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 27, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7807 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 40). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

section 2 (continued) –– 7807

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Mitchell

Division

On the title –– 7809

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Third reading –– 7811

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 36). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7811

Mr. Stupich –– 7811

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7811

Assessment Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 6). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7811

Mr. Stupich –– 7812

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7812

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

section 9 (continued) –– 7812

Mr. Barber

Division

section 17 –– 7813

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Appendix –– 7818

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me

in welcoming in the gallery today a group of 33 grade 7 students from

Kitwanga Elementary School.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 40.

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 2.

MR. LEGGATT:

The point I was addressing yesterday, Mr. Chairman, was the question of

per capita debt in the province of British Columbia. The Hydro share of

provincial debt is by far the largest debt burden in the province of

British Columbia. When you look at figures for 1982 borrowing, for

example, you're looking at figures like $1 billion for B.C. Hydro, $343

million in education, $51 million under UTA and Transpo '86, and $176

million elsewhere. That gives us, as of March of this year, additional

borrowings of $1.6 billion. The Hydro borrowing figures are from the

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. We now are looking at a

provincial debt of $9,627,400,000. Divided by the population of the

province of British Columbia, each and every citizen in this province

has a provincial debt burden of $3,850. Yesterday I mentioned this in

connection with the federal debt; I'm afraid I got carried away and my

figures were somewhat in error, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: As usual.

MR. LEGGATT: As usual. And I erred on the wrong side. No one was listening yesterday, nor are they today.

The

present situation is that the federal debt for each and every citizen

in Canada is $3,000 per capita. We are looking at a debt of

approximately $7,000 per capita....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Including the CN?

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, the Crown debt is included. We estimate the federal Crown debt is running at about $50 billion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Have you added in what the CBC loses in lawsuits?

MR. LEGGATT: Well, if the recipients of all that tax largess would only

refund the money, the CBC would be in a lot better shape. You've got to

have a little charity in your soul about these things. You can't just keep

blaming the CBC. You've got to give them some money back; let them operate.

any, event, the amount of provincial debt and federal debt is far too

high. But the theory that somehow all of the debt is federal debt

doesn't bear any kind of close examination. The per capita national

debt and the per capita British Columbia provincial debt are running at

about the same amount: for the citizens of British Columbia it's about

$3,800 per capita; federally it's between $3,000 and $4,000. That's a

large problem for our children and for our children's children.

should take this whole borrowing question a little more seriously than

we have because, in a future where there may not be as much to go

around, we have mortgaged the future for the present. It may be all

right for us in this chamber, and perhaps for a good number of the

people we represent, but it's not all right for our children and our

children's children, who are going to find it increasingly difficult to

pay that debt in the future, because the resources will not be there.

In an era of potential scarcity, it's time to have a look at the way we

go about financing the present by charging the children with those

costs in the future.

This government has been one of the

worst in the history of British Columbia in adding that debt to our

children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. It has

largely been the result of their failure to control B.C. Hydro, of

their failure to do anything but appoint their political friends to run

B.C. Hydro, thereby having no clout and no influence over its

direction. As long as you have the Bob Bonners of this world making

those kinds of decisions, you're not going to have any change in the

philosophy, of B.C. Hydro. If you look at that operation in terms of

bringing it under control....

The member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) sponsored and chaired a very excellent report around Hydro

financing and recommended to this House that we divide Hydro into four

component parts. I know he's going to follow me on this and I'll

welcome very much his excellent critique of the management and

operation of that powerful corporation that affects us all — so

adversely, I might say, from time to time. The recommendation to the

Crown corporations committee to break up Hydro was a good

recommendation. It should be in four component parts.

We've

then got to look at the way we are borrowing money for Hydro at

incredible levels, charging the future, 40 percent of every electrical

bill in the province is going to service the debt of Hydro. This is a

burden around our necks, but it's time we started rethinking. It's time

we looked at the conserver society. It's time we looked at alternative

ways of producing energy, rather than simply borrowing money at

incredibly high interest rates — a charge on the future. The cost of

that power is too high.

No one raises the environmental

costs of a new dam such as the loss of fishing and hunting. The loss of

general enjoyment of the landscape is very high, indeed, in terms of

Hydro's operation. It's time we had another look at the debt structure

of Hydro. It's the most in-debt corporation. It is burdening the people

of British Columbia to a degree that must come to an end.

MR. MITCHELL:

I thought the minister might be prepared to answer some of the

statements made by the previous speaker. I remember my last attempt to

enter into this debate, and the various side issues that developed into

my being out of order. I would like to make sure I'm in order. I

believe this

[ Page 7808 ]

borrowing

bill, if I'm correct, deals with borrowing for the potential Hat Creek

and Murphy Creek hydro developments. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? I

believe that is in the borrowing bill, according to the Blues and the

minister. I would like to confine my remarks to that type of

development so you don't rule me out of order again. I won't use that

word that makes the minister jump up and down. He reminds me of the dog

who started to salivate when the bell rang, so I won't mention that

word.

It's really important that we do follow in the lines

of the previous speaker, look at where we are going and other

alternatives for providing power to British Columbia, and replace this

enormous debt that we are putting on the people of British Columbia.

Though this particular bill is only for $1.1 billion, for me $1.1

billion is still a lot of money. We should look at it in the context of

what the final cost of these particular projects is going to be. Are

they really needed, can we afford them at this time, and can we replace

more power for a lot less money?

The Murphy Creek

development is not going to come on stream until 1989, and it's going

to produce something like 400,000 kilowatt-hours. It's going to cost us

$1.2 billion. When you look at the Hat Creek development — and we are

still pouring money into that, even though the environmentalists

periodically raise a lot of flak over it — the government says: "Well,

we're really not committed to Hat Creek. We might not be going ahead

with it." But we're still pouring millions and millions of dollars into

that project. What is it going to produce? It is going to produce two

million kilowatt-hours once it comes on stream. But what is it going to

cost us? It is going to cost us in the neighbourhood of $5 billion, and

it's not going to come on stream until 1990. We're not going to get

into the Site C development, which will come on in 1987 and cost

another $2.7 billion, but we're looking at all this investment to

produce less than 3.3 million kilowatt-hours.

I think we

have to look at alternative sources of power that we in British

Columbia have invested a lot of money in and can bring back to British

Columbia. I think that we should study the development that took place

in the Columbia River. Let's go over some of the history of the

Columbia River development, because this is, I think, the key to

development in British Columbia. When you look at....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL:

I'm right into it, because we're replacing this power to save the

billions of dollars that we are wasting. The Columbia River, as you

know, Mr. Chairman — you have gone over all the figures — was estimated

to cost us $650 million. In fact, every one of us in this House knows

that it cost the province of British Columbia $1.2 billion. In 1971-72,

over $600 million was sucked out of the economy of British Columbia to

pay off the massive debts and overruns that were caused by the previous

Social Credit government.

British Columbians were the key to that Columbia River Treaty. We developed

the three dams on the Columbia River, which produced over nine million kilowatts

on the American side of the border. As the minister is well aware, we have an

agreement that 50 percent of that power will be returned to British Columbia.

We have to give the American government ten years' notice that we want that

power back, because we in our wisdom, and in the previous Social Credit government's

wisdom, decided to sell that power for something like $485 million. They decided

to sell 4.5 million kilowatt hours for around — let me get my figures straight

because the minister may say that I'm out of order — $485 million. The province

of British Columbia cannot afford to add $1 billion in debt charges. These are

the final figures we are talking about for Hat Creek and Murphy Creek. We are

prepared to add $1 billion a year in debt charges to produce around two million

kilowatt hours.

can give the Americans the ten-year notice next year that we want to

recover the 4.5 million kilowatt hours that are British Columbia's

share of the Columbia River development. We can recover that. We could

have it shipped back to British Columbia far more cheaply than pouring

out the billion of dollars that this bill is a part of, producing more

power at an excessive cost when we in this province are talking

restraint. I know that restraint is not something that you look at just

for this year or next year. We have to look at it for the economic

development of this province for a number of years — Mr. Chairman, I

won't say that word, but for a number of years ahead.

have to invest our money wisely, and we have to be prepared to tell the

Americans that we want this 4.5 million kilowatts back in British

Columbia to create the jobs for British Columbians. That power, as you

know, is creating employment for five aluminum plants on the American

side of the border, and they are using cheap British Columbia power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to lose the money?

MR. MITCHELL:

We want jobs here. To the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), we want jobs

in British Columbia. We want development in British Columbia. We don't

want the massive debt that this government is sending us into.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I won't say to the member for Omineca what the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said to him

at the bottom of his letter, according to the paper, but I would ask

him to look at that letter, and when he stands he can tell the minister

what he thought of that note. Again, if you want to get up and talk

about Hydro, you get up and talk about it.

Mr. Speaker, this

province cannot afford to keep adding another billion dollars a year in

debt to the taxpayers. The taxpayers are subsidizing this, and the

money is being sucked out of the economy to create jobs on the American

side of the border.

I'm saying that we have the right to

claim that power back. We can give the ten-year notice to get that 4.5

million kilowatt-hours of power back to British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Turn out the lights for ten years.

MR. MITCHELL:

We don't have to turn out the lights. We have the power, but we don't

have to go ahead, because this power is not coming on stream until

nearly the time that the power is needed. This is what I'm saying. The

previous Social Credit government made a mess of industrial development

in British Columbia. For some unknown reason, this present Social

Credit government are afraid to rock the boat. They don't want to tell

the truth and say there was a mess, and they're not prepared to do the

long-range planning that is

[ Page 7809 ]

needed to give the notice to start preparing for the return of that power to British Columbia.

on this side of the House believe in economic development. We believe

in producing jobs in British Columbia, because our constituency is

working people who need jobs. But we don't need the debt that this

Hydro is putting the people of British Columbia in. We don't need the

waste. We don't need the ridiculous planning. Every year that I have

sat in this House we have brought in another increase in the Hydro

borrowing, another $1 billion, another $1.5 billion, another $1.1

billion. Every year it's going up. We're getting to the point now that

we're paying $1 billion a year just to service it if all these plans

come on stream. We don't need it. We can't afford it. I say seriously

to the minister: in his department we should start seriously looking

down the road. Ten years is a very short time in the development of any

province. We should look down the road to say: are we going to return

this power to B.C.? Can we do it at a lot cheaper rate than we are

doing it today? Is it going to cost less to build transmission lines to

return it to B.C. than the massive dams, the flooding, the destruction

of millions of acres in British Columbia will cost?

I say

this to the minister, not from a political point of view, not only to

arouse him, not only to get him mad, not only to turn him on. We in

British Columbia must look at that. We must look at it because the

responsibility doesn't lie in one person or in one party, but in the

thoughts of the 2.5 million people who live here, vote here, and pay

the taxes, and those who are going to come into it. If we are going to

make this the beautiful province we know it is and produce jobs and

security, we can't afford to keep sucking money out of the economy that

can be used for creating secondary industry, a merchant navy and the

various other forms of employment. I know you'll rule me out of order

if I mention them, because they're not in this particular bill and are

not directly connected to the Murphy dam or the Hat Creek thermal

development.

The overall approach we're taking is wrong. We

would all like fancy houses, but we all live within our income. If we

can recycle something that we own or reclaim a debt or something that

is needed from our friends.... We all call in these debts. This is not

a debt; this is an agreement that British Columbia made. The Americans

wouldn't hesitate to claim that power back. No other person who has an

agreement would continue to be ripped off like British Columbia. Under

the leadership of Social Credit in the previous government we were

ripped off, out shuffled and out-dealt. We didn't look ahead. We didn't

have faith in British Columbia. We gave those 4.5 million kilowatt

hours away for $485 million, and now we're trying to replace it at the

cost of another $9 billion to $10 billion.

To use the

example of what happened when the Columbia River was developed, it was

going to be developed for $650 million, but it cost the people of

British Columbia $1.2 billion. For that $485 million, we gave away 4.5

million kilowatt hours. And now Hydro is saying that they want to

replace 3 to 3.5 million kilowatt hours, but it's going to cost us $9

billion to $10 billion. I don't think we can afford that cost. We have

to look ahead. We have to be prepared to plan for that power coming

back to B.C. It's going to save every taxpayer and voter an awful lot

of money that we can use to develop into secondary industry in British

Columbia to create jobs for the people of this province.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 24

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On the title.

MR. HOWARD:

I think the title is inaccurate. What this bill should be called is the

Debt Drug Dependency Act. Like anybody dependent on drugs, it needs a

fix from time to time in the form of debt. The minister is the biggest

pusher in the country in that regard.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I would like to defend the title as it stands. It is a correct title

for the bill. I just want to remind the House that on the matter of

debt financing for B.C. Hydro, there was a petition circulating in the

Kootenay area not too long ago asking that two projects, the

Keenleyside dam and the Murphy Creek Dam, be pushed ahead in order to

create employment in that area. There were some interesting people who

signed that petition. I wonder whether the member for Esquimalt, who

spoke earlier in the debate, had the chance to speak with some of

his....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this on the title?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Yes, I'm on the title, so that we can understand that this title is

correct. I would just like to name some of the people who agree that

the bill should be called....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. I regret that while the minister may wish

to impart some information, it is not an appropriate time. It could

very well be more appropriate at a later time, such as estimates.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Obviously the debate about the changing of the title's name was in

order because you allowed that debate to continue. I would just like to

[ Page 7810 ]

suggest

that the title should be kept as it is and not changed, because there

are many other people who agree with me and they have signed this

petition asking for debt for B.C. Hydro. They include people like Sid

Parker, MP; Jim Manly, MP; Margaret Mitchell, MP; Nelson Riis, MP;

Svend Robinson, MP; Raymond Skelly, MP; and Lorne Nicolson, MLA. At an

appropriate time I'd be happy to make a copy of this available for

tabling in the House.

MR. HOWARD: I want to applaud

all those members who signed that petition. It was the proper thing to

do. You will also notice, if you ask any of those people whose names he

read out who signed the petition, that they would also sign a petition

to eliminate B.C. Hydro from being forced further and further into

debt. That is the key we are talking about here. The people who signed

that petition....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: If we could have a little bit of silence from Bolshevik Bill over there, maybe we could listen to something.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. HOWARD:

There is Bolshevik Bill offending the Chair again, Mr. Chairman. If I

were you I would ask the Premier to leave the chamber. He refuses to

pay attention to your edicts to quit chattering.

The people

who signed that petition know full well that this government has an

almost incestuous relationship with Bob Bonner and B.C. Hydro. They

know that B.C. Hydro squanders hundreds of millions of dollars

inappropriately. If you were to take the money that B.C. Hydro

squanders on its head office mismanagement and applied the savings, you

could build those projects which the minister referred to without going

one single penny into debt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD:

Listen to them chortle now that we tell them how they've blown the

economy of this province out of all proportion, how they've mismanaged

the government and how they've mismanaged Hydro. But that's a fact of

life. By saving money within Hydro, by eliminating a quarter of the

clods who work in that head office and by eliminating the squandering

of public funds at the administration and engineering level, you could

pay for many a project. The problem is that the Premier doesn't have

that thing called intelligence and guts — guts to be able to tell Hydro

how to run things.

We also know that there is something in

the neighbourhood of a $400 million Columbia River loss involved in all

this. That's got to be paid for. Untold millions of dollars; that's

right.

Yes, those people who signed that petition

should be congratulated; and I do that. The people who need to be

condemned are people like 14-million-dollar McClelland over there, who

blew that much on the heroin treatment program. That's indicative of

the type of management we have of the affairs of this province. When I

listen to that kind of tripe from the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources and to his explanations of things, I realize that

he's the guy who embarked upon a heroin treatment program, squandering

$14 million of the taxpayers' money. He said in this House that if it

was shown that the heroin treatment program didn't work, he'd be the

first to resign over it — and he's still here.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Be seated, please, hon. members. Very clearly the Chair

has allowed not only the minister but also the member for Skeena to

stray not only from the title and from the

section but indeed into

second reading. The minister was permitted to carry that debate beyond

the scope; the member for Skeena was allowed in response to carry that

debate beyond the scope. That will end the beyond-the-scope discussion

on the title.

Also, I will read from the eighteenth edition

of Sir Erskine May, page 519: "The title can only be amended if the

bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment." Hon.

members, no such amendment has taken place; thus the title discussion

is not appropriate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would just

reflect very briefly on the comment that the member made relating to

the congratulation of the people who signed this petition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, I had hoped that the Chair had made the matter very clear

that discussion at this stage will be limited to the title. We will not

enter into debate which was canvassed in second reading. The Chair will

simply not permit that debate to take place. That, hon. members, ends

the discussion.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the minister.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I seek your guidance — simply to correct a statement or an omission that I made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Well, I'm making a point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the point that the

member made congratulating the people who had signed this petition. I

just want to make a correction, Mr. Chairman. The MLA for the area, Mr.

D'Arcy, refused to sign the petition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, of course the title is debatable, as is every

section of

every bill. I certainly respect your cautioning, sir, about the scope

of what might be permitted on this section, as with any other. You have

correctly pointed out from Sir Erskine May that it would be

inappropriate to amend the title, but that the members have an

opportunity to vote for or against the title as they wish. It

[ Page

7811 ]

could well be that a division takes place on whether or not this is a suitable title for the bill.

my opinion, Mr. Chairman, only a fool would question the title and, of

course, it's been my premise that we have had tremendous foolishness on

repeated occasions from the members opposite. In speaking to the

appropriateness of the title and the inappropriateness of voting

against the title, I certainly want to amend publicly some of the

opinions I have held about the New Democratic Party.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Clearly the minister is now straying from the title. I

will instruct the minister to either return to the title or to take his

place so that the bill can be completed.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Certainly, Mr. Chairman. What I'm trying to determine here from the

course of the debate is whether or not the position that this title is

an unsuitable one is a position which represents the New Democratic

Party as a whole, the New Democratic Party as a caucus here...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER:

...or some members of that caucus. Surely the debate can explore that

particular facet. I've said that only fools would be against it, and

the question is are they all fools, is it just some of them who are

here in the caucus, or is it the whole party? What I was prepared to

amend, Mr. Chairman, was that they aren't all fools, because some of

them signed that petition. That just leaves us wondering whether all of

them who are here in that caucus are fools or just some — just the

supporters of the leader. Are they the fools or are all of them fools?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Clearly now the Chair will exercise its

prerogative and instruct the member to cease the debate and take his

place.

HON. MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Chairman, may we ask...?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The matter is closed, hon. member. The Chair has ruled that the member

now is clearly in breach of the standing orders of the House, and I

instruct the member to take his place.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 40, Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 36, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill containing some 33 sections, a number of

which are not related one to the other. I look for direction from other

hon. members. Is it the wish of the House that I proceed through second

reading, or is it felt that the debate would be more appropriate in

committee?

It is a relatively typical bill dealing with a

number of statutes which require minor amendments, and I have no

indication, Mr. Speaker.... Therefore I would point out that,

obviously, there could be and would be debate in committee stage of

Bill 36. I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Mr.

Speaker. we agree with the minister's summation. I suppose if there is

any principle running through this legislation, it's the one spelled

with "al" rather than "le." It doubles the minimum fines in several

areas, and in other areas increases the borrowing power for Crown

corporations. That's really the principle of the bill, but we'll

support the bill at this stage.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo, and move second reading of Bill 36.

Motion approved.

Bill

36, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS:

This bill was introduced in the last weeks of 1981, and contains two

aspects which will be of interest to members. The amendment to

section

26 of the Assessment Amendment Act would allow the Minister of Finance

to set for any school district a residential assessment ratio for land

and improvements different to the general residential ratio established

for other districts. The assessment ratio, as members know, is the

percentage of actual value used in determining assessed value.

This

amendment is before us to permit us to phase in rapidly increasing

residential property values. The phase-in procedure was recommended in

the school taxation report presented by my colleague the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) as a means of dampening the immediate effect

of rapid increases in market values in particular school districts. It

is a way of targeting relief to those areas most particularly requiring

it.

For 1981, as members know, the residential assessment

ratio was reduced from 14.5 percent to 11 percent. Although this

adjustment was generally appropriate for Vancouver and other urban

areas, it caused problems for a number of municipalities, and therefore

taxpayers, outside the lower mainland. If the phase-in option had been

available, the general residential ratio could have been adjusted

marginally to, as an

[ Page

7812 ]

example, perhaps 13.5 percent, with a more

substantial reduction allowed for Vancouver and a few other school

districts. It is not the intention of this amendment to allow permanent

differences in residential assessment ratios between school districts,

even though this would have been possible under the proposed

legislative wording. The phase-in objective would ensure that

variations from the general ratio would be temporary.

Non-residential

property will not benefit from this phase-in procedure. The regional

variations in property value escalations are not thought to be as

serious as those for residential purposes. If variable residential

assessment ratios are set for school purposes, then municipalities will

not have the option of adopting the uniform ratio for their own, or

municipal, purposes.

The amendment would become law on

proclamation. Variable ratios, of course, are not capable of being used

for the 1982 assessment year. Secondly, an amendment is required to

validate the reduction in the residential assessment ratio to 11

percent for class 1 (residential) and class 8 (seasonal, resort,

recreational and fraternal organization) properties. An initial order

was passed in 1980, reducing the ratio from 14.5 percent to 13 percent.

Subsequently, by order-in-council, the ratio was further reduced to 11

percent. Enactment of this amendment by the House in due course will

prevent any uncertainty with respect to the 1981 taxation rolls.

With those comments with respect to Bill 6, I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH:

The opposition did express opposition to the principle, when it was

first brought in by the government, that the percentage would be

subject to annual review by cabinet, rather than being reviewed here in

the Legislature. We didn't see any reason then, and don't see any

reason now, why these percentages could not be discussed in the

Legislature when the minister would have an opportunity to explain why

the changes were being made, why they were being set at the levels they

were, and also so the public generally would know that this kind of

thing was being discussed openly. As it is, the government will

prevailed. The decisions are made in a cabinet room. Now the cabinet is

going to have more flexibility in its application of property taxes.

Although we're really talking about the percentages of the assessment

rate here, it all adds up to the amount of property tax that's going to

be paid by residential property owners.

We're opposed to the

idea that this is done in the cabinet room rather than in the open

arena of the Legislature. But as the minister has said in answer to

other concerns we've expressed, we may well be opposed, but the

government wants to do it this way, and the government will will

prevail. It will prevail in this instance, but we're still opposed to

the idea of making the decisions behind closed cabinet doors.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I accept the essence of the comment made by the hon.

member for Nanaimo. However, in a situation where property values are

rising and falling at a rather dramatic rate — and that is perhaps an

understatement when we see what happened in Vancouver particularly, and

in Greater Victoria and other parts of the province — I think logic

suggests that the government of the day have the opportunity to examine

at the latest possible moment in the year preceding the assessment year

in question, in order to determine which classes of property may have

experienced a significant change or little change in either direction.

I think none on this side would disagree with the principle of

attempting to set the ratios by the Legislature, but I frankly don't

think that is possible. It is a decision which must be taken by elected

people at the provincial level at the latest possible moment, when all

available information is before them, and that might not coincide with

the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

I don't argue strenuously with the point made by the member. But I question the practicality of that which he has advanced.

I move second reading of Bill 6.

Motion approved.

Bill

6, Assessment Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a

committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 9.

MR. BARBER:

The guidelines published by the minister yesterday indicated for the

first time in writing that certain contracts would, as far as the

application of wage controls is concerned, exceed 24 months in

consecutive obligation. This is not consistent with what the minister

told us on the last occasion we debated this, and I wonder if he could

clarify. I don't have the documents in front of me; we've just sent out

for them. However, as I recall, the second to last paragraph on the

front page of that document indicated that certain contracts will be

covered and governed by this

section and by the act generally for a

period exceeding 24 consecutive months. Could the minister tell us why

this apparent change in policy, which contracts specifically he's

referring to, and what other changes along similar lines we might

anticipate with the publication of the next guidelines?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, this would be a more appropriate debate under the

section

later in the bill dealing with regulations, inasmuch as under the

guidelines that are dealt with in

section 9, the parties would be

subject to the program for a maximum of 24 months. The extension

possibility exists under another section, not under

section 9.

MR. BARBER:

This is new information for the committee. The minister had indicated

clearly, not centred on the issue of which is a regulation and which is

a guideline, that the maximum period of control proposed under this

bill would be 24 consecutive months, period. There was no qualification

previously offered. There was no variance earlier suggested by the

minister. He said plainly that the maximum period was 24 consecutive

months. I recall, Mr. Chairman, that in debate on this earlier my

colleague from

[ Page

7813 ]

Coquitlam-Moody raised the possibility that some contracts may be governed,

by virtue of peculiar circumstances, for as long as 48 months. The minister

said no, that wouldn't happen. He said specifically that it was only 24

consecutive months, period, regardless of the contract and ignorant of the peculiarities.

think it is appropriate under this section. We will certainly debate it

again under another. Nonetheless, we raised this subject earlier and

debated it many times earlier: the period of application of the

guidelines. If the minister is saying that a separate law, so to speak,

will apply to those contracts that are regulated rather than guided by

section 9, then we'll have to bring it up under another

section as

well. I recall clearly the minister as saying that the maximum period

of obligation under this

section and under the bill was only 24

consecutive months, but the new advice published just yesterday by the

Minister of Finance gives a different impression. Once again I ask the

government whether or not this is in fact a new policy. It's certainly

news to this committee.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, I would be happy to discuss this when we reach the

section

dealing with regulations. I repeat for the first member for Victoria

that

section 9 deals with guidelines. I have said that repeatedly in

the course of debate on this section. I restate the position with

respect to guidelines: they are subject to the program for only 24

months — a maximum of 24 months. I do not know how I can respond

further under one

section of the bill which deals only with the

guidelines. I have said on a number of occasions in this House, and in

this committee, that there are two distinct sections of the program, if

you will, as opposed to sections of the bill. One is the guidelines

with flexibility, with encouragement for parties to reach a settlement

between themselves. The other, straying out of

section 9, is the much

more stringent regulations section, and that comes later in this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not want to frustrate debate, but the minister makes a good point and we must observe standing order 61.

MR. BARBER:

I wonder if the minister could advise the committee whether or not he

would be prepared to follow this debate under

section 17, which is the

opening

section of

part 3, entitled "Compensation Regulations." If he's

agreeable to that, so are we.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, of course. I assume there will be debate on a number of sections which follow this one.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 25

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Mitchell

Passarell

Mr. Curtis requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 10.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 through 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

MR. HOWARD:

Under the old system of the relationship between the government and

members of the public service, it was a standard practice for a

cabinet, out of its generosity and mostly at election time, to offer

adjustments in salary to members of the public service. There was no

collective bargaining, no requests, no pleas and no examination in

public about the wages, hours and working conditions. There were no

discussions and no negotiations. It was a unilateral decision on the

part of government in the old days to give or not to give increases in

salaries and other benefits to public servants. Unless the government

felt there was some rationale for doing it.... Often the necessity of

increasing public servants' salaries coincided with electoral events.

It seemed to have been designed to attract votes from the public

servants rather than to deal with them in an honourable and free

collective bargaining way.

I see within this particular bill

and this

section the seeds for the end of collective bargaining,

certainly the end of free collective bargaining. The idea of free

collective bargaining encompasses within it the function of each group

to go their best lick during negotiations, to make the best case they

can for their position, hopefully to have the matter resolved by mutual

agreement and, if not, then sometimes by an outside force such as

arbitration or a final collapse of any contestation that may take place.

Free

collective bargaining is finished by this bill and by this section.

Collective bargaining itself, free or otherwise, is in jeopardy. It is

a very easy next step to go from the intrusion of the cabinet by way of

regulation into the wages, hours and working conditions of people in

the public service to restrictions of an even greater, more impinging

nature and to the step of final elimination and a reversion to the

system that existed in the old days. That is what is inherent in this

particular

section because it gives the Lieutenant-Governor-

[ Page

7814 ]

in-Council the power to make a decision by way of

administrative law — namely, a regulation — to prescribe limitations on

increases in compensation or to prohibit any increase in compensation

and to do a variety of other things.

I only have those few

brief comments to make. They've been made at other stages of the bill

and on other sections of it, and in different fashions during second

reading. But the fundamental injustice of the legislation is contained

within this hammer clause,

section 17, in which the government seeks

to, in one fell swoop, eliminate free collective bargaining, or lay the

groundwork for the elimination of collective bargaining as such. It's a

reversion to the old days and system, when politics was the major

criteria in the mind of the government about payments made to people in

the public service.

I don't think the

section merits any

questions posed to the minister about what it means or doesn't mean. We

tried that with

section 9, and eventually wrung from them some kind of

public document about what the guidelines were and what the regulations

are likely to be. There's no point in going through that exercise all

over again. I simply want to say that this particular section, and the

bill, are totally unacceptable.

HON. MR. McGEER: I

don't think the points made by the member for Skeena should go

unanswered in the House, even as we get down to one of the critical

sections in the bill, because they bear on the larger responsibility

that each of us as elected members has to the public at large, who

support our activities and those of all who derive their wages and

benefits from the taxpayer. Those people are not subject to the forces

which acted as a discipline and as a restraint in the early days of

trade unionism, where it was the marketplace and the risk of employment

itself which acted as the governor upon an excess of union wage demands.

Those

of us who have acted as the elected representatives of the taxpayer

have provided shelter and protection for those in the public service.

It is no better demonstrated, Mr. Chairman, than in Canada as a country

today. While the recession — some would say depression — rages across

the country, and while it becomes a test today of the economically fit,

the least touched city and region of our country is Ottawa — protected

from the realities of the marketplace by taxpayers of the country who

have no choice but to pay their tribute to Ottawa or to Victoria, or

face severe penalties as defaulters in society. Does it matter whether

or not they can make the mortgage payments on their House or whether

they have a job? No, their first demand is that they pay their tribute

to governments so that governments can then spend on people who are

employed as the servants of the taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, it gets right down to this fundamental point: are the

people in the public service the servants of the taxpayers, or are they

to be made their masters? Because if the expenditures in the public

service run wild, if they defy the realities of the marketplace, if

they resist the common sense which must be practised by every citizen

in order for our society to survive.... If these things all take place

in the name of free collective bargaining, then the people who are the

servants of the taxpayers become their masters. Indeed, in terms of the

ability of the private sector in Canada to be lean and hard and fit in

economic terms, they become the destroyers, and that can't be permitted.

Those of us who are elected by the

taxpayers must show restraint on behalf of those taxpayers. We must

treat the public servants fairly and generously, but we must not let

them undermine the very ability of our economy to perform, by

extracting more from it than those who are our primary producers — who

manufacture the goods, deliver the food, provide the vital

services...to be crippled by those who traditionally are their

servants, and we in turn are the elected servants placed in power by

those who pay the taxes.

This bill is not unfair. It's

eminently reasonable. In today's context it is generous. No one in

authority can fully delegate that authority to someone else. Those of

us who are elected cannot delegate our authority fully to some

arbitrator who then indirectly and by compulsion will set taxes for

those who elect members of the Legislative Assembly to make those

decisions. Yet this is precisely what the members of the New Democratic

Party would have us do. They would select the public service as the

privileged few. They would argue in favour of the servants becoming the

masters. They would encourage the delegating of authority which they

were elected to assume to some arbitrator or some collective bargaining

process, and say that was fair. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that that

is

an act of responsibility. If you oppose this section, then you are

saying: "We do not believe, as elected members, that we should take

responsibility on your behalf." That's, in effect, what you're saying.

But if that's your belief, admit it. Say as elected members: "We will

not take full responsibility. As elected members, we will permit some

arbitrator, appointed by your servants and by us, to determine what

your taxes should be, regardless of whether you have the ability to pay

them or whether the country can carry that weight on its back and still

compete economically in the world." Say those things, and take

responsibility for them.

Mr. Chairman, I think that issue

alone is worthy of a mandate from the electorate. Do you as taxpayers

want to have the people you elect take full responsibility for the

expenditure of your funds, the commitment of your taxes, or do you want

to elect somebody who'll give it all away? By the very foundation of

their party they are a party of special privileges — privileges not to

the taxpayers as a whole, as with Social Credit, but privileges to the

labour movement.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Yes, you're there to favour the labour movement. That's the commitment

of your party, not to represent all taxpayers equally. You're not there

to represent me or anybody else; you're there to represent one group in

society. You're there to represent the labour movement. Isn't that

right? Aren't you there to represent the labour movement? Are you there

to represent all citizens equally, or are you there to represent

anybody who is a trade union member?

MR. SKELLY: Sit down, and we'll answer the question.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, stand up.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Show your pink underwear. You're here for the privilege; you're here to

make some groups in society master of the others. You're not here to

represent the voters equally. It never entered your minds. They said:

"We want to be the master." We don't want to be that. We want to be the

servant of all people equally. That's the fundamental difficulty, isn't

it? You're not going to serve

[ Page 7815 ]

all

people equally. It's against the very tenets of your party. You're here

to serve the labour movement. You have to vote against this

section

because of the people you serve, not society as a whole. It wouldn't

matter whether society could succeed or not. That wouldn't matter to

you because you're committed to the labour bosses. Aren't you committed

to the labour bosses?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Some nerve, says my former constituent. All we do is tell the truth;

but the truth hurts because all the while there's this charade going

on. You're trying to pretend that you aren't there to represent the

labour movement, that you're there to represent everybody; but that's

not the case. You have a fundamental conflict of interest. How can you

be in bed politically with one segment of society and then claim to

represent all segments? Do you support the Canadian Labour Congress? Of

course you do. Do you support the Waffle Manifesto? Sure you do. It's

the kind of debate we have had from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)

that reveals the true purposes and philosophy of the New Democratic

Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Communism! Dirty, rotten, stinking communism, right from the Kremlin.

HON. MR. McGEER:

No, no, no. In fact, I think we came rather close. The members should

hear what they say in some of the countries that are close to the

philosophy you espouse. What's half a mile long, Mr. Chairman, and eats

cabbage? It's a meat line-up in eastern Europe. The whole point about

it is that everybody is equal. The problem is: how do you get the meat

on the table? You get the meat on the table by people producing for

society, not by pursuing the interests of one segment to the point

where the country can no longer compete economically. Why is it that

they can't produce in any of those eastern European countries?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're lazy.

HON. MR. McGEER:

No, I don't think so. I think they're brilliant people. I think they're

hard-working people. I think they suffer from only one thing: their

political system which does not support and nourish those who produce

for society. The essence of our philosophy is to encourage those who

produce for society and take full responsibility, when elected by those

people, to see that their taxes are not raised to the point where they

can no longer produce.

This is a thought that has never

occurred to the members opposite. Why hasn't it occurred to them? It

hasn't occurred to them, because they're not there to represent all

facets of our society as it exists today. They want to destroy the

producers, and they very nearly did with our mining industry. They want

to confiscate it. They want the government to run it all so that more

power can come to the people they really represent, which are the trade

unionists and not the average voters.

If you believe in

equal treatment for all and special privileges for none, then you will

be supporting this

section just as you support this legislation.

MR. COCKE:

What we have seen is the member-for-Point-Grey spectacular that we

expect. That minister, who has never been anywhere but at the public

trough, got up and talked the way he did today, in terms of special

privileges and restraint in terms of this

section of our bill. He had a

wide-ranging debate on the entire bill, but meanwhile he was talking

about

section 17. That minister persuaded the Social Credit government

to build the most expensive, elitist hospital that this province has

ever seen. They're wastrels, Mr. Chairman. He talks about special

privileges. He has made his tracks. He has told us he's leaving. Now

that he has the university with its own freeway, now that he's got his

own university with its Health Sciences Centre, with its own acute-care

hospital, he's going back to enjoy the fruits of all his winnings,

having been over there as part of that very privileged crew. He talks

about privilege. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand up for working

people in this country, and I will always do so.

I noted

that when that government ran they ran on a freedom ticket. They had

the seagull flying as their emblem of freedom. They have done nothing

but destroy that emblem of freedom ever since they came to power. Talk

about state centralism! He talks about the east European countries. If

it were possible under our national constitution, what we see here

would probably be the closest thing to this kind of totalitarianism.

Who

persecutes the trade unions? It's certainly not the western Europeans,

many of whom are social democrats, like West Germany, etc. We find that

in Poland — a totalitarian country. We find that in Russia — a

totalitarian country. That's what he's applauding. When that member

talks about our responsibility to the public at large, I think he had

better rethink his position with respect to that responsibility. He is

part of a spendthrift group which put us into the problems that we're

in today. He is part of a group that has dictated exactly where we are

now. Their answer is here. "What will we do in order to show how

freedom-loving we are? We will piece off one group of society and let

them carry the can." May I remind that minister that the group that

he's talking about — the BCGEU particularly — have been satisfied for

three years with an 8 percent increase, despite an inflation rate of

between 11 percent to 14 percent in each of those years, and that

minister says: "Let them carry the can." What rot!

We also

see that minister, who's a doctor, sitting back watching our health

system being destroyed by a government that has absolutely no intention

of doing anything but patting themselves on the back and then trying,

with their PR, to win other elections by going out there and saying to

the folks: "Look, we're doing our best for you; we're making those

public servants servants."

AN HON. MEMBER: Let the folks decide.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I hope we let the folks decide soon. If you had any guts, you'd go right now. Go now! Go now! Go now!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Bye-bye, Dennis!

MR. COCKE:

I'll tell you something, Garde: there's a bet any day. I don't know how

many times in my 13 years of service in this House I've been told

"bye-bye," and each time I go back to the people in New Westminster

they give me an increased percentage. Nuts!

MR. KEMPF: And you're still on that side of the floor.

[ Page 7816 ]

MR. COCKE: That's right, and you're on that side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest this: when any of us stand in this House

and talk in terms of servants and masters, that shows a kind of kinky thinking

about the relationships of human beings. I suggest to you that unless all of

the people of this province are partners in the development of our province,

in the development of our ethic, in the development of everything, I don't

think we should be determining who is the servant and who is the master. I think

we're all in this together and we're partners.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

You're dammed right we won't support it. We haven't supported any

aspect of this bill; we won't support this section. We won't support

anything that is dictatorial and stupid and alienating, and that's what

we have here before us. How could anybody ever support this section!

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I, too, was alarmed at the remarks by the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard), who, during the debate, rather than dealing with

the section, tried to develop the premise that in meeting our public

responsibility to provide some accountability and some responsibility

in public-sector spending and compensation — and in this case we're

dealing with compensation — it was somehow a political plot to develop

a confrontation with organized labour in this province. That has been a

premise that he has been developing without support, except from a few

highly political union people, labour bosses that no longer have the

support of their membership.

If anyone has attempted to make

political capital out of the present economic situation or over this

government's trying to provide some fair and equitable guidelines, not

just for the BCGEU but for all public-sector employees, then it has

been the New Democratic Party and their bedfellows, who are aligned

with them only in an alliance for power. I laugh when I hear the member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)

talk about their great commitment to working people. As far as I am

concerned, all British Columbians, no matter what their occupation —

even those members in opposition — are people working in this province.

To say that one must have a union membership to classify for some

special club and therefore be held in honour as a working person —

other than those who are unorganized, in clerical work or in other

aspects of working in this province — is not only to be highly foolish

but to expect others to be as foolish and stupid as you are, to expect

them to believe that. Everyone in this province should be equal, and

everyone in this province should have an equal opportunity for some

responsibility.

We are in a difficult economic time. It is

not unique to Canada, nor to the ten provinces, nor to North America.

It is an international recession that touches almost every part of the

world. Certainly its effects are being felt more and more every day.

Yes, there is a loss of jobs in the private sector where the

marketplace has a devastating effect on the lives of people. These are

people who do not have the security of public service. Their jobs

depend on the marketplace in which the company they work for must

compete. The company they work for must make a profit if they are to

have jobs.

I find it hard, in this economic situation, to believe some of the things I

hear from supporters of the New Democratic Party who, when confronted with who

will pay the bills when we talk about public-sector restraint, say: "Take

it from those wicked, capitalistic, profit-making companies."

Just

recently I was in Kamloops on government business. In the evening, on

my own time, I spoke to a political meeting and I was confronted by an

organized political group. It was an organized NDP demonstration; let

there be no pretence about that. I attempted to speak to that crowd,

because as British Columbians they have a right to have an opportunity

to listen to the Premier, and to speak to him. I asked them what their

problems were and they gave me the usual slogans that you and I get

tired of hearing in this House. When I said: "When we're in a restraint

program because of the economy, and the public, the ordinary taxpayers,

do not have the money to send, where do you expect the government to

get the money?" somebody right in front of me in the crowd yelled:

"Take it from the big forest companies that are ripping off the

province." What a laugh! How stupid! That was a key member of the New

Democrat's organizational demonstration. That's the sort of thing

they're saying. These are the people who would ask the public of this

province for their support as a responsible government. They're not

even a responsible opposition.

Someone asked me how I knew

it was an NDP demonstration, because they were all dressed up in

costumes. Some of them didn't want to be recognized. There was a

picture in the paper of a lady made up as the spirit of British

Columbia, I think she said. I think she was the spirit of the New

Democratic Party. When they took her picture she said: "Don't identify

me to the reporter," and with good reason. She was Nelson Riis'

constituency secretary. Nelson Riis, the man who would be leader of

that rag-tag group over there; the one they're holding up as the great

hope for the New Democratic Party in this province. They're the ones

who say: "Yes, we're not very good in here. Yes, we don't come in

anymore and listen when our leader speaks. Yes, he's lost control of

us. Yes, we're not a very good opposition, but we'll be good when good

old Nelson from Kamloops comes back." While they're criticizing the

Premier of this province for travelling first class to a constitutional

conference, who is riding in first class with the Premier of British

Columbia? Nelson Riis, the MP for Kamloops. If he rides first-class

when he's an opposition NDP Member of Parliament, what would he do if

he ever got to a responsible position in government? He'd want to fly

the plane.

Mr. Chairman, I want to disagree a little

with my colleague the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), because he said that the New

Democratic Party's sole commitment in their ill-conceived marriage for

power with the labour union movement — the CLC — and that they only

serve the union movement.... I want to say that they don't serve the

union movement. They haven't served it very well. Their record, when

they get a chance at power as social democrats.... As the thing they

are committed to, such as socialism, becomes unpopular and unsavoury,

they try to find a new label. They try to say that the new word is

social democrat.

Let's take a look at social democratic

governments across this country and how they've treated the union

movement — the workers. Even though they have a deal with those who are

hired to serve the workers in the job place.... That's a few bosses

whose hands have long ago lost the callouses and are as soft and pudgy

as some of the members opposite, who

[ Page 7817 ]

haven't worked in the workplace that they say they defend and represent. Let me see what they've done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says: "more millionaires." I know

that he tried to be a millionaire in the private sector, the short time

he was in it. I know that he tried to be a

hundred-thousand-dollar-aire, and then he tried to be a

thousand-dollar-aire. When things got so bad that he couldn't make a

living out there, he rode on the backs of the labour union support to

get to this parliament — the best job he's ever had.

Mr.

Chairman, what do social democrat governments do? You say this program

isn't equitable and fair in this

section 17. Let's take a look at the

social democratic government of the province of Quebec. It doesn't run

under the NDP label, but I know they're the same. I could quote

extensively from an

article of a few years ago when the Leader of the

Opposition was Premier — when he was Premier Barrett. He said they were

social democrats together, and he wanted to marry them in a way which

would bring them together. How have they dealt with the public sector

in their province? Well, we see recently that they don't allow them a

climate to bargain to get a fair and equitable increase. Have they

given them a freeze?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

No. They've said: "You've got what you've got now till January 1, and

then we're going to take it away; we're going to roll back your wages."

That's a social democratic party. Is that looking after the workers?

No, that's not looking after the workers; that's trying to protect

their political hides, because social democratic parties in government

always live with the results of their own mismanagement, and eventually

they have to take more drastic action than the reasonable action we're

offering here in British Columbia.

I think back to a just

recently defeated government — the New Democratic Party of

Saskatchewan. What did they do? Did they put a fair and equitable set

of guidelines for all public servants? Did they do like the member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is reported as having said, sometime

ago after February 18, when we announced the restraint program: "The

government doesn't need it — they just have to bargain tough." I want

you to think about that — "just bargain tough." Well, we only bargain

with one group, the BCGEU. Did he want us to pick on them and let all

the other groups in the public sector take whatever they could get,

reach for as much as they could? Perhaps they might have willing

public-service employers who would give them everything they want

because it comes out of someone else's pocket. Would that be fair? Is

that what he was advocating?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Probably.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The Minister of Finance says "probably." That's not the way to go. What

we've said is that all of the public sector have the guidelines. All of

them — the provincial government, the municipalities, the school boards

and the hospital boards — have a responsibility and an opportunity to

negotiate what's fair in this climate. As we go around this province

you can see that many of the people whom I know work in the public

sector don't want settlements they know the citizens can't afford. Many

of them live next door to someone who is unemployed or laid off in the

forest industry or to someone whose business is suffering. They don't

want an unreasonable amount. Yet that member and those members are

saying that this program is unfair; it's the fairest program that's

available. We're in unusual times. This really is protecting all the

working people of British Columbia — working people in the private

sector, working people as taxpayers and working people in the public

sector. We're not asking them to be the victims of a single tough

government, but collectively to have an opportunity to share the burden

of getting through this difficult period with all the other people in

British Columbia.

I with the province of Quebec had been as

moderate, as responsible and fair as we are being. I wish the former

government of Saskatchewan, instead of ordering back its hospital

workers — just one part of one group in that province — had seen fit to

provide some fair opportunity so all in the public sector would have

been under the same rules. I wish that the New Democratic Party, when

it was government in this province and had a chance to prove that it

was equitable and fair.... They chose this Legislature to pick one

group at a time — whether it was legislating back the firefighters, the

IWA, the forest workers, or other public sector workers. They chose

that path, rather than trying to deal in a responsible and equitable

way with all groups. To say that they represent the workers is the

worst sort of nonsense. They're in bed with a few political....

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, I'd just like to ask the House Leader (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) what direction we're going in? Are we adjourning and coming

back at...?

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure don't know what direction you're going.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, when it's one of our speakers, they're pretty quick. So

I'd just like to know if we're going to play by the same rules. The

Premier is perfectly welcome to get back up after lunch.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, the standing orders indicate that our

formal time is 12:30. A member is free to speak, of course, for his

full time in the debate, and that really is not a valid point of order

under those circumstances.

The member continues on a point of order.

MR. LEA:

I think it is. Mr. Chairman, because it may be technically 12:30, but

every day we stop at noon, don't we? We've done it every day. I guess

there are two sets of rules in the House. There's one for the Premier

and one for the minions. Is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of order, Hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

As usual, the NDP are free to go any time they want — even to play

golf, as they have done while this Legislature has been sitting. They

have been caught on the golf course so many times that people think the

working tools of an NDP MLA are a bag of clubs and a lot of divots. By

their own rules they are sandtrapped by their

[ Page 7818 ]

position

on this legislation. What they have attempted to do has saddened me and

is saddening every British Columbian. They have attempted to politicize

a difficult economic situation and, in doing so, blame it on this

government. Yet they are the ones playing politics. It is not new for

them to play politics with groups who are in unfortunate circumstances.

They have done it before. I remember the last election, with those

terrible ads telling people how they would lose their health care. I've

got to tell you that three years later the people have improved health

services in this province. Everyone knows of the deceit that took place

in that campaign.

They want to politicize it and, with a few labour bosses who are

political, they have attempted to take on the government. But today

even the labour bosses who are in bed with them — those few who no

longer represent their workers.... At the recent CLC convention many of

them were questioning being in bed with that group. It is finally

Sunday morning, they've woken up with a headache, and I don't blame

them for questioning who they are in bed with. What do we hear them

saying? They no longer even trust them to run the province or even to

be the government-in-waiting, as they would like to think. The head of

the B.C. Federation of Labour is quoted in the paper this morning as

talking about taking militant union action. It is Jim Kinnaird and this

is what he says: "We have no illusion but what we are going to have a

busy time this summer — and yes, we might well end up in a battle with

the government to see who is running this province."

I have a lot more to say, but in

deference to the eating habits of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea), I would like to move the committee rise, report resolution and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:09 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

28 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 28) intituled Compensation Stabilization Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 10 is amended by deleting "in Council".

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada