1983 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

2077 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment

Mr. Lauk –– 2077

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2077

Mr. Mitchell –– 2077

Mr. Rose –– 2082

Ms. Brown –– 2087

Mrs. Johnston –– 2092

Division –– 2092

Mr. Macdonald –– 2093

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2093

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2094

Division –– 2095

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 4). Second reading.

On the amendment

Mr. Stupich –– 2095

Ms. Brown –– 2100

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2104

Mr. Lea –– 2107

Mr. Hanson –– 2111

Mr. Macdonald –– 2115

Mr. R. Fraser –– 2119

Division –– 2120

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2121

Mr. Howard –– 2124

Ms. Sanford –– 2129

Mr. Blencoe –– 2134

Mr. Barnes –– 2139

Mr. Nicolson –– 2146

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, before the supper adjournment I was

trying to draw to the attention of hon. members on the government side

the tremendous advantages in supporting this motion by the opposition;

and I pointed out that they had two ways to go. On the one hand they

could take the six months and waste it by spending taxpayers' money on

advertising and so on; on the other hand, if they analyzed Bill 11 and

other legislation from the point of view of conciliation and

compromise, and tried to get cooperation from the various trade unions

involved, I think they would be pleasantly surprised. To do otherwise

would be clear evidence that the government is only interested in

political exploitation of these issues, rather than for their stated

goals, which we clearly can see are hypocritical. The stated goals of

the government are restraint and reducing the deficit, However, the

legislation, particularly Bill 11, is confrontational and will increase

labour-management strife not only in the public service, but in the

private sector as well.

As we move into the evening debate, with our great efficiency I have

so much more to say on this particular motion that I'm at a loss as to

which topic to start on. I think it's fair to point out on this motion

that the government can be more discriminate in their approach to

restraint if they see the opportunity to reduce expenditures, for

example, in their personal ministries. In the 1981-82 and 1982-83

periods the opposition gave them every opportunity, and there may be

other areas that they could examine over the six-month period.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce you to the A team, who will dazzle you once again this evening.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to speak long

on this rather silly hoist amendment. I'm glad to see that the member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) supports me on that thought.

I just want to say one thing, and that is how interesting it is to note the change

in debating tactics by the NDP over the last couple of days. It seems that the

results of a Goldfarb poll published in the Vancouver Province a couple of days

ago showed that the people of British Columbia were very much in favour of restraint,

but somehow had reservations about the methods being pursued to achieve it.

As these debates go on and on this evening, tonight, tomorrow and the days ensuing,

I'm sure you'll see that the members opposite, who are always criticizing

the government for paying any attention to, or using, polls, are in effect trying

to parrot exactly what those polls said. They are saying: "We are in favour

of restraint." They have never been in favour of restraint, as demonstrated

by their tactics when they were the government, by their campaign position during

the last provincial election, and by their speeches in this Legislature up until

now. They've always taken the position that they can spend and borrow their

way into prosperity. But as a result of the Goldfarb poll, all of a sudden the

tactics have changed. They're now saying they are, and always have been,

for restraint, which I think is a rather nonsensical statement. But they are

saying they would do it differently. They would be the epitome of reason and

would negotiate with all of these people to achieve restraint, and by doing

so would not achieve restraint at all.

As this debate goes on we can watch how these members are playing to a recently published poll.

MR. MITCHELL: After listening to the Minister of Forests talk

a lot of nonsense, I realize why our forest industry is in the

situation that it is. It's because of leadership: the type of

leadership he has given for the last seven years, and the type of

leadership the Social Credit government gave for 20 years. Through all

those years they still allowed the large multinational companies to

come into British Columbia, to cream off the resources of this province

and send that money down south to build modern plants, and now we are

in this situation.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are

directing this debate toward the hoist, not toward any other subject. I

would request you to remind the member about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am confident the member is aware of the

relevancy of debate and will maintain his debate to the principle of

the hoist as such.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping you would bring me back to order, because I know if I....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The

member who is now speaking started out by providing misinformation to

the House. I'm not sure whether it is deliberate or unintentional, but

he is making statements that are absolutely untrue. I would caution him

that he should not do that even though it may be unintentional.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Minister. I am confident that you

are aware that if you wish to correct any member in debate you will do

so when your chance and opportunity comes to stand and speak at your

desk.

Would the member please continue on the hoist on Bill 11.

MR. MITCHELL: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate you bringing me back to order, because when I get....

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister

of Forests got up and said that the member from Esquimalt was telling

untruths. It used to be in this House that perhaps one of the most

serious forms of disorder was to rise on a point of order and then in

effect to say that a member was lying. No matter what is happening in

this House, that's something we really can't allow to slip by.

[ Page 2078 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken, Mr. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the member for

Nelson-Creston, who should be aware of the rules by now, is reading a

newspaper, which is not allowed in parliamentary procedure. You can

check the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth versions of

Sir Erskine May.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you; I'm sure the member is aware of the long-standing tradition of the House.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will please continue on the hoist of Bill 11.

MR. MITCHELL: I hope the people keeping the clock are going

to deduct all these completely unnecessary and facetious interruptions

from my 40 minutes.

Getting back to the motion that we are debating this evening, it is

a very positive and constructive approach from the opposition to

attempt to get through to this government that British Columbia is

facing — and I say this very seriously — a serious situation. It

appears that this government is determined to have a head-on clash with

the civil servants. It's not only that they want a head-on clash with

their own employees, but they are going out of their way to drag in the

trade union movement and the working people of this province, which

will have a great effect on the small business community. You cannot go

out to any segment of our population and attempt to run roughshod over

agreements that have been negotiated, agreements that have been taken

in good faith. These people have dedicated their lives to working for

the province of British Columbia, for the municipalities of this

province, for the school boards or Hydro — all the various Crown

corporations that make up the working force that keeps this province

running.

[8:15]

MRS. JOHNSTON: And the IWA.

MR. MITCHELL: The IWA, the construction trades, and every

other organized trade union in this province definitely support the

right of free collective bargaining. They accept that right. They have

fought for it and they have earned it. They are not going to stand back

and watch one group of fellow British Columbians trampled and

legislated out of their rights — legislated out with the power of 49.7

percent of voters that gave a mandate to 35 people who have set

themselves up as super-gods. They are going to change the lifestyles,

the conditions of work. They are going to change something that didn't

happen overnight. It isn't something that was given to them written in

stone. Those rights evolved from discussions, arguments, from give and

take. They are rights that are written into the collective agreements

of this province, precedents that have been set by various ministries.

They set up certain conditions, and they have evolved over 20 or 30

years of negotiations either as a union or an association. Now this

government, who campaigned on restraint, are going out with the

jackboot attitude that we do not have to accept something that we

promised in negotiations in good faith.

The Premier himself entered into the negotiations that settled the

last labour trouble with the government workers of this province. He

was the highlight. He gave the leadership and he set down an

understanding between the bargaining committee for the employees and

the employer, which is the government. He gave that leadership. Then he

went out and campaigned throughout the province, saying how the program

he had negotiated, the restraint package that was part of the Social

Credit government record, was the record they campaigned on. Granted, 5

percent more people voted for the government than for my party, but

still, over 50 percent of the public voted against the government.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I refer to standing order 43, which reads:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention

of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member, who persists

in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, " — and that is the

part I am referring

to, Mr. Speaker: tedious repetition — "either of his own arguments or of

the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue

his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name

him, or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

I called the Speaker's attention to this standing order 43 some hours ago

in this particular debate. The member is persisting in repetitious debate and

I would ask you to consider imposing standing order 43 at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I fail to see how you brought it to the

attention of this member in this debate, because this is the first time

he has stood to speak on the hoist motion of this bill. Your point, as

I'm sure the member is well aware....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm afraid you misunderstood me, Mr.

Speaker. I advised that I brought it to the attention of the Speaker

who was controlling the debate in the Legislature. This member, and

previous members on this particular motion, have resorted to tedious

and repetitious debate. The standing order refers to "a member" or

"other members in debate." The same type of argument is being pursued

time after time after time. Nothing new is being added to the debate,

so again I implore you to invoke standing order 43.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. This member has only

been speaking for approximately five minutes and I think he should have

an opportunity.

I'm sure, hon. minister, that your comments have gone to his heart

and he is well aware of them, and will act appropriately in the balance

of this debate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, one final word on my point

of order. The standing order very clearly states: "tedious repetition,

either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members."

Even though this member has only been speaking for a short time, his

entire speech so far has been a repetition of nonsensical points

previously made by other members of the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for bringing that to my attention. We will consider it accordingly.

MS. BROWN: Further to the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

think it's very clear that the minister is deliberately trying to

prevent the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) from

having the right to state his opinions on

[ Page

2079 ]

this bill. I would like to bring to the Speaker's attention.... I'm

sorry, I don't know what the exact citation is, but I know there is one

which admonishes the Speaker to protect the minority rights, the right of the

opposition in this House to be heard.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) says there are no such rights.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't pay attention to him, hon. member; he hasn't got the floor.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of leadership I think this House has been waiting for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm waiting tediously for your point of order.

MS. BROWN: My point of order is that the minister is

deliberately trying to prevent that member from taking his rightful

place in the debate, and I want to bring to your attention the citation

which gives you the power to protect the rights of the opposition to be

heard.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Your comments, like

those of the hon. minister, will be considered. I'm confident that the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is aware that standing order 43

refers to not only his own arguments, but that arguments of others may

be considered with respect to his own. I'm sure he'll take that into

consideration during the balance of his debate.

MR. MITCHELL: I really appreciate the support that you have given me, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: This minister keeps on jumping up and down.

He's completely uncontrollable. His particular m.o. in life is that he

does not have his actions or his facts right, so he just jumps up and

down trying to disrupt the orderly debate of this House. I say to that

minister and to the government members over there that there is nothing

they can do that is going to change my right to get up and give the

opinions of the people of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who have elected me

to come here and enter into the debate on every piece of legislation,

every bill and every amendment that may be submitted to this House.

In entering into the debate on why we feel this particular motion should be

hoisted for six months, I am going to repeat an argument that I have made in

other debates on other pieces of legislation, and I'm going to make it because

it follows in the traditions of parliament: that is, the establishment of a

parliamentary committee with members from all sides of the House. You and I

do share a parliamentary committee, Mr. Speaker, and through you I'd like

to tell all members of this House that that committee — which was dominated

by Social Crediters, with a minority group of three NDPers — accomplished more

positive action in a 20-minute meeting than there has been in all the debates

in this House up until this point. We sat down as a committee and attempted

to establish some ground rules to study the resolution passed by this House

of privatizing the inspection services of motor vehicles. But we did it positively.

We exchanged ideas, we all gave suggestions. The lovely young lady who was our

chairman and secretary took the input that each one of us gave. It wasn't

dominated by the interruptions of cabinet ministers or little legal beavers.

It was a positive approach.

This is why my party and I feel we should set up a parliamentary

committee and be prepared to travel throughout British Columbia, if

it's needed, to meet with not only administrators in the public service

or elected municipal and school board officials, but also with

government managers and representatives of the trade unions involved,

to talk about how this legislation is going to affect their employees

and their operations.

A few weeks ago I met with a person whose job is to train managers

for government services, and I put it to her quite straight. I said:

"We have all this feedback from the press and the public, snide remarks

of certain members of the government that the civil service is full of

deadwood, that seniority doesn't work, and that a lot of people are not

doing the job they are being paid for." So I said: "Okay, we hear these

stories. What are the actual facts?" She said: "If there is any problem

with any employee, the problem ties with management."

The top management is the cabinet of this province. If there is any

employee down the line who is not doing the job he should be doing,

then there is some manager in charge of that particular operation who

is at fault. If there is any line of command, then that line of command

goes up through the management staff. As my good friend the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) always says: "The can

stops at my desk." When I come in as I have in previous debates on his

estimates, and I bring to his attention some of the mismanagement of

his particular ministry and the granting of certain rezoning for

subdivisions, when the highways have been relocated in the wrong spot

and I bring it to his attention, then that is his fault.

[8:30]

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of of order.

Occasionally I wonder if relevance to that member means a K-car from

Chrysler. Mr. Speaker, I refer you again to standing order 43. We're

not talking about the Ministry of Highways; we're talking about a hoist

to a particular bill. If you would be kind enough to remind the member

to stick to the reasons for the hoist — or the lack of reasons for the

hoist- I think that would be correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is cognizant of the hoist and should be relevant on the hoist per se.

MR. MITCHELL: You and the Minister of Highways realize the

arguments I was using were positive arguments to show why we should

study the faults of any problems within the civil service, that we

should be attempting to identify where those problems lie. I use that

as an example. I was not discussing the Ministry of Highways estimates;

I was using it as an example.

The first member for Vancouver South knows that the arguments that I

was using were sound, positive and to the point. To stand up and

continually interject with a lot of nonsense and rules from the red

book.... All he is trying to do is to distract from what we are trying

to get....

[ Page 2080 ]

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, will you stop that ex-Speaker from

trying to push a lot of his past into this debate. If he wants to get

into the debate on the hoist motion, then he should....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr. Member, I presume your debate is

relevant. Discussion with other members is not. Would you please

continue on the hoist.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm just answering some of the gibes that have

been thrown at me by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder)

as he tries to twist the facts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you would address the Chair and ignore the rest, we could maintain order in the House.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, that is the wisest advice that I

have ever received from that side of the House. I know that after the

next election all of the public will accept that advice and ignore that

side of the House.

Getting back to the reason that I feel we should hoist this motion,

I would recommend that we set up a parliamentary committee and someone

like yourself, or the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), who has

the ability — when taken away from these particular surroundings — to

listen and to relate to problems.... Let's get away from the

cross-debate and the interjections, and bring to that committee the

people who are going to be affected by legislation that is going to

destroy the morale of the workforce of over a quarter of a million

people.

When a quarter of a million people are being paid to do a job for

the citizens of British Columbia and when good money is being paid out

for their wages, conditions and fringe benefits, the public of this

province have a right to demand that they get the maximum return for

that investment. But you bring in legislation of this type that is

going to gut and change the agreements that were made in good faith

after give-and-take negotiations. You bring in legislation that is

going to jam something down their throats, something more consistent

with the laws that you would get in Chile, Germany, Poland, or

Argentina. They are not the type of laws that we in a free western

province of Canada should be even considering.

Mr. Speaker, I say to each one of those here tonight that if we

don't take that second look, if we don't set up the parliamentary

committees that are a tradition of parliament....

They are not something new that some radical member of the NDP for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has been advocating. These are committees that

have come from traditions of parliaments throughout the free world.

They started in Britain and came to Canada in different forms. They are

all through the democratic parliaments of our democracies. It gives the

opportunity for the public who are going to be affected to come down

and meet with those who are going to make the laws, who are going to

enforce a type of restrictive legislation. It gives them a chance to

appear before those parliamentary committees in an atmosphere of

freedom, of goodwill, and of a committee that is determined to listen

and to come together with the best type of legislation that is going to

affect all of us.

Maybe a lot of you have not worked in the public service. I have had

the good fortune to work in public service and in the private sector,

and I have been self-employed. I have had the opportunity to share my

experiences, to share the knowledge that I have gained over the years.

I have learned one thing, and it goes right back to when I entered the

workforce at 15, when I joined the army at 19, when I came out into the

private sector in construction, when I was self-employed, and when I

went into public service. The most important thing of any business is

the morale and the attitudes of those who are employed.

When I am employing people or when I am one of the employed, when I

am managing, as I have done for 10 or 15 years as a shift sergeant....

When people are not happy in their life, or not happy with the

attitudes of their foreman, their supervisor or their employer, they

are not doing the job that must be done. A young lady who is a

consultant in this particular field, and has consulted and done a lot

of training for both governments and private industry, says the most

important spark of any operation is the supervisor of that particular

group. It is that supervisor, whether he is a lowly foreman down the

line or a director in one of the ministries, or if he is the minister

himself....

MR. KEMPF: How about she? You're going to get in trouble with Rosemary.

MR. MITCHELL: Or she. You are so right. It must be something

today. I have had two good pieces of advice from that side of the

House, and especially from that member for Omineca. I know that you

with your wisdom and legal training will know that I mean both he and

she, or both she and he, whatever way you want to take it — the

supervisors, the directors, the ministers, the employers.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order. I really don't care whether

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talks about he, she, or it, as

long as it is relevant to the hoist before us on Bill 11. Mr. Speaker,

I would ask that you bring that member into line and into order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew will continue his debate and make it relevant to the hoist

amendment to Bill 11.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, he knows it is relevant. He knows

it is right to the point, as you know it's right to the point. You in

your position have not challenged what I have said, because you have

been listening to the train of thought as I have been saying why this

motion to hoist should be passed; why this Legislature should set up a

committee to study this piece of legislation; why we should consult

with the employers affected by this legislation; why we should consult

with the employees affected; why we should consult with consultants and

experts in labour management, both from the profit side of the employer

group and from the service side in government. We should consult with

these people and ask the questions that need to be asked: how we are

going to get the maximum ability out of all employees; how we are going

to utilize the resources of those employees. Every employee in any

particular program, be it education, highways, police or firefighting,

is a resource that has ability. It is our job — and I accept that

responsibility, as one of 57.... Those resources must be given the

opportunity to

[ Page 2081 ]

be utilized to the maximum. If there are some

people not doing the job they are being paid for, then it is

management's fault; that management rests directly on the benches of

this cabinet. My good friend the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser)

said in this House that he accepts those mistakes, because he is an

honourable man.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my

understanding that we are debating a motion to hoist a bill before the

House. I also understand that the debate in the House is irrelevant to

the motion before the House. It seems to me that the member now

speaking is revisiting all those arguments that were made on the main

motion and is not in any way debating why he thinks the motion before

the House should be hoisted. I would ask him to be relevant to the

particular motion that we are now debating.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. It seems that the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has been debating a hoist, but

possibly some of his subject matter is more relevant to a hoist of Bill

3 than of Bill 11. Possibly he could be more relevant to Bill 11,

because we are dealing with a hoist motion on Bill 11. Would you

continue, please.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I had a lot of faith in you. I've

read Bill 3 and Bill 11. Bill 11 goes into the collective agreements of

all public servants in this province, and the Minister of Forests is

completely aware of it. The whole package of legislation that came in

with the budget....

Each and every piece of that legislation is interlocking in one way

or another, to the point where the Minister of Municipal Affairs can

dominate the budgets of any particular municipality; the Minister of

Finance can dominate....

[8:45]

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under standing

order 43, everyone standing in debate in this House must be relevant to

the subject matter before us. I've been listening very intently to the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, and in no way can I see any

relevance to anything whatsoever in what he's saying, let alone to the

hoist on Bill 11.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member for Omineca. Possibly

one of the problems of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is that

he's trying to develop something; but I'm sure he did not have an

opportunity between the last point or order and the one before that. I

would appreciate it if he were given an opportunity. If he is not

relevant then, raise the point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I think that what you should do is

name the member for Omineca and name the Minister of Forests for their

continual repetition of arguments that are not even valid.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That is the position of the

Chair. Hon. member, your position in the House at the moment is to

debate and be relevant with respect to the hoist motion.

MR. MITCHELL: I was just giving a little bit of advice, and if you don't want it, I will withdraw my advice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your place in debate at the moment is to debate the hoist motion. Possibly you'll continue.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman — Mr. Speaker, I'm

sorry. I withdraw that. You keep jumping from committee to second

reading, and I will confess that I do err at times.

Getting back to the argument I have been trying to develop — and I

know you have been following me, because you have been listening to the

argument that I have been developing — I confess that I realize that

there might have been a little repetition from another speech I made

before, but I've enlarged it a little. If you go back into the Blues

and Hansard , you will realize that this is a policy that we

must develop in this House. We must develop an attitude that we are

going to get the best legislation through that we are going to develop

and exploit — maybe I shouldn't use the word exploit — and get the best

out of the resources, which are our employees, in this province so they

are performing for the people of British Columbia in the best manner

they can.

I believe — I am convinced — that if any committee is put together

with members from all sides of this House.... I don't care if they are

put together on a political basis or if they are put together with all

the hawks or all the doves or all the glow-worms that sit over there,

or all the forward, progressive-thinking people who sit with me. If

they are all put in a hat and pulled out together, and that committee

is put together, I know that if they — that committee....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I seek your advice. Has the member

had long enough to develop some relevance in his debate? Since you last

asked the member to become relevant in the debate which he is now

engaged in on the hoist of Bill 11, he hasn't been relevant at all, in

my estimation.

I would ask that you take some drastic action in regard to that member.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker,

standing order 43 also refers to tedious repetition, and even the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew admitted a few moments ago that he

had been repetitious in his argument. Again, for about the third time,

I suggest that it is time to invoke standing order 43 and direct the

member not to be repetitious, even though he himself admits that he is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll answer the member for Omineca first, and

possibly that will satisfy the point of order raised by the hon.

Minister of Forests.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has another two minutes in

this debate. I am confident that he will endeavour to be relevant

during that period of time, and we will await the consequences of those

two minutes.

MR. MITCHELL: We often look across the floor and listen to

the various ridiculous arguments that come up. When those government

members will not get up and participate in real, honest debate, we have

the Minister of Forests, say, twisting something that I said out of

context. I did repeat it from previous debates on other legislation. So

I say I am voting for this motion to hoist Bill 11, and I'm asking that

this House set up a parliamentary committee to study this legislation

and listen to the people of this province.

[ Page 2082 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the hoist motion to Bill 11, the hon. member for Coquitlam–Port Moody.

MR. ROSE: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that not too much of my short

time is going to be used up by the thunderous ovation that I usually

receive when I get up to speak. As a matter of fact, I was tempted to

get up on the point of order, because I think on the question of

standing order 43, where my colleague was accused of being irrelevant

and tedious....

MR. R. FRASER: He wasn't accused. He was!

MR. ROSE: I think the operative word there, Mr. Speaker — and

you picked it out, because you are cunning, shrewd and highly

perceptive, and you see these things.... It isn't a case of whether or

not he was repetitious — I think we can all agree to that. But was he

tediously repetitious? That, Mr. Speaker, is a value judgment, and you

came down on the right side, as you must do, according to Beauchesne.

It is a value judgment by the Speaker, and the Speaker is required

always....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Are you calling a point of order? I am really on this point of order; if you want to call it, then I can speak to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a point of order.

MR. ROSE: It is a point of order, because....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair asks the hon. member

for Coquitlam–Port Moody whether he has risen on a point of order or

whether he is rising to debate the hoist motion to Bill 11.

MR. ROSE: Yes I am, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are what?

MR. ROSE: I am either on a point of order or I am rising to debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I ask which?

MR. ROSE: Well, I haven't decided that yet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, will you please take your chair until you make your decision. Please advise the Chair as to what your decision....

MR. ROSE: I wanted to make that point of order before I began my speech, and I am now ready to commence my speech. This is my speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I thank you for your point of

order. I do not see where it was relevant or if it was necessarily set

out in the standing orders. Now would you continue on the hoist motion

on Bill 11.

MR. ROSE: I am interested in being a speaker on the hoist motion to

Bill 11, because I think if ever there was a motion that deserved to be hoisted,

it is Bill 11. I am pleased to be here tonight once again in prime time, among

my friends, rivals and competitors, to speak to Bill 11. I think it is really

central to the differences that exist between our two parties. The two parties

in the House cleave on the basis of Bill 11, and the basic difference or cleavage,

if I may be so bold — if that is not unparliamentary — is to be decided on whether

people who work in the public service can maintain the kind of rights that they

have fought for over the years or whether these rights are to be taken from

them.

That is essentially what Bill 11 is all about, and I think that it

is a matter of rolling the clock back. It is not merely an opportunity

for the government to restrain wages; it is an opportunity for the

government to roll back salaries. Anybody who is caught in the squeeze

between inflation and the lack of an adequate income to meet those

increased costs, which are uncontrolled, is going to resent his wages,

working conditions and whatever being controlled. There is no question

about that in my mind, and there is no question that this whole thing

needs to be reconsidered. I said that other countries have had

different approaches to this; I said this last night. I can probably be

accused, at this point, of being repetitious.

AN HON. MEMBER: And irrelevant.

MR. ROSE: Oh, not irrelevant, but perhaps repetitious. I am

saying that this is the kind of legislation that this government has

opted for to meet a particular kind of problem. The particular kind of

problem is: who is running the store? That is the concern of the

government, because it is concerned with its shrinking revenues. And it

has reason to be concerned about its shrinking revenues; no one

disputes that. This afternoon someone said.... I think it was the hon.

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who stopped chewing his gum

long enough to make the point, if I can recall the point, that this was

a matter of extreme consequence, that the government had to be in

charge and that it was not going to brook any kind of interruption from

anybody, whether they were public servants or not.

What I am saying is that we should look upon this hoist as an

opportunity to reconsider the course we are taking. Speaker after

speaker on the government side and this side have gotten up to say that

the economy is fragile and recovery is not necessarily guaranteed. We

hear again that the Conference Board has said only tonight that

recovery is not guaranteed. The "happy days are here again" boys over

there who say we are the doom-and-gloomers and we are spreading the

fear, we are spreading the gloom.... We are not cutting wages, we are

not rolling people's salaries back, we are not leaving them open to

rent increases, we are not sitting silently when it is a matter of

interest rates or whether housing starts are going down.

Consumers are going to have to lead us out of this recession, and if

you want to talk about something being routinely and repeatedly

repetitious, it is that line. I have used it at least a dozen times

since I have been in this House, but it is true. It is not only me that

says that; lots of people say that, and I can give you a whole list of

them. Of course, some of them are academics, and therefore I think

maybe we should distrust their views, because if they are academics, of

course they are not good, practical, hard-headed people who have to

meet a payroll, because that is really important. Man's highest

achievement in this life is to meet a payroll. There are other forms of

accomplishment that perhaps could be considered

[ Page 2083 ]

equally worthy. I don't imagine that Wordsworth met

a payroll; neither did Beethoven but, by golly, they are probably going

to be remembered far longer than Andrew Carnegie, who was very good at

meeting a payroll, exploiting all the people and then giving away large

libraries to every city in North America.

But that is beside the point. I must come back to Bill 11. We cannot

have a consumer-led recovery if people do not have the confidence in

either their jobs or their future incomes. If they are not sure about

their jobs, they are not going to be spending money in the local

stores; for example, witness the unbridled free enterprise in Nanaimo

which has allowed probably four times the average commercial space to

develop there. There were no controls, and the right to go broke is the

inalienable right of every free-enterpriser, so the downtown core has

got a hole in it like a doughnut. It doesn't require much imagination

to suggest that the public servants in Nanaimo are going to be very,

very careful about spending any money, whether it's downtown or in the

shopping centres which ring the place.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

I don't think the small entrepreneurs' management skills make any

difference when you listen to a statistic like this. Mr. Speaker, it's

far worse in British Columbia than it is in the remainder of Canada. My

colleague laughs.

[9:00]

MR. A. FRASER: We're going to recover faster.

MR. ROSE: Yes, we will. But not because of government. It's

because once the resource market turns around, regardless of what you

do, we'll be selling resources.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: To be fair, that is true.

I was talking about Nanaimo and then there was an interjection that

I think was deliberately designed to distract me when I was in full

flight — perhaps out of control, but at least in full flight.

Anyway, what I was attempting to say was that, yes, because we're in

a resource-based economy, when resource markets recover throughout the

world we will be able to recover more rapidly than other jurisdictions

that have a greater and more diversified economy. At the same time, we

go down faster — and perhaps stay down faster if things don't recover,

So I think the whole gamble on Bill 11 and the other bills that make up

the dirty dozen is the hope and gamble that things are going to recover

in the world economy, regardless of what is done to people.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I had a boss one time who was a school

superintendent. It follows that if he was a school superintendent he

probably hasn't got a great deal of ability, according to some people

across the hall. But I thought he was a very wise man. I said to him:

"One of these days I would like to be an administrator." I never really

made it but....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It's going to be

a long night. Unless we have speakers from the opposite side of the

floor — who, incidentally, brought in this hoist — speak to the hoist,

it's going to make this long night almost unbearable. Before we get too

far into the wee hours, I would seriously ask that you bring members —

such as the one who is on his feet now — to order, asking them to be

absolutely relevant to a hoist motion on Bill 11, the Compensation

Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think the point is well

taken. This is a hoist motion. Accordingly the debate, I would

respectfully suggest, should be narrowed to explaining to the House why

the government should or should not hoist this matter for six months. I

would ask the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody to refrain from

digressing any more than he has to this moment.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I might have strayed

somewhat, but I was being distracted. If the member for Omineca, and

others, wish me to stick strictly to the theme that I was attempting to

develop, then don't tantalize me by throwing in irrelevancies and

asking me questions which, I think, courtesy demands that I follow up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, obviously you are the only one

who has the floor at this time. I think it behooves you to ignore

interjections from the floor, unless the Chair has recognized those

members. If you can ignore the interjections and keep your comments to

the hoist motion, I'm sure we'll have no further necessity to call you

to order.

MR. ROSE: The only thing I would ask of you, Mr. Speaker, as

a new member here, is that you protect me from the kind of catcalls

that I've been receiving from across.... I will be scrupulous in my

terms of order and I will try not to cause any excruciating pain to the

member for Omineca, because he's got a high pain threshhold — or is it

low? Well, I'm certain he's got one, whatever it is.

Bill 11, which we're attempting to hoist, is going to be, I think, a

momentous assault on the confidence of people who work in the public

service. It is going to have a rippling effect, like a stone droppeth

upon the water, throughout the whole economy. It is a very fragile

economy, an economy that is affected by world trends, and anything that

happens in the economy, the government or the social setting that

interrupts that delicate balance is not going to be good for our

economy — which isn't that good in the first place.

I would like to read some figures to you about bankruptcies. Here's

January to July 1983 inclusive: in B.C. there were 775 bankruptcies, a

50 percent increase in the same period over 1982. We had our election

in May. I don't know what the figures have been since May. I hope

they're not as bad as they were then, but it's hardly happy days are

here again. In Canada, on the other hand, there were 6,012

bankruptcies, a 2 percent decrease over the same period in 1982. So,

clearly, what we must do is nothing, and do it slowly, in many cases,

so that we don't disturb the delicate balance that destroys confidence,

prevents investment and prevents job creation. That's the point that

I'm trying to make about Bill 3.... Bill.... Oh, Bill 3, fine; it

doesn't really matter, since they're all part of the same....

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's the trouble. They don't know what bill we're on.

[ Page 2084 ]

MR. ROSE: Oh, Mr. Speaker, there again I'm being harassed by the people across the hall.

We're asking people in Bill 11, in many cases, to sit still for cuts

and for an assault on their incomes, while everything that they've

purchased is going up in price. What's happening? What are we having

here? We're continuing what is called the restraint program. Bill 11

does that. What it does, really, is to take what was an interim program

and make it permanent. That's number one; that's what we've done,

right? What's that going to do to people's confidence?

People are complaining that we're speaking a lot on this

legislation. I don't know what my constituents sent me here for if it

weren't to fight on their behalf. That is the legitimate duty and

responsibility of anybody who's elected to this parliament, not to roll

over and play dead just because somebody may be tired of my voice. I'll

tell you somebody else who's tired of my voice: me. I wish I didn't

have to fight you guys — excuse me, and ladies — on a bill that I

consider an assault on the basic fabric of a generation of advances. We

can no longer afford the standard of living we have, so in order to

protect the standard of living that we have, we've got to lower it.

What a contradiction in terms that is.

The whole package here is to lower wages. What else does it do? If

you give the government complete control of what the payments are going

to be, then why would you need any public service organization at all,

in any way? What can they do? What are they going to argue about? What

are the representatives of workers collectively, getting together in

the freedom of assembly, guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, going to

do? Are they going to be able to come to some sort of agreement through

collective bargaining? To what end?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Work hard? I think that there are probably lots of

people who work hard in the public service. There are a lot of golfers

in private service, too, who don't do a hell of a lot.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would request that you refrain

from entering into debate with the members across the floor and

restrict your comments to the Chair. Once again I would urge you to

restrict your comments to the matter before this House, which is a

hoist motion; and that, I would respectfully suggest, is debate

centered around why this matter should be hoisted for six months.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Speaker, the reason that the matter

should be hoisted for six months is that it takes everybody's rights

away; it leaves the rewards that people get in the public service for

their efforts up to a czar from whom there is no appeal. So it means

that it's destroyed any kind of collective action that public servants

may take. That strikes at the very heart of the things that have been

won over the years through the efforts of a lot of people. It almost

indicates, Mr. Speaker, that there is a group of people here who feel

that we've been involved in labour chaos over the last 15 years. That's

not been the case at all. We haven't had prolonged work stoppages. Why

do you need these powers?

HON. A. FRASER: Where have you been? You've been in Ottawa.

MR. ROSE: I've been in British Columbia as well. Oh, Mr.

Speaker, he's after me again. The holy ghost over there. He thinks he's

the B.C. spirit.

I heard that maybe the ferries were going to be shut down a couple

of summers ago, but they weren't closed down. I was going up and down

theSun shine Coast and I didn't have any problems there. I think that

they've acted extremely responsibly. As a matter of fact, the former

Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Matkin.... I'm saying this in connection

with this bill, Mr. Speaker, in case you're getting up on the balls of

your feet and getting ready to whip out Erskine May and beat me over

the head with him. What I'm saying is that we have had responsible

labour organizations in the public service, and we haven't had a sorry

record of strikes. We have not been suffering from what a lot of people

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would request that the hon.

members on the government side of the House allow the hon. member for

Coquitlam-Moody to continue on debate. At this moment he is diligently

attempting to remain relevant, and as it would appear he is easily

distracted by interjections, let the interjections cease.

MR. ROSE: I think we need to take time to look at this,

because Bill 11 came as a real shocker and surprise. During the

campaign there was no indication that this kind of legislation was

going to be the result.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, yes — they're after me again, Mr. Speaker —

restraint was talked about during the campaign; certainly it was.

Restraint is in. Restraint's a big word. It's a buzzword now. You hear

that one can't spend his way to prosperity. I don't think you can

restrain your way to prosperity either. You can throw a lot of people

out of work and on welfare, you can kill all the markets, you can

savage the local small businessman and destroy all kinds of confidence,

but how's that going to add up to a confident, flourishing economy?

This is put in to lower wages, and nothing else. You lower wages in the

public sector through Bill 11. You lower wages in the private sector

through Bill 26. That's what it's all about. You want us to get down so

we can compete with the Koreans or the Taiwanese or somebody.

I don't know about restraint. We've heard of Mike Bailey, who didn't

get much restraint. I heard that the minister's office.... I don't know

whether it's true or not, but I hope to ask him tomorrow; or maybe

somebody else will. Did the people in your office just get a big raise,

like about 18 percent?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, I'm having a

difficult time understanding how that is relevant to the necessity of

this matter being hoisted for six months.

[9:15]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, we're dealing here with a bill that

restrains the wages of public servants, while people who work for the

government, such as Mr. Bailey and others — and, it is rumoured, also

the people in the minister's office — have received substantial

increases. If that isn't relevant to the debate, I don't know what is

relevant. We're talking about a contrast between how certain people are

treated and how

[ Page 2085 ]

other people are treated, and that is blatantly

unfair. If we were willing to spread the sacrifice throughout all

segments of society, I think it would be more acceptable. It would be

perceived as fair. If a bill such as Bill 11, which we're attempting to

hoist tonight, is perceived to be unfair, discriminatory, vengeful and

punitive, then it is not going to be accepted. It might be. You might

cow a lot of people so they're not going to make any racket. On the

other hand, you're risking a social chaos which could very well result

in seeing the kind of recovery that we need to have in this province

delayed far longer than need be.

That is the point I'm trying to make about this. It is removing the

basic rights that people in the public service have achieved over a

generation. To allow this to go without a fight is not to do the kind

of job that I was elected to do, and that perhaps others were as well.

That's what the particular relevance is, and that's why I'm concerned

about it. That's why a lot of people are concerned about it, but they

don't have voices. We have voices here. We were elected to.... To be

self-disparaging, we're word-merchants, you and I, Mr. Speaker. We're

in the business of language and communication, and that's how we fight,

even though we have two sword-lengths between us and my friend over

there from Omineca. I'm sure glad of that because he is much more

muscular, determined, probably crueler, than I, who, a gentle little

fellow, has only his voice to protect him. And the Speaker. The Speaker

protects me as well.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry I said that about the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Schroeder) and his office — about the 18 percent. My notes

say it's 23 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong again.

MR. ROSE: We'll ask you tomorrow or someday soon and you can

tell us. You can say: "That decision has not been made yet." That's the

reply we'll probably get.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again you are being baited

perhaps by interjections, and I would ask the members on the government

side of the House to desist from interjecting. Actually, I'd ask

members on both sides of the House to come to order, and allow the hon.

member for Coquitlam-Moody to continue on debate of the hoist of Bill

MR. ROSE: Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, back at the hoist, I was

attempting to say that what really divides us here in our attitudes is

Bill 11. Whether or not you want power to be spread democratically

throughout society in a kind of quasi-industrial democracy, if you

like, or whether you want to have the boss on top with all of the

rights. That's really the basis of it. If you really determine what

someone is to receive, not by a kind of bargaining but by what is

defined in this bill as the....

MR. KEMPF: The employer's ability to pay.

MR. ROSE: I was just coming to that. If you define it not by what a person receives for the value of his work....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Come on! Cut out that nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, that minister over there knows as well as I do that

people don't receive money on the basis of their worth. They receive

money on the basis of how much power they can exert on others. That's

the way it works. You know that.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Of course I know that, and so do you. If you don't,

you should know that. As the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) you should know that.

The ability to pay is determined, really, by the government. If I

don't like a particular program or I want to get somebody out of that

program, if I want to scapegoat somebody, I can say: "I'm sorry, I

don't have any money for that program any more." It really is a

decision. When you talk about ability to pay, you are talking about

certain kinds of priorities. You have determined what kind of

priorities. It isn't just a case of the public service using up....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: What has gone up? Has social welfare gone up

because you put a lot of people out on the street? Are you going to

spend more money on northeast coal? Are you going to sell a few ferries

and then lease them back?

I think the minister is right, as a matter of fact. The ability to

pay, though, becomes the matter of a judgment: what do you want to

spend the money on?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether you have any money. Your

budget is up 12 percent. If you haven't got any money, why is your

budget up 12 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: To pay for people services, that's why.

MR. ROSE: They are not all going to people services. They are

going to such things as Human Resources because of people you put out

of work.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: You can do all the bread and circuses stuff you

like. You've got all kinds of money to spend on that stuff. I think

that's a reasonable argument. You could say: "We built B.C. Place not

as an edifice, not just because we have an edifice complex, but because

we wanted to provide some work." That's not a bad argument. But that is

a judgment about what you intend to spend your money on and what you do

not intend to spend your money on. That is a political judgment in

terms of your priorities. What you've said is that you have no money

for child-care workers. Not that they are getting too much money.

If there are any child-care workers....

HON. A. FRASER: Get back on the subject, and no more of that Ottawa rubbish.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you require my assistance again?

[ Page 2086 ]

MR. ROSE: I haven't been so vigorously attacked for a long

time, but I think the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A.

Fraser) made a wrong turn again.

Bill 11 also gives the government supreme powers to move in on any

kind of operating budgets in any institution — things that were pretty

well autonomous. We're concerned about that. We're concerned about the

fact that we no longer have the autonomy of particular institutions.

Take a particular program offered by a junior college or a community

college. Let's suppose the government decides, in its infinite wisdom,

that it doesn't have the ability to pay for that program. It can offer

to have this program continue or it can decide to discontinue it — at a

whim, at the stroke of a pen. I think that is a direct threat against

autonomy and may have little or nothing to do with the value of the

program to that particular area. If you feel, and maybe some people

do.... At Langara College, which I believe is in the member's own

riding — I don't know the riding boundaries that well — I understand

they are using lottery tickets for their athletic program. They are

raising money for their teams through lotteries. That's a decision that

can be defended.

I don't know how many thousands of dollars I raised on behalf of

schools while I was a teacher, for various things such as music

programs. I don't object to that particularly. I worked night and day,

but I never felt I was exploited, because I was really intrigued with

the kind of work I was doing and I loved it. I think there are a lot of

people who feel that way. They are in the public service too. But one

of the things that really bothered me and made me leave the kind of job

I had in Kelowna in the sunny Okanagan was when the school board did

something that I felt was intellectually wrong. During a salary battle

they published everybody's name in the paper along with his salary, and

at that point I resigned. I thought it was a small, snotty thing to do

and I resigned because I felt some integrity. I was sorry to do that

but I did it. I think you will find there are public servants with guts

too, and if they feel they are being pushed all over the place, they're

going to stand up, regardless of the cost, and let people know how they

feel. That wasn't a particularly big risk with me; I wasn't being

rolled back. But I was certainly being rolled around, and I've never

forgotten that.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Did you take it up with your MLA?

MR. ROSE: As a matter of fact, I shouted across Mill Creek at

him, and he said, "I'm sorry, I'm not home tonight," or words to that

effect.

One of the other things that concerns us, and why we think we need a

hoist on this, is that this compensation thing that was brought in to

meet a particular problem will go on ad infinitum. What was an interim

measure.... Its very failure must be that it needs to be perpetuated,

because if it worked well for the two years, why is it needed any more?

Why is it needed forever and ever?

AN HON. MEMBER: If it works well, why quit?

MR. ROSE: It's more than that. It will destroy any

continuation of a contract. It's not merely because the contract is

going to be renegotiated. If we start from scratch and terminate the

contract — say, with the BCGEU — then you don't have any kind of

holdovers from the previous contract, and that kind of perpetuation is

gone. So you effectively destroy collective bargaining, which is what I

said a little bit earlier.

It seems to me that our society rewards entirely at the whim of the

government, in many cases, and of powerful groups that have loud voices

and can get to that government. The power of the commissioner is

awesome, really. I suppose he's answerable to cabinet, and if the

cabinet doesn't like what the commissioner does, he can be removed. I

don't know what pressures are on him to approve programs, or to

disapprove them in a particular time. He can dawdle, like a lot of

lawyers do, in order to justify a healthy fee. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr.

Speaker, I didn't mean to offend you, because I know that you're not

like that and that you have a great sense of integrity as a member of

the bar; you don't believe, as many lawyers do, that no decent

inheritance should be frittered away on the beneficiaries, or anything

like that. You wouldn't dawdle like that.

But I think it's an important thing here. The effect of a supreme

court order is what Mr. Peck and his Compensation Stabilization

Commission have in terms of their decisions. That is pretty awesome

power, and it's without any particular arrangement or grounds for

appeal. This is not the case with the New Zealand Higher Salaries

Commission. They have full consultation, an opportunity for both

parties to bring their views to that commission, and a right of appeal

if they don't want it. I would suggest that maybe the Higher Salaries

Commission might be something this government might study. It may be

something for my friend's committee to study to see how this works. As

I said last night, New Zealand, a unitary state, doesn't operate the

same way. It can control its own currency and all the things that we

can't control as a province. But nevertheless, I think the various

parties affected by the decisions should have the right to submit

evidence, and this is not here in this bill. Supposing someone is

damaged by a decision of this commission? What's their redress? They

don't have any.

I don't think I have a great deal of time left, but I would like to

conclude by saying that our society frequently decides the winners and

losers on the basis not of fairness but of power. If you happen to be

in a monopoly situation, such as some crafts or industries like the

banking industry, you have unlimited power to do pretty well what you

like. Yesterday's Province

indicated that we have, as many people describe, an economy which is

somewhat less than vibrant. The word used, I believe, by Allan Gregg

and Decima survey people is "fragile." It says: "Bank Profits Soar

Despite the Economy." Here we have another point: "Corporate Earnings

Rebound." Corporate earnings are up 20 percent over last year.

. Banks, incidentally, are not taxed at the source. Sometimes they

don't even pay their taxes. Two banks last year didn't pay any taxes at

all. They have tax delays and all the rest of it. But I want to know

that while I and other members of this House pay at the rate of about

40 to 50 percent on income tax, the effective bank rate is 10 percent.

And profits now are into the billions. It seems to me a basic

contradiction that while we ask people to take less and less, certain

industries in society are taking more and more out of it. As long as

that persists, the people are not going to accept that kind of

arrangement forever, and they're going to fight and resist that and try

to work to develop a more equitable society. That, after all, is what

government should be all about — to protect the little fish from the

big fish, not to make the world safe for the big fish.

[ Page 2087 ]

[9:30]

MS. BROWN: I want to express my disappointment in the

government. We've put forward an idea. We suggested that Bill 11 be

hoisted for six months so the government can have a chance to do some

rethinking on it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: This is the working team over here. We want to get some things done.

MS. BROWN: Well, that's fine. If you're the working team,

then do some work. We would like to hear from the government members

whether this a good idea or a bad idea. But we haven't heard anything.

We are supposed to be having a dialogue here. We are supposed to be

talking to each other. If the government members agree with the hoist,

then it seem to me that someone should rise....

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

member speaking now seems more intent on lecturing the government

members than on making a point. I can assure her that should any one of

their members make one reasonable point during this hoist debate, we

will be very happy to respond to it. So far we haven't heard any.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. I don't believe

that is a point of order, but I do believe that the hon. minister has a

salient point when he noted that, rather than taking

part in the debate

on the hoist resolution, you were seemingly digressing from the purpose

and principle of your resolution. I would ask you to restrain from

digressing.

MS. BROWN: I appreciate your concern, and I thank you for

expressing your opinion. All I am trying to say is that it is very

difficult to have a dialogue with a person who doesn't respond.

Maybe silence means that the government agrees with the idea of a

hoist. But we have no indication as to whether the government agrees or

disagrees with this recommendation.

I was really pleased yesterday and last night when the government

decided to participate in the proceedings going on in the House. I

congratulated them on that fact.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you did

mention to the member now addressing the chamber to stick strictly to

the motion before us, which is the hoist. I would ask you to remind her

one more time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I think the hon.

member for Burnaby-Edmonds was developing a line of reason, and I would

suggest that her rhetorical questions may well have been in order. As

long as she quickly comes to the point of developing this line of

discussion, I'm sure we will allow her to continue.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The speed with which you

were able to grasp what I was doing explains why you are in the chair,

rather than that bleeding heart member for Vancouver South, who sobbed

all over the floor of this Legislature yesterday.

I am speaking in support of the hoist, and I want to give a couple

of reasons why I think the government should lift this bill off the

floor of the Legislature for six months and get involved in some

consultation and some rethinking in terms of the content of the bill.

I want to support an idea which was put by Professor Dobell to the

MacDonald commission on Canada's economic future. He said, in talking

about the government's bill, that the public service downsizing

component of the government's program is tragically flawed by the

classic failure: namely, impatience for results, which lead to an

unwillingness to invest in the slow process of building trust in an

open, consultative undertaking, We are supporting the hoist because we

agree that really what we need, even though it is a slow process, is

some open, consultative undertaking on the part of the government. We

recognize that the government's job is to govern. But we realize that

no one person or no one government, by themselves, really knows better

than all of us, though there are many governments that may think so.

There isn't a government on earth that cannot learn something by

consulting with the groups or the individuals who are going to be

affected by the decisions which that government is making.

Now to back up that argument, we have a poll, whether you accept is as being scientific or not, which was conducted by the Vancouver Sun

newspaper and which said that people did support the body of what was

contained in pieces of legislation like Bill 11, but they did not

support the method. It seems to me that one of the things the hoist

would do would be to give the government an opportunity to meet with

community groups to find out exactly what it is about the method of

implementing their program that people do not agree with. If the

government's really interested in doing a good job, they should welcome

the opportunity to hoist this legislation for six months. It's not a

new piece of legislation. It was originally introduced in April 1982,

under a different title but primarily the same legislation dealing with

restraint. At that time we were told by the Minister of Finance and the

Premier that it was a short-term program. It was not intended to exist

for more than a couple of years. Within two years it would be phased

out and everyone would live happily ever after again.

HON. A. FRASER: That's no reason to hoist.

MS. BROWN: That is not a reason to hoist. The reason to hoist

is that if the program isn't working and hasn't achieved its goal, and

the government has decided to extend the program indefinitely, then it

seems to me it needs to do some consulting. It needs to consult with

people who are involved in the program, who are going to be affected by

the program, and who may be victimized by the program. That's the

reason for a hoist, not just to put the bill aside for six months and

forget about it. That's not what the opposition is suggesting, Mr.

Speaker. The opposition is not saying pull the bill for six months,

file it in the archives somewhere, and come back in six months and

reintroduce it. The opposition is saying take six months to do some

homework, because very clearly the homework has not been done. There

would not be the hue and cry, the uproar around this legislation if the

homework had been done. There would not be the criticism about the

methods by which this restraint program is being implemented if the

homework had been done.

That is all that Mr. Dobell was suggesting to the MacDonald

commission when he said that there was a tragic flaw. He pointed out

that it's not an unusual flaw, because he referred to it as a classic

failure, which means that this is

[ Page 2088 ]

something that has happened before: the impatience for results. I understand

that; everyone is in a hurry to get where they want to go. We're all in

a hurry. When I first became involved in the struggle for equal rights for women,

I was in a hurry. I thought we could achieve that goal in a matter of five years

at the very most. Twenty years later I find myself still struggling, because

I too was guilty of the impatience which Mr. Dobell talks about, To hoist this

bill for six months will give this government an opportunity to look at some

of the things it's trying to do, and to meet and talk with some of the groups

who should have been consulted in the first place.

I want to make a suggestion to the government, and I know that the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), although he's not in his

seat, is taking notes. I want to suggest that one of the things that

the government do is meet with B.C. Hydro during the six-month period.

HON. A. FRASER: Meet with who?

MS. BROWN: B.C. Hydro. I have a confidential internal report which B.C. Hydro did on affirmative action within that Crown corporation.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Affirmative action — he doesn't know what that is.

I'm not going to digress except to say very quickly that what B.C.

Hydro was doing was looking at its employment profile in terms of where

the people are who work in that Crown corporation: where they are

concentrated, their salary scale, their avenues of promotion and moving

ahead, and those kinds of things. This particular affirmative action

program — the recommendations contained in this report — is at jeopardy

as a result of Bill 11. The people involved in this program are going

to be victimized if Bill 11 is implemented in its present form.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Forests asked for some positive

recommendations. My positive recommendation to him is that he meet with

B.C. Hydro. They have struck a management committee...

HON. MR. WATERLAND: How do you spell Hydro?

MS. BROWN: H-y-d-r-o. He keeps asking how you spell Hydro, Mr. Speaker.

...to look at the employment profile of B.C. Hydro. The report says: "It

reflects traditional patterns of occupational segregation which indicate a possibility

of systematic discrimination." These are not my words; this is not something

that I dreamed up or thought up. When the government hoists this legislation

for six months, I suggest that they spend a part of that time meeting with the

B.C. Hydro committee which did the research and drafted this particular report.

I will table it. I'm surprised that the minister doesn't have a copy

of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you're using the report as an

analogy for the government to utilize the six-month period, I believe

that's in order. But if you're going to get into the report itself, I

don't believe that would be relevant.

MS. BROWN: No, no, Mr. Speaker. I'm not using it as an

analogy. I'm going to be giving a list of suggestions to the government

of groups that the government should meet with during the six-month

period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Certainly that would be in order.

MS. BROWN: I'm not using it as an analogy. I have to explain

to the government why they should meet with this group. It doesn't make

sense for me to say, "Meet with B.C. Hydro," because the first thing

that the Minister of Forests would say to me is: "Why should I meet

with B.C. Hydro?" So in anticipation of his question, Mr. Speaker, I am

giving a response. He should meet with the establishment of B.C. Hydro

and with this particular committee because of their findings.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That's not going to take us six months.

MS. BROWN: This won't take you six months, but by the time

I'm through with the list you may move an amendment to the amendment

asking for an additional six months.

The committee found that among the salaried employees of B.C. Hydro,

something like 65.6 percent were males and 34.4 percent were females.

[9:45]

MR. R. FRASER: I rise under standing order 43, Mr. Speaker.

The relevance of the argument escapes me. Whether or not they have more

males than females working in B.C. Hydro would seem to me to have

nothing to do with the motion to be addressed by that member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I certainly share the conclusion of the hon.

member. As I suggested earlier, if you are using the report to indicate

one of the types of committees that the government can refer to, that

certainly would be in order. But when you start getting into the actual

merits of the report or its findings, I believe that's out of order.

MS. BROWN: I'm not getting into the merits of the report, Mr.

Speaker, I am explaining to you the kinds of people who are going to be

victimized by Bill 11. If the member for Vancouver South who raised the

power of order would now listen while I continue with my thoughts, he

would understand that the reason they should meet with this committee

is that, despite the fact that the breakdown is in the neighbourhood of

34 to 65 percent, the study goes on to find that 89.1 percent of the

women employed by B.C. Hydro fall into group 7 or below, while 79

percent of the men fall into group 8 or above.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You must take these notes down, Mr. Minister. Bill 11, by freezing

these people's incomes, by giving itself the power to decrease the

percentage of the increase, will jeopardize the affirmative action

program which B.C. Hydro decided was necessary to right the inequity

which is embodied in the fact that 89 percent of their female employees

fall below level 7 while 79 percent of their male employees are above

level 8. Now do you understand it?

[ Page 2089 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair has been

listening with interest and has been patiently waiting for the member

to relate her remarks to the hoist, or at least to the bill. With all

due respect, Madam Member, the Chair is still having that difficulty.

At this point, I would ask if the member could return to the hoist

which itself deals with Bill 11.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, you are forcing me now to start at

the beginning again, and I know you don't want me to do that. All I'm

trying to say is that Bill 11 victimizes certain people. During the six

months when the hoist is taking effect the government should meet with

these various groups that will be victimized by Bill 11 if it's

implemented in its present form. One such group is the group that

recommended affirmative action in B.C. Hydro, based on the fact that

when they did a personnel profile, they discovered that 89 percent of

the women were at the bottom of the economic pile in B.C. Hydro and 79

percent of the men were at the top. To introduce Bill 11 in its present

state is to freeze that, and to ensure that the women on the bottom

remain at the bottom and that the men at the top remain at the top, and

that we have no equality.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with all due

respect to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, the story about how many men

or women work for Hydro or which end of the scale they're on is very

interesting but is absolutely irrelevant to the hoist to Bill 11. I ask

you to call that member to order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, while we are always in a position

to refer briefly to something which surrounds the matter under

discussion, to make that outside matter itself the point of the debate

is beyond the scope of the debate allowed at this stage in the bill,

and I would ask the member now to return to the hoist.

MR. COCKE: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would

suggest that what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is talking about is

the fact that certain people are affected even more severely than

others, and those happen to be women.

MR. SPEAKER: Regarding the point of the member for New

Westminster, while that may or may not be the case, it nonetheless

would preclude a singular debate on that particular issue. It might be

part of a broad reference, but only a passing reference and certainly

not the main thrust of the debate, which I'm sure the member is well

aware of. She will now continue with her remarks.

MS. BROWN: What is clear to me, Mr. Speaker, is that I'm

failing miserably to get across to the government benches the

seriousness of the impact of Bill 11 on the female workers in the

public sector, and the reason why hoisting this legislation and meeting

with those groups is so important. It's very easy for those male

members over there, with their access to private executive boxes for

football games, and their tax write-offs and whatever, to tap their

desks and say, "Hear, hear," when I talk about the low-paid workers who

work for Crown corporations and in the public sector, and who are going

to be victimized by Bill 11. It's very easy for them to stand on points

of order when I say that this bill should be hoisted while the

government has an opportunity to meet with those groups.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's quite

clear what the CSP will do and what you can do with low- and high-paid

workers under CSP, but what the member has been requested to do is

speak to the hoist, which she has not done thus far.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to keep on saying this, Mr. Speaker, until it gets through their thick skulls.

AN HON. MEMBER: My skull's no thicker than yours.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say his skull was thicker than mine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Notwithstanding our

individual desires to express points at any particular time, we

unfortunately — or fortunately, depending on your point of view — are

guided in what we can say with those remarks by the rules that bind us

in this assembly. The rules have been recited to the member now, and

I'm sure that upon reflection the member will realize that now she must

address the hoist motion itself.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I support the hoisting of this

legislation for six months so that during that period this government

can consult and meet with groups in the community who are going to be

victimized by Bill 11 if it's implemented in its present state. One

such group that they must meet and consult with is the group which was

struck by B.C. Hydro to look at its personnel profile. One of the

reasons they must meet and consult with them is because that group

found that the majority of the women who were public sector workers in

B.C. Hydro are in the low-paying jobs in that Crown corporation.

Seventy-nine percent of them are at level 7 and below,

whereas over 80

percent of the men are level 8 and above. It is not possible for B.C.

Hydro to implement the recommendations of that particular committee in

terms of dealing with equal pay and closing the economic gap between

those male and female workers if Bill 11 is implemented in its present

form. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, to you, and to the members for

Vancouver South and Omineca, and to whoever else is listening, the

government must use this six-month hoist to meet with that committee.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 43, and I'll read that standing order....

MR. SPEAKER: That's not necessary, hon. member.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, the relevance here is

the tedious and repetitious debate by a member repeating himself or

repeating the argument made by other members. This member has at least

ten times in the last 20 minutes gone over the same ground, and I would

think it's almost time for you to invoke standing order 43.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, hon. members, is always reluctant to

invoke the provisions of standing order 43, but the Chair also has a

responsibility to the remainder of the members, and I would ask again

that the member relate.... There is a very broad debate that could be

allowed

[ Page 2090 ]

and could be in order in this particular debate,

hon. member, and I'm sure that if the member put her thoughts to the

issue at hand, the debate could very well be in order. I ask the

member, bearing in mind the restrictions of debate, to confine her

remarks to the principle, which is the hoisting for six months of Bill

11 and the need therefore.

MS. BROWN: I certainly accept your statements, and I agree

with the Minister of Forests that I have repeated myself more than once

— perhaps four, five or six times — because it has taken me that long

to get through to the government members precisely what I wanted to

say. However, you've got the message, and I am pleased that the

minister has finally got the message. He's showing me that he's made

notes and that he is agreeing, I hope, that during the six months that

this bill is hoisted the government will use that period to meet with

various community groups such as the one which I will not repeat, and

also to avail himself of this report, which shows, for example, that of

the 124 executives on the payroll, not one single one is a woman.

There are other groups that I think the government should meet with

during this six-month period, because, as I said before, I don't want

them just to place the bill in the archives and forget about it. I want

them to meet with community groups. I want them to meet with some of

the women who work in the office assistant 1 and office assistant 2

categories of the public sector. Those are the women who have take-home

pay in the neighbourhood of $1,500 a month and under; the women for

whom their trade union, in negotiations, was trying again to close the

economic gap, and talking about bottom-loading the contract so that

their income could increase.

MR. R. FRASER: To the hoist, please.

MS. BROWN: In any event, Mr. Speaker — because it's clear

that I'm never going to get through to the member for Vancouver South,

so I think I may as well ignore him — what I mentioned before and what

I want to mention again is that something like 51.1 percent of the

people employed in the public sector who are going to be affected by

this piece of legislation are women. Most of these are concentrated in

the office assistant 1 and office assistant 2 categories: something

like 70 percent of the women in the public sector are making incomes of

less than $1,500 a month. I think that that government, during the

six-month hoist, should meet with the representatives from those two

categories and try to understand the reason why implementing Bill 11 is

going to destroy every effort on their part to achieve equal pay — or

if not equal pay, even to improve the kind of wages they earn.

[10:00]

When I say the government should meet with these groups, I'm not

talking about bureaucrats meeting with these groups. I'm talking about

the minister himself and some of his colleagues, either from the back

bench.... Or, as was suggested by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

(Mr. Mitchell), maybe members from both sides of the House should meet

with these community groups. They should also meet with the women's

groups. One of the things that the Minister of Labour has done is hire

a deputy minister responsible for women's programs. But clearly there

was no consultation with the women's office in the Ministry of Labour,

because I cannot believe that the deputy minister responsible for

women's programs would have agreed to the implementation of this piece

of legislation.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have listened

most attentively for approximately the last 30 minutes, and the hon.

member for Burnaby-Edmonds has wandered in and out of relevance, but

unfortunately, time and again having been brought to order by the

Chair, she has persisted in wandering into the tedious and repetitious

category of standing order 43. Should the Chair not feel that she has

not totally digressed from standing order 43, may I direct the Speaker

to Sir Erskine May's nineteenth edition, page 440, for some further

assistance as to why she should be brought to order. I'm referring to

the passage which is intituled:

"Obstruction of the business of the House otherwise

than by disorderly conduct or persistence in irrelevance or tedious

repetition.

"A member who 'abuses the rules of the House by persistently

and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, ' that is to say, who,

without actually transgressing any of the rules of debate, uses" — her

— "right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House,

or obstructs the business of the House by misusing the forms of the House, is

technically not guilty of disorderly conduct. It would seem, therefore, that

a member so obstructing the business of the House cannot be required under our

S.O. No. 23 to withdraw from the House.... He may be, however, guilty of

a contempt of the House, and may be named.... "

I would suggest that this speaker has attempted to abuse the rules

of this House by persistently going outside of relevancy and insisting

on being tediously repetitious.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Before I recognize the member for Prince Rupert, it might be an opportune time for Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice ,

twelfth edition. I read from "Rules of Debate," page 283, and, hon.

members, it is most appropriate for this particular point that has been

raised:

"It is not regular to discuss the merits of a bill or

other order of the day upon a motion for its withdrawal or

postponement, and debate must be strictly confined to the object of the

motion. A similar restraint has been placed upon the debate upon a

motion to recommit a bill. Otherwise, the merits of a bill might be

debated not only upon its several stages but whenever its postponement

is proposed."

Now, hon. members, with due respect, I cannot imagine a more concise or precise reference for us to consider.

The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I commend you for reading that bit of

information for us, because it's exactly the information we needed.

There is a motion before the House to postpone the bill for six months.

As I understand it from the objections being raised from the opposite

side, unless we stick specifically to the hoist motion, then we are out

of order. But if we were to stick strictly to the hoist motion, in a

certain respect all we could do is say, "We would like to hoist the

bill for a period of six months," and that would be the end of debate.

On the face of it, that would seem ridiculous, because it would seem to

me that you would have to say: "Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 2091 ]

I would like to speak in favour of this motion to

hoist for six months for these reasons." You don't have to discuss the

merits of the legislation, but you should be given the latitude to

point out that you want to postpone it for six months, and to name the

reasons that you want it postponed. As far as I can see, the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds has said that, yes, she agrees with the motion, and

here are the reasons, because here will be the effect of the bill on

people. If we can't make that sort of argument, Mr. Speaker, then

there's no argument at all, or no debate, and all we can say is: "I

want to hoist it for six months."

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Nonetheless, what we

would often like to do and are not able to do is not the responsibility

of the Chair; it is the responsibility of the Chair to uphold the

regulations, rules and traditions that guide us in our debate. I will

read the first sentence, as I did before: "It is not regular to discuss

the merits of a bill or other order of the day upon a motion for its

withdrawal or postponement, and debate must be strictly confined to the

object of the motion." Hon. members, I commend that to the member as

she continues.

MR. LEA: Again, it's not clear in my mind, and I think it's

to the benefit of the House that what you have said be absolutely

clear. You said that we must speak to the point of the motion, but are

you saying that when speaking to the point of the motion we can't give

our reasons that we want it hoisted?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if there is an opportunity for

members to research the remarks of the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) earlier today, I would suggest that members do that. They could

see how a debate was confined virtually entirely within the confines of

the standing orders, and how there is a possibility and opportunity for

members to make their remarks in order during that period of time.

MR. LEA: Then, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, it would be

perfectly permissible for me to stand up, when I take my place in the

debate, and say: "I agree with the motion because it's going to do

certain things. The effect of the bill will be certain things, and for

those reasons I want the bill hoisted for six months."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not the responsibility of the

Chair to answer questions of supposition; it is the responsibility of

the Chair to rule on the proceedings as we encounter them. The Chair,

with due respect, has on numerous occasions given instructions for the

procedure of orderly debate this evening, and I would hope that members

could take those remarks and proceed as we do so into the remaining

time the member has.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I'm sorry

that so much of my time was taken up. I am supporting this hoist

because the bill is part of a systematic onslaught on the women workers

of this province, and I wanted to use my 40 minutes to convince the

government to use the six months to look at the victims of this piece

of legislation and to look at the kinds of horrendous things they're

doing to the women workers of the province.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Every time I stand on the floor of this House and

talk about the way this government victimizes women, the whole

government gets into an absolute uproar...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ...leaping up and down on points of order. It's

not possible to stand on the floor of this House and talk about the

destructive things this government is doing to women and the way it

stands in their way of fighting for equality, dignity and decency. It's

not possible to do that because this government leaps up and down on

specious points of order and interrupts every time. The attitude that

this government has towards...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ...women is disgraceful and disgusting. There's

absolutely no end to your onslaught on women workers, families and

children. You're a disgraceful government.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Order, please. On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston seeks the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: May I draw your attention to Sir Erskine May's ninth edition, page 387,

part 6, which says:

"They are not to disturb a member who is speaking by hissing,

exclamations or other interruption. The following is a declaration of this rule

by the House of Commons, 22nd of January, 1693: 'To the end that all the

debates..."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think that the point is being made very well for me at this moment.

MR. SPEAKER: I was about to say that.

MR. NICOLSON:

" '...in this House should be grave and orderly, as

becomes so great an assembly, and that all interruptions should be

prevented,

be it ordered and declared that no member of this House do

presume to make any noise or disturbance whilst any member shall be

orderly debating, or whilst any bill, order, or such other matter shall

be in reading or opening; and in case of such noise or disturbance,

that Mr. Speaker do call upon the member, by name, making such

disturbance; and that such person shall incur the displeasure and

censure of the House.' "

I might be honest and go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that this also goes on to say that this rule is too often disregarded.

[ Page 2092 ]

"In the House of Commons the most disorderly noises

are sometimes made, which, from the fullness of the House, and general

uproar maintained when 500 or 600 members impatiently waiting for a

division, it is scarcely possible to repress."

But, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that in a House that has but 57

members, while the strictest adherence to this rule is perhaps

impossible to achieve, it is something that could be considered equally

important to the observance of standing order 43.

MR. SPEAKER: A timely observation, hon. member. Thank you.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, it has been obvious throughout

this debate that there is definitely a lack of interest in putting

forward proper and significant debate. It's also obvious by the poor

attendance in the House by members of the official opposition that they

are anything but serious in their desire to participate in any

meaningful dialogue with regard to this legislation. I would bring your

attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that on more than one occasion we

have been fortunate to see more than two people on the opposite side of

the House, so it really goes to show that they aren't very serious in

the performance that's being put on here this evening.

Each member of the opposition who has taken the time to participate

in the debate on the hoist motion said virtually the same thing. One

has only to refer to the number of objections registered under standing

order 43 for verification of this point. At the count of 20, I lost

tally; it has exceeded 20 since 5:50 this evening.

[10:15]

The repetition and irrelevance of statements made during the

immediately concluded debate would, in my opinion, suggest that the

official opposition has truly exceeded all acceptable rules of debate.

We have had 18 opposition....

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do believe it's against the rules of this House to read your speech.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I believe it is against the rules of the House. I

realize it may be difficult, when you're going to lead up to what I

suspect the member is going to lead up to, to do it off the top of her

head, but I suspect that to be absolutely precise in what the speaker

is going to be doing before she's finished, I ask for leave that she be

allowed to read her speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is not a time

that one member can ask leave for another member to do something, and

the member, I'm sure, is....

MR. LEA: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, if she would ask for leave, I would be more than willing that this side of the House go along with it.

MR. SPEAKER: That would have to be a matter for the member to

determine. The member continues, and, hon. member, we're currently on a

hoist to Bill 11.

MRS. JOHNSTON: The official opposition has suggested on more

than one occasion that this is one of the most important pieces of

legislation to be dealt with during this session, but their poor

showing in the House during the debate and the votes shows the

hypocrisy of this statement. Up to this period of time, we have had 31

speakers on the bill — 15 hours — and we have had 7 speakers —

approximately 5 hours — spent on the hoist. Since most of the debate on

the hoist has really been on Bill 11, possibly we should get back to

debate on the bill.

Under standing order 46, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the question be now put.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. While debate is not allowed, on a point of order the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would just draw your

attention to the point which says: "...unless it shall appear to the

Chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an

infringement of the rights of the minority...." then the question is

put without debate. I would suggest that having prepared to speak on

this, I would feel that as a member of the minority my rights are

impinged upon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, hon. members, having heard the motion

and having given consideration to standing order 46 and the point

raised by the member for Nelson-Creston, I now declare that the

question shall be put.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Parks

Reid

NAYS — 9

Macdonald

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

Macdonald

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

[ Page 2093 ]

NAYS — 30

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Parks

Reid

Divisions ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

On the main motion.

MR. MACDONALD: I guess any government anywhere in the

democratic world can disregard all the traditions and run roughshod

over the rights of individuals. That's what you've done. You're wiping

out debate....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly at this point the member is reflecting on a vote.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking on Bill 11, which

discriminates and picks out for special punishment and discrimination

the 240,000 public sector employees of the province of British

Columbia, the kind of people that the Premier — although he denied it

later — referred to as not doing their jobs, not engaging in production

employment and as nothing compared to his great friends out in the

private sector, the real estate flippers, the guys who engage in merger

and takeover of companies. You're insulting the good public sector

employees of the province. You have this crazy mindset that they don't

do any worthwhile work for the people of this province, so you pick

them out. You don't have controls for everybody — for profits, for

rents, and all the rest of it. You let the millionaires and all your

friends who support you with money go free and you pick out our good

public servants of British Columbia for special discrimination and

punishment in terms of the economic market. Everybody else can go ahead

and make their bundle. The government just refuses to listen to the

people of British Columbia, for whom it has an arrogant disregard. Do

you know what the people out there are saying, Mr. Speaker? They're

saying: "Why doesn't the government sit back and take its time and

consult and cooperate and work out some solution to the difficult

economic problems we have? Why ram things through with the heavy hand

of government, using whatever you want to use to ram through your

legislation in a stubborn, arrogant way? The people of British Columbia

want to sit down and cooperate and be consulted about the kinds of

problems being faced in this province. They don't like you just to pick

out one

section and discriminate against them. They want some real

solutions. This is not going to solve the problems of inflation.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, it's a very sad night in the Legislature of British

Columbia when this kind of debate is cut off in this way. The

well-expressed feelings of people for consultation and cooperation are

being ignored by a government that's determined to carry on in its

heavy-handed way. We have one-man government in British Columbia, and

the one man is a very stubborn individual. He has said: "I'm going to

go with my program, and to heck with anybody who wants to discuss

compromises, creative solutions....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not true.

MR. REID: That's leadership.

MR. MACDONALD: No, there's been none of that. Leadership?

Stubborn arrogance, that's what we've got in this province, with a

far-right, radical ideology like Reagan and Thatcher that says you've

got to cut down government that helps people, whether it helps them or

not, and let all the rest of the profiteering economy run absolutely

free. This is a very sad night in the province of British Columbia. The

government is ignoring the expressed wishes of the people of this

province for consultation and cooperation. This bill should be defeated.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in support of Bill

11, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, let me say that this

program which was introduced in 1982 and further amended in 1983, has

proven to be the fairest means by which public sector compensation can

be given market factors similar to the private sector and yet still

allow collective bargaining.

I think we've got a good contrast with the federal program of

six-and-five, which is an arbitrary measure. It does not allow for

collective bargaining on other items; in fact, it takes the place of

collective bargaining. Yet with the guidelines that are given under our

compensation stabilization program, collective bargaining has been

preserved, albeit with guidelines and limits forced upon us to provide

some measure that will reflect the difficulties being placed on

settlements in the private sector or the ability to pay.

New items that were reinforced in legislation this time were always

part of the compensation stabilization program. They are not new, but

they are now more clearly stated in this legislation: that is, the

ability to pay. It's been suggested by some who oppose this bill that

the government somehow can control the ability-to-pay argument by the

way they allocate money. Yet the ability to pay is really the ability

of our taxpayers — be they individuals, small business or industry in

total as individuals — to send money to government.

This government right now, not because we aren't managing well but

because the economy has plunged our export markets and hurt our forest

industry and employment, this year, even with restraint, will have a

deficit of $1.6 billion. This deficit will continue for years and will

have to be repaid. Hopefully, we can improve on the picture before us,

but recovery should not be taken for granted. Wishful thinking should

not take the place of sound planning. Everyone must recognize that the

high-growth decade in the industrialized world of the sixties and

seventies is not forecast for the balance of the eighties and nineties.

Our province and its people must be positioned to be able to compete

on world markets and to have affordable government, not a government

that is beyond our ability to pay or create taxation levels that will

hamper or impair our business and drive it away from British Columbia

to more affordable political jurisdictions.

[ Page 2094 ]

The compensation stabilization program was a major issue in the last

election on May 5. People of the province understood it well. To

suggest, as has been done, that it be hoisted for more consideration

rejects the fact that the public spoke out very strongly on the

compensation stabilization program. The criticism that was so poorly

aimed at this program by members of the opposition in 1982.... They

should hang their heads in shame and blush when they read what they

said. They weren't correct then about the program, and they haven't

learned their lesson yet and are unable to even understand the program

and how it works. The debate during this bill and in subsequent motions

has been the most ill-informed discussion I've ever heard about

legislation that's been in place in this province for over a year.

If this debate has reflected anything, it is that the New Democratic

Party cares not for what the voters told them in the last election.

Since the election they've privately said that their leader slipped in

Nelson when he told the public that they were going to dismantle it and

that that was their big gaffe in losing the election. It means that

they haven't learned their lesson at all. They're continuing to play

politics but, above all, they're continuing to disregard what the

people said very loudly on May 5.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair would remind hon. members that under standing order 42, the mover of the debate closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier has spoken

most eloquently with respect to the bill which has been before us for

some time, and which indeed is a companion to legislation that was

debated at length in 1982 and was a focal point, as was observed just a

few moments ago, in the election campaign, and indeed in the election

on May 5.

These amendments mark, in my view, and as I attempted to say in

opening debate, an important stage in the evolution of the way in which

compensation is to be set in the public sector. The amendments are

built on an established, successful program and there can be no doubt

that the program announced by the Premier on February 18, 1982 and

later implemented has been a success, has been a benchmark and is

indeed setting a pace for other parts of this country, ensuring that

there is a focus on providing the most cost-effective service to

taxpayers, who have a limited ability, a limited capacity, to send

their dollars to government. I wonder when the opposition — which

appears decimated at this point, with only three members in attendance

— will understand that government does not, as we have said repeatedly,

have money of its own; it spends taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

Whether those are individual dollars, small business dollars, corporate

dollars, they are tax dollars which are sent.

I don't intend to reflect on a vote but it was clear earlier that

the opposition would have had us withdraw the bill or postpone it and

therefore, it follows, raise taxes. Ask the IWA member who has just

returned to work after a very difficult period of many months if we

should raise taxes to pay higher salaries to the public sector worker.

Ask the business that has managed to survive through very difficult

times, that has struggled through the recession, if we should raise

taxes on business in order to pay wages to public sector workers, who

admittedly already have among the highest wages in the western world.

Surely all of us at this particular point in time have to share the

burden of our difficulties and contribute equally to the recovery which

is on its way.

In Bill 11, government has moved the concept of the taxpayers'

ability to pay — or, if you wish, the employers' ability to pay — to

the heart of the compensation stabilization program. The argument has

been made in the House and in my office, and I've listened carefully,

that this unduly centralizes decisions on government, that it

centralizes decisions on compensation levels in the public sector,

because the government of the day would then ultimately set spending

levels through its budget. That's not really correct. The taxpayer sets

the spending levels. The taxpayer tells us how much money he can afford

and the taxpayer spoke most clearly and eloquently on May 5. The

additional prominence which is given to the ability-to-pay concept,

together with the amendments directed specifically at arbitrators and

arbitration boards, should ensure that the reality of our limited

resources in the public sector is broadly recognized when compensation

levels are to be set. Centralization, therefore, is not the issue. It

is not an issue, although it was raised as an issue in the debate and

in some discussion. More importantly, the issue is living within our

means — as a province, as a people, as a government and as taxpayers.

Living within our means: it is as simple as that. Living within the

means of the taxpayer today and in the immediate future. Sharing the

burden among all of us. No special privileges for the few.

The program is also designed to ensure that public sector

settlements not lead private sector settlements in the period since

February of 1982. That is demonstrably correct, notwithstanding some

nasty or ill-tempered interjection by the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke). That is fundamental, Mr. Speaker. It is fundamental that

the private sector should not lag behind the public sector and rush in

an attempt to catch up, in a rush to attract individuals into the

workforce.

The debate has been lengthy, it has strayed from time to time;

nonetheless, I believe earnestly that the people of British Columbia

said to this party, in the period leading to May 5: "Compensation

stabilization, as you announced it in February and as you enacted in

this chamber later in the spring of 1982, is what we must have for an

indefinite period."

[10:45]

I want to make a couple of technical comments, Mr. Speaker. It

should be kept in mind that for every drop of about one percentage

point in public sector settlements, there is a $45 million saving to

public sector employers and, therefore, to the taxpayers who send their

money to Victoria. Simply put, thus far, and now for some time to come,

CSP has helped to save very significant sums of money. We spoke about

productivity gains, ways in which we can increase productivity. I think

these are the ways to generate revenue, in fact. Productivity

improvements are the way to gain wage increases, and that is

fundamental in the bill that is before us now. Productivity advances

improve life for everyone: not just for the employee, but for the

public sector employer and ultimately, again, for the taxpayer. If we

are to survive in an extremely competitive and volatile world, then we

also have to be committed to productivity gains. To deny that is to

abandon our role in the world community. To deny that is to abandon our

role, to deny our own future in the world and in the world community.

It is the way of the future, and this government is setting standards

in this respect that will and are now leading the way.

[ Page 2095 ]

Further, Mr. Speaker, other Canadian jurisdictions have watched our

experience very closely — comments to the contrary from the opposite

side notwithstanding. They are following B.C.'s experience. Officials

from Prince Edward Island, from Quebec, from Ontario, have contacted

their counterparts here to discuss the program, to discuss its merits,

to examine ways in which it has worked thus far and ways in which it

will continue to work. Legislation is on the books in one other

jurisdiction at least, in Prince Edward Island particularly, and it

parallels very closely the approach in British Columbia. But that is

just the start, in my view.

In closing second reading, it is obvious that the leadership offered

by the Premier and by the government through the intensity of a

pre-election period and an election campaign where stabilization of

public sector compensation was out front, was fundamental. It was

discussed regularly by both parties — and by other parties as well in

British Columbia — and showed that we had a clear intention with

respect to this kind of legislation. I reject any suggestion tonight,

any suggestion made in the past or to be made in the future, that this

somehow is a surprise. Indeed, it could not be a surprise; it was

identified in the heat of that spring election campaign. It was debated

at length, and we know why the members opposite did not achieve

government, which they so dearly, so sorely sought.

This government is committed to working for all British Columbians:

not just for the public sector, not just for the private sector, but

for all British Columbians who send their money in trust to this city,

to this government. We recognize the value of productivity. I believe

the majority of British Columbians tonight will support us in

recognizing the value of productivity and the value in some modest

control on the levels of compensation offered to people employed in the

public sector. This government has no doubt that the people of this

province have risen and will rise again to the challenge of this bill,

to the challenge of our times, and will support us in this legislation.

I now move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Parks

Reid

Curtis

NAYS — 8

Macdonald

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Mitchell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 11, Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give the Premier a few

moments to leave the room. He doesn't want to hear anything about the

arguments as to why Bill 4 should be hoisted for a six-month period.

In closing second reading on Bill 11, the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) spoke about problems facing our community. I suppose that

one of the ways out of these problems is to find some solutions to

them. One of the solutions proposed in Bill 4 that should be

reconsidered some six months hence.... First, I would remind you, Mr.

Speaker, that the solution in Bill 4 is that the poorest people in the

community should bear the most disproportionate share of the cost of

solving the government's problems. I say "the government's problems"

because the problems we're experiencing in the province right now were

not created by people who would have received low-income tax credits.

They were not created by people who would have received renter's tax

credits. The problems we're experiencing today were created by the

government we have in office in the province of British Columbia, who

have been in office for the last seven years. It's not individuals out

in the community who are being asked to pay the price of solving the

government's problems. These problems are not made by individuals;

they're made by governments.

[11:00]

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

One of the ways in which the current administration created those

problems was when the Premier of the province argued in favour of the

high interest rate policy established and followed by the federal

government. The Minister of Finance said that the taxpayers set the

limits; indeed, that the taxpayers collectively said that we couldn't

afford to pay low-income tax credits. On the other hand, the taxpayers

say that it is quite all right to pay substantial increases in rentals

to BCBC, so that they could go out and borrow some $200 million to buy

shares in B.C. Place. On one hand the taxpayers are quite prepared to

put $200 million into that project, but they have collectively made a

decision that they can't afford to pay low-income and renters' tax

credits. Mr. Speaker, that argument makes no sense to me. I don't

believe the taxpayers said that in the last election campaign. I

believe the government should reconsider this now, for some six months.

The minister said that the taxpayers spoke eloquently on May 5. But,

Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers weren't told the whole truth. I'm tempted to

say something much stronger than that, but for the moment I'll simply

say that the taxpayers weren't told the whole truth on May 5. You will

recall that we had the latest budget ever in the history of the

province. The budget did contain some elements of truth but

[ Page 2096 ]

certainly not the whole truth. The truth was not

revealed to the voters when they were voting on May 5. So for the

minister to say that the taxpayers spoke eloquently on May 5, when the

taxpayers spoke without any knowledge at all as to what had happened in

the province of British Columbia since the financial statements for the

year ended March 31, 1981, is not fair. They were uninformed, largely,

about what had happened in the province of British Columbia.

This is one instance where the taxpayers really were told the truth.

The taxpayers, when they voted on May 5, while they were not told the

rest of the government's program, were told that the government

intended to take away from the poorest people in the community some $91

million that was voted by the Legislature for low-income tax credits

and renter tax credits. They were told that part of the truth, but they

were not told a lot of other information that was in the budget.

The minister said that the taxpayers spoke eloquently on May 5, but

the taxpayers were not told about the 26 pieces of legislation that

were introduced with the budget on July 7. The taxpayers did speak

eloquently on May 5, but they were uninformed taxpayers. The Social

Credit Party was afraid to tell the taxpayers what was happening, what

the current situation was in the province of British Columbia and how

the Social Credit Party intended to govern in the event that it was

re-elected. They withheld that information from the taxpayers when

those taxpayers were going to the polls on May 5.

The minister said it is more important that we live within our

means. Important in 1983? In 1981 we didn't live within our means; we

were some $330 million short of living within our means, and that is

four years ago as far as fiscal years are concerned. In 1982 we didn't

live within our means; we were some $600 million short of what the

Minister of Finance said we would accomplish. In the year ended March

31, 1983, we didn't live within our means. The budget tells us that we

were $978 million short of living within our means that year. The

budget for