1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7565 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Seal Cove plant. Mr. Lea –– 7565

Fish high-grading. Mr. Lea — 7566

Oakland Fisheries plant closure. Mr. Hanson –– 7566

Strike contingency manual. Ms. Sanford –– 7566

Mr. King

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

section 9 –– 7567

Mr. King

Mr. Barber

Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Howard

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Barrett

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In the buildings

today is Mr. Raymond Cox, who, with his executive, has made a very

helpful presentation to our caucus. Mr. Cox is the president of the

Fraser Valley division of the B.C. Federation of Mobile Home Owners.

Would members join me in welcoming Mr. Cox and those members of his

executive who are with him.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask

the members to join me today in welcoming more members of the

fishermen's union from Prince Rupert, Victoria and Vancouver, along

with a representative of a citizens' group from Prince Rupert that is

concerned about the closure of the Seal Cove groundfish plant in Prince

Rupert.

MR. DAVIS: In the gallery today we have

students from Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver, and their

group leader Mr. Jonsson. I'd like the members to make them welcome.

MR. HOWARD:

In the buildings and in the precincts is the Kildala Elementary School

choir from Kitimat, some fifty-five 10- and 12-year-old students who

had the pleasure of singing on the front steps of the parliament

buildings around noon and again later on in the rotunda. They enjoyed

their visit. I'm sure the House will express its appreciation for their

being here.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome a visitor from Vancouver, Mr. George Wisener.

Also,

I wonder if the House would pay tribute to a very special week in

Canada — Mental Retardation Week. Just this morning I was able to visit

Glendale Lodge, one of our outstanding residences for the mentally

handicapped. I would like at this moment to pay tribute to the staff,

the administrator and all those within our services for the mentally

retarded in British Columbia, who do such a great job,

MR. KEMPF:

In the gallery with us this afternoon is a couple with a very famous

name. They are visiting us from far away. This afternoon I'd like the

House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Lee from Kingsport, Tennessee.

MR. BARBER:

I will have a guest in the House later this afternoon. She is a singer;

she is a composer; she has written film scores and ballet scores. She

is a well-known Canadian recording artist. I've had the chance to join

her in rehearsals with the orchestra I conducted for the last couple of

weeks. She and I are doing a benefit concert this Sunday evening, 7:30,

at the University of Victoria in aid of the Children's International

Summer Villages. You are all invited. Tickets are on sale now. Her name

is Miss Ann Mortifee, a distinguished Canadian. I ask the House to make

her welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The guest is welcome. The commercial, of course, is not.

HON. MR. McGEER:

This isn't a commercial. It's a wish for the House to bid welcome to

Warren Silvester and his fiancé, recent graduates of the University of

British Columbia who have come to look at this house of domestic

tranquillity.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like the

House to welcome teachers and students from Pearson Road Elementary

School in Kelowna who are visiting the precinct today. They have

advised me to tell you that they have been very well received and

escorted by the tour guides and have enjoyed their visit to the

legislative precincts.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I hope

this introduction hasn't been done earlier. A former member of my

constituency before the boundaries were changed and a former roommate

of the Leader of the Opposition is in the gallery, Mr. Jimmy Rhodes, a

former MLA. We would like to welcome him.

MR. BARRETT: I urge caution in introducing roommates in this chamber. However, I welcome Mr. Rhodes as well on behalf of his former MLA.

MR. STRACHAN:

Of course all members of the Legislative Assembly are always welcome to

attend dinners and presentations made by various people who like to see

us. You know that such a group is the British Columbia Council of

Marketing Boards. One of the members of our caucus was honoured the

other night by the marketing board people. I would like to present this

diploma: "To all unto whom these presents shall come: Greetings! Their

Excellencies, the most honourable British Columbia Council of Marketing

Boards, mindful of the gracious service of the honourable Gardie,

(C.S.) Gardom, do hereby confer the rank, distinction, predicament and

title, namely by all persons hereinafter to be called 'turkey.'" To the

House Leader.

Oral Questions

SEAL COVE PLANT

MR. LEA:

To the Minister of Environment. This morning the Cabinet Committee on

Economic Development met with representatives from Prince Rupert in

regard to the Seal Cove closure of the fish plant there, at which time

the government decided to look into the closure of that plant. We thank

them for that. I have two questions around that, though. When this

study is completed, will it be made public? Will it be brought back to

the Legislature so that it can be tabled?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

That's a decision to be made by the committee, and whether or not the

committee chooses to make that public will be known at some future time.

MR. LEA:

The minister is withholding judgment on that until he sees what's in

the study, I guess. It's now government policy to look into the Seal

Cove closure. Is it government policy now, either on its own initiative

or in conjunction with the federal government, to do a study into the

groundfish industry as a whole?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I took parts of that question on notice yesterday, and there has been no change since then.

[ Page 7566 ]

FISH HIGH-GRADING

MR. LEA:

Still no policy. The province has the authority, through its licensing

procedures for shore installations of fish processing, to rectify this

problem in the province. In other words, the province can use its

licensing procedure to make sure that high-grading doesn't happen.

Under the licensing, the province can demand that fish processing

plants will process not only the highly profitable fish but the fish

that is less profitable. Is it now government policy to use the

licensing procedure, as it's authorized to do constitutionally, in

order to do away with high-grading in the fishing industry? Is it now

government policy that you're against high-grading and you'll use

licensing to stop it?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, that

determination has not been made. I would like to say that the immediate

concern is the closing of the groundfish operation at Seal Cove. The

committee has taken action this morning after our meeting with the

members from the UFAWU, and I would hope that we're able to see some

results as early as the first part of next week.

OAKLAND FISHERIES PLANT CLOSURE

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the same minister. The plant closure of Oakland

Fisheries in Victoria is identical to the Seal Cove closure in Prince

Rupert. The multinational companies are consolidating their processing

capacity to the lower mainland after high-grading the sockeye and the

herring. My question is: why haven't you exercised your authority under

the system for buying and processing licences to stop the closure at

Oakland and require the processing of groundfish, which are taken by

the Russian and Polish trollers in the thousands of tons? Last year

25,000 metric tons were processed abroad,

MR. SPEAKER: This could be a lengthy answer, but I'll permit the question.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

One British Columbia vessel, between January 1 of this year and the

time it went on its ways in Prince Rupert, took in two million pounds.

could give you a very long answer; it could almost go into my

estimates. The vessels processing fish offshore are vessels licensed to

process fish because that fish cannot be transported between the

fishing grounds and the processing plants on shore because of the

parasitic decay that takes place in the fish. That stock of fish is

hake.

On the question of the Oakland Fisheries plant,

workers from Oakland met with the Cabinet Committee on Economic

Development. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) and I have jointly written them with a proposal for

that particular plant. We are awaiting a response from the UFAWU to our

proposal to them. The operations at Seal Cove and Oakland are not

similar. In fact, they are almost totally dissimilar. If you took the

time to find out the difference between the two — and I'm not

suggesting that you haven't tried to do that — you would find there is

almost no similarity.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the

plant in Victoria is perfectly capable of handling and processing hake.

Hake has a survival time of something like 14 or 16 hours. It could be

processed here. There are 300 jobs at stake and you just keep passing

the buck.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I heard no question. Was the member seeking the floor on a question?

MR. HANSON: Yes. Has he decided to stop passing the buck and secure those 300 jobs here in Victoria?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

In view of the fact that the union has asked for more time to consider

our requests, we have acceded to their request for more time and

therefore — I'm not passing the buck — are awaiting their reply.

Your

other question might be more appropriately addressed through the

federal House to the minister responsible for Fisheries and Oceans.

STRIKE CONTINGENCY MANUAL

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the

minister aware of the confidential strike contingency manual prepared

for the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) prior to

the Premier's free-time TV announcement of wage control in the public

sector?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if he, as the minister responsible for

labour, will undertake to obtain a copy of that manual, and to study

its 1930 provisions for labour relations in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The questioner is asking for a commitment.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. The

Premier's strike manual clearly anticipates a siege by government

employees. It counsels excluded employees to stockpile food, bedding

and other essentials to withstand a lengthy siege by striking

employees. Can the minister explain the reason for this siege mentality

by the government prior to commencing collective bargaining?

MR. SPEAKER: It could be a lengthy answer. Is that okay?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, there is no need for a lengthy answer. The member made

several inaccurate observations. He referred to this manual as the

"Premier's manual," which is inaccurate. And I think it should be

categorically said that any employer engaged in such negotiations would

be irresponsible not to lay plans for any eventuality incurred in the

future. There is nothing irresponsible in that action.

You

made various allegations in terms of the siege-gun mentality of this

government. I think we would be more to be criticized, Mr. Speaker, if

such a manual were not prepared for the information of all concerned.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the Premier is the first minister of the province of British

[ Page

7567 ]

Columbia, and that the Government Employees Labour Relations Bureau is a government

agency. If the Provincial Secretary is saying that the Premier is not in control

of the government, so be it.

Can

the minister advise why government officials were instructed in the

Premier's strike manual to take licence plate numbers and colour

photographs of persons found near government offices during a strike?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The manual is there for everyone to see. If the member has concerns

about what is in the manual he could address them to me at any time he

wishes. It's there as a matter of public information.

MR. KING:

I'm glad the Provincial Secretary says it's there for everyone to see,

stamped "confidential," stressing inside that it must not be released

to the public.

Can the minister advise why government

officials are instructed to conduct surveillance of union members,

including eavesdropping and recording of conversations with picketers,

conversations between picketers, and conversations between picketers

and other persons, and why they will be provided with tape-recorders to

facilitate this insidious form of espionage?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, the member's line of questioning suggests that this

government does not have an obligation to maintain services in this

province at all times and to take whatever measures are necessary to

maintain those services for the benefit of all citizens of this

province.

MR. KING: Pardon me, but I was under the

impression that working people had a legal, constitutional right to

strike in this province. Can the minister explain why non-striking

personnel are directed in the manual to use family members to act as

strike-breakers?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Once again the member is inaccurate. There are no such instructions.

MR. KING:

I will direct the Provincial Secretary's attention to the specific

admonition concerning recruitment of family members contained in the

strike manual if he is not aware of his own document.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You said "instructions." That's not correct.

MR. KING:

It is getting very close to that absolute dictatorship, but it's not

quite there yet. Can the Provincial Secretary indicate whether a

training program has been developed along with the manual which will

include training in the use of surveillance equipment, including the

use of concealed recording devices and cameras?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I categorize that as a facetious question, and I don't think it deserves an answer.

MR. KING: Was the Provincial Secretary aware that some ten sections

of the Criminal Code are included with the manual, anticipating such violations

of the Criminal Code by provincial public servants as: unlawful assembly; riot

and punishment of a rioter; punishment for unlawful assembly; possession of

a weapon or intimidation; carrying a concealed weapon; disobeying a court order;

offences related to a public or peace officer; causing a disturbance; indecent

exhibition, loitering, etc.; and common assault, assault with intent or intimidation

and mischief? Was the Provincial Secretary aware that his government, under

the auspices of the Premier, had this view of the conduct of public servants

in this province?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I don't know if there is a question in there, but my answer is that I

have read the document and I am happy that the member has read it.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask for leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 28.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

section 9.

MR. KING:

We have received no response yet from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) relating to the intention of this

section of the bill. What we

have, Mr. Chairman, is a conflict between two statements made by the

Premier of the province. The first one indicated that guidelines under

this particular bill would range between a 10 percent guideline and a

possible 4 percent overage for productivity and historical

relationships. Subsequent to the introduction of the bill, the Premier

made another announcement indicating that the guideline is now 5

percent or perhaps less, and in some cases no increase at all is

permissible under this section. Mr. Chairman. the opposition and the

public of the province of British Columbia have a right to know. The

minister himself yesterday argued that certainly those people affected

by this bill — the public service — have a right to know what the

guidelines are.

I find it unacceptable that the minister

sits mutely in his place and refuses to answer this very simple,

straightforward question: what are the guidelines anticipated under

this

section of the bill? If the minister is prepared to respond, we

can get on with the business of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want the impression left with the committee

that in the course of debate yesterday.... It would be correct for this

morning, because we had a very limited time. In the course of debate

yesterday I answered a number of questions with respect to the

section

presently before the committee. I think that it is correct to say that

the announcement made by the Premier on February 18, the statements

which were made in the intervening period in the course of second

reading and the responses yesterday are appropriate to the member's

question. The member, incidentally, has now left the chamber.

MR. BARBER:

With due respect, the minister's reply is gibberish. There is an open

and public conflict between the statements of the Premier on February

18 and the statements

[ Page 7568 ]

the Premier in the last two days. The minister is caught in the middle

of this conflict, and he's trying desperately and pathetically to

escape from the simple, self-evident fact that this government is

attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game — a game which

was already fixed and rigged in a fundamentally unfair way against

public-service employees in this province.

The Premier has

taken another poll, no doubt at the advice of his Ontario hacks. The

Premier's poll said that within a narrow range of public opinion you

can exploit further hysteria and add to that hysteria by attacking the

public service again. The Premier now says what the Minister of Finance

refuses to talk about: he says that there's some kind of rubber floor

and rubber ceiling, and instead of 10 percent to 14 percent, he is now

talking about 5 percent.

The Minister of Finance is made to

look like a fool by the Premier. The Minister of Finance attempts to

fool this committee into thinking that's not so. This committee will

not be fooled by the Minister of Finance and his arrogant and insolent

silence. This committee has every right to know whether the Premier's

statement of February 18 applies, or whether his statement of two days

ago applies. The statements are so dissimilar and are so much in

conflict with each other, and the law, as provided in

section 9 of this

bill, is so inexplicit, vague and opaque that there is no other way to

obtain a reply than to continue to press the Minister of Finance for it.

The

Minister of Finance, like the Premier, attempts to pretend something

phony and unsubstantiated. He attempts to pretend that public servants

support him, this provision and these wage controls. That is unprovable

nonsense. He has no evidence, no proof and not a single fact, name or

document; he's offered no evidence and he's given no proof of any

order. The Minister of Finance attempts to trick this committee into

thinking that public servants support these demonstrably and provably

unfair wage controls on the public sector. The Minister of Finance is

attempting to persuade this committee of a false thing — that somehow

public servants have accepted the inherent unfairness of this section.

He cannot do so. He can't name a name, provide a document or offer a

single piece of evidence, and neither can the Premier.

Two

days ago, in a simply hysterical performance, waving, shouting,

red-faced and almost completely incoherent, the Premier attempted to

persuade the people of this province that his own law was somehow no

longer adequate to his own purpose. In a hysterical performance in the

corridor and in this House, a performance which has confused even the

ordinary editorial supporters of Social Credit, theVancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun ,

the Premier clearly made it evident that he attempted then, as he

attempts today, to inflame and antagonize labour relations and the

labour relations climate in this province in such a way as to provoke

an equally hysterical response on the part of the public service.

Fortunately,

public servants in this province have a mature, level-headed and sane

attitude toward collective bargaining, Fortunately, they will not, I

expect, fall victim to the Premier's hysteria and fear-mongering. The

public servants at least have a commitment to mature, sophisticated and

grown-up collective bargaining. What does the Premier do? He comes in

and flails about like a windmill on fire and tries to persuade the

people of British Columbia that his own guidelines are no longer

suitable to his own purpose.

A couple of days ago the

Premier was talking about 5 percent, or a wage freeze or God knows what

to serve his devious political purposes. The Minister of Finance has

the unhappy job of trying to pilot this unfair

section through our

committee, and he cannot succeed. His attempt to do so is peculiarly

reminiscent of the Premier's attempt to avoid responsibility during the

dirty tricks scandals of three years ago.

We witnessed the

same behaviour then as we see now. Day after day three years ago the

Premier attempted to stonewall during his estimates. Day after day

three years ago the Premier, in order to get off the hook of

accountability for the dirty tricks squad within the offices of his own

government, sat mute, silent, insolent and arrogant, refusing to answer

questions. What does the Minister of Finance do now? We ask him to

explain what

part 9 means. We ask him whether we should accept that the

Premier's press conference of February 18 is no longer operative. On

February 18 the Premier made it very clear that the wage guidelines

would see public servants reimbursed for their efforts at a rate of

variously 10 to 14 percent this year. The bill came in and, sure

enough, under

section 9, the operating

section in regard to

compensation, it says nothing of the sort. Well, we don't know if the

Premier was misleading the public on February 18, but we hope he

wasn't. We do know that

section 9 clearly does not inform the public,

and once again Social Credit is attempting in a very heavy-handed,

undemocratic and politically tyrannical way to ask this Legislature to

give it power to make decisions in secret without reference to

guidelines as laid down by the Legislature itself. This is typically

undemocratic and typically Socred. The party of dirty tricks, Gracie's

Finger and the scuttling of the agricultural land reserve now brings in

section 9, and it's all part of the same mentality, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are on

section 9 of this particular bill.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree. We're on

section 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will be relevant to

section 9, hon. member.

MR. BARBER:

What's fundamentally relevant to

section 9 is the abhorrent philosophy

which it evidences.

Section 9 does not inform us whether the guidelines

are as the Premier said they would be — 10, 12 or 14 percent. You

watched him on TV on February 18. So did we. We watched him and we

heard what he said, and then we heard what he said two days ago. The

two statements do not coincide; they are completely inconsistent.

Either

the Premier has had a change of personality of a profound sort that

requires attention in a facility other than the Legislature, or he has

another kind of political game going. Either the Premier was telling

the truth on February 18 and meant it when he said that the guidelines

would provide settlements in the order of 10, 12 or 14 percent based on

various criteria, or some other story has been told in the last 48

hours. We certainly know what story the Minister of Finance is telling:

it is nothing. The Minister of Finance knows that he is in an

impossible position: he cannot reconcile the statements the Premier

made 48 hours ago with the statements the Premier made on February 18.

They are utterly, provably, clearly at odds. Either the guidelines are

to be 12, 14 or 10 percent, or they are to be the 5 percent and

[ Page 7569 ]

whatever that the Premier was threatening in that hysterical speech of his two days ago.

When

you read the guidelines as provided in the statute we are now debating,

they make no reference whatsoever to a percentage figure — none. When

you hear the Minister of Finance, he makes no reference to a percentage

figure — none. When you watch the Minister of Finance, you realize how

difficult it is for him to defend what the Premier has done to the

Minister of Finance's own bill. The Premier is making a fool of the

Minister of Finance by saying one thing one day, another the next, and

then skipping out of this committee in order to avoid answering any

questions at all.

It is consistent with the rules of this

committee, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier could be here to answer the

questions himself. It is not required that only the Minister of Finance

speak on behalf of the government. If the Premier were willing, and if

the Minister of Finance were able, the first minister could come into

this committee and tell us what the operating rules would be. He could

tell us, in the usual Nixonion way in which Social Credit always does

these things, whether or not his statement of February 18 is operative.

If so, we will discard all those press releases, all of that TV time,

all of that press coverage, and we will so advise our own constituents

that the Premier was not to be believed on February 18, but rather he

was only to be believed on May 12. If he's to be believed on one date

or the other, let him at least say so, and we'll know which one we are

to accept. If he's to be believed at all, he has to be held accountable

for what he said.

If the Minister of Finance is to retain

any credibility as the advocate of this bill in committee, if he's to

retain any credibility at all — and he doesn't have a lot left to spend

— then he owes it to this committee to tell us plainly, frankly and

bluntly: does the 5 percent statement of the Premier as of two days ago

apply, or does the 10, 12 and 14 percent statement of the Premier of

February 18 apply? It cannot be the same — at least, not to a rational

person, Mr. Chairman. A rational person realizes there is an

inconsistency. A rational person sees the conflict. If there's a

problem that has to be treated at another place, let it be treated. But

if we're dealing with rational men, then let's get a plain reply. It is

not rational to ask anyone to think that the statement of the Premier

in February is the same as the statement of the Premier in May. It is

simply not logical in any way at all.

The legislation

provides no answer; because it does not, we have to rely, for what it's

worth, on the statements of the Premier. The statement of February 18

was relatively clear, and we thought we could rely on it. The statement

of 48 hours ago suddenly changed the picture completely. The statement

of 48 hours ago threatened, in a brutal, stupid and typically Socred

way, the possibility of a mature labour-management negotiation around

the collective agreement now being bargained between GERB and the

BCGEU. That stupid and clumsy statement by the Premier — obviously

deliberate — was an obvious attempt to provoke the public-service

unions of this province into being equally hysterical, juvenile and

irresponsible. Fortunately the public servants are not prepared to

behave in an equally hysterical way. They do not ask that the rules be

changed in the middle of the game. They only ask that the government

play by open and publicly stated rules. That's a fair request. The

public servants have not asked the Premier to change his mind in the

middle of the event; they've only asked that the Premier apply some

consistency. Is it the 5 percent et al statement they are to believe or

is it the other statement? To repeat for the umpteenth time, the law

provides no evidence of an answer at all.

The minister

wonders why we're being mean to him; he seems to think we are being

unkind. The minister, who is in some difficulty in his own riding, has

public servants who will hold him accountable for what is going on in

terms of the prostitution of the law as it formerly applied — the

evasions, as this government is offering them, and the simple lack of

candour, as evidenced by the Minister of Finance, who has sat there

stonewalling for the last many and, I expect, for hours to come until

his strategy collapses and he has to give a plain answer. This is a

minister who knows he's in trouble on this bill.

This is the

government that wants to restrain everyone but itself. The government

of $37.50 bottles of wine can provide a figure for its vouchers when

it's claiming expenses but refuses to provide a figure here. When it

comes to their own expense accounts the Socreds are great at providing

figures.

When it comes to answering questions regarding this

section they're not so great. Which way is it to be? Are they going to

give plain, candid and blunt answers or are they going to continue to

provide, instead, completely evasive responses to legitimate questions

by legislators in this assembly?

We have read into the

record before, and will do so again, the transcript of the Premier's

statement of February 18. He didn't talk about 5 percent. He made it

clear that he had allegedly been counselled by those who would cut

bargaining to the extent that there would be no wage increase at all

and therefore no point in bargaining. The Premier said he had rejected

that advice. On February 18 the Premier said he wouldn't listen to the

experts who wanted to hold bargaining down to 6 percent. Which is it to

be? Was the Premier telling the truth on February 18 when he said he

had rejected that counsel? There would be no freeze but, instead, 10

percent or 12 percent or 14 percent, depending on the specific criteria

that he laid out?

He was pretty plain on the 18th, and that,

at least, is helpful. Although the fundamental issue may be the

unfairness of singling out public servants and ignoring the rest of the

economy, although the fundamental issue may be the hypocrisy of a

government devoting itself to wine-guzzling while trying to restrain

others, nonetheless, on February 18 at least the rules were clear. Two

days ago the Premier came in and started to impose new rules and

guidelines. He came in and tried clearly and provocatively to

antagonize public servants into behaving as badly as himself, on which

issue he no doubt hopes he can go to the people. He certainly can't go

to the people on the issue of health care or economic management, but

he thinks he can go to the people on the issue of who governs British

Columbia — this place or the trade unions? He is going to try to do a

Ted Heath. We wish him luck. It didn't work for Mr. Heath, it won't

work for Mr. Bennett. However, that obviously is the game plan, and we,

for one, don't accept it because it's not democratic and it's not fair.

When

you review the statement of February 18 and the statement the Premier

made just two days ago, you realize that something has gone wrong with

the strategy of Social Credit in regard to wage controls. To the horror

of Social Credit, they find hospitals shutting down all over British

Columbia — 161 beds at the Royal Jubilee alone. To the horror of the

Premier, the trade unions have not behaved like spoiled brats but,

rather, have said: "We will negotiate in a sensible, straightforward

and traditional way." The trade

[ Page 7570 ]

unions

even suggested that they would be prepared to do so really quite

openly. They've made it quite clear what their position is. They only

ask that the government do the same. Is that such an unfair request?

Everyone

knows how Social Credit in the last six, going on seven, years has

attempted to lay the heavy hand of state centralism on everything it

does. The heavy hand of state centralism, under Social Credit, has done

many undemocratic things. What they propose to do here is demonstrably

juvenile. It is like the behaviour of a cry-baby who thought, the first

time he tried to bully everyone, he would get away with it; and when he

discovers he didn't, he comes back and tries again. We have to reject

that and any other cry-baby and bullying tactic that the Premier and

his minister may attempt to adopt.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're chasing everybody out of the galleries, Charlie.

MR. BARBER:

As long as we chase you out of office, we'll be satisfied. Your own

incompetence will see to that. We're so concerned about the people of

British Columbia that we're trying to defeat you in order to protect

them.

The group responsible for the fiasco of the Ministry

of Deregulation — they asked us to take their word on that one too, and

look what happened — now asks us to take their word that the

unspecified guidelines in

section 9 will be fair, just and honourable.

Is it the statement of February 18 or the statement of two days ago?

They are in direct conflict. The Minister of Finance has yet to provide

a candid, blunt and truthful answer in every way, telling us what the

government's policies are in regard to wage negotiations. They are

required to do so because they initiated this debate. They are required

to do so because they put this law forward.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

Yes, that's right. A couple of days ago the Minister of Finance was

asking the opposition to give them a number and tell them what the

guidelines are. We ask you in return to give us a number. Tell us what

yours are and do so now. Is it that muddle-headed nonsense of 5

percent, or is it the 10, 12 and 14 percent package? In days to come

will there be yet another proposal as the result of the failure, the

cry-baby and the bully tactics that these guys are trying to impose in

British Columbia?

They desperately want to get re-elected.

They obviously cannot get re-elected on their record; they have to get

re-elected by exploiting some situation or another. They're trying to

create that situation now by provoking trade unions to behave in as

juvenile a manner as they are. Trade unionists are at least mature and

responsible enough not to fall victim to these absurd kindergarten

tactics of the Premier: 10, 12 and 14 percent in February; 5 percent or

less in May. The Minister of Finance may think he can get away with it

in committee, but he certainly cannot in his own riding. He has yet to

provide any evidence whatever of the truthfulness of his statement.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Let's reread your statement on the Ganges sewer. Same speech.

MR. BARBER:

You're going to be defeated three to one in Ganges in the next

election. If the Minister of Finance were a little less worried and a

little more candid he would stand up. If he were a little less afraid

and a little more honest he would stand up and tell us what the

guidelines are now: 10, 12 and 14 percent in that package, or the 5

percent muddle that the Premier flailed about saying two days ago.

Social

Credit — the coalition today and its predecessor before, which at least

had some principles — has always attempted, as best it can, to

antagonize the trade union movement in British Columbia so as to get

re-elected in the middle of some public hysteria. They can, if they

wish, continue to try to provoke that hysteria by publishing 1930s

style simply disgusting documents telling public servants implicitly

that they are expected to commit Criminal Code offences, arson, riot,

stampede into public buildings and force barricades to be put up.

Mr.

Chairman, what sort of government has such a view of its public

servants that they would commission a document of that order? They seem

to think it is reasonable, appropriate and mature to deal with their

own employees in that 1930s union-bashing way. By the 1930s standards

of this coalition it may be appropriate, but by the 1980s standards of

public servants and of the general public it is totally unacceptable.

There is no justification for that. It is clearly part of the same

strategy of silence imposed by the minister in regard to this

section

which led to what we saw in question period today and what we observe

again now.

If they have an honest answer, let them give it.

If they have no answer and they're just playing bush pilot with these

negotiations, hoping to set down somewhere safe, they know not where,

in terms of the final outcome, let them at least be candid enough to

say so here. But the silence, the refusal to be candid, the refusal to

own up to what it is they are doing, and the insolence of such a

government is not acceptable to anyone in this committee and not

acceptable, I think, to any public servant in this province.

This

section gives the executive council power to issue compensation

stabilization guidelines. It gives them the power to do so behind the

closed doors of cabinet without any further reference to this

Legislature and without any accountability to the general public. The

secretiveness is unacceptable. What is worse is the attempt to destroy

the possibility of reasonable negotiations between a very important

employer and a very important group of employees — that is not

acceptable. It wasn't so long ago that this government opposite

attempted to impose....

MR. BARRETT: On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, I hardly think it serves the purpose of the

committee for the House not to be in order when a member is speaking. I

wish you would call the government members to order so we can proceed

with the business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order by the Leader of the Opposition is well taken. I would recommend the same to all members of the House.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, this government some years ago attempted to impose Bill

33. It was a stupid, backward attempt to wreck a climate of labour

negotiations that could be mature and productive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

[ Page 7571 ]

MR. BARBER:

This is in order, Mr. Chairman. What I'm now trying to establish in the

mind of the minister is the necessity of providing an answer to these

questions. Considering what's gone on before, we can expect the same

again, unless such answers are provided. This

section makes it quite

clear that this government is not prepared to negotiate responsibly and

maturely with its own employees. This

section makes it quite clear that

they are prepared to go back to the stupid old days of Bill 33 and the

stupid old days when they would single out one group of employees for

particularly punitive and particularly reactionary forms of

legislation. It's not acceptable to do that any more.

The

Labour Code we currently enjoy provides a much better alternative. This

section takes us back to the sixties, fifties, forties and thirties —

it's not acceptable. If the government were proud of the posture it was

taking in the current negotiations, they would tell us what that

posture was. If they were proud of the strategy they are following in

those negotiations, they would tell us what the rules are. If they had

anything to be proud of, they would answer these questions. But the

clear evidence suggests that they cannot and that they will not, and

the reason they cannot and will not is that they're not interested in a

serious outcome to serious negotiations. They're interested exclusively

in provoking such a confrontation as they hope will allow them to sneak

back in at a suddenly called provincial general election. That's no way

to govern, and that's no way to bargain.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman — and I didn't want to interrupt

while the member was speaking — I heard several references to dirty

tricks during the speech of the member who has just taken his seat, and

I just wondered what he was talking about. Perhaps he could tell me

whether it's the dirty tricks of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

(Mr. Mitchell) setting up a public servant to steal documents or

whether it's the fact that several members of the opposition leave

early to play golf. I'd just like some clarification on that, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a

valid point of order. The member will have an opportunity to take his

place in debate if he wishes.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr.

Chairman, I think

section 9 here, as I read it, clearly states that the

executive council shall issue compensation stabilization guidelines.

Somehow or other, the opposition has tried to translate that into some

sort of a coverup, into some sort of an evil intent. Although they make

many references to what the Premier of British Columbia has said

regarding compensation stabilization guidelines, they make many

misinterpretations of what the Premier said.

I would like to

suggest that on February 18 the Premier did announce certain

guidelines, with the terms as follows. He suggested that there would be

a limit on government spending of 12 percent. He did not say at any

time that the government must spend 12 percent; he said there will be a

limit. Now a limit means a top ceiling. As far as wage guidelines were

concerned, he again expressed a ceiling of 10 percent in the public

sector. I would suggest that there is absolutely no inconsistency in

statements made at that time and this time.

Again we've

heard the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) talking about the

Premier's ranting and raving the other day. I guess it's a point of

view, but I thought the Premier made a clear, concise statement of what

the compensation guidelines were about. The first member for Victoria

says all this is demonstrably juvenile. If anybody has demonstrated

juvenile tactics, it's that member trying to divert attention and

completely change what was intended. I suggest that he look at those

statements and actually read the fine speech given by the Premier in

the House the other day. In it he will find no reference to the 5

percent or to any other figures that he seems to be pulling out of the

air, and by suggestion attributing them to the Premier's speech in this

House. That is not so.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Because

those members in the opposition see everything from a political point

of view, they refuse to accept the economic realities of this province.

And because they're so politically oriented, they have missed the

entire point that the Premier made. The Premier made the point that

these were limits — top limits between the figures he suggested. I have

every reason to believe, when the regulations come down to back this

section, the limits will be in terms of what the Premier has promised

the people of this province. He did say — and he has said it clearly

inside and outside the House — that we also have to look at negotiated

settlement in terms of what the economy at this time can stand. That is

a point the opposition members have missed altogether. We're involving

the public servants and it's a big political hassle. They suggest we

are trying to use the public-sector employees as scapegoats, that we

are trying to provoke them into some sort of a fight. I would suggest

that they are trying to use the public-sector employees of this

province as pawns in their political game. They have tried to translate

this into strictly political terms when it is really economic.

reporter asked: "We've done some arithmetic, and if in fact you try to

preserve all the jobs and all the programs in this province in a

certain field, that could mean only a 5 percent increase." As I recall,

the Premier's reply was: "Those are your figures and it could possibly

be so." In other words, if the economy will only stand a less than the

limit increase, then certainly the settlement might well be less. The

Premier did ask school boards, hospital boards and municipalities in

this province to look realistically at what their economic conditions

will stand, and to negotiate in those terms. He has simply suggested

that there is a ceiling, a top limit beyond which they will not be

allowed to go. That is a courageous statement, because no one likes to

be told to be held down. I would suggest that if we did have that kind

of statement from the Premier of this province, spending would still be

determined on the basis of desires, rather than on the actual needs in

this province. There has to be some sort of limit beyond which people

cannot go.

Section 9 says that the executive council will

establish compensation guidelines. The opposition, because they try to

translate everything into political terms, refuses to recognize that

there is another force in our world which should really determine what

settlements are negotiated, and that force is the economic conditions

of the times. Employees in the private sector and in the public sector

might negotiate wage settlements to the point where we destroy our

markets. There's plenty of evidence that we have priced ourselves out

of the marketplace in this world and our economy depends on what we

market elsewhere, manufactured or raw material. There is plenty of

evidence to suggest that if we price ourselves out of that market we

are in economic difficulties.

[ Page 7572 ]

would like to suggest that many of the increases in our society have

come about not because of any regard for economic realities, but

because we have been far too political in this country. It has been

political pressures that have increased wages and prices and other

things to the point where we are in danger of destroying our own

economy. It is political pressure — not economic reality — that has

increased services in this province and in this country well beyond the

point of what the taxpayers of this country can afford. In that sense,

Mr. Chairman, I say we have allowed political expediency and political

pressures to determine the situation that we are now facing. We must

come back to reality, and I think we're seeing some signs of this in

this province. People are realizing that there is no political party

that can always promise more, that can always promise twice as much.

Sooner or later, the day of reckoning comes. This is a responsible act

by this government to say: "Before we go under completely, for

goodness' sakes, let's show some restraint in this province."

is no wonder the public across this country is disenchanted with

government, because government has gone too far by moving into the

political terms — making all decisions on the basis of politics as to

whether or not somebody else will get elected if they don't give as

much. So we have the people fed up with government. Somewhere along the

line, governments have to say: "Look, you'll have to make your own

decision as to how you vote, but if we're going to be responsible, then

we have to take some actions in responsible terms related to the

economy, rather than related to the political advantages that may be

inherent in any decision that we make."

Mr. Chairman, this

act, this

section and the policies that have been announced by this

government seek to change the attitude of the people. I think the

people — the public of this province — are ready to change their

attitude. I think they are recognizing it far ahead of the people at

the top levels who still haven't caught on to the fact that you can't

negotiate settlements beyond what the economy will bear.

The

Premier has said.... I don't think there's anything inconsistent — he

has said that there are some ceilings. He has also suggested that if

the economy so dictates, then the settlements should, perhaps, be even

well below those ceilings. I think people have to recognize that.

I might just refer to this situation where, in the name of solidarity,

the unions have suggested that if we all stick together we all

benefit.... That has simply meant that the difference between those at

the top of the pay scale and those at the bottom of the pay scale has

increased. That range has become greater because those people who claim

to have a social conscience and who attack people for not considering

those at the lower pay levels.... Equality to them seems to mean an

equal percentage across the board in order to keep up with economic

times. A little bit of simple arithmetic will tell you that that sort

of thinking is what has kept the people at the bottom end of the pay

scale down too low.

There's only so much money available,

and if you take 10 percent across the board in any wage settlement,

which the unions have demanded in the name of solidarity, then a person

with a $40,000-a-year salary gets an increase of $4,000 per year. A

person with a $20,000 salary gets an increase of $2,000 a year. Anybody

with a $12,000 salary only gets a $1,200-a-year increase, and that is

what has been foisted on their own membership and on the public as

being fair. I cannot see that as fair. We could come in with a

reasonable settlement in many areas if people would simply

recognize.... If they are so socially conscious, why do they not then

take $2,000 for the $40,000-a-year person — because surely he can get

by on $42,000 — in order to give a $12,000-a-year member $16,000 a year?

It's

high time that in this society we took a look at some of those

considerations. I would suggest that the opposition members here, in

fully supporting and trying to use the members of the unions as pawns

in their political games, are doing a disservice to the people at the

lower end of the scale. Yet they brag about being supporters of the

poor people. Nonsense!

We have to recognize the realities,

We have to break out of that straitjacket of thinking that political

pressure can bring about any increase that we desire. A promise from a

party anywhere in this country with the hopes of getting elected or

buying votes will got us nowhere other than into despair and ruin.

think we should make it very clear that what the opposition has been

doing here in this

section 9 and in second reading of this bill is that

they have been trying to translate — through some histrionics or

whatever performance they choose — statements to their political

advantage while, at the same time, they completely ignore the economic

realities at this time in this province. What good will it do the

people in private industry, in the lumber industry, to get a 20 percent

increase if that wipes out the lumber industry in this province? Yet we

had that sort of political pressure. What good will it do the people in

the public sector in this province to get a 30 percent increase or

whatever they are asking for if, in effect, it breaks the government

and makes it impossible to carry on those services that people need in

this province? I am not talking about all the services that people

desire. Our desires have gone far beyond reason in many cases because

of a good, sound economy, because of the prosperity we have enjoyed. We

are not enjoying those prosperous times now, and I think that needs to

be recognized. I don't think it is of any help for the NDP, allied with

the top union leaders, to then try to turn around and use that union

membership in order to attack a sound economic policy that is being put

forth by this government,

MR. BARBER: I guess the member for North Peace River hasn't seen tonight's edition of the Vancouver Sun .

Wait until you see it. Let me read it into the record briefly, because

it turns out that once again a senior official of this government has

contradicted the Premier. This is page 3 of tonight's edition of the Vancouver Sun . Do you know who they are quoting?

MR. BRUMMET: If that's your bible, I don't buy it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the member for North Peace River to come to order.

MR. BARBER:

The headline of the

article is: "Bennett's No-Floor Assertion

Contradicted." The byline is Ros Oberlyn; the dateline is Victoria.

"The provincial government's restraint legislation does

not give it the power to roll back arbitrated settlements that provide for wage

increases of 8 percent or less, a senior government official said Wednesday.

[ Page 7573 ]

"The

information, from an architect of the proposed Compensation

Stabilization Act, contradicts Premier Bill Bennett's insistence Monday

that 'There is no floor' — meaning no minimum wage increase — under the

program for employees in hospitals and schools and in municipal and

provincial government departments.

"Bennett

said he will back the restraint program with tougher legislative

measures to make sure that wage settlements in the public sector do not

cost any jobs or programs. However, he has not detailed what action he

will take or when he will act to stop layoffs and reductions in service

that have already occurred.

"In an interview

Wednesday, the official, who did not want to be named, insisted that

compensation stabilization commissioner Ed Peck will not have any

authority to touch an arbitrated settlement that falls below the

guidelines for wage increases that will be set out in regulations when

the stabilization act is proclaimed."

MR. BRUMMET: Who is arguing with that?

MR. BARBER:

Your own Premier did just two days ago. The Premier has made one

assertion about what this bill can do and one of his own senior

advisers has plainly contradicted him.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Who was that?

MR. BARBER: I am sure you will be making your usual inquiries to find out who Ros Oberlyn talked to. According to the Vancouver Sun it was a senior government official who didn't wish to be named. Do you accuse the Vancouver Sun of concocting that, as one of your employees concocted phony letters to the editor?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, just asking.

MR. BARBER: Just asking. I'm sure you'll be just asking, as this government always does every time there is a leak.

This

government's wage-control program is in disarray. This government's

political strategy is in disarray. The attempt of the Premier, in that

sickening fashion.... They're trying to exploit the magnificent

Vancouver Canucks. We know they'll try to exploit anything, even

someone else's success. It's yet another attempt to exploit a narrow

band of public opinion which, in their view, hates workers so much

it'll go along with any attempt, no matter how monstrous and unfair, to

penalize them as public servants — a penalty imposed by a government,

as has been said before, of wine-guzzlers, that tries to restrain

everyone but itself.

The Vancouver Sun tonight makes

it quite clear that what the Premier said just two days ago is patent

nonsense. The Premier's claim as to the authority of this legislation

is nonsense, according to this senior government official. Later on in

the debate we may try a few initials out to see if they add up: C.T.

and J.M. come to mind. We'll see soon enough, Mr. Chairman, because I

trust the

article in tonight's edition of the Vancouver Sun

will provoke some sort of reply from the government. They have to

answer to what this says. If they don't, the Premier is once again made

out to be like his government has proven to be in the last six years:

utterly incompetent to manage the affairs of this province and utterly

incompetent to conduct those affairs in a serious, knowledgeable and

fair-minded way.

The member for Langley (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) asked what dirty tricks I was referring to. Let me answer

briefly. That was in order. I know this will be, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it was ruled out of order.

MR. BARBER: Oh, it was in order. He was allowed to say it. Therefore it must have been in order. The Chair is fair and even-handed.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair will be fair, of course, whether or not the members comments

were in order. The Chair is not aware of that. If we can remain

relevant to the section, then all debate is in order. The member knows

that.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, it's the same Chair,

applying the same rules. When they were applied to the member for

Langley, I thought that was okay. I only ask that they be applied to me

too. Is that okay?

MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as the member is relevant to the

section we're debating in committee, that's fine with the Chair.

MR. BARBER:

The member for Langley asked what dirty tricks I was referring to. I

will list them briefly: Gracie's Finger, the Eckardt commission, the

forged signatures on the fake letters to the editor, the resignations

and mass firings, the $1,000 bills and the illegal campaign

contributions of Social Credit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That does not deal with

section 9.

MR. BARBER:

If it doesn't, I'm not sure how then the member for Langley, a Socred,

was allowed to make his statement, and I, a New Democrat, am not

allowed to make mine on the same subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the member for Langley, if he mentioned that, was called to order by the Chair.

MR. BARBER:

As a matter of fact, he wasn't, Mr. Chairman. But I know you might not

want to believe me, so perhaps you could look at the Blues. However,

that's not the principal argument we make. Social Credit's duplicity in

the dirty tricks scandal is well known. It doesn't need repeating,

except perhaps at the next election.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) to come to order.

MR. BARBER:

I wonder if at meetings of the principals' association the member for

North Peace made the same statement that he just made now. We're

familiar with Two-Story-Jack. Whether or not Two-Story-Tony is going to

become another phenomenon here, we'll soon find out. I guess we'll have

to ask.

What we're asking is for the Minister of Finance to come clean with the committee and tell us whether or not the 5

[ Page 7574 ]

percent

statement of the Premier and the February 18 statement of the Premier —

two statements in utter contradiction — can both be operative at the

same time. To a rational person they could not be; to a rational person

that's not conceivable. I suppose a person who has other dilemmas could

accept it, but we don't accept it at all. We want a plain and simple

answer to a plain and simple question. What are the guidelines? Is it

10, 12 and 14 percent as earlier stated, or is it 5 percent and

whatever as recently stated? That's all. We're entitled to know. We

have to vote on the money that will be spent as a result of this. The

taxpayers have to come up with that money. The Minister of Finance is

obliged to say. If he's not prepared to say, we may just have to keep

trying a little while longer.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE:

I hoped that perhaps at this point in debate the Minister of Finance

would be prepared to answer the question that has been posed in many

ways by several members on this side of the House. It's a question

which I'm sure, if the minister found himself on this side of the

House, he would be asking. It's a question that he would want answered

before he decided whether or not he could support this particular

clause.

What do we have in this province? Do we have

legislation and government by this Legislature, or do we have

legislation and government by the media, TV and announcements in the

corridor? It certainly would seem that the latter is the direction in

which we're going.

My colleague from Victoria has read

statements in tonight's press regarding what the intent of the

legislation was. Obviously on February 18 the intent was that there

would be some maximums, and those minimums did in fact become maximums

— there was no right to roll back below those maximums. But I'm not at

all sure that once the regulations are drafted that will still apply,

Mr. Chairman. I think the Premier is going to have those regulations

drafted at his whim, and whatever happens to be on his mind the day

those regulations are drafted will go into those regulations. It's not

the first time the Premier has gone back on his word. We've had all

kinds of announcements and promises from the Premier and from this

government previously, and they haven't always been carried out.

I feel rather sorry for the Minister of Finance: he's in a very awkward position.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, if you're not in an awkward position, Mr. Minister, why don't you get up and tell us what it is?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have — twice, three times.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, will you do it just once more? I don't believe you have done it

since the Premier made his statement in the hall. If you're responsible

for this act, then you get up and tell us what this act is doing. If

you're responsible for these guidelines, you get up and tell us what

they are. Let's not have you sitting here in utter silence while the

Premier is drafting new guidelines in the hall. Which are we going by?

Are we going by statements in this Legislature or are we going by

statements to the press? We certainly can't go by the act; we can't go

by this section, because this

section says nothing; it just says there

shall be guidelines.

The Premier told us on February 18 what

those guidelines were going to be; you told us what those guidelines

were going to be; now the Premier has told us something else. He hasn't

told us here in the Legislature. He just said he reluctantly supported

this, and he made a lot of statements which the member for North Peace

River (Mr. Brummet) seemed to understand. I guess he's one up on you

and on the rest of us, because obviously you don't understand what the

Premier said either, or you'd be up supporting it now. There has been

no statement since then from you. There was a statement from the member

for North Peace River that seemed to indicate that maybe these

guidelines didn't have anything to do with percent increases at all,

that maybe the guidelines were going to be across-the-board raises.

Well now, that would be an interesting concept to discuss. It's my

understanding that the present negotiations going on with the BCGEU and

the government's negotiators incorporate something of that idea.

Are

those the guidelines we're going to have? Is it going to be across the

board? We know nothing of what you're proposing, Mr. Minister, just

that there are going to be guidelines. If you are prepared to stand now

in your place and tell us that this is it, final, lasting and firm — 8

percent, 10 percent, 12 percent, 14 percent, 5 percent, nothing,

whatever it is — let's have it.

You must recognize, Mr.

Minister, that there is a tremendous amount of conflict and discrepancy

in the statements that have been made both inside and outside this

House. You have a responsibility as Minister of Finance to clarify

that, not just for members of this Legislature but for all the citizens

of British Columbia, not least of which are the citizens who reside in

your own constituency, many of whom work in the public service. You

have a responsibility to clarify what you're talking about in

section 9.

This

is one of the pitfalls we get into when we have this kind of

all-encompassing, wide-open legislation. And once again I find myself

here saying this very same thing, that this is government by cabinet —

closed government — everything by regulation, nothing in the

legislation. Again and again it happens with this government.

I'm

surprised at that Minister of Finance. I had a lot of respect for him

when he sat on this side of the House. Certainly I had a lot of respect

for him when he was the mayor of Saanich; he was a responsible,

community-minded individual. I find it very surprising to have him sit

so quietly and refuse to answer. Has he been told not to answer? Is the

Premier going to come up with another idea? Perhaps he's afraid to

answer; perhaps at the time he's answering here telling us one thing,

the Premier is out in the hall saying something else. Is that where

they're at? Is that the situation? Is the minister going to get up and

tell us once and for all what the guidelines are, and settle this

confusion? When he tells us that, then we'll be prepared to move on to

another

section of this bill.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Chairman, at one point the minister said he had answered the question

that I asked yesterday, but he has not answered the question. So I'm

just going to ask him one or two simple questions at this time, because

I hope that he will be forthcoming with the committee — meagre as the

committee appears to be at the present time.

[ Page 7575 ]

The

sequence of events was a telecast by the Premier on February 18, and

we'll leave that by itself. Then we had the introduction of Bill 28,

and on second reading, the Minister of Finance gave a very neat

description of the guidelines. It has been read into the record, and it

is in the record. He was very forthcoming and fair with the House. He

said: "There will be free collective bargaining, but at a certain

point, which could be between 10 and 14 percent, there could be

rollbacks as a result of the guidelines we are promulgating."

The

day before the Minister of Finance wound up the second reading debate,

the Premier intervened with a speech which talked about the guidelines

in the House, and which was totally at variance with what the Minister

of Finance was saying. He made it more confusing for the people of this

province by speaking in the corridor where he mentioned the 5 percent

in public.

As if nothing had happened whatsoever, the

Minister of Finance wound up the second reading debate on Bill 28 the

next morning, and he repeated in that speech that we had guidelines —

in fact, he challenged the opposition, and said: "Well, what are your

guidelines? We have been fair and forthcoming with the people of the

province. What are your guidelines?"

I'm asking the Minister

of Finance whether he will stand up in the committee and tell us

whether the statements that he made as Minister of Finance, in charge

of the bill, opening second reading and closing second reading debate

are still operative. Can the people that are concerned — and there may

be some 200,000 people, not to mention the whole public of the province

— rely on the words of the Minister of Finance when he was opening and

closing the second reading debate? Are those words still operative? Mr.

Minister of Finance, do you stand by what you said in that debate? I

wonder if you heard my question? It's a very simple one. Do you still

stand by those words that you used in the opening and closing of the

debate?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the matter has

been very thoroughly canvassed in second reading as the member observed

— and I thank him for his kind remarks with respect to the statements

which were made. I may not have answered the question to the political

satisfaction of some members opposite, but I have answered the question

on a number of occasions yesterday and today. If it's necessary, I'm in

no hurry. If you want to take longer with

section 9....

MR. MACDONALD: Do you stand by your words?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

If you want to take longer with this particular

section than is usually

the case, that's fine. We've been through that before. I have attempted

to assist the committee to the best of my ability — not only the House

in second reading, but the committee in prior discussion. The one point

that does disturb me is the inference that I'm sitting here absolutely

mute, Mr. Chairman, because I'm not. One member of the official

opposition who has not been in the House since, as a matter of fact —

the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) — put some questions to

me, and I answered them in the kind of interchange which usually occurs

in committees. I don't know how often I have to say that which was said

earlier.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Finance of

the province of British Columbia has got to his feet.... I asked him a

very simple question — can the people rely on what he said in the

opening and closing of the debate on second reading of this bill? — and

he's refused to answer the question of whether those words still can be

relied upon by the public-sector employees and by the people of the

province.

MR. HOWARD: Why do you refuse to answer?

MR. MACDONALD:

The minister says he is answering questions, but you've seen a

particular example, in terms of a very simple question, of where the

minister refused to answer my question. He skipped all around it. I

think it's a.... I don't want to raise my voice and get excited about

it, but my goodness, is there a breakdown in government in the province

of British Columbia?

The Minister of Finance talks about

Allan MacEachen. He has had a lot of trouble with the budget. It

self-destructed in the course of its way through the House of Commons.

But this bill that is being introduced by the Minister of Finance is

self-destructing. He has had the Premier wing in — obviously, I

suppose, without consulting his own Minister of Finance, his political

operatives who come from Ontario, his polls, the flight of birds and

the viscera of animals or whatever else he consults — and humiliates

and repudiates the Minister of Finance. We disagree with what the

Minister of Finance was saying about his 10 to 14 percent and how he

had expressed these guidelines: "Free collective bargaining up to that

point, but after that be careful. There will be restraint." We disagree

with that. We were going to vote against the bill, but for the minister

to be repudiated, as he has been, by the Premier of the province.... Is

what you said still operative? Can the people rely upon it? We are

still debating the same bill in the same legislature. He refuses to

answer. Not only will the Minister of Finance not express what the

Premier has said and say he agrees with that, but he won't even answer

whether people can still rely on his words.

I ask you again,

Mr. Minister of Finance: can the people of the province of British

Columbia rely upon the words you yourself used in the second reading

debate on this bill? It is a very simple question and if you answer

that then we are away. Can they rely on what you said? Is that the

situation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Is the hon. member inferring otherwise? That is the inference.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Then the hon. member is accusing me of misleading the House in earlier debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the minister rising on a point of order regarding the statement of the second member for Vancouver East?

MR. MACDONALD:

I wonder if we have ever had a situation where a Minister of Finance —

who is supposed to know what he is doing and also is supposed to not be

interfered with by the Premier in the course of his introduction of an

important bill, with financial implications for 200,000 employees and

the public generally — refuses to answer the simple question as to

whether his words can be relied upon, the words he used which are

transcribed in Hansard . He won't answer because he is being interfered with by the

[ Page 7576 ]

Premier.

I find that a most extraordinary situation in a democracy. If the

Minister of Finance said, after the Premier's statement, "I'm now going

to amend what I said on second reading," we would say, "That proves you

don't know what you were doing," but at least we would have answers.

But the Minister of Finance hasn't said that. I think we have to go out

into the province and tell people that they've got a government out of

control and in disarray, and that when you ask them in the committee

stage of a bill whether what they've said in second reading can be

relied upon there is no answer forthcoming.

The minister has

been saying in this debate that he has been answering these very simple

questions. That is simply not true. I've looked at the Blues, and I've

listened to his answers today. It is simply not true. On an important

financial bill the Minister of Finance refuses to answer simple

questions in committee. He dodges them. He is figure-skating all around

them, but he doesn't answer the simple question. I've made mine one

that could scarcely be expressed more simply: can the people rely on

what you said on second reading? No answer to that very simple

question. That minister should resign. I think he presented the bill in

good faith, but he has been repudiated and humiliated by the Premier of

the province, who is playing the worst kind of confrontation politics

with labour. The Minister of Finance, if he has any respect for his

very distinguished position.... Ministers of Finance like Jones,

long ago in the province of British Columbia, would not have taken that

kind of thing. They would have said: "No, this is my bill. I'm not

going to be forced into the humiliating position where I can't even

answer simple questions as to whether the words I used can be relied

upon." You should not take that kind of thing. If you cannot answer

those simple questions you have no right to be Minister of Finance in

the province of British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: I'd

like to ask the minister a question: by what authority does he decide

that he has the right to refuse to answer questions in committee? I

wonder if the minister could advise the committee what his authority is

for refusing to answer questions in the committee.

There's another refusal to answer the question.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to raise a point of order with you now about this

blatant refusal to respond to legitimate questions in the House and

use, if I could, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia by one

George MacMinn. In this book, which was produced this past year, Mr.

MacMinn points out that under standing order 47.... This is the first

edition, under page 69,

chapter 4, "Questions, Standing Order 47." I

have to read the whole thing to get my point of order across to you,

Mr. Chairman. It says:

"

(1) Questions may be

placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the

Crown relating to public affairs; and from other members relating to

any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of

the House, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any

such question no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any fact

stated. And in answering such question the matter to which the same

refers shall not be debated, and the substance of all replies made by

ministers of the Crown to questions put to them shall be in writing and

handed to the Clerk of the House, and entered in the journals of the

session."

Part 2 says that if in the opinion of Mr. Speaker

one of these written questions is of such a nature to require a lengthy

reply, he can do certain things.

Part 3 says that if the question is of

such a nature that in the opinion of the minister it requires a return,

he can do that.

Further down on that page, after the

quotation of standing order 47, Mr. MacMinn refers to certain rules

applicable to questions with respect to standing order 25 — and that's

the oral question period. Following on pages 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75,

there is a whole list of positions with respect to the asking and the

answering of questions, all of which relate to standing order 47, which

confines itself specifically to questions on the order paper. No

reference whatever is made in standing order 47 or in any other

standing order or in any rules.... The rulings that are

cited relate to standing order 47, and there is no opportunity in

committee on a bill, especially a finance bill, for the minister to

refuse to answer. I submit that it's within the authority of the Chair,

given what I have put forward to you now, for the Chair to order the

minister to answer those questions, and I ask you to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The submission made by the member is an interesting one.

However,

it would be very difficult for the Chair, under standing order 47,

which the member refers to in dealing with questions on the order

paper, to transfer that same responsibility or authority to our

committee, during which time any member has the right to ask a question

of a minister of the Crown, but there is nothing that compels the

minister to respond to that particular question if the member being

asked the question decides not to answer.

MR. HOWARD:

Well, you and I disagree, Mr. Chairman. Standing order 47 is the one I

referred to. Standing order 25 relates to oral question period. Nowhere

in our standing orders is there a provision which permits the minister,

in committee on a bill, to refuse to answer a question. That's the

point I'm making, and the minister is refusing. The rulings that are

contained in the MacMinn edition of our proceedings, with respect to

that opportunity for a minister to refuse to answer a question, are all

under standing order 47 and all relate to written questions. I submit

that that is the only force that exists behind which a minister can

hide and refuse to answer a question. I submit to you that he is

required — he's obligated — to answer questions put to him in committee

on a bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To put the matter to rest,

hon. member, the Chair will rule that the minister cannot be required

by the Chair or by any standing order to answer a question in

committee. It has been a long-standing practice of this House that

questions may be taken.... Confusing this with question period, for

example, or questions on the order paper, the minister has the same

responsibility as at that time, and he may or may not answer the

questions which are placed on the order paper. The Chair cannot compel

an hon. member to answer a question from another hon. member in the

House.

MR. HOWARD: Then obviously I consider your ruling to be completely contrary to what the standing orders say, and it must be challenged.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is challenging the ruling of the Chair. There is no debate, hon. members.

[ Page 7577 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee the ruling of the Chair was challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Mussallem

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Davidson

Brummet

NAYS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 9.

MR. HOWARD: We have just witnessed complete denial of democracy today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member clearly is reflecting on a vote in the House, and I would ask him to return to

section 9.

MR. HOWARD:

Not the vote, Mr. Chairman, because if I were to do that I would follow

it up with a motion to rescind it. I am sure we would lose that because

of the arrogance of this government over here. That is what I am

talking about: a government and a Minister of Finance not content to

bring in one of the most insidious pieces of dictatorship legislation

that this Legislature has ever seen has just now stood up and supported

his right to refuse to answer questions about it. It is a heinous thing

to do.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Order!

MR. HOWARD: What is the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations gargling about? Did we interrupt your afternoon siesta?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We are on

section 9.

MR. HOWARD:

That is exactly what I was talking about, Mr. Chairman —

section 9.

Let's look at what it says. A member on the government's side obviously

didn't have the foggiest idea what this

section was all about when he

talked about regulations, because this section, which is the nuts and

bolts of this particular piece of dictatorship legislation, doesn't

talk about regulations at all. This is not the normal piece of

order-in-council stuff. This is not the opportunity to make law. This

is an executive council decision. It doesn't have to be published. It

doesn't have to be gazetted as orders-in-council have to. It doesn't

have to be written down and documented anywhere. as regulations have to

be under the Regulation Act. It doesn't have to be put in any form

whatever where the general public can see what has happened.

executive council decision, under this section, was engaged in and made

the other day by the Premier outside in the corridor. He is the

president of the executive council. The Premier didn't even have the

common decency and courtesy of normal human beings to come in the House

and make the statement. Instead, in his hysteria, outside in the

corridor for some ulterior purpose, he made an executive council

decision. He issued the guidelines outside, and now the poor Minister

of Finance has been caught in the position of misleading this House.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the member

opposite who has just taken his seat is accusing me of having misled

the House, and I would ask him to withdraw.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please hon. members. We are on a point of order. The minister

has found a remark made by the member for Skeena to be offensive to the

minister, and I would ask the member for Skeena if he would withdraw.

MR. HOWARD:

I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. Somehow or other that eggshell

sensitivity of the minister is so fragile that he can afford and enjoy

being trampled all over by the Premier, but upset at the very mild

suggestion that the Premier put him in the position of saying something

in this House, on his honour as a gentleman, which the Premier outside

in the corridor repudiated. That's what happened exactly, and the

minister feels upset about that. If he didn't mislead the House, what

did he do? He told this House something on his honour as a gentleman,

and the House accepted it. He stood in his place in this House and said

a certain thing, and the House, under the rules, is obliged to accept

his statement as being correct and factual. When I tried to use a word

to describe that statement of the minister, he got so excited about it

that he wanted me to withdraw. He felt it was incorrect and I did. But

the person he should be asking to withdraw statements is the Premier.

He shouldn't be coming into this House and asking hon. members here to

withdraw statements about misleading. If anybody has misled anybody,

it's the Premier — outside the House. He has not even the courage, the

intestinal integrity, to come in here and make the comment where he

could be questioned about it.

Interjection.

[ Page 7578 ]

MR. HOWARD:

Well, he didn't come in for the vote. He ducked the vote, the Premier

did. That's his choice, if he doesn't carry out his responsibilities in

that way.

The point I want to get to, Mr. Chairman, is the

Minister of Finance's absolute refusal to pay attention to one of the

basic tenets of democracy in the Legislature. He's clearly asking this

Legislature to give him some authority, to give the minister and the

executive council some authority. He won't tell us what authority he

wants. He wants the blank-cheque approach. He tells us it's 10 percent.

The Premier, outside, says no, it's 5 percent or less. Somebody in the

public service, a high government official, says today "Oh, no, it's

not 5 percent or 10 percent. It's somewhere between 8 and 14 percent."

With

those three conflicting statements, Mr. Chairman, I would submit to you

that the Minister of Finance, if he had any perception and

understanding of the dignity of our history in this parliamentary

system, would forthwith toss in the towel, quit and hand in his

resignation. For any minister to be so denigrated and humiliated by his

own Premier, the hit-and-run driver who runs out in the corridor to

humiliate the minister, because he doesn't want to stand by him and see

the embarrassment.... The minister sits here, gentle and calm,

proceeding along as if nothing had happened, making a mockery out of

the history we have in this Legislature, out of our parliamentary

system — a parliamentary system that people in another land fought for

and died for over the centuries, a parliamentary system that we

inherited without turning a wheel to do it, without struggling to

attain anything. Maybe that force of history and the depth of the

integrity of those people in the past is beyond the minister's

comprehension. If they were within it, he wouldn't have stood for a

moment to have his first minister go outside the House and humiliate

the minister himself.

What more can one say? He refuses to

answer questions. He wants supreme authority to issue guidelines, if he

hasn't done it already, not by way of regulation or order-in-council or

by the force of law, but simply by a telephone call or a whispered

conference in the corridor — telling nobody what they are or what they

are likely to be. He's asking for powers and authorities awesome in

nature.

Never before in the history of this Legislature, so

long as the province of B.C. has been in existence, has a government

come to the House and asked for such authority and power, for such

dictatorship authority. I used a word the other day describing a

political philosophy that was espoused and enunciated by the late

Benito Mussolini as being applicable to this particular piece of

legislation. I can not do otherwise than to say the same thing today. I

can see the minister sitting, chortling and enjoying it all. I suppose

if one enjoys the prospect of being a czar or a commissar with

authority over people in the public service to do with them as he

wishes, then that's fitting for someone who sold out his own party a

few years ago. It doesn't improve the stature of the minister in this

House; it doesn't improve the stature of the minister or his government

in the eyes of the public to use the feeble excuse of an election ploy

developed by the Kinsella-Heal crowd for the February 18 television

broadcast, and then transform it into a power grab — not to deal with

the public service, but simply to take unto itself greater and greater

authority. It's a most disgusting piece of legislation, and

section 9

is the most disgusting part of it.

MR. KING: Mr.

Chairman, I find it absolutely incredible that the minister is so

insensitive and so contemptuous of the rules of parliament that he sits

in stunned silence and refuses to answer and explain the legislation

which he has the duty to pilot through this Legislature. If the

minister is not prepared to answer, then the Legislature becomes a

redundant instrument; indeed democracy is tarnished to the point that

it's redundant for citizens throughout the length and breadth of this

province to elect representatives to come down here and debate the

wisdom or the weakness of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, that aspect has already been canvassed in

committee, and whether the minister is or is not replying is a matter

which has already been dealt with. I must ask the member to return to

the specifics of

section 9.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

I'm not reflecting on the vote; I am simply trying to persuade the

minister that he has an obligation to be forthright and forthcoming

with the Legislature. I'm quite aware of what the ruling was, and

although I violently disagree, I'm not reflecting on that aspect at

all. I am simply doing my best to persuade the minister that in the

best traditions of both democracy and parliamentary precedent he take

some notice of the need to explain the government's intentions rather

than simply ask for carte blanche, for blank-cheque legislation which

gives unrestricted power to the cabinet to sit in secrecy and to

develop guidelines which will then be enforced on a wide sector of

people in the province of British Columbia without debate, without any

intimation to those affected by it of what those guidelines may be, how

they're developed. This just smacks of the worst kind of tinpot

dictatorship, Mr. Chairman. I certainly am not prepared to allow the

minister to sit there and try to outwait the opposition in the hope

that we will tire and this kind of unacceptable, blatant

dictatorship-oriented legislation will pass the House.

Mr.

Chairman, maybe in an attempt to pry loose the minister's tongue I can

ask him this question: what is the minister's view of the applicability

section 9 in the event that an arbitrated settlement of any

collective agreement in the public sector takes place? Is it the

minister's intention that

section 9 will give the cabinet and their

commissioner the legal power to override an arbitrator's ruling in this

respect? I'd appreciate that answer from the minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I've not been on my feet for some little time. I

indicated earlier that I had answered generally the same question on a

number of occasions — and I think Hansard will show that — commencing with the member for Vancouver East earlier.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not true.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Well, a member across interjects, "Not true," but I have answered the

question. I was asked earlier if the remarks made in second reading

were still valid. I pointed out that if they were not I certainly would

not be here, because I would have been misleading the House.

Mr.

Chairman, I may not be answering the questions posed in this committee

by the members of the New Democratic Party to their political

satisfaction, but I am attempting to assist the committee and answer

those questions which are appropriate to this section. We've heard some

rhetoric on the

[ Page 7579 ]

other

side. We've heard the usual personal attacks. I want to stay on

section

9 for as long as is necessary, but I will not be bullied into answering

questions which have been answered before in this committee.

MR. HOWARD: Poor little fellow!

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Not poor little fellow at all. But bully tactics won't work in this

chamber. God save us if they ever did, Mr. Chairman. You speak about

democracy. You speak about accountability. One speaks about a variety

of things. I'm not satisfying them politically, but I am here to serve

the committee, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bullying works in cabinet.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. If one member speaks at a time it does

permit us to enter into a reasonable debate in this chamber.

MR. KING:

I was always under the impression that parliament had as its objective

free, democratic debate, certainly with a conflict and a clash of

ideas. That's the whole essence of parliament. But for the minister to

construe from that flow of free, democratic debate that he is being

bullied further displays the bunker mentality of this government. This

government is demanding unassailable powers in this bill without

explanation. They are demanding the right to preside over the economic

destiny of workers in this province without debate and without public

scrutiny and in the secrecy of a cabinet room. The minister has not

answered the questions pertaining to what his intentions are. What are

the levels of the guidelines? Is this bill going to override arbitrated

settlements? They're pure and simple questions. If the minister feels

that they are politically dangerous, that's not my fault.

The

reason I asked the last question regarding whether

section 9 overrides

arbitrated settlements is for a specific purpose. I'll explain it to

the minister. In his speech here the other day the Premier indicated

and, in fact, appealed to arbitrators to be cognizant of the government

s restraint program. A principle of industrial relations has always

been that governments do not attempt to interfere with the impartiality

of arbitrators or referees who are making adjudications. The Premier

said: "Mr. Arbitrator, you listen to the government. You arbitrate

according to our guidelines and our philosophy or else!"

What

kind of heavy-handed, all-embracing dictatorship do we have here to

make these kinds of statements outside the Legislature — and inside as

the Premier did — in total conflict with what we were told was the

purpose of this bill and the guidelines set? Then to sit there and

stonewall in mute, dumb silence is an insult to the Legislature and to

every citizen in this province.

Mr. Chairman, one of the

members down there who likes to think of himself as somewhat of a

maverick previously told the Premier to pull up his socks and start

listening to the people of the province or he might be impelled to

leave that coalition and sit as an independent. I respected the member

for that. It took some courage. If ever there was a time that the

Premier and this particular minister should pull up their socks and

develop some sensitivity to the people's interests and needs, to the

traditions of parliament and to ministerial responsibility to be

accountable, now is the time.

We're not trying to bully the

minister. I have nothing personal against the minister — in fact, I

seldom think of him. I have some feeling for him. I know that he's

embarrassed. I know that it's embarrassing and I know that it's

demeaning and I know that it's tough on one's self-image when he is cut

down from the lips of his own leader. When his own leader — the

president of the executive council, the Premier of the province — cuts

the ground out from under his Minister of Finance by appearing to give

the lie to the purpose and the intent of the bill, that must be pretty

traumatic. The minister's first obligation, above his partisan

politics, is to his ministerial responsibility and to the rules of

Parliament. He should be accountable, and he should answer the

questions that are put to him in good faith. They're not very difficult

questions, Mr. Minister, not very difficult at all.

What are

the guidelines? Are they, as the Premier stated on February 18, a basic

10 percent with provisions for escalation of 2 percent for productivity

and an additional 2 percent for historic relationships? Those were the

original criteria. That was the basis upon which this bill was

introduced into the Legislature. After its introduction, the Premier

said: "No, the ground rules have changed. The provisions will now be 5

percent, and in some cases less. In some cases, those guidelines will

result in a cut in existing salary standards." The question is not

whether we agree or disagree with those standards. The question is

simply: What are your intentions? What are the provisions?

When

the Social Credit Party was in opposition it would never have stood for

the New Democratic Party's passing blank-cheque legislation — never!

And they shouldn't have. The New Democratic Party government in the

early seventies never came before the House with a bill like this. It's

a blank cheque, an attempt to assume the most awesome, far-reaching

powers imaginable. It's a blank cheque to write their own ticket in the

secrecy of the cabinet chamber.

The issue is not whether we

agree or disagree with whatever level they establish. We debated that

in second reading. The issue is the right of people to know. It's

ironic that the minister himself got up yesterday and said that in fact

the parties to the bargaining have a right to know what the guidelines

are. It was uttered from his own mouth yesterday. Follow up, give

effect and give truth to your stated position, and answer the

questions. That's all we're asking. Perhaps the minister feels bullied

by that; if he can't stand the heat, he had better get out of the

kitchen. I suppose the radio didn't talk back to him too much when he

was on radio. Maybe he finds this institution, which has its origins in

the clash of ideas, not to his liking. That smacks of someone who

doesn't understand or relate to democratic free exchanges of debate in

the Legislature. Maybe he doesn't like it, Mr. Chairman, but we're not

prepared to surrender the traditions of this Legislature to the whim of

that minister or anyone else.

MR. LEGGATT: I want to

take the minister back again to

section 9: "The executive council shall

issue compensation stabilization guidelines to stabilize the

compensation plans of the public-sector employers and public-sector

employees." Under (a), it says: "a period of time, not to exceed 24

consecutive months, when the limitations on increases in compensation

are to apply...." Can the minister give us the dates of expiry for the

existing collective agreements on those employees who are affected by

this particular piece of legislation? I would hope the minister has

that information available. It would be useful for the House to know

how long

[ Page 7580 ]

this

24-month period is going to be. It could be a very long time if, for

example, a negotiated settlement has just taken place in any of these

bargaining units contemplated by the statute. Could the minister give

us some idea as to the dates of expiry with regard to collective

agreements covered under the provisions of the act?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I don't have those readily at hand, although obviously members would

know of some. It is July 31 in the case of the BCGEU. I can bring them

to the committee. The rest would be a matter of public record. I simply

don't have them immediately available to me. We could produce those

within a relatively short space of time.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'd appreciate seeing the dates, because I think there's a

misunderstanding on the part of the public that somehow this is a

24-month restraint bill. In fact, it could be a very much longer

restraint bill than 24 months. As I understand it — and the minister

can correct me if I'm wrong — the 24 months only applies to the expiry

of an existing contract; in other words, to "the period of time, not to

exceed 24 consecutive months, when the limitations on increases are to

apply to a public-sector employee or group of public-sector employees;

and (

b) methods for determining the dates when the period referred to

in paragraph (2) is to commence in relation to a particular public

sector employee or group of public sector employees." For example, if

you had any one of these groups — there are hundreds of groups under

the definition

section — with their contracts just expiring now, before

the guidelines are issued and the legislation is passed, then their new

contract will not be negotiated. Let's make an assumption that we had a

two-year contract negotiated and settled prior to the passage of the

act. This bill can have the effect of not coming into force for two

years from now, and therefore will apply over the next four-year

period. In other words, when you have a contract that has been

negotiated and settled at this point, is my

interpretation correct that

it is feasible that we could see this bill still attempting to control

wages in that particular bargaining unit three and four years down the

line?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

We are intruding to a certain extent into another

section of the bill

which comes later on. I would point out, however, under

section 9 that

the guidelines will apply to groups for no more than 24 consecutive

months. The member may have recognized that in his remarks just

concluded. Certainly they will not be in for more than 24 consecutive

months. The trigger date varies, of course. The balance of the question

really relates to another

section of the bill before the committee.

MR. LEGGATT:

The trigger date is at the discretion of the executive council,

according to this section. I assume this is in there so that the

trigger date can apply at the expiration of an existing contract, which

means that you don't have a two-year bill. You have a bill that could

be as long as four years to apply to any contract that may have

expired. I don't have the list of the contracts. That is why I asked

the minister to provide us with a list with those agreements that are

about to expire or have expired so that we have some idea.

Again,

I will put this scenario to you. If the municipal employees of my

constituency came to a collective agreement last week and that

collective agreement was for two years, those same employees are going

to be under control not for two years but for four years, because

they've got an agreement that will be legal — this is not retroactive

legislation — and this agreement will trigger a further two years down

the road. They're not looking at a two-year restraint program. They're

really looking at a four-year restraint program. What we are really

talking about is a four-year wage control bill against those particular

employees. If I am wrong I would be happy to sit and listen to the

minister explain where I've misinterpreted the section, but

section

9(1)(

b) says: "Methods for determining the dates when the period

referred to in paragraph (2) is to commence in relation to a particular

public-sector employee or group of public-sector employees."

This

bill doesn't start on any specific date. This bill gives the executive

council the power to trigger wage controls at whatever date in the

future they wish. Not now, but at some day in the future, because any

existing collective agreement will not be impacted until its expiry

date. We're not looking at anything temporary. We're looking at a

wage-control bill that can go on ad infinitum. Remember how easy it

will be for this government — if it is still in office, which is very

doubtful — to extend the two-year provisions in this bill. It doesn't

all expire at the same date. The expiry dates, as I read the bill, are

going to vary. There is no political pressure that will build up on the

expiration of the bill. It will mean they've chipped one off against

another, so that when one group's collective agreement expires,

suddenly they're all alone and the bill's triggered against them. Then,

instead of there being an expiry date two years down the road, you are

going to see different expiry dates in all these little collective

agreements that are all over the province. We are talking about

hospital workers, municipal workers, school-board workers and all of

them.

The major inequity in this bill is that it's

permanent. It's not a temporary bill. This bill is designed to be

permanent, because it doesn't have a single expiry date. If I've

misinterpreted it, I'll be happy to sit down and be corrected. We are

dealing with a discretionary section, a discretionary triggering

mechanism for the executive council. They don't have to trigger that

bill until they want to trigger it, and when they do trigger it, it's

for 24 months.

What we really have is not a temporary

restraint bill, but a permanent wage- control bill against the public

sector. It isn't a temporary end to collective bargaining in the public

sector. It's a permanent end to collective bargaining in the public

sector and it has been deliberately manipulated under the terms of this

bill to make sure that the expiry date of the controls program doesn't

come down on any particular date. So every time a collective agreement

expires — it may be a different date for various groups — they are then

caught.

Take one example, the BCGEU. We all know this one

expires on the 31st. Bargaining has now commenced in regard to the

BCGEU. They'll trigger the bill on July 31 against the BCGEU only, and

they'll trigger that bill against the BCGEU for two years. So that will

go to July 31, 1984. But if you had a group of hospital workers who

signed a contract last week, and that contract was for two years, that

contract goes on until 1984 and then the bill gets triggered for

another two years. So you're into 1986 and this wage control bill is

still oppressing public-service workers in 1986. Is that what you want?

Is that the intention of the bill? You want to

[ Page 7581 ]

control wages permanently. Do I hear you right? You want wage controls in the province of British Columbia.

I haven't heard the minister try to correct my

interpretation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You haven't sat down yet, Stu.

MR. LEGGATT: I will. I'll be happy to hear your

interpretation. I can't read it as anything else but a flexible triggering provision.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I can't respond when another member is on his feet, as all members know.

Speaking

specifically to

section 9, which is before the committee: again, the

guidelines will apply to any group for no longer than 24 consecutive

months. So it can't be a four-year or longer period. I reassure the

member.... He did ask that if he was incorrect would I please let him

know. I do so at this point.

The bill may stay on the books,

Mr. Chairman, but it becomes redundant for any particular group after

having been applied once under this section. I think the member spoke

of civic workers in his constituency.

MR. LEGGATT: As an example.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

As an example, of course. Whenever they come under

section 9 — and

we're speaking only of

section 9 in this respect — they are affected by

it for those 24 months. The legislation may remain, but it can't

trigger again for the same group, under the same conditions or terms.

If I have not satisfactorily answered the member's question, I'll be happy to attempt to take it a little further.

Obviously

what applies in the bill now applies in terms of the collective

bargaining process as we know it. Because there are always going to be

trigger dates — expiry of contracts — so it would be impossible to.... At least in all the discussions we held in preparing this

legislation, and the many discussions which took place, you can't

select a single day in a single year and say: this is it for all

groups. That, I think, is an important point. So yes, we will have

various groups of employees and employers moving through the effects of

the legislation over a considerable length of time.

MR. LEGGATT:

What the minister is really describing is a scenario for chaos in terms

of bargaining between various units. You're going to have some groups

of employees who are under the control mechanism and some who are not.

And the period will be a long period. The idea that everybody's

suddenly facing a 24-month control just isn't there. The result will be

that you're going to have municipal workers, perhaps having signed a

contract, suddenly cut back two years from now, or a year and a half

from now. With inflation, God knows what's going to happen then. But

you're not talking about a two-year program. You're talking about a

program that will influence bargaining right up until at least the

expiry of the contract. It goes seven years. It depends on which

bargaining unit you are talking about. You are opening an unnecessary

Pandora's box. We've had a good deal to say about the way labour

relations is being poisoned in this province as a result of this bill.

It is not just being poisoned; it is being made totally chaotic to

those who try to bring some rationalism and some order into the

bargaining process.

The surprising thing for many of us is

this document called the "Strike Contingency Manual," prepared on

February 9, 1982. It is not long, and I assume it was prepared at

approximately the same time a decision was made by the executive

council and by the Premier to bring in this wage control program. I

know the minister is going to say: "This is simply a case of trying to

meet every contingency." This document says a lot more than that. This

document tells us a lot about the attitude of this government toward

labour relations. I think that the most significant thing is that the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) himself didn't have his

sensibilities exposed to this document. I guess they thought it was a

bit too rough for the Minister of Labour to even glance through what

was planned in the event of a public-service strike. I do think it is

worthwhile to examine an attitude — I would say an anti-worker bias —

displayed throughout this document. I might have expected to see this

from some of the more primitive cotton mill owners in the southern

United States. What is the name of the outfit? J.P. Stevens might have

authored this. I wouldn't have been surprised to see J.P. Stevens

having authored this document. But for a government that purports to

represent all the people of the province, that has a responsibility to

all the people of the province, to produce this kind of document speaks

volumes about its attitude to labour relations and to the workers of

the province. It is a sad day.

We all mutually worry about

the atmosphere of confrontation that may have developed in the past. A

good many of us were welcoming a slight change, hoping that maybe there

was a climate in labour relations that was improving. There was a

maturing process going on. This bill and this strike contingency manual

instruction will set labour relations back a long way. Let's just read

a bit of this. It makes very interesting reading.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the committee still must remind all members that we are on

section 9. If the member can relate the comments to

section 9 the

committee will be well served.

MR. LEGGATT: I will be

happy to.

Section 9 is the key

section in the Compensation

Stabilization Act, and in the event that the guidelines — that

apparently we don't know yet, or aren't official yet, or we don't have

any information about yet — are so ruthless that they result in a

strike in the public sector, there is nothing more relevant to this

section than the "Strike Contingency Manual." The two are completely

connected.

We are looking at the development of what they

call "communications and reporting structure." On page 12: "To

accomplish this it is necessary to establish a bureau operation centre

and for each ministry a headquarters operation centre and, depending on

the size of an organization, a number of regional and local work-site

operation centres." Get this, under (b): "to be equipped with

telephones and, where possible, a conference telephone and other means

of communication such as Telex." The communications setup is ready to

go for strikebreaking. "(

c) Maintain a list of names, home and office

telephone numbers and addresses of all the excluded employees manning

the operations."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, we are on

section 9. We are in committee. Debate must be relevant to the

section before us.

[ Page 7582 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I find it hard not to find this relevant to

section 9(1).

Surely when we're debating the detail of

section 9(1), which is

the guideline section, and what the guidelines are to be, that's

completely related to the question of whether or not we're going to

have labour peace. We are now told that the guidelines could be as low

as 5 percent. But if the guidelines come in at those kinds of figures,

we are talking about what we do in the event of a public-service

strike. We know what this government is going to do in the event of a

public-service strike. They put it in black and white: they're going to

do what they can to break that strike. That's related to

section 9.

don't know whether you made a ruling on this, Mr. Chairman. I would be

happy to abide by your ruling, but I think you've just given a couple

of warnings to me that I am perhaps straying away from

section 9(1).

I'm not arguing with the Chair; I'm just suggesting to the Chair that

the two are completely related. I would be very surprised if you ruled

that I was unable to refer to the strike contingency manual in debating

the provisions of

section 9(1),

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not mentioned in this section.

MR. LEGGATT: Guidelines?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The guidelines are, of course. We must be relevant to the

section the

committee is debating. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of the rules

of committee debate.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I

have a couple of other questions I'd like to ask the minister. I'm

wondering, in developing the guidelines — and surely the minister was

consulted somewhere down the line as to what the ultimate guidelines

were going to be — whether any study was done as to the impact in terms

of the public-sector unions of the guidelines that were being brought

down. Was expert advice sought in the labour relations field to

determine whether the guidelines would promote labour peace, and were

recommendations made as to which guidelines would and which wouldn't?

In other words, was there a relationship between attempting to prevent

a public-service strike...? Was the consultation and advice simply

on the basis of what we can do with the numbers financially? I want to

know whether any study was done in relation to labour peace.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, at the outset of his remarks in this latest exchange, I

believe the hon. member used the phrase, "If this is what you propose

to do, you're setting the stage for chaos," or "It's a chaos scenario,"

or something such as that. In order to answer him more effectively, I

would have to ask the member if he is suggesting that we interfere with

existing agreements, because that is clearly the alternative. Mr.

Chairman, I have some difficulty with that. The member may want to

elaborate when he again takes his place in debate.

I think

that one point which has not been mentioned and which would certainly

be relevant to

section 9 is that we undertook extensive consultation

after February 18. We invited any group or individual which felt itself

affected or likely to be affected by the Premier's announcement on this

topic to submit briefs. We did not receive a large volume of briefs,

but we received a good number. The precise number escapes my memory at

the moment, but it was something just in excess of 30. Many of them

were very well thought out, and they were from all parts of the

province and from both sides of the question in terms of employers and

employee groups. Those briefs were then taken into account in the

preparation of the legislation. We heard from trade unions, from

municipalities through the Union of B.C. Municipalities, from hospital

employers and employee groups, from academics and from those who are in

industrial relations.

The member has raised some interesting

points this afternoon, but I suggest that unless I have misunderstood

him, the alternative to the course of action which we selected with

respect to the guidelines, and therefore with respect to a number of

other parts of the legislation, would indeed produce chaos and, I

think, would produce labour war. We did not seek that, and we do not

seek that now. We certainly did not want to interfere with existing

agreements and contracts. If I've misunderstood the member, then I will

happily acknowledge that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, the minister hasn't misunderstood. I have to repeat the

point that was made yesterday: by unnecessarily interfering in the free

collective bargaining process, he is creating chaos. He would probably

have been more honest to do his chaos all at once and lay the hammer

down and be honest about it, instead of dropping the torture as the

contracts expire one at a time. He's interfering with the free

collective bargaining process, anyway. So he might as well do it with

the contracts as they exist rather than when they expire, because it is

going to have the same impact on labour relations.

The

rationale, of course — and I know the minister is not going to listen

very hard to this — is that he's got an unnecessary piece of

legislation, a piece of legislation that is politically inspired, has

no impact on inflation and is not going to make any significant

difference. He could have simply had the good judgment to persuade the

Premier to withdraw this bill — take it away. It's a bill that will

corrode labour relations for the next 20 years in this province. He

could have had the bill withdrawn, and the courage, if he thought there

was going to be some slight imbalance in this budget, to present a

budget to this House which would have met the costs of government. It

isn't a complicated question; it's a simple question. But this

government and this minister decided not to take the courageous step

and the right step, and balance his budget on the basis of reasonable

projections for the public service. Instead, they have decided to ride

it out on the backs of public servants. So it simply isn't logical for

the minister to rise in his place and accuse people on this side of the

House of suggesting that this bill would be even more chaotic if it

came down all at once.

Our position is very clear. We think

the bill shouldn't be in front of the House; we think the bill should

be withdrawn. The minister has the problem as to how he imposes the

bill, but I don't want him to mislead the province of British Columbia

that somehow the impact of this bill is only for two years. It's going

to be for four years and more from the date that this House has the

bill rammed down its throat, which is what's going to happen. We're

talking a long way down the road. This bill is not a two-year bill.

This is a bill which will see public-sector employees — your friends,

your neighbours — under wage controls for the foreseeable future.

[ Page 7583 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I've indicated that there was material available with

respect to the expiry of contracts and I indicated also that this is

public information. The usual calendar from the Ministry of Labour has

been published. It may assist the committee if I just touch briefly on

some collective agreements which expire in 1982. I would give just a

few; I don't propose to go through a long list — if you deem this

relevant under this section, and I believe it is, Mr. Chairman.

These

are for 500 employees or more; these are the larger ones. This document

is dealing with all of 1982: B.C. Buildings Corporation, with 1,095 —

July 31; the BCGEU master and its components we spoke of and all know;

provincial government professional employees, with some 1,100 —

December 31; B.C. nurses and registered psychiatric nurses, with some

2,776 — December 31, 1982; British Columbia Railway's council of trade

unions, with 2,048 — January 31, 1982; school trustees, with almost

30,000 teachers, would be well known to all members of the committee;

Health Labour Relations, we're aware of, with some 11,779 nurses —

March 31. Then simply moving down the list to give the member a feeling

for others: under long-term care, the Health Labour Relations

Association with HEU