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 )

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7369 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Rentalsman funding. Mr. Barnes –– 7369

Carolin Mines proposal. Mr. Skelly –– 7370

Compensation to flood victims. Mr. Howard –– 7370

Suspension of Crown counsel. Mr. Macdonald –– 7371

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7371

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 7373

Mr. Stupich –– 7375

Mr. Strachan –– 7380

Mr. Hall –– 7382

Mr. Howard –– 7384

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7387

Ms. Brown –– 7390

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: In your gallery this

afternoon, Mr. Speaker — and it gives me great pleasure to say so — is

Mayor Adrian Meeuwissen of the district of Houston. I ask the House to

make him very welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: We're very

honoured today to have in the gallery the president of Simon Fraser

University, Dr. George Pedersen. I say that in case there are any SFU

alumni among us today, because they will certainly want to be on their

best behaviour.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm pleased to have

with us today a couple of constituents and neighbours from the great

metropolis of Cobble Hill, Ena Reeve and Diana Knowles. Also visiting

is a friend from Nanaimo, Bill Hawkins. I would like the House to

welcome them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery today we have 11 grade 11 students from the David Thompson

Secondary School in Invermere, that banner constituency in British

Columbia, along with their teacher Mr. Chris Elford and Mrs. Elford.

I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. RICHMOND: In

the gallery today are two fine gentlemen from the city of Kelowna, who

are well known to many members in this House, Mr. Walter Gray, past

president of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Don McIntosh. I

would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. LEVI: I have a non-political announcement to make.

MR. SPEAKER: I trust it's an introduction.

MR. LEVI:

No, it concerns one of my colleagues. I'd like the House to join in

congratulating my colleague Bill King on becoming a grandfather

yesterday. And he's only 33 years old!

Oral Questions

RENTALSMAN FUNDING

MR. BARNES:

I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

There's a serious backlog of cases at the rentalsman's office. While

the caseload has increased 20 percent over the past year, your budget

cuts will force a reduction in service. Can the minister confirm that

the cuts resulting from this year's budget are another step in the

elimination of rent controls by your government?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

This year the budget provides for a decrease of 7.5 percent in the

funding allocated to the office of the rentalsman, which means the

allocation is approximately $4.2 million. In perspective, that's an

approximate doubling from about $2.25 million two years ago. During

that time, the number of staff in the rentalsman's office has risen

from about 111 to about 166.

In answer to the member, our

citizens and taxpayers are asking departments of government like this

one, in the wake of a year or two of very large increases in budget —

as I say, this year's budget is about double that of two years ago — to

look at options for providing equivalent levels of service at the same

approximate budget level. We do have a rising vacancy rate. We are now

looking at policy options, which we hope will mean that service levels

can be provided within this year's budget figure.

MR. LEVI: Figure that one out, Emery.

MR. BARNES:

I did have a written statement with respect to a supplementary

question, but the minister's explanation has confused me. Nonetheless,

I'd like to ask him an ad-lib question. As he knows, the rentalsman has

indicated he will have to reduce his operation by some 40 percent. The

backlog of cases has been compounded by some 20 percent on sort of an

accumulative basis for the past two years, indicating that

notwithstanding the suggestion that the funds available to the

rentalsman's office are considerably more than they were a year ago,

they are nonetheless less than what was anticipated as a minimum amount

to carry on the existing program, let alone the backlog.

would like to ask the minister what he has in the way of a program to

deal with the backlog. As you know, the budget cuts mean a 40 percent

reduction today. What about the backlog of several hundred cases that

exists?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: First of all, the member

suggests that the budget reduction of 7.5 percent means, in effect, a

40 percent reduction in service, and that is not going to be the case.

One of the jobs of the rentalsman's office is to took at the kind of

policy options that will allow the same level of service to be

continued at this healthy funding level of $4.2 million and with a

staff of 166. We are looking at options, and I want to tell the member

that we expect to present some of those for consideration in the fairly

near future.

MR. BARNES: There is one important

question I would like to ask the minister. Is he suggesting that the

rentalsman has at no time made any representations advising him of the

detrimental effect the budget cuts will have on the rent control

program specifically? In other words, has the rentalsman suggested to

you that he has no other option but to eliminate rent controls under

your program? What was your response?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

There are several questions contained in the member's question. May I

simply answer by saying that the rentalsman has submitted to me a

series of alternative policy options for my consideration. In the

opinion of the rentalsman, those policy options will permit levels of

service to be maintained within these budget figures.

MR. BARNES:

I would just like to ask the minister what his program of assistance

will be for those thousands of tenants who will find themselves unable

to afford their suites once rent controls are removed and the price

goes up, which obviously is going to have to happen under your program?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: As I think the member knows, the policy of this government has been to gradually phase out

[ Page 7370 ]

rent

controls. Any suite not in rent control nonetheless has the continuing

protection of rent review. But apart from that, Mr. Speaker, under the

policies of this government there is a far better discipline in the

marketplace to keep rents competitive, and that is a vacancy rate which

is growing and which will continue to grow. For the benefit of the

member, I think if he checks last weekend's Vancouver newspapers he'll

find many columns of apartments for rent and a wide range of rents.

MR. BARNES:

Would the minister be so good as to advise us what category of rental

space is available? Are you talking about luxury or about those between

$250 to $300 per month? In what category are those vacancies available

that you are talking about?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I thought I'd made it clear. If the member might go back and

check, there is a very wide cross-section of rents to be found in those

advertisements.

CAROLIN MINES PROPOSAL

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. Subsequent to a meeting of the Metal Mines

Guidelines Steering Committee on November 28, 1979, to discuss the

Carolin Mines stage 1 submission, the company prepared an addendum

which reveals that Ministry of Environment officials found Carolin's

hydrology data to be seriously deficient and considered that a tailings

dam failure was a likely possibility. In view of the several serious

environmental concerns raised by government officials, can the minister

advise why the government decided to waive the normal requirement for a

stage 2 detailed assessment of this mine development?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a good question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware that what the member is saying are the

facts. I'd like to make sure he gets a full and complete answer, so

I'll take that question as notice and bring back an answer as quickly

as I possibly can.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary question?

MR. SKELLY: No, I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary would not be a good question in this case.

This

one is also to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Did the metal-mines steering committee recommend waiver of the stage 2

study process to the government, or was that decision made by cabinet

ministers in the Environment and Land Use Committee?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there was no such recommendation ever

made. I'd like to check, though, on exactly the procedures that were

followed and bring that answer back with the other as quickly as I can.

MR. SKELLY:

Another question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources: prior to the government's decision to waive the stage 2

review process for Carolin Mines, were any representations made to the

minister by the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), who holds 10,000

shares in Carolin Mines, according to his latest disclosure form?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I don't accept, as I said earlier, that the

message that that member is bringing forward does, in fact, contain the

correct information. I want to check that out — and I will check it out

— but I can tell you categorically, Mr. Speaker, that I have never,

ever had any representation from the member for Delta or from any other

elected member of this House regarding Carolin Mines.

COMPENSATION TO FLOOD VICTIMS

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of

Environment. Inasmuch as the province of British Columbia now faces the

greatest danger of serious flooding since 1948, and given that last

October the deputy minister of the ministry revealed that the

government was looking for a way out of its traditional

responsibilities for flood relief, can the minister confirm that it is

now his ministry's policy not to provide compensation to flood victims?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

No, Mr. Speaker. I could perhaps, just for the benefit of the member,

elaborate that this year we do face a possibility of a very severe

flood because of the snowpack, but it's not a for-sure kind of thing.

We're going to keep the people advised on a day-to-day basis, and there

has been no change in the government's policy in terms of compensating

people who are victims of flooding.

MR. HOWARD: Am I correct, then — Mr. Speaker, through you — in assuming

that the removal of over $5 million in the budget this year for emergency assistance

grants is simply an oversight?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker, the member is not correct in assuming

that. In the last calendar year, between the time the budget was drawn up and

the time it was — tabled in the House, there had been a disaster and we knew

what the amount was. In instances where that occurs, that amount is included

in the ministerial estimates. If you check back for various previous years,

the only time that there is a specific amount of money included in the estimates

of the Ministry of Environment under that vote is when a specific disaster occurs

between the time that Treasury Board is drawing up its estimates and the tabling

in the House.

MR. HOWARD:

I'm pleased to see that the minister is so definite about what he plans

to do in terms of compensation to victims, but given that dyking and

other preventive measures not only are more cost-effective than

compensation but make more sense in protecting the property and the

lives of residents in this province, can the minister tell us why his

proposed five-year dyking project was rejected by Treasury Board?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I can't, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you that the member's

preamble is incorrect as well.

MR. HOWARD: If there is no money available for a dyking program for flood prevention this year, can the minis-

[ Page

7371 ]

ter tell us what his response is, apart from verbalizing it, to the most serious

flood danger in 34 years? What can he tell the people of this province other

than just keeping them informed about the danger?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, once again the member is making an incorrect assessment.

government of British Columbia which funds disaster assistance. That

disaster does not always have to strike in the form of a flood; it can

strike in the form of many natural disasters. If the member knows

something about the nature of the flooding that takes place in this

province, he will know very well that it is unpredictable. In the past

we have spent considerable amounts of money in constructing dykes in

order to avoid the kind of tragedy that's happened in the past, and we

have done a substantial job of improving the dykes. There aren't funds

this year for dyke improvement.

SUSPENSION OF CROWN COUNSEL

MR. MACDONALD:

To the Attorney-General. I'll have to race in view of the clock.

Following the dismissal of charges in the South Fraser region against

former Mayor Bob Duckworth and city administrator Christensen, the

Attorney-General suspended Crown counsel Al Hoem without pay and

launched an investigation. I'll wrap up my questions in one. What are

the guidelines for suspending Crown counsel after charges rejected by a

preliminary inquiry; who is conducting his investigation; and doesn't

the Attorney-General appreciate that suspending a Crown counsel before

investigation may have an intimidating effect on Crown counsel in

carrying out their duties without fear or favour?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer all the questions in one. The

criteria with respect to suspensions of this kind are set out in the

Public Service Act. I thought he would have taken the time to examine

that. Secondly, the examination is being conducted by me, the Deputy

Attorney-General and the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General responsible

for the criminal justice division.

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. GABELMANN: This morning I made a number of points with respect to

this bill. My primary point was that it is not in fact a restraint bill but

rather a wage control bill. In making that point I was trying to establish that

restraints by governments are not by themselves a bad thing in difficult times.

I was making the point that there are a variety of areas of public spending

that require restraint. I listed some of those, and some of those areas of restraint

obviously had to do with the lavish way in which cabinet ministers spend taxpayers'

money. I'm not going to go through and repeat those items.

The

other point I was making is that those areas in which the public money

is being spent by the government with respect to restraint programs are

determined elsewhere — other than in this bill. They are determined by

the amount of money made available to the schools, hospitals and

municipalities of this province by the respective ministers through

Treasury Board. This bill is not a restraint bill; this is a bill

designed to limit the wages of one particular group of workers in our

society. That's all this bill is designed to do.

Mr.

Speaker, I was making the point that the bill originated as a result of

polling that was taken by the government. It did not come about because

the government had a grand economic scheme or a grand design for

development of the economic policy and future of this province. It came

as a result of polls that told him that public employees weren't

popular and that restraint was. They devised a mechanism to put those

two things together, when in fact there are other ways of exercising

restraint if the government so wishes.

This bill is a direct

response to a populace view, as the government perceived it. That same

populace view was evident prior to the introduction of the mediation

commission and the AIB. What happened to popular opinion as a result of

the practice of those two wage-control programs, one in Canada and one

in British Columbia, that were in place? Soon after those programs were

in place and working — or not working, as the case may be — the public

abandoned their support for those kinds of wage-control programs, as

they will for this program should it ever get into place.

The

bill does not come from some policy direction. The government has no

clear-cut idea as to where it wants to go economically in this

province. When you look at the various things they're doing and

discover what their intellectual or philosophical derivation is, it is

a mishmash. They adopt a little bit of Keynesian economics in one sense

when they say: "This year we're going to spend more than we tax by

taking money that was put aside in other years and spending it this

year." There's a little bit of Keynes involved in their economic

thinking in terms of deficit spending this year, which is in fact what

it is.

There is a little bit of Galbraith in their thinking.

What Galbraith calls for is controls. But they don't follow what

Galbraith says all the way across the board. What Galbraith basically

says is that you have controls on everything: prices, interest rates

and wages across the board — the whole shebang. They don't do that.

They pick the little bit out of Galbraith that they think might be

popular. They picked a little bit out of Milton Friedman. They endorse,

by every action of government, what Trudeau and MacEachen do in Ottawa:

they endorse the high interest rate policies. There have been no

delegations going to Ottawa, staying in $400 hotel rooms and trying to

get MacEachen to back off his misguided Friedman approach to economics

in this country.

Then they have a strategy for job creation

that is based on megaprojects, not on putting money into the hands of

those people in society who will spend it, thus creating a demand for

goods and services. The right way to get yourself out of a depression

is slowly, and with some benefit to people involved in the community;

but no, they adopt the megaproject strategy.

In the face of

all these conflicting and diverse kinds of economic strategies, where

does this restraint bill come in? It is not part of any of those

programs. It is not even completely part of Galbraith. It is simply a

question of political expediency. Wage controls, in their initial

introduction, always

[ Page 7372 ]

seem

to be a good idea to the majority of people. They seem popular. The

government is hoping that the full impact of this wage control program

won't be felt before the election is called. They are hoping they will

be able to fool the public about the impact of this program, and that

its implications and effect won't be felt before we have the election.

That is the entire strategy of this particular piece of legislation.

am concerned as one who is a strong advocate of, and a firm believer

in, free collective bargaining. I am probably like the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf); I don't believe in government interference in some

things. I think the member for Omineca and I would agree that the

government shouldn't interfere in the relations between an employer and

an employee.

MR. KEMPF: There is quite a difference

in our philosophies, though, my friend. I think you would find that out

if we got into that kind of a debate.

MR. GABLEMANN:

I find I do agree with the member for Omineca on something. In a system

of free collective bargaining, management and labour have an

opportunity to sit down and negotiate a variety of items without

third-party intervention, except when those two parties agree there

should be some third-party intervention to assist them in their

bargaining. One of the impacts of this particular bill has been that

negotiations that were virtually complete prior to February 18 — all

but the signing of the final documents — have been completely pulled

off the table. I cited the case of Zion Park Manor this morning. There

are dozens of other cases in the health-care field particularly, where

newly organized workers, about to be brought up to the rates that

workers in that field had bargained for, now are being told they cannot

enjoy the same rates and conditions as their fellow workers in other

institutions. The government's agent, GERB, has said: "All those

negotiations last year are for naught because of an announcement on

February 18." A non-legal announcement, might I say. The thing isn't

law yet and the employers are treating it as if it were. It's not the

employers, who don't have any connection with the government; it's the

Government Employee Relations Bureau itself that has been doing that. I

find it really quite repugnant that they would take a situation like

that and assume that this Legislature would make a law, when it has not

yet made that law. There is a principle involved there that I think

needs some further exploration.

In bargaining, there are

trade-offs. You might demand more in wages; when you give that up, you

might get better contract language. One of the important things the

public doesn't understand about collective bargaining is that some of

the heaviest, most important and longest discussions relate to contract

language. They don't relate to the number of dollars that are going to

end up in the final agreement. That is often a heavy issue and it's

battled through, but everybody knows, when they go into the bargaining,

approximately what the dollar figure is going to be. The heavy

negotiations, the heavy slogging is over the contract language, the

nonmonetary issues. Under this legislation, those people who are

bargaining for, better or different contract language now find

themselves in the position where they don't have the same ability to

bargain because they don't have the ability to trade off monetary items

for non-monetary items.

There are implications for collective bargaining contained in this bill which

are not understood by the Minister of Finance. I suspect they are understood

by the Minister of Labour and the former Minister of Labour. I am sure that

what I am saying about the intricacies and the complications of collective bargaining

are well understood by the Minister of Labour. On occasion I have heard him

say that he believes in free collective bargaining. His behaviour as a minister

has been to try to preserve a free collective bargaining system, to try to intervene

in negotiations as infrequently as possible; yet here we have a Minister of

Finance who is bringing in a bill that interferes in every government-related

contract.

that respect, I want to bring up the issue of the Workers Compensation

Board. It is a non-government agency, entirely independent from

government, with no cabinet or government interference in its

day-to-day business, No taxpayer dollars are involved in its business;

it is totally private sector. Its revenue was collected from those

people who pay WCB premiums. Why are the employees of the WCB included

in a bill like this? It's got nothing whatsoever to do with government

spending. How can they possibly justify having what I thought was an

independent agency — one not connected to the government and one not

subject to interference from the government...? Why would this private,

independent agency which collects its revenue from the private sector —

in the sense that there are no taxpayer dollars involved — be involved

as it is in this particular piece of legislation?

Mr.

Speaker, I regret that I'm virtually out of time, because I wanted to

go through a number of specific situations and details where this

policy is already in place, in effect, before it has become law, and is

having what can only be described as a disastrous impact on workers.

I'm concerned about what's going to happen in the public service,

whether it's in municipalities, hospitals, schools or in the government

service itself, or in any of the other agencies that are affected by

this piece of legislation. What happens to the morale of those workers?

What happens to the recruitment for top and important positions when

the wages are such that it is not attractive to be recruited in those

jobs? What's going to happen when there is already a deep resentment

and anger that exists in the public sector — particularly in the

government employees — and they have to go through a fourth and fifth

year of restraint?

I made that point this morning, and it's

the point I want to end on this afternoon. Workers are the only people

in our society who voluntarily agree to restrain themselves. Workers

sign agreements for one, two or three years, in which they say: "We

will take so many dollars of income and no more." Governments don't do

that with taxes and fee increases. Banks don't do that with interest

rates. Stores and businesses don't do it with prices. Nobody does it

with profits. But workers agree to control their wages for a set period

of time, and in that period of time there can be no increase beyond

what they've agreed to. Yet all the prices, all the costs and all the

taxes can go up during that period.

So what we're saying to

government workers particularly, who are now engaged in a phony, sham

kind of collective bargaining that began yesterday in terms of the

BCGEU-GERB negotiations, is: "You had 8 percent three years ago, you

had 8 percent two years ago, you had 8 percent this year, and you're

going to be subject to two more years of restraint." There has been no

restraint on their costs. There has been no restraint on their mortgage

rates. There has been no restraint on any of the aspects of their

lives, but they will have had five years of restraint. Why should that

sector of our society be picked on? Why should we create two classes

[ Page 7373 ]

citizens: public workers and private workers? Why should we try to

divide and conquer the labour movement like that? The labour movement

will not fall for that divide-and-conquer strategy of the government.

You'll find that private sector workers will back up their public-

sector brothers and sisters in this issue. You'll be surprised, because

on election day this issue will defeat you.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I rise to support this bill. We have a lot of things going for us in

British Columbia. We have tremendous natural wealth, tremendous

resources, tremendous opportunity for the future. But despite all of

that, we aren't isolated from high interest rates, from inflation and

from the worldwide recession. We don't live in some kind of a cocoon

which protects us from the vagaries from the world. We are part of an

international community. We share in its prosperity, so we also share

in the setbacks that come with recessionary times. We can't escape the

repercussions of market weaknesses and inflationary pressure, so we

suffer, to some degree, along with the rest of the world.

are fortunate in British Columbia that we have a number of

opportunities available to us which aren't available to other parts of

Canada, North America or the world. We have some stability that has

been built in over the years, particularly as a result of the fiscal

policies which were put forward by this government and which allowed us

to build a sounder economic base than others — by balancing budgets at

a time when all other governments in Canada, with the exception of one,

have been going deeper into debt, mortgaging the future of their

children and their children's children, with very little hope of ever

ending that debt.

When things are tough, a lot of people

say: "Oh, well, why don't we go into a deficit for a year or two years

or three years. Then we'll get out of it." History will record that

that kind of mentality is disastrous and fatal to a free and sound

economy. We know that the temptation of deficit financing is great; the

temptation to just go in a little way is even greater.

I'd like to draw to the attention of all hon. members of this House a recent editorial of the Globe and Mail ,

I think from last Friday, in which the chronicles of the disastrous

financial state of one of our sister provinces, Quebec, is outlined.

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has got itself into some of the most serious

financial difficulty of perhaps any jurisdiction in the world because

of its deficit financing to meet the needs of the "more" generation, I

suppose, to a large degree. I think that editorial pointed out that

next to Denmark and one other country in the world — I have forgotten

which....

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Netherlands and Norway.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:... the

Netherlands and Norway — I've been corrected by the Minister of Finance

— Quebec has the highest level of personal taxes in the world and,

frankly, is in a dilemma from which there may be no easy out. Mr.

Speaker, we rejected that course of action, and that's one of the

reasons, among others, that this restraint legislation and program is

before this Legislature: so we can find an orderly, manageable way to

meet the needs of our community without facing financial ruin. as some

other jurisdictions have done. Prime responsibility, I think it's fair

to say, for interest rates and the management of the international

economy — certainly the Canadian economy — rests to a large degree with

the federal government. But, Mr. Speaker, leadership in this province

can make a difference despite what some people say, and we are, through

this program and through some budget practices, providing that

leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the restraint program and other

budgetary matters that this Legislature will be asked to deal with are

part of a plan that will help us to provide that leadership. In that

plan we have rejected heavy tax increases that would impose a burden on

the private sector — those on fixed income, the poor and the

unemployed. Instead, we've given as a number one priority the control

of the growth of government, the improvement of the efficiency of

government and the improvement of the productivity of government. The

framework for that goal of this government is in a restraint program —

larger than just the one contained in this legislation, but certainly

it is part of this legislation. This legislation will help to get that

program done.

As you know, having discussed the budget,

overall spending by the government will be kept within the 12 percent

limits. But. Mr. Speaker, don't forget that high priority social

programs for the elderly, the sick, the poor, and the handicapped are

allowed to go outside of those guidelines to meet the needs of our

people. Growth in services to families and children and the elderly

will be balanced by expenditures below the guidelines in other

programs. You know, despite what some of the people on the other side

of this House are saying, this program does not mean that public-sector

employees are being singled out by being asked to bear the burden of

balancing the provincial budget, because all British Columbians will

need to accept their share of the load. In the private sector that load

gets very heavy; in the private sector both employers and employees are

subject to the kinds of restraint that we don't have to put on as

legislators. Their restraint, their compensation guidelines, come

through cruel measures such as bankruptcy and layoffs — measures which

generally don't occur in the public sector.

To preserve the

social programs that we're all so proud of, Mr. Speaker, we must make

sure that the public sector does not lead private-sector wage

settlements and ensure that public-sector expenditures and compensation

don't, by themselves, fuel the inflationary cycle. As we recognized, it

wouldn't be fair or equitable to ask those people in the public sector

to bear any sacrifice that we as elected representatives aren't

prepared to accept, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, there will be

legislation dealt with asking that legislated increases for members of

this assembly get rolled back — not only this year but next year as

well. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said in his remarks

this morning, senior executives of Crown corporations, hospitals,

municipal managers, school administrators and senior public servants

are included in this program, and they will have, in fact, stricter

guidelines applied.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't wish to rise on a

point of order or in some other way this morning, because I knew I'd be

speaking in this debate, but I would like to correct one impression

that was left with the House by the speech of the Leader of the

Opposition, in which he certainly intimated — if he didn't say it

exactly — that the chairman of the British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority, Mr. Bob Bonner, has somehow been the recipient of grand and

glorious wage increases. I'd like to tell this House that Mr. Bonner

has had absolutely no wage increases in at least three years and

perhaps longer.

I believe that those kinds of personal

attacks, especially on people outside this Legislature who don't have

the opportunity to defend themselves, demean this Legislature and are

[ Page 7374 ]

bit cowardly as well. It behooves all of us not to enter into that kind

of debate, particularly when we're talking about serious measures, as

we are today.

The measures outlined in this legislation are

probably ambitious. They will work for all British Columbians only if

we're all prepared to work for them as well.

I think

somebody on the other side of the House was bragging that the Leader of

the Opposition spoke for two and a half hours in this debate. I notice

that at least the major part of that two and a half hours was yesterday

afternoon. I'd like to point out to the House that the news coverage

generated by that two-and-a-half-hour speech was on the back page of the Province ,

next to the recreational classified — motorcycles, boats and marine

supplies, and was two columns about three and a half inches long. I

suggest that was about all it deserved.

We saw the Leader of

the Opposition don his clown's hat again and come into this Legislature

and attempt to put on one of his Oscar award winning performances, with

no substance but with a lot of sham and showbiz. We're getting used to

it here, and so are the news media, I guess, because it happens all the

time. By now, I suppose, even the members of the Legislature are used

to the Leader of the Opposition's showbiz performances. I hope, though,

we all understand that one of the reasons the Leader of the Opposition

chooses that path, rather than to offer solutions or alternatives to

programs, is that he and his party don't have any options and they

don't have any darned policies — NDP, no darned policies.

The

Leader, of the Opposition, Mr. Barrett, went on at length to ridicule

the opportunity for restraint in either the public sector or anywhere

else. But the Leader of the Opposition believes in restraint. His

philosophical policies, at least those outlined in various speeches in

this Legislature and at their conventions and elsewhere, are in fact

programs of restraint: restraint of opportunity, restraint of

development, restraint of increased confidence in British Columbia as a

place to live and invest in, restraint of job creation. They are

negative, doubting people.

What does the restraint that that

party advocates mean to British Columbia? It means that we would lose

the opportunity for one of the most imaginative and adventurous

industrial projects ever developed in this province, the northeast coal

project. It would mean the loss of over 5,800 jobs this year and the

loss of 10,000 jobs over a short-term period. That kind of restraint

would mean the cancellation of a project, loss of the opportunity for

further development for people to live in a huge area of British

Columbia. That kind of restraint would mean that Expo 86 would not go

ahead with its $970 million in activity and its 15,000 man-years of new

employment. That kind of restraint would see the trade and convention

centre and cruise-ship facilities cancelled, costing 1,000 jobs in

construction alone, and 1,000 full-time jobs and 1,000 part-time jobs

while the centre is operating. That kind of restraint would mean that

the new rapid transit system for Vancouver would be lost, with its $700

million investment, 1,700 construction jobs, and 1,000 jobs in the

manufacturing centre. That kind of restraint would mean that B.C. Place

would be lost, with its $100 million-plus stadium; 450 people who are

now working on that site would be out of work; and we would lose 12,000

new affordable housing sites and 2,000 or more construction jobs every

year for the next 20 years, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of restraint

that that negative, doubting party believes in.

They believe

in other kinds of restraint too. I was extremely interested to hear the

member opposite who just finished his speech say that he's against

controls. Well, his leader isn't against controls; his leader has

imposed controls in this province in the past. And how did he do it?

Did he come to the Legislature with some fancy legislative package? Did

he come to the Legislature and announce his program in the throne

speech, as he said that our Premier should have done? He said that the

place to announce this was in the throne speech, not on television, and

he said the place to debate it is in the Legislature.

Mr.

Speaker, when Mr. Barrett was the Premier of this province and

introduced his anti-inflation policy, which, incidentally, somebody in

the Vancouver Sun called a policy that was much ado about

nothing, did he announce it in the Legislature in the throne speech?

No, he did it with a series of orders-in-council passed at a special

90-minute, behind closed-doors cabinet session — secret meetings, Mr.

Speaker. Then the policy was announced to the public in a 5 o'clock

news conference following the closed-door secret meeting.

The

Leader of the Opposition talked a lot about profligate spending. When

his own anti-inflation policy was announced when he was Premier, he was

then in the middle of the third successive year of overruns in the

Premier's office. Would you believe that after hearing his speech

yesterday about overruns? For three years in a row his office

experienced cost overruns, and during that time the expenditures of the

Premier's office had grown to three times that of his predecessors in

their last year of office.

Mr. Speaker, how did he

announce his anti-inflation program? Did he come in here in his

pin-striped suit and be honest with the people of British Columbia and

tell them, "Here's what we're going to do for you, folks" and "This is

the way we're going to it"? Did he come in with the throne speech and

say: "Here, British Columbia, I want to level with you; I want to tell

you what the problem is and how we're going to fix it"? No way. He had

Dunsky Advertising set up a stick promotional campaign to announce his

anti-inflation program to the people of British Columbia. The agency

had its cameras ready at the beginning of his announcement to film the

Premier in full color with the legislative press corps providing a busy

backdrop for a commercial film.

I recall somebody providing me at that time with copies of the Victoria Colonist .

The Dunsky cameramen left only after the press gallery officers

complained about the agency being there. They didn't want to be party

to a bunch of flacks.

Interjection;

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I hear a lot of people saying: "Who's Dunsky?" Dunsky was the fellow

that wouldn't have had any business at all except that he came into

Vancouver, set up an advertising office and got rich because he was the

only game in town for the socialist government. They gave him all his

business, and Mr. Dunsky did very well, thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did he go?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

After the New Democratic Party was defeated in 1975, Mr. Dunsky didn't

have the nerve to stick around and try to get business by competitive

means,

[ Page 7375 ]

he left. Dunsky ducked. He ducked for Saskatchewan no, Manitoba. He

went to Manitoba — that's right — where there was another socialist

government that didn't believe in competitive bidding and which gave

him all their business and made him richer.

MR. SPEAKER: And now back to the bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Then, Mr. Speaker, while I'm talking about restraint and how restraint

seems to change as time goes on and how restraint used to happen around

here, Mr. Dunsky, following the defeat of the socialists in Manitoba,

ducked again. Off he went to Saskatchewan. Well you know what happened

in Saskatchewan just a few short days ago, Mr. Premier. Now nobody

knows where Mr. Dunsky is. He's floating out there in that nether

nether world.

AN HON. MEMBER: Back to Manitoba.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He's gone back to Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, to get rich on the socialists again.

That's

why it's very hard to take a lot of the things that the Leader of the

Opposition says about restraint without a grain of salt. On that same

matter, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday talk about

cynicism in government and mistrust of government. He's done it before.

Speaking of the Premier's earlier announcement in February about the

restraint measures, Mr. Barrett said that they would only make people

more cynical and more despairing. Coming from that member, it is really

hard to put very much credence in.

I recall — I've mentioned

this in this House before — the Leader of the Opposition in a speech to

the Maritime School of Social Work in Halifax. He said a lot of things.

I wouldn't want to repeat a lot of them, but he advised those people

how to pack a meeting and how to subvert existing political processes.

He said: The system is wide open, and you can do anything you want to

it, manipulate it and fool around with it. He also said, speaking of

the financial problems and difficult economic times we were having at

that time: "The Social Credit government isn't spending any money to

develop resources, and things are getting worse in the province." I

suppose that is a fair comment, coming from him, but he then added: "I

am loving every minute of it." If that doesn't lead to cynicism and

distrust of politics and politicians, I don't know what would.

The

restraint program practised by the previous government is not and would

never be acceptable to this government. We do believe, though, that the

way back to long-term financial and economic stability will be by

taking bold and innovative measures. We've never said it would be easy,

and anybody who thinks it would be easy sits on that side of the House.

There aren't any easy answers, and often the answers are too

challenging to be comprehended by negative thinkers.

The

kinds of action that have been taken — this legislation, the budget and

other measures which will be considered by the members of this

Legislature — have helped and will continue to help to restore the

confidence of the financial, mining, industrial and business

communities not only in North America but internationally as well. Part

proof of that is that in a time of falling credit ratings and falling

economies all over North America, British Columbia retains a triple-A

rating on the money markets of North America.

We have

recently considered the budget. This restraint program and our

job-creation initiatives are part of a fiscal package that will achieve

our long-term goals to provide financial security for our citizens and

a base on which to continue to build.

One of the most

often-repeated messages, certainly that our Premier gave and that our

Minister of Finance has been giving over the years, is that the way

back to that financial and economic integrity and social stability

would be long and difficult — years in which we knew we would have to

implement financial and other measures which, in the short term at

least, would be politically unpalatable to the fainthearted. We don't

pretend that we've achieved all the goals that we've set out to

achieve. for there have been a number of unforeseen and unpredictable

events such as high interest rates, inflation and international

currency fluctuations which seriously affect the attainment of some of

our goals in the short term. But further advances will be made if we

all — government and individual members of this House — think and act

positively and not negatively.

Governments do make mistakes

from time to time. But where would this province be if it didn't have

the courage and foresight to embark on bold programs such as the

program which is being embarked on here? Where would we be if we didn't

have the courage to harness the Peace and the Columbia, to build the

Massey Tunnel, to open up the interior and north of this province with

our rail and road transportation systems? All these advances were

opposed by the negative doubting people, as the political history of

this province will record. Where would we have been, as well, without

the courage to introduce new and effective social programs like

long-term care and denticare and the massive hospital construction

programs which are presently underway?

I don't want to dwell

on the past, because it is in the future that we show such great

promise. It is the future which will be so challenging, exciting and

rewarding, not only for us but particularly for our children and our

grandchildren. All the programs and plans for the future will be lost

if we individually and collectively fall prey to three destructive

factors: N — negativism; D — defeatism; P — procrastination — NDP. The

history of the world over many centuries offers irrefutable proof that

an active and dedicated handful of people can destroy the aspirations

of the majority, not by force but by negativism and protest, while the

majority remains mute and passive.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

All

I say is: let's get behind the positive programs that will bring

prosperity to this province. Don't allow us, Mr. Speaker, to fall prey

to those three deadly sins — negativism, defeatism and procrastination

— but give us, instead, encouragement and support to become active in

moving us into a future which will be profitable not only for

ourselves, but for all of those who follow us.

MR. STUPICH:

May I say that I don't particularly enjoy following the minister who

has just spoken. There is a terrible temptation to get down and wallow

in the mud along with him. Mr. Speaker, you weren't here in those days,

but those of us who were here when the NDP was the administration in

this province will recall that he was the most irresponsible when it

came to making attacks on people in the House. He was the most

irresponsible of a very bad lot. He was the worst of the lot.

[ Page 7376 ]

said that Dunsky got all the advertising when the NDP were government

in the province of British Columbia. That's a lie. I'm not calling him

a liar, Mr. Speaker. I know I can't call him a liar. I'm simply saying

that particular statement is an untruth, and he knows it. He said many

other things that were untrue. He knew them to be untrue, but that

didn't stop him for one moment, any more than it did at the time he was

in the opposition.

He talked about the Leader of the

Opposition's own restraint program, as though the Leader of the

Opposition adopted a restraint program in the province of British

Columbia that was new and different from anything else done anywhere in

Canada. Mr. Speaker, even though you weren't a member in the House at

the time, you'll recall that that happened as a followup to a program

announced by the Prime Minister of Canada as a national program.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oops, that's what he said we did.

MR. STUPICH: I'm coming to that remark.

The

leader of the government of the province of British Columbia said at

the time that it would not work: you can't embark upon a wage and price

control program in peacetime because people just won't accept it. But

if wages are going to be controlled in the province of British

Columbia, then the government of the province of British Columbia is

going to do something to control at least some prices. The government

of British Columbia, with the present Leader of the Opposition as

Premier, did announce an immediate freeze on price increases for food,

energy and drugs.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Transportation is part of energy.

When

I went back to Ottawa to discuss the federal program — to convey B.C.'s

concerns about the way the program wasn't working — the people in

charge of the program back there said that they wished the federal

government had had the intestinal fortitude to impose the kind of

controls on cost increases that the government of British Columbia had

shown in its program. I won't deal with that particular member any

more. Certainly what he said has had more of my attention than it

deserves up to this point.

I heard the Premier announce this

program on February 18. By coincidence, a political science class from

Malaspina College had asked me to come and speak to the students that

evening. It just happened that that was the evening chosen by the

Premier for his announcement. The group was meeting at 7 o'clock, and

that was the time the Premier was speaking. It gave us an excellent

opportunity to discuss and diagnose exactly what the Premier had said.

was particularly interested in the response from Mr. Hamilton, the head

of the Employers Council. He had said previously and he said then that

the Employers Council, under his leadership, would not support a

wage-price control program, because the federal government had tried to

do it and had shown that it couldn't work. It can't work in peacetime.

You can't impose the kind of controls that people accept. He would not

support a wage-price control program, but he welcomed the program to

control wages for a small portion only of the total workforce. He

thought that was just great. He knew that wage and price controls

wouldn't work. He knew that wage controls alone wouldn't work, but as

long as it wasn't affecting him and the people belonging to his

organization and as long as it was only affecting one small portion of

the community, he thought this was simply wonderful and he embraced the

program.

The Premier said during the course of his remarks

that the federal government had to share a lot of the blame for the

problems we're facing in the province. He said that a lot of it's

international and that B.C. can't really do anything about the

international programs. That's true, but not on the short term. During

the time that we were in office we did everything we could to try to

get our products into more markets in the world. This government has

done little in that area. We did everything we could within the country

to try to get the country moving in the right direction, and we had

programs going in the province of B.C. that this particular government

scuttled very soon after coming into office.

There isn't

much that can be done federally, but remember, Mr. Speaker, that as

much as they criticize the high interest programs that are now in

effect and the high-unemployment programs, this particular government

has supported the Trudeau administration from the very beginning and

still does. It supports its high-interest policies and is now a part of

the federal government program, not simply to condone the high and

ever-increasing unemployment but to create more unemployment with the

program that is now being presented to us in this legislation. That is

going to be one of the greatest effects of the legislation before us

now — to create more unemployment in the province rather than less. So

everything they're doing is exactly in line with what the Trudeau

administration is doing, and yet they criticize Trudeau.

What

have they done to get the economy of the province going? Nothing. They

have closed down job-creating opportunities that we created. They

closed down the Railwest car plant and six months later had to go

looking for cars. They ran short of cars and had to lease them in the

United States. They closed down other plants that were owned by the

government. West Kootenay Forest Products was going to be closed. We

bought it, they gave it to BCRIC, now BCRIC has sold it and now it's

closed. One thing after another has been closed since this government

took office, and they closed down other organizations directly under

the control of the government. I will be getting into some more detail

on that as well. They've done nothing positive to create employment in

the province — nothing at all.

In the news report of the

Premier's speech on television he said the program to be introduced in

the next session of the Legislature puts a 12 percent limit on

expenditures for 1982-83 and applies to all public bodies that spend

your tax dollars. It goes on to say that it doesn't apply to Crown

corporations except with respect to the amount of money spent on wages.

There is no control of the spending of B.C. Hydro. If total government

spending is the problem, why not slow down some of the projects of B.C.

Hydro? There is no control of the spending of B.C. Rail. How much is

going to be spent there? We're told the figure is in excess of $1

billion of taxpayers' money on the program to ship out northeast coal.

A subsidy to ship our coal to Japan. Is that restraint? That's not the

kind of restraint that's presented to us in this legislation.

an example, Premier Bennett said that municipal and local governments

would be hit. Legislation that we discussed recently — although I'm not

going to comment on it at all — changes the revenue-sharing formula and

puts more costs on the backs of the municipalities, yet the amount the

[ Page 7377 ]

municipalities

may spend in total is limited to 12 percent. They're faced with cost

increases of more than 12 percent on wages, supplies, energy, and

everything they spend money on. They're faced with increasing costs

levied on them by the provincial government and yet their total

increase in the budget is limited to 12 percent. The only way they can

stay within those limits is to cut programs, and to cut programs they

have to create unemployment. More unemployment is created in every

municipal and local government office in the province of British

Columbia. That's what restraint means: more people unemployed. It means

they are going to be paid by unemployment insurance, and that comes

largely from Ottawa rather than from the provincial government. That's

great business, great financing, but they eventually run out of

unemployment insurance.

I remember the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) talking about the program. They expect

the cost of human services, and the cost of social assistance, to

increase much more rapidly than the cost of the constructive programs

that were being put forward by the municipalities. So they know the

cost of welfare is going to go up as a result of the programs they are

introducing in the Legislature in this particular legislation.

Post-secondary

educational institutions are going to be hurt. Mr. Speaker, if there

was ever a time when we needed more in the way of post-secondary

courses and the availability of these courses.... People who are

unemployed and collecting unemployment insurance need something to do.

They need an opportunity to upgrade themselves — to pursue their

education, even if it's simply courses in the evening that make them

feel better about the life they're living. It can be quite apart from

job opportunities — even learning something about the humanities. Those

opportunities should be made available to people, especially when

they're unemployed. The colleges are being cut back. Their

opportunities to present these kinds of programs to people are being

reduced. That is what restraint means to post-secondary education.

We've

all had correspondence from school boards or from schools, I'm sure. I

had one from the principal of a school talking about a youngster with

multiple handicaps. This child has been getting something from the

special education courses that are available. In this particular

instance — I don't want to identify the person in any way at all —

because of the cutback in that particular school district, that child

is no longer going to be able to take advantage of the special

education courses that were available.

I have another from

the principal of a school, writing on behalf of the parents' advisory

group, opposing the cuts in our children's education. "We feel that our

children are our most important resource for the future, as they will

be the adult population in British Columbia in just a few years. If we

cut back in their education now, how can we expect them to be

well-rounded adults?" It is the wrong time to be cutting back on those

kinds of programs.

Here is a letter from a constituent who wrote to the Premier. I haven't seen the response.

"Misgivings about the process are twofold: control of

the public wage sector and the retroactive nature of your controls. My

understanding is that you have restricted school budgets to a 12

percent lift over the previous year, a reasonable inflation factor.

Also, you will not affect the teacher and support staff wage increases,

which averaged around 17 percent — a gesture which appears noble on

your part. The problem, sir, is that the school boards must pay that 17

percent to the teachers and support staff, and they will have to pay in

the neighbourhood of 20 percent more for their energy and supplies.

When the school boards agreed to the wage increase they had no

knowledge of controls, no opportunity to plan."

This correspondent

goes on to say that he voted against the school board incumbents

because he was opposed to what they had done, but the voters as a whole

supported them and he accepted that verdict. All he was urging on the

Premier was that he should not impose these kinds of controls

retroactively and not give the local representatives — elected in a

democratic election — an opportunity to properly plan for the future.

The

budget speech of 1980, talking about educational institutions, said:

"These institutions are providing programs to meet the high public

demand for vocational and career training. Such training is essential

to ensure a proper match between the skills and career plans of

individuals in the labour force and the needs of industries in the

future." That was true when it was presented to the Legislature in the

budget speech of 1980, two years ago. It is more true today. We still

have the need for those kinds of people, but we're cutting back on the

educational programs. It is false economy to cut back on those kinds of

programs at this time.

The budget speech of 1981 said:

"During last spring and summer the government learned that a

particularly severe shortage of skilled labour was emerging in the

northern regions of the province. In October the Cabinet Committee on

Economic Development, led by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, toured the north to identify more

precisely the full scope of the situation." They found out, indeed,

that there is a need for trained people in the northeastern area of the

province. They have done nothing since then to train those people, and

the program announced now says that there will be cutbacks in whatever

training has been available to this point in time.

continue with that same budget speech: "While greater emphasis must be

given to on-the-job training, educational opportunities in our schools

and post-secondary institutions should also reflect the demand for

skilled workers. Enrolment in colleges and provincial institutes is

growing very rapidly." That was a year ago. Since then the program has

been cut back. There won't be the increases in enrolment this year.

Even

the budget speech presented in this Legislature just a month ago says:

"The Cabinet Committee on Employment Development will begin immediately

to set priorities and expedite the necessary program initiatives. The

new cabinet committee will give priority to training programs, the

objective being to prepare people now for the employment opportunities

that will emerge as the economy recovers and a series of major projects

go forward." That is a great sentence. They are going to train more

people so that they'll be ready when the opportunity presents itself.

But the Premier's own statement on TV said that one of the areas going

to be hit was post-secondary educational institutions. The very program

that was announced in the budget has been sabotaged by the Premier

himself in announcing this program.

A lot has been said

about health. A lot more will be said about health and the effect of

this restraint program on health care in the province of British

Columbia. This letter from a constituent is dated six months ago:

"Recently my husband

[ Page 7378 ]

required

some surgery at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. I, fortunately, was

able to spend much time with him there. I was also appalled at the lack

of adequate care he and his fellow patients received due to

insufficient staff, which is the direct result of insufficient

government funding." This was four months before the Premier announced

his restraint program. Now, the axe is being wielded in hospitals.

have a letter from the chairman of the Central Vancouver Island Union

Board of Health complaining about the cutbacks — and again, this was

last fall, September 1981, before the present restraint was announced.

This is how bad the situation was even before it was announced.

"Nursing

positions in mental health, home care and public health nursing

programs are all being affected." This was in September. "As a result

of the frozen mental health nursing positions, patients are being

referred to their own private physicians for their injections of

medication. This results in a greater cost to the Medical Services

Plan. The home-care nursing program offers an alternative and

financially more acceptable form of health care to hospitalization. A

freeze on these positions is resulting in false economy. Public health

nursing is responsible for preventive programs in community health; and

a freeze on these positions can only result in the use of more

expensive treatment programs. My board would appreciate your

cooperation in exempting all community health positions from your

hiring freeze, particularly those in the Central Vancouver Island

Health District."

Mr. Speaker, they haven't heard anything yet; wait until the program now being debated comes into effect.

Figures

were given earlier today by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), but I think they bear repeating, The Nanaimo hospital, as was

pointed out in the letter from a constituent that I read, has been

running a very tight ship. Last Friday it was announced that 42 of its

368 acute beds and 25 of its rehab beds are going to be closed because

of lack of staff. That's a total of 18 percent of the beds. Sixty-five

of the staff were laid off last Friday. That's on top of 20 positions

not been filled in the last few months because of the previous

restraint program, so really it's a cutback of 85. All of this comes

after a program that you may have seen Saturday evening on Channel 2

after the late news — "Provincial Affairs." It's not a very widely

watched program, but I hope everybody in the province saw it; I'm

afraid they didn't. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) saw

it. It was an excellent program. The timing couldn't have been better.

On the very day hospitals throughout the province announced that 1,000

staff members were being laid off, on the very day it was announced

that something like 800 beds in total were going to be closed because

of lack of staff, the Premier and the Minister of Health appeared on

this "Provincial Affairs" broadcast and boasted to everyone in the

province what they had accomplished with their tax dollars — the number

of new hospitals under construction, the number of new hospital beds

being provided, the excellent care being given to the patients in this

hospitals — what a great system of health we have in this province. Had

that program been aired the week before, it might have been listened to

with interest; but coming the very day that all of these cutbacks were

announced was nothing less than an insult to the people watching it —

to boast about the level of health care in the province following what

had happened that particular week with respect to announced cutbacks in

health care service.

The program is a political one. That

has been said, and it will be said over and over. Of that there can be

little doubt. This from the Province of February 25, 1982: "Bennett restraint plan may be part of sneaky political scenario." In the Times-Colonist ,

Jack Clarke said: "The trouble with wage controls is that they're

really a political idea, not an economic concept — at least not one a

free enterprise economist paying homage to the Holy Grail would ever

contemplate." That's the trouble with this bill before us now. It's not

part of an economic concept; it's a politically inspired bill. As a

political idea, Premier Bennett's plan is certainly clever because it,

covers so many strategies at once. Obviously, his compensation

stabilization program makes him look as if he, and only he, is trying

to do something about the province's very difficult situation. It won't

do much to keep down inflation. Few economists believe wages over the

last two or three years have had much influence on inflation, and it

won't get the provincial economy going again. With or without controls,

there's little chance of significant recovery by the main revenue

producer, the forest industry, until the U.S. market recovers.

More on politics. Again from the Province , February 21:

"Labour Expert Raps Bennett Program.

"One

of B.C.'s most respected labour relations experts has slammed the

province's new public-sector wage-control program as unfair and likely

doomed to failure. Former B.C. Labour Relations Board chairman Paul

Weiler says there is 'absolutely no justification for singling out one

group of people and imposing controls on them alone.... '

"'If you're going to do it,'" — that is, controls

"'then you have to do it seriously...with limits in the order of 5 and

6 percent. And if you do that, you have to do it for everybody, including price

controls,' he said."

More on politics, Mr. Speaker: "Public Sector Restraint Program a Mistake" — a newspaper heading in the Vancouver Sun of March 8.

"B.C. Program Hit by Leading U.S. Economist.

"A leading U.S. economist dumped criticism on the

provincial government's restraint program, saying it is a mistake to

single out public-sector workers for wage controls. 'These programs'" —

not speaking just about the one announced, but any program such as this

to control wages — "'depend on public support to be effective. If they

are seen to be inequitable, they will self-destruct.'"

Surely, Mr. Speaker, nothing

can seem to be more inequitable than to pick out any one group in the

community and try to control wages for that group alone.

Mr.

Speaker, I've tried to show what it's going to do to education; the

effects will linger for years. I've tried to show what it's going to do

to health care; the effect of that may not last so long.

talked to a friend of mine whose 82-year-old mother's cataracts were

becoming quite serious in June of last year. She had never had an

operation of any kind and was simply afraid to go under the knife. Her

hobbies were crochet work and T.V. By October the eyes were so bad that

she just couldn't put up with it any longer and finally agreed to face

the fear of the knife and have her eyes operated upon. The doctor then

told her that he could do the operation in March

[ Page 7379 ]

six

months later. The day she was scheduled to go into the hospital — she

was getting dressed to go to the hospital — she received a phone call

to say that the appointment was cancelled because there wasn't a bed

available. It was in March of this year. Later the doctor phoned again

and said that the operation would be done in August; it was before this

restraint program was announced.

That lady has been living

in fear of an operation, an experience she had never had in her 82

years, since June 1981. She is now hoping that she's going to have the

operation — she's quite blind and can't see to do anything she used to

do before — within 14 months from the day that she was told she had to

have an operation. She's hoping that she will have that operation and

get it behind her. But, Mr. Speaker, we have a new restraint program.

Restraint means to that person that she may have to live longer with

that fear and not have the opportunity to see again.

Restraint

for public servants. Well, the public servants settled on a wage

agreement some three years ago. They gave them wage increases much

below the cost of inflation, and they're now told that they're not

going to have an increase in line with the cost of inflation; they're

not going to have the increases that others are getting. They're going

to be kept within prescribed limits. The Premier, in his announcement

on February 18, said what the limits would be. The legislation before

us now has no such limits in it. We don't know whether we're going to

have the 10, 12, 14, 8, whatever the figure the Premier announced was;

he kept changing it. We don't know whether it's going to be in the

neighbourhood of 8 percent to 14 percent that the public servants will

be allowed to have; that is, if they voluntarily negotiate an agreement

within the limits that the person with the authority to deal with it

sets. They don't know if they're going to have 8 percent to 14 percent

or whether it will be 2 percent to 6 percent or whether it will be 16

percent to 20 percent. We've no idea, in voting for the legislation

before us now, exactly what these figures are going to be.

Yet

we're being asked to support legislation, and the members opposite are

going to vote for legislation, giving the cabinet the authority to set

those limits in the cabinet room without any idea at all what the

limits are going to be at any one point in time, whether they'll be

different for different groups, different from month to month or what

the situation will be. And blindly, like sheep, they'll vote for it; we

know that. But we're not going to support that kind of legislation.

It's patently unfair. As one of the people I quoted from pointed out,

legislation that is obviously unfair will not be accepted by the

community as a whole and hence is bound to fail. That's what it means

to them.

There is no attempt by this government to control the cost of living for public

servants any differently from the cost of living for others. There is nothing

in this government program to control the cost of mortgages. If a public servant

is going to have to renegotiate a mortgage that perhaps was at 11 percent and

is going up to 18 percent, 19 percent, whatever, there is nothing in here to

help that public servant meet the increase in the cost of the mortgage. There

is nothing in here to meet the increase in the cost of hydro at 20 percent or

how much more; nothing in here to meet the increase in the cost of telephone;

nothing in here to help the public servant alone meet increases in the cost

of food, in the cost of transportation. All of these costs are going up just

as much for the public servant as they are for anyone else in the community.

Yet the public servant is being treated as some second; third-or fourth-class

What about the future of the province?

have another

article I'm going to refer to. The heading is:

"Reforestation Falling Behind Government Industry Targets." Mr.

Speaker, this surely is planning and working for the future, but

reforestation is falling behind what was planned. What was planned

wasn't nearly enough. This is not yesterday's news story; this is a

news story which is almost one year old. On June 5, 1981, the story was

that reforestation was falling behind government and industry targets.

Since then, the new restraint program was announced. After this, the

freeze is on hiring. The budget that came out this year shows that the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will have less money in terms

of real dollars. Even after wrapping all of the money that was left in

that special forest and range improvement fund into the activities of

the ministry this year, there'll be less money in terms of real dollars

for treating our most valuable resource than there was a year ago. Even

one year ago we were falling behind the very minimum targets set by the

government and industry. That's what restraint means.

education, restraint means cutbacks, especially for those who need

special services. The bright students will be able to survive. They may

be behind, but they'll survive, they'll come out all right. They can

look after themselves. The children with special needs are the ones who

are going to suffer.

For those who need health care,

restraint means a deteriorating level of health care. It'll mean that

elective surgery lists will grow longer and longer and that the lady I

spoke about, who will have been waiting 14 months for a cataract

operation, may have to wait another 14 months. Restraint, to that

particular person, means human suffering. That is just one example of

the kind of human suffering that will be increased as a result of the

program announced, and the legislation that we're debating now is a

part of that program. That's what restraint means to that person.

For

government, restraint means many things. Most crucial of all, I think,

it means that programs which look to the future, such as the care of

our forests, our greatest natural resource, will fall badly behind the

level set by the government at a time when even those levels were not

high enough.

Restraint means nothing about economic

concepts. It has nothing at all to do with the economy and nothing to

do with economic concepts. As I pointed out by quoting other people and

by quoting myself, it's straight — I think the word was used here —

sneaky politics. That's what this particular program is.

announcing the program, the Premier said that most of our problems are

international in origin and we can do little about that. I agree that

we can't in the short run. He said that a lot of our problems are due

to the federal government, and this particular administration has

supported everything that the federal government has announced by way

of restraint. He said that nothing can be done much in the province of

British Columbia, and then went on to announce a program that means a

curtailment of every service that the government is offering to the

people of the province, such as curtailment of ferry services,

don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether you've had the opportunity to travel

on the ferries lately, but certainly, on the ones between Nanaimo and

Vancouver at least — I'm not sure about Route 1 between Swartz Bay and

Tsawwassen — the

[ Page 7380 ]

coffee

bars have been closed and one side of the cafeteria has been closed,

even though that run is longer in time than the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen

run. The lineups on the ferries mean that the people towards the end of

the lineup don't even get into the cafeteria before the ship reaches

the other side. That's what restraint means to government programs such

as that. Restraint means withdrawal of government service, but

restraint also means charging much more for giving less.

Restraint

means, to the people who are paying hydro bills, an increase of 25

percent; and to industry, in one instance, it means an increase of $9

million — and that industry has closed its plant for the first time

ever because of economic conditions. That's what restraint means.

Restraint means that the government, while cutting back on services and

creating more unemployment, is taking out of the economy an extra $300

million to $500 million in increased levies of one kind or another — at

the same time as it is denying the people of the province educational

facilities and, because of a lack of staff, access to hospital beds

that are built and ready to operate. It means, hopefully, in the eyes

of the government, that this particular sneaky political program will

result in their re-election. That's all this program means to the

government. If there's anything at all they can do to help get

themselves re-elected whenever the next election comes along, then the

program — whatever the cost in terms of human suffering, misery, lack

of opportunities for education and all of the other costs of this

program to people in this province — if it's politically successful,

was obviously the right one for this particular administration to

promote at this time.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the

House can't possibly support that kind of program, and I suggest to you

that the people of the province of British Columbia, when they have the

opportunity, will show that they do not support this program or the

administration that brought it in.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Tourism asks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be given?

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

The House will recall that among the new thrusts of the Ministry of

Tourism is a concentrated effort to see growth in our overseas markets,

which are very lucrative to British Columbians and very compatible.

This has been exemplified in many ways, including the special

tourist-industry development trip, all in German, which we made to

Germany last year. I am very pleased to advise the House that at this

time, as a result of that trip, we have a group of 11 West German tour

operators, travel agents and writers, including their two escorts, here

in British Columbia at this time to make an onsite inspection of our

province, including the lower mainland and the Okanagan Valley. Their

objective is to ascertain what the future opportunities will be for

special-interest and incentive-travel groups from Germany and other

parts of Europe to British Columbia. With the group are Hildegard Bohl,

Petra Langer, Helga Schilbch-Anschuetz and Horst Altmann, Bernd

Aufleger, Ottmar Caro, Klaus Finkenzeller, Jan Guettes, Detlef

Hinrichsen, Manfred Keilhofer and Peter Schwalbe. Along with their

escorts is Mr. Dennis Holmes, the convention director from the Ministry

of Tourism. I would ask the House to join with me in extending not only

a very warm welcome to them but the hope they will, after their visit

here, encourage their citizens to visit in British Columbia.

MR. STRACHAN: My best wishes too to the visitors today from West Germany.

rise to support this bill that brings restraint and some orderliness

back to our province. I guess one of the things that has intrigued me

and, I am sure, all members of this side of the House is the continual

rationale that the members opposite and other so-called wise men —

people who feel they have some handle on the study of economics — have

made when they equate this bill with the federal anti-inflation program

of the mid-1970s. The wise men opposite quote Beryl Plumtre and other

sources who state that, because the federal program didn't succeed, our

program won't succeed. I would submit that there is a major difference

between our program and the federal program. One, of course, is that we

are simply holding the line on taxes and on our own government

spending. We're not trying to get into the private sector or trying to

tell other people what they must do. We are simply — as all good

businessmen would do and as any government should do at a time of

economic downturn — holding back on our own employees. I would submit

that the hon. member for Nanaimo, who just took his place and who is

professionally trained in the field of accounting, would give that type

of counsel to any businessman he might be counselling in what to do

when you have declining revenues. You cut back on your expenses. Mr.

Member, I am sure you are aware of that, and I find it interesting that

your professional training would fly in the face of your philosophical

statements.

One of the problems during the federal

Anti-Inflation Board program was that the federal government did not

restrain their own spending. As a matter of fact, if you look at the

record you will note that roughly during the AIB program the federal

deficit tripled from $2 billion to $6 billion. The federal government

restrained everyone except themselves. That was their folly. This bill

simply says to the people of British Columbia that we as government, we

as the tax collector, we the people who regulate the other taxing

authorities such as school districts and municipal councils, simply

want to take our hand out of your pocket. It is that simple. There is

no magic to it. It is a simple statement to the people of British

Columbia, and I am bemused as to why the members opposite would not

endorse this principle during this time of economic restraint.

The

NDP say: "No, we want to dump it out of the back of the truck. We want

to just give it away and forget restraint, forget everything that the

people who are unemployed have worked for." There is restraint in the

private sector. It is entitled layoff. I am surprised that the members

opposite aren't aware of the people who are going to have to dig into

their pockets for tax dollars, in the case you would present, to

support higher education, health, municipal government and provincial

government spending. I think you do the people who elected you a great

disservice.

One of the interesting things yesterday was the mini filibuster of the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RITCHIE: Mini-leader!

MR. STRACHAN: He's not that small, hon. member. You can't say that.

The

Leader of the Opposition spoke at great length about our party being in

bed with the federal government. He drew some kind of kinky analogy to

the fact that because the federal government had a restraint program in

the mid-1970s

[ Page 7381 ]

and

we have one now, we are in bed with the federal government. I think

there is a lot of political tarbrushing going on there. The Leader of

the Opposition presumes that because of the defeat of the NDP in

Saskatchewan, if he paints us with the brush of being in bed with the

federal government — in fact, maybe some of it will stick — the people

of the province will consider that we're a party that supports the

federal policy.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I'd

like to point out that we're not in bed with the federal government. We

certainly never have been. I don't think the provincial NDP are in bed

with the feds; I think the feds are in bed with the NDP. I'll give you

a good example. I have with me this afternoon a copy of an April 9 and

10 address given to the federal-provincial conference of first

ministers. This is the address that was given by the then Premier of

the province, who is now the Leader of the Opposition and the first

member for Vancouver East. In this statement the NDP indicate their

enthusiasm for federal government policy. Let me quote the now Leader

of the Opposition, who at this time was speaking as Premier: "In

calling for public control over Canada's energy resources, I have said

since November 1973" — in other words, he'd been saying it for 18

months — "that British Columbia is prepared to share all the oil and

natural gas rights granted to it by the constitution if the government

of Canada will put under public ownership all of the oil and gas in

this country."

The Liberals are indeed in bed with the NDP.

It's that policy espoused by the then Premier, the now Leader of the

Opposition — by the provincial New Democratic Party — that in fact is

the architect of PetroCan, and of the fact that we have to buy crummy

Mexican crude that we can't refine, and, I suppose and submit, of the

Alsands failure in the last week.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN:

That policy articulated there — you can't deny it, hon. member for

Shuswap-Revel stoke (Mr. King) — is Mr. Lalonde's policy. I would

submit that the Leader of the Opposition, the representative of the

provincial NDP, was the architect of the National Energy Program; he

was Mr. Lalonde's policy adviser. That fact cannot be denied. I would

take you to task if you think you can accuse us of being in bed with

the federal government, Mr. Member. Nothing could be farther from the

truth. I submit that it's pretty hard to say that about our party.

There

is a great deal of talk in this debate about the principle of

collective bargaining. In spite of what you members opposite have said,

we do have collective bargaining in this province. It does exist. It

exists even under this restraint bill, and I think if you have a good

look at it you'll see that it does. The interesting thing about

collective bargaining is that not one member on this side of the House

has ever said anything about the collective bargaining process. There

is one member in this House who has. I submit to the hon. member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — he's not here right now, but he enjoys a

position in his caucus similar to the one I enjoy in mine — that

perhaps he should call an NDP caucus meeting, and maybe they could

develop a policy on the principle of collective bargaining.

MR. RITCHIE: How about Gary Lauk?

MR. STRACHAN:

That's exactly what I was going to refer to, because in spite of the

great hue and cry we've heard about collective bargaining in the last

couple of days, and despite the good words said by some of my friends

whom I truly appreciate have been instrumental in the collective

bargaining process and who have done good works on behalf of what they

believe in — such as the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) ; and on our side of the House,

the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) and the member for

Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), who has been a long-standing member of the IWA

— the only one in this House who has ever made any comment about the

fact that we should not have collective bargaining is the first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) a member who used to be in the NDP

cabinet as their Minister of Economic Development.

Let me

quote the first member for Vancouver Centre from the 1976 NDP

convention, when he "warned party members to be careful in supporting

the concept of free collective bargaining." He agreed that the NDP's

long-term goal of a planned economy "would be inconsistent with

collective bargaining." I think we can take the statements of the

Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann), and many of the other fine people who believe in the union

movement, and they totally fly in the face of the statements by the

first member for Vancouver Centre. It would be nice if the NDP could

finally come up with some sort of consistent statement on collective

bargaining and the trade union process.

We definitely need a

restraint program; I don't think there's any secret about it. It's also

no secret that no one likes it, and I'll be the first to admit that.

Sure, it would be nice to keep spending money on this and that and

whatever you want. As many of you know, I had the good fortune during

the first part of my political career to serve on a school board. In

those days the provincial revenues were good and the school district

where I had the pleasure to serve had a growing student population.

During my time as a member of that board — and as chairman during the

last couple of years — I had the good fortune to open five schools.

Things were going very well there in School District 57. We had lots of

employment. We had an increasing population. We had an increasing

student population. It was a nice position to be in. We had the fat

budgets, and we could mount the programs that we wanted. Life couldn't

have been better for a school trustee there were no problems.

But

things have changed since then. First, we have a declining school

population in our district. In spite of the fact that our population as

a whole is increasing, our school population has been declining in the

last two years. You can't argue with those numbers. I spoke at some

length during the budget speech about the big generation that waved —

the children born from 1951 to 1966, the one-third of our population in

Canada that have now moved through our school system. We just can't

lose sight of that. As a provincial government and as administrators

and trustees of the public purse, it would be folly of us to continue

throwing money at empty classrooms, and I would submit that is the

case. I don't think you can deny that. With the exception of a few

growing communities in the northern part of our province, some of the

growing resource communities. our school population is declining.

There's no one who can argue against that; that's a fact of life. It's

numbers, and it's folly for our government to continue to throw money

at empty classrooms just to assist some policy of the BCFT.

[ Page 7382 ]

One

of the reasons we have these problems — the high government spending

nowadays — is largely because of the policy of the NDP. I would like to

quote from the throne speech of January 26, 1973. The hon. member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who of course had a concern about the

civil service — he obviously didn't feel that it was big enough..... In

his reply, he welcomes the comment in the throne speech that "there

would be 10,000 new jobs provided in the Civil Service Commission of

the province of British Columbia." That, Mr. Speaker, is when we

started on the road to higher government spending and higher taxes, and

it was NDP policy that introduced us to that sort of position. It has

been an albatross around our necks since that party opposite was

government. The civil service increased dramatically, and all citizens

of the province had to support it. By the way, that's a very

interesting reply to the throne speech; the member for Nelson-Creston

endorsed nuclear power, in case you want to look it up — January 26,

1973. They wanted 10,000 new civil servants, 10,000 new expenses on the

taxpayers of B.C.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP are clearly stating that their policy is: get everything

you can out of the public trough. Let the teachers get 17 percent again. Let

there be no restraint on the size or wages of the civil service. Get as many

people as you can in the public trough, and let them get all they can.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill takes the heavy hand of government out of the

pockets of the people. We're the first government that's had the guts

to do it, and you've got to admit it. I would submit — and I'll close

now, so whoever the next speaker is, get ready — that everyone who

votes against this bill has absolutely no concern for, no empathy for

and is completely out of touch with the people of B.C. I support the

bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. HALL:

I listened to the previous speech with a great deal of interest and

noted the vast amount of research that went into it. I want to deal

with it at some length to justify the research that went into it —

particularly that part of it that dealt with energy problems, because

that really was the most interesting part of the speech. The rest

really was an examination of Hansard by some assistant of the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan).

I were the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), I would be very

concerned about the member for Prince George. The member for Prince

George knows a lot more about energy than the member for Langley does.

I would be very concerned if I were the member for Langley. It is not

saying anything, really, about anything, but I thought it would just

put it into perspective. It would be a battle of Titans, in terms of

energy and knowledge, to watch those two go at it. I really felt that

we might hear something about the bill, but instead we heard about the

energy policies of the federal government and about some speeches that

my colleagues may or may not have made in past years.

this bill had any merit, any worth or anything to commend itself to the

people of British Columbia, it would have been built upon by the

administration in Ottawa in 1976 right through 1978 as the base from

which Canada could have launched its defence against inflation, against

runaway prices, against criminally high interest rates and against

every other public enemy that the other side has drawn bead upon. They

tell us it's got merit. It's a carbon copy of that which was produced

in 1976, and yet we know that the anti-inflation legislation was not a

success. Why do I say that? The bill is exactly the same in genesis to

those dark days of 1976 that saw the birth of the Anti-Inflation Board,

the so-called wage and price controls. Shades of Mrs. Plumtre's

original plaything, the price review board. Of course, we know it

didn't control prices. It only controlled wages. That, more than any

other reason, is why it wasn't a success. Nor does this bill seek to

control prices. The member was quite straightforward about that. He

told us exactly what it sought to do. It sought to bring our employees

under control. At least he is being very simple and straightforward

about it.

The Anti-Inflation Act, in the fullness of time,

was declared a failure. Most of us know that. The Minister of Finance

really knows that. Most of the members of the government in 1976-79

know that that particular federal program was a failure and didn't

achieve its objectives. It only served to alienate and exacerbate the

already difficult Canadian labour-management scene.

So why

are we trying it all over again? We are trying it again because,

firstly, it only seeks to impose a supposedly popular control on a

pre-selected group of workers. That is a really brave thing to do. The

second reason — this is what really makes my opposition to this bill

complete and definite — is that if dislocation and disruption occur,

the government can take cynical, political advantage of the confusion

and call an election. That is exactly what the second reason is. Those

are the thrusts of this bill: first of all scapegoats and secondly hope

you can cause enough trouble to slip through in a labour bashing

election campaign. That is what is behind Bill 28. That is the bogeyman

you've been looking for ever since you collapsed in the polls. You will

find that the public of British Columbia are a bit smarter than that.

Looking

back to February 18, when we saw the advance notice of this bill — the

unveiling or, as the Leader of the Opposition said, the "three-flag

performance" by the Premier — we saw that the act contains all the

public-sector employees, all the members of the various unions all

lumped together in this so-called fight against inflation. We are all

supposed to get behind the Premier and exercise restraint. The first

unveiling of that legislation didn't contain any details. We had to

wait until the bill was tabled properly in this House, and we

restrained ourselves as much as we could from making any general

comments until we could see what was proposed in the bill.

see that this bill orders all public sector employers to register with

Commissioner Peck, immediately giving details of current negotiations.

Once negotiations are concluded the employer must again notify

Commissioner Peck within 30 days. If the commissioner decides the

agreement does not fall within the restraint guidelines, he's got

wide-ranging powers: to impose a new settlement, to ask the parties to

meet again to try to reach a new settlement, to prevent implementation

of the settlement, to roll back wage increases, to force employees to

pay back wage increases, and to withhold future wage compensation, etc.

But the bill does not contain any specifics on wage increase limits

detailed by the Premier in that three-flag performance, in his February

18 speech. These details will be announced and contained in

regulations, in bulletins and in other material that we'll expect from

time to time.

An order by the commissioner can be filed in

the Supreme Court as if it were an order of the court. It can't be

appealed. No action for damages can be taken against the commissioner.

The act has provision for a conditional agree-

[ Page 7383 ]

ment

which allows the commissioner to make a special arrangement if the

compensation plan falls outside the guideline. That's sheer one-man

rule, sheer dictatorship. That's a wage commissar we've got working

here, Mr. Speaker, a wage czar. If that kind of legislation had been

introduced during 1972 to 1975 we'd have every single Liberal member

and every single Social Credit Party member talking about sweeping

powers, dictatorial powers, jackboot legislation. We'd have every

single country in the world vilified as being our ancestral home.

AN HON. MEMBER: Megapower.

MR. HALL:

Exactly. We've heard of megaprojects; these are megapowers. We're

supposed to trust them. They say: "We're not doing anything to

collective bargaining; we're just giving you some guidelines — just a

wink and a nudge." Yet I read out the basic powers that Commissioner

Peck will have. He's got more powers than the junta in Argentina. This

is all done in the name of restraint.

Other speakers have

talked about the restraint habits of the treasury benches. I'm not

going to go into those very much today. There'll be ample opportunity

as we go through June, July, August and September, examining the menus

and the itineraries of the treasury benches over the past 12 months or

24. I want to go back to last spring when we suggested some restraints

ourselves. Last spring we suggested and systematically identified $82

million worth of frills tucked into the Social Credit budget for

unnecessary, self-serving. ministerial spending: $82 million worth of

new offices, new furniture, travel expenses, advertising and other

peripheral government services, every one of which was voted for, and

requests for cutbacks and restraints rejected, by the treasury benches.

While

I'm talking about restraint and advertising, I see we have been

rejoined by the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland). The member

for Langley has been spreading some incorrect facts. He's been

spreading some untruths about advertising programs. I want to just put

the record straight about a couple of things, Mr. Speaker. He talked

about an advertising agency that I happened to have something to do

with when I was a minister. He said among other things that Mr. Dunsky

did all the advertising for the New Democratic Party administration.

While he was speaking there were four or five ex-cabinet ministers

seated around. The Minister of Health in those days, the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke), never used Mr. Dunsky. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs in those days was the member for Burnaby-Willingdon

(Mr. Lorimer), and he never used Mr. Dunsky. As Provincial Secretary in

those days, I never used Mr. Dunsky. The Attorney-General in those days

was the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and he never

used Mr. Dunsky. The Minister of Labour in those days was the member

for Revelstoke (Mr. King), and he never used Mr. Dunsky. He's been

going around since 1976 telling untruths.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Barrett did.

MR. HALL:

I'll tell you that I used Mr. Dunsky when I was Minister of Tourism.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) used Mr. Dunsky when

he was Minister of Human Resources. All you've got to do is do some

homework and get your facts straight and don't tell untruths.

Mr.

Speaker, last spring the New Democratic Party proposed cutting those

frills, none of which would have interrupted delivery of programs, all

of which would have certainly been classed as restraint — a good

popular buzz-word these days. We believe that that kind of restraint is

needed to prevent unnecessary taxation. The member for Prince George

said we've got to get the government's hand out of the people's pocket.

I agree. So let's get both of this government's hands out of the pocket.

Mr.

Speaker, all of our many motions on that $82 million.... You remember

them, I'm sure. You observed the fussing scene in here. Most of them

are made in committee, but most of them were reported to you at the end

of each day's debate when permission to record those divisions was

asked of you. You remember that each of those many motions to make

specific cuts was voted down. That's what the government majority did

in the Legislature, and yet they now talk about restraint.

After

that spring session, which went on until around the end of June, there

were only seven day of work after that in 1981. They talk about

restraint! For seven days of work we brought everybody in, we stoked up

the boiler, we turned on the heat, we turned on the taps, we turned on

the lights and then we all went home. If there is any merit in this

bill, why wasn't this bill put forward in December? If there is any

merit in anything the government has as a kind of economic recovery or

restraint program, why wasn't that program ready? That's the thing that

bothers me, and I've said it before in speeches and I will continue to

say it.

During the hiatus, between a long adjournment from

early July to nearly Christmas, the cabinet, as we know, was busy

travelling, going for a sail with the other Premiers aboard a ferry,

adding to personal staffs, even to the extent of hiring political

opportunists from Ontario and elsewhere. It was all in the name of

restraint. Worse still — and this is the thing that bothers me — they

seem to spend all the actual working time on debt-increasing proposals.

It's no good having restraint in terms of spending money out of your

cash flow while at the same time you're doing that you're incurring

debt all the time. There has to be some restraint in all of those

things. I see no restraint whatsoever in the government's increase in

its debt load.

Mr. Speaker, if debt is bad — and I think

debt is bad; the Minister of Finance thinks debt is bad — we'd better

start to really underscore just how bad this debt is. It's spiralling,

guaranteed shortfall; it's interest-ridden Socred megadebt; and it's

high-cost, long-term liability. I can think of about 154 ways to

describe that debt, and it's about time we started to get those words

into the political currency of this province instead of that claptrap

that the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is trying to put

forward in terms of our policies on our economic recovery program. Mr.

Speaker, dead-weight debt, unfunded debt, high-cost debt, spiralling

debt, crushing debt and interest-ridden debt is what we have in this

province. On the one hand we've got restraint by this Minister of

Finance who is talking about the cash going out, and yet we're going to

have debt to the tune of billions of dollars, as the members already

evidenced in the budget speech,

Mr. Speaker, what we saw on

February 18, and now it's supported by the facts in this legislation,

was a media event. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was good enough

to give me a copy of four very pertinent questions he asked the

Premier. The first question was: when we proposed those

[ Page 7384 ]

reductions

last spring in the government's expenditures for such things as

furniture and so on, why did the Premier vote against them? They would

have saved the taxpayers $82 million. The second question was: why was

it that the budget for the Premier's own office increased by over 100

percent over the past two years? Then he had an overrun on top of that.

The third question that my friend from Skeena asked the Premier was:

why is it that the money allocated to his office in the current fiscal

year was all used up in the first nine months? Out of control. The last

question was: why is it that government expenditures over the past two

years have increased by 40 percent? Do you know what some of them said

during that contribution this morning? They said they've got things

under control. I don't think that's control — 40 percent in two years.

No, it is a bogus bill, a political bill, a scapegoating bill.

is a bill that raises all the bad memories — I share those memories....

I've known the member for North Island (Mr. Gablemann) a long time. The

member for North Island wasn't always in the chamber during some of the

debates he mentioned, but I know he was a frequent visitor here.

Interjections.

MR. HALL:

I am congratulating the member for North Island on the speech he made.

He wasn't here on the floor when some of those debates went on, but we

discussed the effect of those debates together many times as he cut his

political teeth in this province. I remember the debates about the

infamous Mediation Commission and the available Judge Parker.

The

member for Point Grey is laughing. I remember when he was sitting over

here. He didn't think it was so funny then. He enjoyed those debates.

I'm not too sure which side he was on during those debates. He used to

try to find out his own position in those days — firmly on the fence,

as a rule, until he went out to the Union Club and someone, usually the

member for Oak Bay, whipped him into line.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Which one?

MR. HALL: The one who has just been made an appeal court judge. We'll argue about that later.

This

bill raises all those bad memories of those debates on labour — the

Bill 42 debate, the Mediation Commission debate, the days before the

public service, both provincial and municipal, had full bargaining

rights. Each springtime used to come around, and it queued up for the

allowed percentage from an all-wise, all-powerful Premier, from a

government with a huge majority. That is what used to happen. That

brings back memories and they are bad memories, in a sense, because I

thought we'd all progressed past that. We all made an agreement. We

passed legislation. We all supported the principles of most of that

legislation. There were some who didn't.

This bill is a step

backward to economic chaos, because even if we could ignore all that

I've said up until now, we'd still be struck by the fact that the

Premier's proposals, such as they are, simply won't work. If the Prime

Minister of Canada's wage controls wouldn't reverse inflation with a

program which sought to curb wage hikes in all sectors and roll back

some prices, how does the Premier of this province hope to be

successful by restricting only public-sector wages — which is only 17

percent of the provincial workforce — while paying no attention to

prices and profits?

If the government union members, who

compose just one-quarter of public-sector employees, have been held to

only 8 percent increases during the previous three years and straddled

by AIB previous to that, as the member for North Island pointed out —

five years under restraint while inflation has run rampant — how are

the Premier's proposals to hold them to 10 percent going to reverse

inflation? How is that going to reverse anything at all? If the Social

Credit government really wanted to deal with inflation, it would attack

it at its real source. While I know that here in Victoria we can't do

much about energy prices or the declining U.S. market for B.C. forest

products — although I think we could certainly aggressively market in a

little more organized fashion — it could act to reverse the highest

housing costs in Canada, it could act to lower the interest rate for

struggling businessmen, for farms, for home-buyers, and it could

stimulate the economy and generate some government revenue in the

process. The selected release of Crown land for housing could bring

down the cost of housing and put our building trades and at least some

of our forest workers back to work. There are a number of proposals

that could be put into operation instead of simply going forward with a

so-called popular program of restraint, which, in its real guise is, as

I say, a labour-bashing policy, to slide in hopefully during an

election campaign.

The fact is that the government is not

devoted to reversing inflation, recession and unemployment, or high

interest rates. Instead, you're providing us with bread-and-circus

debates on television. You're polishing your own image. You're

providing a confrontation with labour by stomping on the public sector,

whose members are clearly falling further behind in the race with

inflation by virtue of those facts which the GERB clearly have at their

disposal now. You're scapegoating in the worst possible way: inviting

people to point fingers at one another instead of getting on with

seeking out the real causes of inflation.

Of course, the

ex-Ontario pollsters that you've got working for you will no doubt tell

you that when enough of us have been mesmerized by this display, when

you've got enough confusion going, when you've heightened the chaos,

when the disruption and dislocation occur, you can then — as I've said

before — take cynical political advantage of the confusion and call an

election.

Mr. Speaker, that's why I will not support this

bill. It's clearly a bogus political bill, and for those reasons nobody

should support it.

MR. HOWARD: In rising to examine

the bill before us, one thing to do is to assess the need for it in an

historical context. It is not simply a question of where we go from

this point, but of the circumstances and actions of this government in

the last couple of years that have necessitated their drafting of a

bill of this nature. In looking at the historical aspect of it, I don't

mean in the long range; I just mean over the last year or two. The

promoter of the bill is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). He

is the minister who is responsible for it, the person who has usurped

the function of the minister of labour in this regard, and also the

person directly responsible for fiscal matters in this province this

year, last year and the year before. It's in that context that I want

to look at this situation.

A few years ago, the Premier of

this province attended a federal-provincial conference — one of many.

At that conference he presented a brief or a submission to the govern-

[ Page 7385 ]

ment

fiscal matters and what the province of British Columbia should do in

fiscal matters, and then he completely reversed himself.

Let's

examine and put on the record what the Premier of this province said to

government spending practices. That's the heading on page 10 of this

document called "Towards an Economic Strategy for Canada." He said:

"Growth of government has occurred too quickly and without adequate

appreciation of its implications." This is our Premier talking to the

prime minister of Canada. He makes a suggestion in that regard and

picks a period of three years, without any rationale for that. It could

just as easily have been two or four or some other number, but he used

three. He said all governments should restrain spending growth to a

rate at least one percentage point below the growth rate in the

economy. By way of example, says our Premier, if provincial economic

growth ran at 10 percent, unadjusted for inflation, then government

spending would grow at not more than 9 percent, unadjusted for

inflation. When it comes to identifying what should happen in the

provincial sphere, by way of explanation of what he meant by the growth

rate in the economy, he pointed out that it was the rate of growth of

the gross provincial domestic product. Just a few years ago that was

policy for this government. Since this Minister of Finance became

Minister of Finance — this person who is piloting this bill through the

House and declaring government policy — we find that he has completely

reversed the position put forward by the Premier as the fiscal policy

to be followed by this government.

Let me give you some

figures. In 1980 the gross domestic product in British Columbia —

that's what the Premier was talking about when he made those proposals

to the federal government — ran at 13.2 percent over the year before.

Following the formula enunciated by the Premier of the province that

the rate of growth of expenditure of a province should not be more than

one percentage point less than the gross domestic product, he was

talking about a growth rate of 12 percent in government expenditures

for this province. Instead, this Minister of Finance, so in love with

his own importance in being Minister of Finance, so overjoyed at the

prospect of getting his hands on so much public money to spend, in his

first year as Minister of Finance brought into this Legislature an

estimate of expenditure that was 20 percent over the year before, while

declaring that that advice would be followed in this province. The

Premier said: "It should only be 12 percent. If we spend more than 12

percent one year over the next, we will be in economic difficulty."

This Minister of Finance, acting like an alcoholic with a free bottle

of booze, has got his hands on those hundreds of millions of dollars of

the taxpayers' money; he just couldn't restrain himself from wanting to

squander it. He boosted the estimates of expenditure in the budget for

that year by 20 percent over the year before; the Premier said that

anything over 12 percent would get us into trouble.

That was the first year. In the second year, 1981, again the gross domestic

product had a percentage increase of 13 percent over the year before. Knock

that back by one percentage point for restraint purposes, as enunciated by the

Premier, and we have another year when the increase in expenditure on the part

of this government should only have been 12 percent; that's if there is

any validity whatever to the theory and the proposition advanced by the Premier.

Once again last year we saw an increase of 20 percent over the year before.

Put the two years together and we find a 40 percent increase in government spending

of taxpayers' money. Over the two year period. that is an additional 16 percentage

point contribution to inflation. It's an additional 16 percentage points

of squandering hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers'

money — all done unashamedly, all done with glee. We all remember the smile

on the face of the Minister of Finance when he was presenting those first two

budgets, and how he gloated and proclaimed what a beautiful thing it was to

be able to spend all that money. He enjoyed it then. The only people who didn't

enjoy it were the people who had to fork out the money, the taxpayers of this

province.

Let's

see another thing the Premier said, in talking with Ottawa and giving

advice to those easterners and to himself — although he never took his

own advice; it was just for somebody else. On page 11 of that famous

document the Premier of our province says: "Governments frequently

employ methods of taxation which generate revenue growth faster than

the rate of growth in the economy. This hidden form of tax increase

allows public-sector spending to increase more rapidly than the rate of

growth in the economy." That is precisely and exactly the policy that

this government has been following in the past two or three years:

namely, employing methods of taxation which will generate revenue for

the province faster than the rate of growth in the economy. That is

inflationary, destructive, injurious and promotes the idea that it is

possible to spend as much as you like and you're not going to injure

anybody. I think the Premier went to too many federal-provincial

conferences. He became so unduly influenced by Prime Minister Trudeau

and Finance Minister MacEachen at the federal level that he came back

home, reversed himself and said: "Let's have Liberal policies here in

the province as well. That seems to be the way to go." Now we have a

bill before us called a restraint bill. Restraint is a dirty word when

it is applied to what this government has done in the last couple of

years.

Look here. Let the Minister of Finance look at this

barometer staring him in the face. This is what was used last year to

show that we in the New Democratic Party — the minister would like to

look at it — sought to reduce.... There he is looking at it. Remember

what you did last year.

A year ago we in the New Democratic

Party, analyzing the government excesses and expenditures of last year,

sought to save the taxpayers of this province something in the

neighbourhood of $82 million. We sought to reduce the squandering by

that amount of money — not in the area of programs or matters of

delivery of service to people, but in the areas of travelling expenses,

office furnishings, advertising and propagandizing. In that attempt of

ours, a year ago, to bring this government to its senses, to try to

reduce the excessive expenditures of the government last year, we

totalled up a tab of $82 million that we could have saved the taxpayers

of this province. Every single vote that was held in this House — there

were dozens of them — to cut back and tighten the belt.... Every single

one of those motions we put forward to reduce government expenditures

was defeated by the solid government majority. Every single Social

Credit member in this House with one exception, Your Honour.... I

assume you are still a member of that illustrious party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Illustrious?

[ Page 7386 ]

MR. HOWARD:

Illustrious only because Mr. Speaker may be a member of it — otherwise

not. Every member of the Social Credit Party in this House voted last

year against curtailing its own excesses. They just enjoy tremendously

the prospect of flitting around the country first-class in airplanes,

the possibility of flying to far-off lands — Europe, New York, the

Philippines, Tokyo, wherever their fancy took them, wherever they

wanted to go — because, after all, the taxpayers were footing the bill,

and what did that group opposite care about that? Last year we had an

example of an attempt in this House to put restraints on government

excesses, and they wanted nothing to do with it. That is why this bill

is deceitful and hypocritical.

The bill itself is a designed

and calculated piece of deception. I am sure the minis