won't be able to come back if we

can't afford to install that Plexiglas.

The Premier shakes

his head, but these instructions have come from his government. They

have come in a very firm directive signed by a representative of the

government, Mr. Chris Woodward, who has made it very clear that they

cannot calculate revenue, that they must keep their expenses within

limits.

MR. KEMPF: Let the record read.

MRS. WALLACE: And the member for Omineca pounds his desk.

All

that does is reduce the revenue to the community by limiting the

activities that can be brought into that centre. That's the kind of

strange thing that's happening as a result of this ill-thought-out

restraint bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Restraining the economy.

MRS. WALLACE:

It's restraining the economy, because when you lay off an employee that

person becomes a member of the unemployed with less earning power, less

ability to purchase things, less income.

Much has been said

about this bill being aimed directly at the public sector, and that's

certainly true. But many of the workers of this province who do not

work for the public sector also see it as a threat. They see it as a

deliberate attempt to divide the workers in this province: to try to

force a wedge between the workers in the private sector and those who

work in the public sector. Many members of the workforce have stated

privately and publicly that they who work for private industry are just

as concerned as the public sector, because they see this as a threat

against workers generally — a move to divide the workforce, to try to

cause friction among the workers in this province. I believe they are

right; I think that's one of the intents of this bill.

[ Page 7428 ]

When

the minister introduced the bill he sent along a great many

stabilization program bulletins. In bulletin No. 2 he talks about draft

regulations, and he says they'll be issued by March 31.

MR. NICOLSON: This year?

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, I assume '82, but maybe it's '83. Now here we are on May 6, and I

have not seen any draft regulations. He's talked in other of these

bulletins that there will be an opportunity for briefs to be presented,

and they are going to consider all these comments and incorporate them,

I would assume, into briefs. I certainly know one submission was made

from the British Columbia Nurses Union, and it pointed out some very

important pieces of information as they saw it. I'm wondering if those

regulations, which were supposed to be issued March 31, are going to

contain any of the recommendations that the Nurses Union made.

The

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has said that this restraint

program is not going to cause any problems in the health care in this

province. That is just not so, Mr. Speaker. On every side we are seeing

the problem in health care.

I had a call from one of my

constituents who was in tears the other day. Her father was a patient

in the cancer clinic down here in Victoria. He was taking treatments

five days a week; he didn't get the treatments Saturday or Sunday. They

had been in the habit of picking him up and taking him home for the

weekend. They were told by the admitting office that if they took him

out of that bed he wouldn't be able to get back in, because the bed was

going to be closed. Only through the efforts of me and the doctor were

they able to get that man home and still get him back in on Monday.

That's the kind of thing that's happening. You know as well as I do,

Mr. Premier and Mr. Minister of Finance, that in the case of cancer,

time is of the essence. When you have a person in that situation where

those treatments are required, they have to have them now — not 6

months, 12 months or 18 months from now, as this kind of procedure is

going to result in as far as getting people into the hospitals is

concerned. We've seen it on every side.

Mrs. Wallace moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER:

On Wednesday, May 6, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose on what he

described as a matter of privilege and tendered a motion he proposed to

move should a prima facie case of privilege be established. The gist of

the matter raised related to question period. Specifically, the member

alleged that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) refused to

answer questions put to him and thereby impaired the House in the

proper pursuit of its duties.

One of the duties of the House

and each member thereof is to conform to the rules relating to the

proper form of questions during question period. I have examined the

questions put to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) by the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I repeat my observations made at

the time, to the effect that the object of a question is to obtain and

not give information. See Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , page 70.

take the matter one step further, even had the questions conformed to

the rules, all hon. members will realize that the minister is not

obliged to answer such questions. It seems to the Chair that the member

is attempting to base a matter of privilege on the failure of the

minister to respond to an out-of-order question, and he would therefore

fail on two counts.

The Chair is not making a specific

finding in relation to the procedures adopted, but it has often been

stated that it is inappropriate to misuse the forms of the House.

Please see May's eighteenth edition, page 429. I find that there is no

prima facie case of privilege made out by the member for Skeena.

MR. LEA: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no debate on the decision.

MR. LEA: I'm not debating it.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA:

I rose on a point of order and you said there is no debate. I think

that is the problem. With all due respect, I think that the fact that

you have to wait until you hear what is happening before you can rule

is part of the problem.

My point of order is this: I don't

believe that my questions were out of order and I would very much

appreciate it if you would take my questions and compare them to all

the questions that have been asked during this session of the House and

tell me where they differ, because there was a question asked every

time. There was a

preamble and a question. Before I even got to the

question, you were interrupting, telling me, that it was not proper to

bring information to the House. I know that you are not trying to do

it, but it could appear that you are trying to run interference for the

government. That is not good for the House, Your Honour or democracy,

and that is what it would appear to be. Justice must not only be

done....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has stood on a point of order. He is now debating the decision, and it is out of order.

MR. LEA: I would just like you to bring to me your reasons, because we can't just leave it at what happened yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: You are out of order, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE:

On a point of privilege, on previous occasions you have been good

enough to do something about the temperature of these chambers and we

are finding it very, very cold on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER:

The point of privilege is well taken. I must inform the members,

though, that I do receive conflicting requests within minutes of each

other. Some complain of cold and some complain of heat. Quite frankly,

I have to tell you that I am frustrated.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada