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 )

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7393 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Liquor distribution branch annual report and financial statements, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 7393

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act (Voting Rights) (Bill M205). Mr. Barber.

Introduction and first reading –– 7393

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act (Subsidiaries Disclosure) (Bill M206). Mr. Howard.

Introduction and first reading –– 7393

Oral Questions

B.C. Packers Ltd. Mr. Lea –– 7394

Prenatal testing for genetic abnormalities. Mr. Cocke –– 7394

WCB handling of Bentall case. Ms. Sanford –– 7394

Health-care charges. Mr. Cocke –– 7395

Health services advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 7395

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Ms. Brown –– 7396

Mr. Brummet –– 7398

Mr. Lauk –– 7400

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 7405

Mr. Macdonald –– 7408

Mr. Levi –– 7410

Mr. Lockstead –– 7414

Mr. Passarell –– 7415

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LAUK: I would ask the House

to — join me in welcoming Mrs. Helene Minishka and the B.C. Home and

School Federation. They have a delegation visiting with the legislators

today, and it's their day. Please make them welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Probably a favourite show for those of us who don't get much

opportunity to watch television is one that shows academic excellence

among the young people of our province, namely "Reach For The Top,"

which provides healthy, academic competition among the high schools and

students of our province. Today in the gallery we have the B.C.

champions with us, and I would like to introduce them and have the

assembly make them welcome. I was very pleased and honoured to be

present to see them win their championship, which was held earlier this

year at Oak Bay Secondary School.

Let me now introduce the

B.C. champions who will represent our province in Winnipeg on May 10:

from John Oliver Secondary School in Vancouver, Terry Fedoruk, Sean

McLaughlin, Rene Kondratzky and Grant Wong. They would be the first to

tell you that much of their success is due to the assistance of their

coach, Doug McLeod, who is with them. Would we all make them really

welcome and wish them well in their efforts in Winnipeg.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Visiting with us today are members of the UBCM executive, and we

certainly had a very fruitful and useful discussion with caucus. I

would ask the House to welcome Mayor Jim Tonn of Coquitlam, the

president; Mayor George Thom, vice president, mayor of Kitimat; Mr. Dan

Cumming, chairman of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District; Mayor Mel

Couvelier, executive board member and mayor of Saanich; Mr. Jeff

McKelvey, executive director, and Mr. Richard Taylor, assistant

executive director.

We also have a couple of visitors from

an area that is rapidly becoming a real attraction to every

entrepreneur and free-enterpriser — the beautiful city of Prince

Rupert. I would ask the House to welcome Bozo Lalich and Lynne Hollet.

MR. BARRETT:

In the gallery today are two future members of this honourable

assembly. They are Ms. Pat Marchak, the New Democratic Party candidate

in Vancouver–Point Grey, and Mr. Gerald Scott, the New Democratic Party

candidate in Vancouver–Little Mountain. I ask the House to welcome them.

Mr.

Speaker, this is not a premature welcome; it is just a predictable

result when the government finally has the nerve to call the election.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Insofar as our legislative internship program is concerned,

today is of certain historic significance because it's the first time we've

been honoured with a visit from a number of Ontario parliamentary interns. I'm

sure all members would be very happy to welcome them to western Canada, the

gateway to the Orient and our province of British Columbia. They are accompanied

by their academic director, Prof. Fred Fletcher, and Mr. Graham White, assistant

clerk of the Legislative Assembly, who I'm sure is watching our men in black

today.

MR. LORIMER:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the assembly to join me in welcoming a group a

students from the Moscrop Junior Secondary school, along with visitors

from Quebec, their teacher Wayne Axford and others.

MR. BRUMMET:

Visiting us today from Fort Nelson is a group of students from Fort

Nelson Secondary school and their teacher Mr. Doug McKenzie. I ask the

members to make them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: I notice constituents from Parksville in the gallery. I'd like the House to welcome Tom and May McKenzie.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today, from the community of Oliver, is Mr. Frank Stariha. Frank is a reporter for the Oliver Chronicle, so I ask the press gallery to be on their best behaviour today. I ask the House to welcome him.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Jim Brandie from

England, who are here visiting for a few days en route to Miami. They

have a particular interest in British Columbia, because their daughter

Linda has some association with my office.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

We always leave the best for last. Today in the gallery is a large

group of students from Brookswood Junior Secondary school in Langley,

accompanied by their leader and teacher Mr. Cliff Shiskin. I'd like

everyone to make them welcome.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I have the honour to file an annual report. In conjunction

therewith, I seek leave to file related financial statements.

Leave granted.

Hon.

Mr. Hyndman tabled the annual report and detailed financial statements

of the liquor distribution branch for the year ended March 31, 1981.

Introduction of Bills

RESOURCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT (VOTING RIGHTS)

On a motion by Mr. Barber,

Bill M205 Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, (Voting

Rights), introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

RESOURCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT (SUBSIDIARIES DISCLOSURE)

On a motion by Mr.

Howard, Bill M206 Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act

(Subsidiaries Disclosure), introduced, read a first time and ordered to

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

[ Page 7394 ]

Oral Questions

B.C. PACKERS LTD.

MR. LEA:

I have a question to the Minister of Environment in his capacity as

fisheries minister. The minister is aware of the recent closure of the

B.C. Packers ground-fish operation at Seal Cove in Prince Rupert. It is

costing the economy 301 jobs and approximately $6 million a year in

lost revenue to the city of Prince Rupert and surrounding area. The

business community, the citizens' committee and the United Fishermen

and Allied Workers Union have requested a study of the ground-fish

industry of both federal and provincial governments. This includes a

letter from the chamber of commerce to the Premier's office. That's the

number one request they're putting forward. The number two request is

that B.C. Packers ground-fish operation continue to operate until the

study is completed. Could the minister tell us whether his government

has decided to support the request for a study of the ground-fish

industry and, if so, what action has the government taken?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I received this request from the people of Prince Rupert last week and

have instructed the senior officials from the marine resources branch

of my ministry to meet with them and discuss the possibilities for

provincial involvement in their proposal.

MR. LEA: On

a supplementary, that was on the request for a study into the

ground-fish industry. What action has the provincial government taken

to keep the plant open and operating until such a study is completed

and available?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No action at this time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA:

Does the minister realize that 250 people were laid off last Friday and

that a further 51 people will be laid off as soon as processing of the

herring roe is finished? Is the minister aware that they've already

closed the plant?

MR. SPEAKER: Is information being brought by way of a question?

MR. LEA:

I have a further question for the same minister. In transportation,

airlines are forced by government to take runs that aren't quite as

profitable as other runs; there is a cross-subsidization in the

industry. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) can tell us that

that happens in the forest industry. It happens in almost every

industry.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. LEA:

What B.C. Packers are doing in Prince Rupert is high-grading. They have

never said that they're not making a profit on the groundfish; they

said they're not making enough profit. And B.C. Packers, which is part

of George Weston, last year had record sales; in 1981 they had an

increase in profit of 14 percent or $95.3 million. Is it the

government's policy to allow the fishing industry to high grade when

other industries are not allowed to do it?

MR. SPEAKER:

I would remind hon. members that the purpose of question period is to

ask questions, not to bring information to the House. And there should

certainly be no debate.

MR. LEA: I'm asking, Mr.

Speaker, whether it's the government's policy to allow high-grading in

the fishing industry. Maybe they have some other policy. I don't know,

Mr. Speaker; I'm asking what the policy is. They're highgrading salmon

and herring roe, and they're allowing the groundfish to just go by the

wayside into concentrated industries in Vancouver. Now what is the

present government's policy in terms of high-grading fish?

the minister aware that the 301 permanent jobs that are being lost to

the city of Prince Rupert — plus the other income from supply —

represent a bigger number of jobs than all the permanent jobs being

created on Ridley Island through coal and grain terminals?

MR. SPEAKER: The member is bringing information by way of a question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I will have the hon. member please review the basis on

which question period is established in this room. Having done so, he

would perhaps retract the statements he just made.

PRENATAL TESTING FOR

GENETIC ABNORMALITIES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have

a question for the Minister of Health. Prenatal diagnosis for Down's

syndrome and other genetic abnormalities is now provided by the B.C.

medical plan only for women 38 and older. It has been established by

the UBC department of medical genetics that testing women 35 and older,

which is the standard medical practice in other jurisdictions, would

provide a significant net benefit to the province. Can the minister —

who is surely aware of the benefits that testing would provide — assure

the House that he will lower the prenatal testing age to 35?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The question has been before the ministry for some time. With respect

to lowering the age, information has been received by a number of

people who specialize in that area. I believe the age for screening was

originally 40 and has been brought down to 38. The question of whether

to lower that level to 35 is under consideration at this time. I

couldn't make a statement at this moment as to when or if the age level

will be reduced to 35, but it is certainly under active consideration.

WCB HANDLING OF BENTALL CASE

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The Workers' Compensation

Board, an agency under the minister's jurisdiction, has cut off the

Bentall widows and their families from their pensions because the

widows have refused to drop their lawsuit against the Ontario company

that designed the fly-form. What action has the minister taken

regarding this matter?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The

philosophy behind the Workers Compensation Act is to ensure that those

who are injured and those dependants whose relatives or spouses have

[ Page 7395 ]

been

killed are properly looked after. The system is set up so that they are

looked after. The question is difficult in that, if you deviate from

the present legislation, which has been in force for a good number of

years, you end up providing for somebody getting the advantage both

ways. It seems to me that the system works well and in the interest of

everyone. It's interesting to note that even when this case was

referred to the ombudsman, it came back with: "Yes, it's a difficult

matter, and it's even more difficult to address." I don't deny the

legitimacy of the question, nor the sincerity with which it has been

put in this House, but there is a philosophical basis to the

legislation, and I think it serves most the way it is now set up.

MS. SANFORD:

I might point out that the ombudsman did recommend changes to the

legislation. However, this firm — Anthes Equipment Ltd. — does not pay

workers' compensation payments in British Columbia. It is an Ontario

firm. The dependants of the people who were killed in that accident are

not financially able to continue with the suit unless the Workers

Compensation Board payments are continued. It is an out-of-province

company. Why is British Columbia protecting an out-of-province company?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I have been advised by the WCB that there is one particular claimant

who has initiated an action. I am also advised that the WCB has

employed the services of counsel to carry such an action on behalf of

the others. The others involved have agreed to accept what financial

compensation is available, and it seems to work satisfactorily. But I

am advised that the board has joined in a lawsuit, I have not seen any

written evidence to that effect, but I have been advised by

conversation that they are involved in the lawsuit against Anthes.

HEALTH CARE CHARGES

MR. COCKE:

I have another question for the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of

Health confirm that he is expanding the Socred policy of user-pay in

the health-care system by encouraging hospitals to "maximize the

charges for such things as unnecessary emergency-room use"?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, many hospitals have approached the ministry, and there

have been discussions with some chairmen of hospital boards with

respect to the fees that would be appropriate for the non-emergency use

of emergency wards. I've been advised indirectly that a couple of

hospitals have made announcements that they are going to establish

certain rates. I haven't yet had the opportunity today to have someone

contact those hospitals to find out if they indeed do that and what

their intent may be.

We've had very, very strong

representation from a number of hospitals. They are very concerned

about the nonemergency use of emergency wards and the attendant costs

associated with that. It has been suggested by quite a number of people

that there should be fees established for that non-emergency use of

emergency wards considerably in excess of the $4 rate which is applied

universally at this moment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker,

the Langley hospital has announced a $25 charge for so-called

unnecessary emergency room service — an increase from $4. Can the

minister advise who decides when an emergency use is unnecessary?

For

example, will the parents of an injured child have to phone a health

ministry official before bringing their child for medical treatment?

Who decides what is an emergency and what is not?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in relying upon the expertise of the medical staff in the emergency wards.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise whether he has established a

policy to give low-income residents time to pay in the event that their

emergency case is ruled unnecessary under this policy? I'd just like

the minister to know that it's the doctors who send their patients to

emergency wards.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd

like the member to know that if doctors sent their patients to

emergency wards, then perhaps sometimes the patients wouldn't have to

wait so long to find out where their doctors are. Many people, of

course, appear at emergency wards without being referred by their

doctors, which perhaps indicates to us why we call them emergencies.

MR. COCKE:

You phone your doctor and he sends you there. It's happened to

everybody in the House. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the group across

the floor that I probably know more than they do collectively about

this subject.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course; you built the Royal Columbian Hospital.

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[ML Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Health will come to order. This is question period.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HEALTH SERVICES ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE:

I have another question for the Minister of Health. The Ministry of

Health has advised the hospitals that a media campaign will be

developed to remind the public of their responsibility to use hospital

services wisely. Did the minister authorize this campaign, and can he

advise what it will cost?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The

hospital boards were advised that there would be a media campaign to

inform the citizens of the province of the responsibility of utilizing

our healthcare system with proper care and respect. I don't know what

cost is associated with that at the present time. That hasn't yet been

decided. The entire campaign has not yet been mapped out.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This is the earliest opportunity, because the ques-

[ Page 7396 ]

tion of privilege relates to something that took place during question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MR. HOWARD:

The question relates to an activity of the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Rogers), acting in such a way as to impair the House in the

proper pursuit of its duties by refusing to answer three specific

questions put to him. I realize the minister can be obstinate and not

answer questions that he's not required to, but three successive

refusals relating to a number of people being put out of work goes

above and beyond that prescription.

If Your Honour finds

that there is in fact a question of privilege and that the minister has

intruded upon the House in the proper pursuit of its business, I do

have a motion to move which asks the House to express its displeasure

at the refusal of the Minister of Environment to answer questions

during question period. Those questions related to the closure of the

ground-fish operation of B.C. Packers in Prince Rupert.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, perhaps to assist you in your deliberation, Mr. Speaker, you could refer to a ruling of the Speaker in Votes and Proceedings

of February 28, 1977. I refer to item 7: '"An answer to a question

cannot be insisted upon if the answer be refused by a minister."

MR. SPEAKER: We will review the matter thoroughly and bring a statement to the House.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

MS. BROWN: I think that maybe, in speaking against Bill

28, I should start out by reminding everyone that this piece of

legislation is implementing the Trudeau Liberal wage-control request

which he has brought down and that, in fact, all the government is

doing in this piece of legislation is implementing the Prime Minister's

request for wage controls. It is interesting also, I think, to remember

that this is the first provincial government that has rushed to

implement the wage controls called for by the Prime Minister.

I did yesterday, I want to repeat that when the members opposite, on

the government benches, talk about "he" in referring to public-sector

employees they are ignoring the reality, which is that 51.1 percent of

the B.C. government employees are women, that 80 percent of the

hospital employees are women, that 84.7 percent of the Health Sciences

Association employees are women and that 95.5 percent of the registered

nurses of British Columbia are women. When we talk about this piece of

legislation we are primarily speaking about the wage controls that are

going to be applied against women who work in the public sector.

just want to very quickly reiterate, starting with the B.C. government

employees. There are something in the neighbourhood of 45,000 B.C.

government employees. Of this number, as I said before, 51.1 percent

are women and of that number 70 percent make less than $1,500 per

month. They are concentrated in the ghettos of office assistant 1 and

office assistant 2. It is interesting that when you look at those two

areas you find that there are 5,631 women and only 380 men who work as

either office assistant 1 or office assistant 2, so we are certainly

talking about a female ghetto when we talk about office assistant 1 and

office assistant 2. What we find is that the average income, really, of

this particular group of employees is something in the neighbourhood of

$1,386 a month. That is before the deduction for income tax and other

deductions. These wages are so low — I am referring to the average wage

— that most of these women would be better off if they did not work at

all and, in fact, were in receipt of income assistance. Let me document

this for you.

A women with two dependants who is receiving

the average wage of $1,386 a month has a take-home pay of $825 after

her deductions, A similar person — a single-parent mother with two

dependants — in receipt of income assistance gets $770 a month. She is

allowed to earn an additional $100 a month for a total of $870. In

other words, if this woman with two dependants who is employed by this

government as an office assistant 1 were not working but were at home

and in receipt of income assistance, she would end up with $45 a month

more than she is earning as an office assistant 1 employed by this

government.

I want to remind you again that this government

is the largest employer of women in this province and, we've got to

add, also the largest exploiter of the work of women in this province.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), when she

introduced her increases in the income assistance program on April 19,

said that the GAIN program was to provide an income that would enable

people to meet their basic living costs. Surely the government can do

no less for its employees. But at present the government is doing just

such a thing. We find that there are clerical workers working for the

Ministry of Human Resources who are taking home a smaller pay than some

of the recipients being served by those clerical workers. We also find

that in most instances those clerical workers are eligible for — and

have to apply for — a day-care subsidy in order that they can go out to

work.

These are the people who under Bill 28 are going to

have their wages restrained. These are the people who this Minister of

Finance — through this piece of legislation — has decided cannot have

an increase of more than 10 percent in their incomes. I think we have

to keep that in mind when we debate this piece of legislation.

The

reality of the situation is that over the last five years the

purchasing power of both men and women in the public sector has been

eroded considerably. We find, for example, that

whereas in Vancouver

the cost-of-living index has jumped by something in the neighbourhood

of 52.3 percent in the last five years, employees of this government

have had their wages increased by something like 33.5 percent. I hope

the Minister of Finance is taking this into account, because it means

that the purchasing power of the workers in the public sector over the

last five years has fallen behind by something like 25.8 percent.

That

is the reality of the situation. This is the group of people at whom

this piece of legislation is directly aimed. They're being told that

their wages have to be restrained, that

[ Page 7397 ]

they

have to tighten their belts, that they have to accept a smaller

increase in their incomes because of the fiscal policies of this

government.

I realize that there are negotiations

proceeding, and one would not like to tamper, interfere or even make

suggestions about those negotiations. But I am interested by the fact

that the trade unions involved recognize that the exploitation of the

female workers is something that must be righted. When they go to the

bargaining table and try to negotiate for the nearly 6,000 women

workers concentrated in these particular job ghettos, what they're

asking for is a catch-up clause. They're asking for the restraint to be

waived and not to be taken into account. They even suggest that to

bring the wages of the very lowest workers — and again, I want to

remind you of the figure: 70 percent of the women who work for the

provincial government — in line with that of the lowest paid men would

cost something like 2.7 percent of the existing payroll. The figure

that the trade union has come up with is something like $1,430,000.

don't know whether or not that is permissible once this piece of

legislation is implemented. Maybe when the Minister of Finance is

closing debate on this piece of legislation he will be able to tell us

that.

The reality again, Mr. Speaker, is that most of the

females who work for the provincial government are concentrated in what

is known as component 12. There are 10, 232 women in that component,

and just over 2,000 men. That's the administrative component, where all

the clerical workers are. The salary discrepancy there is that the

females earn an average of $1,309 per month or $15,707 per year as

opposed to the average for males of $1,758 per month and $21,095 per

year. Surely that gap has to be closed. Surely that discrepancy has to

be eliminated. If it's not possible for that to happen under this piece

of legislation, then this piece of legislation should not have the

support of the government members. It certainly does not have the

support of the opposition members. That is why, Mr. Speaker, again I

bring to your attention that I am opposed to this legislation.

want to repeat the kinds of salaries that people who are office

assistant 1 and office assistant 2 start with: $1,099 a month or $275 a

week, which after their deductions leaves them with something like $825

a month if they have dependants. It is just not possible to meet one's

basic needs on that kind of income. The health unit aides make $1,216 a

month, and when you subtract their income tax and other deductions,

they have a take-home pay of just over $900. The starting salary for

data-processing operators is $1,267 a month, and after deductions they

have something in the order of $900 a month. These are the kinds of

salaries that are going to be restrained by this piece of legislation.

The

government members often say that we should compare private-sector

wages with public-sector wages, because they believe the public-sector

wage should never be larger than the private-sector wage. They

certainly have succeeded in ensuring that this is the case. A

government clerk-steno earns something like $9.55 an hour on average,

as compared with, for example, a clerk-steno working for Brinco, who

makes something in the neighbourhood of $13.89 an hour. There isn't any

fear at all that the public sector is ever going to catch up to, or

surpass, the private sector. A clerk-typist working for the provincial

government earns an average of $9.10 per hour, as compared to the same

person working for Cominco, who would be earning something in the

neighbourhood of $10.32 per hour.

I cannot believe that the

Minister of Finance was aware of these figures when he introduced this

piece of legislation calling on these very low-paid, underpaid,

overworked workers to show restraint in terms of their negotiations. I

believe the blame has to be laid squarely with the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who is supposed to be responsible for the well-being

of people in the public service. He has not served them well; he has

not done his job; he has not fought on their behalf with Treasury Board

or with the Minister of Finance, and he should be relieved of that

position immediately. He should be taken away from that responsibility,

because he is not serving the Public Service Commission well. If you

ask any woman who works for the provincial government what she thinks

about the efforts of the Provincial Secretary on her behalf, she will

assure you that she would like to see that Provincial Secretary

removed. She would like to see him resign his responsibility for the

Public Service Commission, because if he had done his job it would not

have been possible for the Minister of Finance to introduce this piece

of legislation.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) was reported in a newspaper

article on February 25 of this

year as saying: "B.C. government employees should be grateful that they

have jobs. They are extremely fortunate to be employed in government

and to have the security of employment and to be getting any pay

increase at all." That's the comment made by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. I don't believe that minister could have known and understood

that the people of whom he spoke would in fact be better off if they

were not working and were at home in receipt of income assistance. It's

because people would rather work than receive welfare, it's because

people would rather support themselves than be dependent on this

government, that makes it possible for this government to continue to

exploit the women who work on its behalf.

To introduce

legislation saying that the lowest-paid workers in the province, these

employees of the provincial government, should restrain their wage

negotiations in terms of increase is hypocritical, to say the least,

when one takes into account that the call for restraint is coming from

a government that consistently over spends its own budget. The Premier,

for example, last year overspent his own budget by $150,000. The

Minister of Municipal Affairs, who insisted that these underpaid,

overworked female employees should be grateful that they have a

take-home pay of something in the neighbourhood of $800 a month,

overspent his own budget on such frills as could be avoided to the tune

of $368,308.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Name them.

MS. BROWN:

I'm talking about the money spent on your office furniture, on

advertising, travel and all those other things. And I'm not including

the lunches, the wines, or the other expenses which we have not yet

found out about.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN:

The hypocrisy of someone who can overspend to the tune of $368,000, and

then say to people who are making something in the neighbourhood of

$275 a week that they should restrain themselves is really beyond

compare.

[ Page 7398 ]

I said yesterday, the people who work for non-profit organizations and

societies who depend on government funding are in an even worse

situation.

I want to touch very briefly on the auxiliaries.

Roughly a quarter of the total public service membership is classified

as auxiliary employees. This means that they do not have the job

security, benefits or protection that other union members have, yet the

Minister of Municipal Affairs talks about the security of working for

the government. For example, the number of auxiliaries employed by the

government dropped 1,000 in one month: in January 1982 it was something

in the neighbourhood of 10,200; by February it had dropped to 9,200.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Your time has expired, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Seventy minutes already?

MR. SPEAKER: Your time has expired.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: My time has expired, and I'm not going to waste my time responding to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

I just want to say that I am totally opposed to this piece of legislation.

MR. BRUMMET:

I'd just like to take my place in this debate in support of the

Compensation Stabilization Act, because I believe it is necessary in

these times. We were talking about restricting increases. Despite the

continued efforts of the opposition to talk about cutting back wages,

the intent is not to cut back wages but simply to limit the amount of

increase. If we do not do that, if we do not limit these increases

which involve government spending and therefore taxpayers' money, then

surely even the opposition can see that we are going to have to cut

back the number of jobs. When there is only so much revenue available,

people either show a little less personal greed in order to keep the

economy going and their fellow workers working....

MR. LAUK: Are you calling the civil servants greedy?

MR. BRUMMET:

Anyone in these times who wants a 30 percent increase has to be

considered greedy, to the extent that they are more interested in

personal gain than in their fellow workers working. That is why I

maintain it is personal greed.

MR. LAUK: Have you given your salary increase back?

MR. BRUMMET: I have restrained my salary voluntarily. I'm quite willing to vote in favour of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does the money go?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Orderly debate requires that the member who has the floor addresses the Chair. He will not be interrupted.

MR. BRUMMET:

When there is a limited supply of money available, it can either go to

some fortunate people, who get great increases, or they can limit their

increases and it can be spread around to benefit more people. I'm sorry

that some of the members of the opposition object, but I am in favour

of more people gaining a little less than some people gaining a little

more.

In this restraint program we're talking about

controlling the increases of those people who are dependent on the

taxpayer. There has been criticism that we have selected one group in

society in order to restrain their increases. It has been said over and

over again that the other groups in society are facing very real

restraint. In the private sector restraint is very evident, and many

people are hurting. When the money runs out in the private sector, they

can shut down. In the public sector that is not possible.

talk about restricting free collective bargaining. I would presume that

free collective bargaining involves all of the factors that apply.

Those factors are: availability of money, availability of markets for

the products produced by workers, and the opportunity to shut down the

operation if you can't afford to run it. That is not true in government

or in the various related governments. We cannot shut down essential

services in this province, Therefore all the factors of free collective

bargaining do not work in the public sector. There have to be some

other restraints. Legislation is not needed for the private sector.

When a company can no longer afford to operate, they cannot go back and

just collect money from somewhere, as government can — and remember

that that collection is from the taxpayers. They have to shut down

their operations if they can't afford to operate. In government we can

simply go to the taxpayers and collect more. I feel that this restraint

program is a wise move. It's a courageous move. I feel that it has

public support, because that public is the taxpayers.

From

the speeches made by the opposition, one would think that the

government is supposed to serve the public servants in this province. I

maintain that the government is to serve the public of this province. I

think that is a major responsibility — not serve the public servants,

but serve the public, and I maintain that there is a difference. I find

it somewhat strange that we've heard the Leader of the Opposition and

other members of the opposition saying that this is something that most

of the public resents. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, they say that we

are doing this strictly for political gain. I don't know how you put

those two together and make any sense out of them. If, in fact, we are

doing this strictly for political gain, then surely we should be doing

it to please most of the public, not to antagonize them, as they

suggest. So I think the argument they make that we're doing this

strictly for political gain contradicts their argument that the people

of this province are against it.

The member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann) was quite vociferous on the point that this is for

political gain, and let me quote one of his statements. I did a little

research in Hansard for October 7, 1975, at which time he made

this statement — this was at the time of the NDP's Collective

Bargaining Continuation Act, ordering free enterprise workers back to

work, as I understand:

I'm well aware that public opinion will be massively in support of the proposal.... I believe, however, we're making a mistake.

It gets more interesting.

I don't really care very much, quite frankly, if the public is overwhelmingly in favour of this bill; I cannot support it.

[ Page 7399 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Who said that?

MR. BRUMMET: That was the present member for North Island. He goes on:

will not stand up in this Legislature performing my responsibility

based on what the public wants us to do. We have to provide leadership

and I don't believe we should be responsive, because quite often the

public is wrong.

I find that in rather strange contrast to

what that member said here yesterday — that the public is against us. I

maintain that he still has the same philosophy — that the public is in

favour of restraint in government spending. But he has to be against it

because he doesn't believe the public knows what they're talking about.

He is supporting a particular group and is locked into supporting that

particular group.

Here is another interesting quote. This is

from his speech yesterday when he was talking about restraint.

Inadvertently, on occasion, this member actually comes out with what

his real philosophy is. We hear some fine speeches from him, but once

in a while, in a careless remark, he shows us what his philosophy

really is. He said: "I'm not one who stands up here very often and

protects the rights of employers, because I think they have far too

many rights in our society now."

It's rather interesting

that there's a member who is talking about job creation. It's my

understanding that jobs depend upon employers. That member would like

more jobs, but he feels that employers should have no rights. I just

can't see the consistency there. If people are working for themselves,

that may be one form of job and they are not dependent upon employers.

But when they are dependent upon employers, he feels that employers

have far too many rights. I would suggest that the employers of this

province have shown great responsibility. Many of them are losing

money. Many of them are hurting pretty badly, and they are making every

effort to keep their employees on the job as much as possible. I think

we should recognize their contribution.

One of the

interesting things that we've heard again this afternoon, and one that

we certainly heard from the Leader of the Opposition is that this

restraint program somehow or other...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The member

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) may wish to have their conversation outside.

MR. BRUMMET: ...allies

us with the federal Liberals and that we are acting on their behalf in

trying to put in these restraints. In the first place, how he makes

that connection I don't know. It is this government that has made a

point of saying that we should keep our spending within our means.

Certainly that example has not been set by the federal government, and

we're paying the price for that. You can look at all sorts of newspaper

articles: 500 jobs devoted to debt at the federal level; about six

months of every year people are now working for the government with

direct and indirect taxes. What we gather from this opposition is that

they would have that increased. There are examples in this world, Mr.

Speaker, of people getting more from government, but they pay an

increasing amount of what they earn to that government in order to get that.

The

opposition seem to feel that you can keep government spending. In all

of the talk on the budget and these various bills, including this one,

we've come to the realization that they're definitely against restraint

in government spending, because all of their comments are: "You should

spend more here; you should spend more there."

MR. KEMPF: They were just like drunken sailors when they were in power.

MR. BRUMMET:

Well, when they were in power, Mr. Speaker, they certainly carried out

their philosophy. They started with a big bag full of money and ended

up with a big debt in just a few years. Imagine if they had kept that

up. From what we hear from them now it would be even worse.

have been told by this opposition that we are doing this to somehow or

other favour our friends, and yet.... I hate to use the word "payoffs"

but certainly they make promises and give false illusions. By

implication they suggest that if the public sector will vote for them,

they will give them everything they ask for. If only they vote for a

NDP government in this province, those people who depend on the

taxpayers can get anything they ask for, because it's only fair.

The

member who just spoke mentioned low wages. No one is in favour of low

wages, and no one would argue with that. What this compensation act

allows is an increase of a reasonable amount, and I think that is far

better than allowing an increase of a larger amount to some so that

other people are out of work. How do you pay for increases in

government spending, which includes payment to the public sector? There

are only one or two ways: you can wipe out jobs, and of course that is

very difficult to do because the public needs to be served; or you can

take more from the taxpayers. So we create the false illusion that the

people of this province would be better off if we only paid more to the

public-sector employees. I maintain that is a false illusion, Mr.

Speaker.

Times have changed. Many of the workers in the

workforce realize that we are in difficult economic times and they are

willing to forgo some personal increases in order to keep their fellow

workers working. But the union leaders have not realized that yet, and

the NDP is still so closely allied with the union leaders that they

keep promising them: "Stay with us and we will get it for you." Where

are they going to get it, Mr. Speaker? They can't possibly get it,

because at the same time as they're saying that, they are speaking

against the northeast coal project. They are saying that because we are

spending some of that money now, which could be going to the people....

They're correct. We could take that $300 million and give it to the

people now at the price of cancelling the jobs that that $300 million

creates, at the price of cancelling the development of our resources

and at the price of cancelling the revenue that's been put in by

private industry. For that $300 million that the government is putting

in, private industry is adding almost a billion dollars to the pot in

order to provide more jobs. It would also be at the price of future

revenue that's going to be generated.

Suppose we listened to

the NDP and took this $300 million and distributed it among the people.

What would happen next year without the jobs that those projects

generate? Where would the revenue come from for the next $300 million?

At the same time as we do the best to help those who are really in

need, we have to keep generating job-producing projects that will

create revenue for the province.

It's easy enough to say

that we could take that $300 million and maybe create more jobs with it

this year. I don't argue with that. You can take $300 million and you

can make

[ Page 7400 ]

work

projects for all kinds of jobs this year. But where do you get the

money for the make-work projects next year? We have to put some of our

money into some very real industries that will stimulate, maintain and

diversify our economy in the future.

It must be a

coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition will all of

a sudden put us into alliance with the Liberals in Ottawa. I wonder if

that coincidence might be simply that the Alsands project has been

cancelled, and the Alaska pipeline has been postponed, if not

cancelled. Do you know what caused those? The national energy program

caused those. The Leader of the Opposition is now trying to shift our

attention, because when the national energy program came in he went to

the B.C. Federation of Labour convention and said it was a terrific

program and the only thing wrong with it was that it didn't go far

enough, fast enough. He said that if he had any influence he would make

it happen that much faster and it would go further.

Now the

national energy program has, by common consensus across this country,

in effect destroyed those projects, destroyed much of the revenue for

this province and destroyed the oil and gas industry across this

country. That was the national energy program that he supported. Now, I

guess because of these recent announcements, the last thing he wants is

for anyone to make the connection that it was his support of that

Liberal government in Ottawa that was creating that national energy

program or that it was any of his doing. So now he's trying to switch

the blame to us. He does provide great entertainment.

AN HON. MEMBER: He keeps his feet firmly on both sides of the fence.

MR. BRUMMET:

He has his feet firmly planted in the clouds. He gives us great

entertainment, ignores the economic position, simply plays politics and

gives us very little substance. We are supposed to miss some of these

points — that he was in favour of the national energy program that has

done so much harm because he transfers our attention to some other

issue. The Leader of the Opposition clearly made the point that the

solution to our problems was increased government expenditure. That's

the answer to the problem. He very rarely talks about where that money

is going to come from. Oh, he says it will come back from those people

who are working — and some of it will — but it's something like

perpetual motion: you've got to put more energy into a machine than you

get back out. It would be nice if we could invent perpetual motion, but

we haven't reached that point yet.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We're

accused of having a balanced budget as our objective. Balancing the

budget is not the specific objective; it is the means by which we

accomplish good management of the taxpayers' money in this province. It

is the means by which we keep ourselves from going into that big black

hole. That has happened in other provinces in this country. Try and get

back out of that, because you always have to continue the programs and

you always have to pay far more to pay off those debts. So they do not

deal with the availability of funds; they simply deal with how money

could be spent. There's no question that if you spend enough money, you

can help a lot of people. You can help a lot more people by spending

than you can by taking away from them. But there is a connection: the

more we spend, the more we have to take from them. So we have to

encourage those industries.

Mind you, I suppose they had a

fantastic restraint program when they were in office. They used this

philosophy of spending and their restraint program was that they ran

out of money. When you can no longer sign the cheques, there's quite a

restraint program. It came to be in a very short time. When you can't

pay the bills, you have restraint. It works every time. For all they

say now, when those policies were reversed in 1976 this province

prospered. Those same policies are now being espoused in this act. It

is this government's policy: if we use our heads and continue to

develop our resources, while at the same time not overexpending in our

operating expenses, we will return to prosperity. It has happened

before and it will happen again.

Mr. Speaker, there's much

more a person could say about this program, but it gets repetitive, I

would imagine, with speech after speech. They say that this restraint

is bad, and we say that restraining increases is a good thing. I think

the people of this province will support the restraint on increases.

Many of the cuts that are being made in this province that are hurting

people are not necessary; they are necessary if we always assume that

huge wage increases must take priority over everything else in

budgeting. I think the people of this province are ready to say: "We do

not insist on wage increases, even though it hurts us personally

and even though we like large increases." Large wage increases are not

the way to go. If you hold down those wage increases, we can continue

with many of the programs in this province. We've even been criticized

for spending what money we put in reserve during good times. Imagine

that. "Don't spend the money you put in reserve in good times. Sock it

to the taxpayers instead." Yet this Finance minister and this

government have said that we're looking to good times in the future, so

we will spend those reserves in order to help the people now. If all of

our organizations in this society took that attitude, Mr. Speaker,

there would be very few people hurting in this province and we would be

on the road to prosperity a lot faster. We have to share our problems

as well as share our prosperity. If we're not prepared to do that, then

we are certainly going to go on the road to ruin.

As the

member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said yesterday: "What we've

heard is negativism, defeatism and procrastination from the

opposition." We have to go on with the building program and the

resource development in this province. At the same time, we have to

take some steps to ensure that government does not take more money than

the public can afford to give. I think this compensation act says:

"Let's restrain increases." It does not say "cutbacks."

MR. LAUK:

You know, I've always appreciated the speeches given by the hon. member

for North Peace River. I do believe, though — and I say this with as

much respect as is due under the circumstances — that the hon. member's

fuzzy economics are clouding his view of this bill. I do believe, Mr.

Speaker, that the hon. member for North Peace River really believes

that the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this province are

sincere in drafting and presenting this bill to the Legislature. I

really believe the hon. member for North Peace River believes that.

The

bill is a cynical, political move. It's not designed to restrain. It's

not designed as any kind of fair stabilization program. It's not

designed to last any length of time. It is designed as a crass,

cynical, political move.

[ Page 7401 ]

Mr.

Speaker, I'll deal with some of the remarks of the member for North

Peace River (Mr. Brummet) first, before providing my view of this bill.

He suggested that there was deficit financing under the NDP. This is

the kind of mythology that's been pressed on, largely led through the

current Minister of Finance's public representations that were not true.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is not imputing any improper motive to another member, is he?

MR. LAUK:

No, Mr. Speaker, and the course of action in the House is that if an

hon. member is in any way offended under the rules, he will rise and

say so. A little shout of "order" does not bring the Speaker's

attention to the matter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair must intervene if there is that imputation.

MR. LAUK:

The Chair intervenes only when there is an imputation directly given

through an unparliamentary expression. The Chair does not intervene

simply by having the minister saying "order." He must rise in his place

and take the point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the

Chair intervenes when the Chair feels it is necessary to intervene. The

hon. member continues on Bill 28. The points are well taken. Please

continue.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

member for North Peace River is trying to extend the mythology of NDP

deficit spending. This year all the special perpetual funds and special

funds created by two administrations — the previous Social Credit and

the NDP administration — were raided by the Ministry of Finance. Didn't

you hear about that, through the Speaker, to the member for North Peace

River? You call it a balanced budget.

Where has the hon.

member been for the last two months during this debate? Wasn't the hon.

member listening? Where are the special funds? Where is the First

Citizens' Fund, helping native Indians around the province? Where are

the funds that have been created by successive administrations in this

province for specific purposes to help British Columbia citizens, which

administrations, including this one, swore they would leave untouched?

Do you call that deficit financing? Nothing like that happened during

the NDP administration.

MR. BRUMMET: Nothing very much happened.

MR. LAUK: Oh, very cute.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. member can address the Chair. The hon. member for North Peace River will come to order.

MR. LAUK: Special funds at the end of the NDP administration were intact.

Surpluses were intact. The operating budget was intact. You've seen the

kind of debate, Mr. Speaker, that is inflammatory in this House. It's based

on mythology and false information. It gives the wrong impression. They continue

to say so. I don't care what they do out on the hustings. I can battle them

from constituency to constituency if they want, but in this chamber truth is

the hallmark of debate. That's good advice.

saw, earlier this afternoon, the hon. Premier introduce the champions

of "Reach for the Top." I think the hon. member for North Peace River

has given us an example of "reach for the bottom" in the kind of debate

he's presented in this bill today.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

"Fuzzy economics," indeed, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member suggests that

you can't take money from the public and give it back to the public —

that it's not creating cutbacks, it's restraining increases, and so on.

Where was he last spring when the NDP moved several motions to reduce

the Social Credit budgets for advertising, furniture and travel on the

part of the ministers? Eighty-two million dollars. He wants to hold

back people who can hardly pay their rent, buy their food and support

their families, but will he stand in his place with courage and vote

against that government voting for the motions to cut back their own

personal profligate travel and advertising budgets? Do we need

advertising? Have you seen the advertising that goes out? I've got an

example of the first piece of what I call "Bill Bennett Social Credit

advertising." I'm using that because of the expression used — not to be

disrespectful. Do you remember that in 1975? Do you remember when he

was Leader of the Opposition, and went up and down this province asking

for a mandate, and he got it? He called it: "Let's get it straight." Do

you remember that pamphlet?

Yesterday the hon. minister of

french wine — Consumer and Corporate Affairs — answered in question

period that it is now the policy of the government to abolish rent

control. That is the first time it has been said in this Legislature.

"Let's get it straight: (1) rent control will not be repealed;

(2) Social Credit will protect and improve the Mincome Plan;" — they eliminated

the Mincome plan — "

(3) Social Credit will protect the jobs of workers

in Crown corporations;

(4) Pharmacare is here to stay;

(5) Social Credit will

preserve farmland." We didn't know they were going to preserve farmland

for their friends; nevertheless that was their fifth promise. It said: "Do

not be conned, frightened, intimidated by NDP scare tactics." Do you remember

all of that, Mr. Speaker? I remember that. He says, and this is Bill Bennett

speaking: "Our party began as a real party of the people." Well, he's

right, it began as a real party of the people, but it soon left that stage.

"Not of any special- interest group," he said. On the second page

of that pamphlet there's a smiling picture of a much younger person than

he is today.

Here

are some of the things he promised. Where have they gone to? "Housing

for all citizens encouraged by grants and tax incentives through the

private sector. The Alberta system of community-care homes for senior

citizens." Have you seen any? "Mincome will be improved by directly

linking benefits to increases in the cost-of-living index." Remember

that promise? What happened to that one? Never done. "Provincial income

taxes will be held at the line." Here's a good one, Mr. Speaker. This

will amuse you. "The trend toward centralization of education will be

reversed and local school boards will be granted greater autonomy over

education and individual teachers greater freedom and security to

create a positive learning atmosphere in the class-

[ Page 7402 ]

room."

Remember that? There's the former principal of a high school. He

supports this party. That's probably why he joined. He saw that and he

said: "Hey, that sounds great." Here's another one that'll cause a

chuckle or two. "Freedom of choice will be given to the people of B.C.

In purchasing their auto insurance." Remember that? Here's the one

that's relevant to the stabilization act before us. "Management of

natural resources will emphasize performance by industry in terms of

environmental protection...and the Social Credit Party is committed to

fair wages for workers." That's what he said.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

The hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) has given me a lot

of springboards in my speech, but he suggested through his fuzzy and

woolly headed economics that if you take money from the public and give

it back.... We're not cutting back wages for civil servants; what we're

doing is restraining the increases. It's the same theory.

Then

he says the NDP is opposed to restraint. Well, nobody on earth is

opposed to restraint as long as it doesn't have anything to do with

them. You know what I mean, Mr. Speaker? I'm for disarmament, nuclear

disarmament. I was in the march with 40,000 people. Maybe the hon.

member was there. But when you mention disarmament, does that mean we

pass a law disarming ourselves? Does that mean we must pass a law

disarming one group of people and nobody else? Sure, we're for

disarmament, but what does it mean in practical terms? It means we have

to sit down and work out a fair, careful and responsible plan to

disarm. That's what we must do, because I assume we're all in favour of

disarmament. We're all in favour of restraint, but do we pass a law

singling out one group of civil servants in the whole of the economic

sector and say we're going to limit them? Is that fair? Is that the

kind of law that the hon. member for North Peace River wishes to

propose and support? I think not. Where was the hon. member in 1979?

The NDP said: "Mind your Ps and Qs, because in the 1980s there's going

to be a terrible recession. It's going to be a dangerous recession and

you've got to be very careful with the province's finances and the

province's economic planning because in the eighties we're going to be

in a downturn." Where was the hon. member for North Peace River then,

Mr. Speaker?

Even up to last year, the Premier of this

province took that speech that I gave in 1979 and he laughed. He said:

"The little fellow from Vancouver Centre doesn't know what he's talking

about. The NDP doesn't know what they're talking about. We're the ones

that know economics. We're the financial wizards." Now they're on the

edge of the abyss. They haven't planned for it. They're caught short.

They're without money, they're without programs, they're without ideas.

what do they do? They hit the people who have made less during the

inflationary period than any other sector in the province. Civil

servants have had an 8 percent-a-year increase. On average, that's 3 or

4 percent behind inflation every year. Now they're going to hit them.

Everybody else has been making 17 and 18 and 20 percent. Now he's going

to hit the little civil servant. What about the increases of the member

for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) ? He accepted 20 and 30 percent

increases every year since he was elected. Has he rushed to Treasury

Board and given it back, saying that it's not fair? He's keeping his,

but he's going to hit the civil servants; and he's calling that fair.

He says that's going to take us out of the depression. Fuzzy-headed

economics!

I'd be a little bit more impressed if the hon.

member could tell me why his government ignored the NDP warning that

the recession was around the corner. Why didn't they plan? Why didn't

the former broadcaster, the Minister of Finance, find someone

intelligent enough to tell him that there may have been some truth in

what we were saying? Instead, he was locked in his office counting

paper clips and frothing at the mouth at ICBC and the NDP programs. He

should have been looking forward to the time which we charged would

occur and planned for it. Did he do it? No. In his ineptitude and

bankruptcy, as far as ideas are concerned, he brings in this shabby,

sneaky, backstabbing little piece of legislation. It is unfair, it is

cruel, it is mean, it is arrogant. If you are going to have restraint,

have restraint for everybody. That's the democratic system, not this

elitist view that we've got so many slaves on the public purse and

they're going to toe the line.

Where was the Minister of

Finance, where were all the hon. members of the government side, when

the opposition voted motion after motion, totalling $82 million in

cutbacks last year? They were not essential areas that we asked to be

cut back. They were travel for the ministers, advertising for the

ministers, office furniture. Why didn't they accept our motions to cut

back? We didn't ask that the whole budget be cut out; we just moved

that they cut back what they were asking for to the previous year's

level — that's all. Did they go for that? It would have totalled $82

million. That's probably much more than they're going to save by this

so-called stabilization act.

This year the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) has asked for $80,000 in his personal travel

budget. All over the province he's being called Vasco da Gama Smith. An

Education minister that needs $80,000 for travel? Is that restraint?

We've had a show of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs'

(Hon. Mr. Hyndman'

s) expenditures for 1981. Have you seen those bills?

They add up. You multiply that minister by — how many ministers are

there? — 19. That's pretty high living, Mr. Speaker. Yet with a

straight face they come into this House and say that the NDP is against

restraint. What we're against, Mr. Speaker, is hypocrisy. What we're

against is selfishness, and being unfair and unjust to one group as

opposed to another.

The BCGEU and the civil servants have

been left, I think, about 16 to 18 percent behind, if you take

inflation into consideration. While almost everybody else in the

organized working area were getting 15 and 20 per cent increases

because of inflation, the civil servants got 8 percent. They're the

ones we're hitting. Does that seem fair? What did the government give

doctors? What did the government cave in and give other people? When it

comes to the civil service — ordinary people; people whom they don't

like to look at too often; ordinary people who can't raise enough money

for rent and food and to send their kids to school, to keep their

families....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The

hon. minister of lands and whatever says that I'm a fat-cat lawyer.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, here is the hon. minister who is supporting

this bill that is unfair.... He comes from the working class. He hasn't

seen a working person for some time now. He's the ex-Minister of

Labour. I wonder if he thinks this bill is fair. I don't think so.

[ Page 7403 ]

What

has the government done about the economy that we're faced with such

so-called restraint legislation? Do you know what they have done since

1976? They ignored our warnings; that was bad enough. But they also

shut down any possibility of a steel mill — perhaps in your

constituency, Mr. Speaker. They shut down Railwest. Now we need it to

build cars for the ALRT, but they shut it down; they said it was

uneconomic. They shut down the NDP's proposal for an oil refinery, a

copper smelter and many other projects. And do you know what? They

stand up and say it's uneconomic. When the NDP get up and say, "We are

spending a billion dollars of public money to subsidize coal to Japan

and here are the figures," they say: "Well, you're negative." They shut

down the steel mill, Railwest factory, oil refinery and copper smelter,

and subsidize coal sales — raw coal right out of the land — creating

not one permanent job for a British Columbian, not one permanent job

for a person born and raised in this province. That money is just

flowing over to Tokyo, and they're laughing at us every day. We raise

that with the government, and the hon. member for North Peace River

(Mr. Brummet) says we're being negative.

This government has

nothing but policies of greed and despair. On the one hand the hon.

member for North Peace River and the treasury benches argue in the

debate in this bill — if we hear from some of them I'm sure they will —

that we've got to restrain, we've got to work together, we've got to

cooperate. Is that working together and cooperating — the personal

profligacy of the treasury benches, of cabinet ministers at public

expense? The unfairness in the application of this formula of restraint

only to the public sector, which has been held back for three years?

And the government getting off the hook that has destroyed our economy

by shutting down major programs and then going into a ballocks of a

program up in the northeast?

AN HON. MEMBER: Which you announced.

MR. LAUK:

I announced something that would be a benefit to the province of

British Columbia, not a sellout to the Japanese steel mills, Mr.

Speaker.

It's the policies of greed and despair that mark

this government. I say greed, because this government has placed greed

on a pedestal since they came to office. They've allowed greed to

flourish in this province. They're not upset with the greed of major

corporations or banks or financial institutions; they're not upset with

the people who are robbing money from ordinary working people in this

province — the people who can't make mortgage payments. What upsets

them is when the ordinary people want to get ahead just a little bit;

then they get slapped down. Then the member for North Peace River has

the nerve to call those public servants greedy. You heard him: right in

this House he said they're greedy. What about the greed of someone who

would spend $500 on one supper? What about the greed of someone who

tries to pick out of the public purse a trip down to Arizona? What

about the greed of the financial institutions and the banks that are

charging 20 percent and 22 percent on mortgages? Does that upset the

government? Oh, no, that's free enterprise; that's this great big

casino in the sky that we all support.

Mr. Speaker, the

hypocrisy that surrounds the debate on this bill on the government side

has reached an all-time low, and that's why I say it was fitting today

that we introduced "Reach for the Top" champions, because they can look

down on this side and see the champions of "Reach for the Bottom." The

government was warned and took no action, and now with the devastated

economy and with bankruptcy in ideas they run for cover.

Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member for North Peace River touched upon all

important points, and I'm glad he did, because it reminds me of the

points I wanted to raise in my speech. He has denied that there was any

complicity between the Social Credit government and Pierre Trudeau. Now

look at the evidence; look at it logically and factually. The Premier

left this province in February....

Someone just handed this to me. Mr. Speaker, this is from the front page of the Vancouver Sun of May 4. I won't deal with it in any detail. My friend the member for Vancouver East will be dealing with this in some detail.

But

look at the facts. In February the Premier goes to the

federal-provincial conference. You'll remember, as I do and the press

certainly does, that the Premier was very saddened. The Minister of

Finance joined him, as I recall. Neither was in what I would call a

good mood. Actually, no British Columbian was. Perhaps not even any

Canadians were. Times are not good now, but they weren't good then. So

I was rather puzzled when the Premier came back in a rather happy mood.

I'll tell you what happened there: Trudeau had a private meeting with

the Premier and suggested the restraint program.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

He says it's imagination. The night he met with Trudeau, Trudeau

suggested the restraint program to the Premier of this province, and

the Premier was so impressed that Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the architect

of disaster, was talking to him that he agreed to institute his

restraint program. No other Premier in the country did; every other

Premier said: "No. You've created a disaster. Don't ask us to take it

out on our civil servants." But the Premier of B.C. was only too

willing to run back and do it and stab his own civil servants in the

back.

Mr. Speaker, in Charlottetown last week the Prime Minister of this country

confirmed the allegations made by the leader of this opposition. In Charlottetown

he said, when he called upon the public for support that escaped him at the

federal-provincial economic conference in February: "British Columbia is

the only province to have imposed wage restrictions on its public servants in

the wake of the February meeting."

MR. MACDONALD: In the wake.

MR. LAUK:

In the wake, indeed, Mr. Speaker. And here we have the member for North

Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who's now way out of his seat — out of seat,

out of mind — who has denied that there's complicity between the

architect of disaster, the black prince from Ottawa, and the Premier of

the province of British Columbia. There's proof positive. You see, Mr.

Speaker, when you're in bed with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, he talks. Mr.

Speaker, Pierre Elliott Trudeau has blown the whistle. He's explained

that there was complicity between Premier Bennett and the federal

government.

Interjections.

[ Page 7404 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I'll ask the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie), the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) and all other members

who are interrupting to come to order.

MR. LAUK: I

can understand why they're upset, Mr. Speaker. The people of British

Columbia know full well that Trudeau has been the architect of the

economic disaster in this country, and they themselves know how upset

they are to learn of the complicity between the Prime Minister of

Canada and their own Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who put them back in?

MR. RITCHIE: The NDP.

MR. LAUK:

Listen to them chirp now, Mr. Speaker. "Who put them back in?" "The

NDP." I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the NDP would never dream of entering

into this kind of disgraceful conspiracy to stab the civil servants of

the province of British Columbia in the back. And he's playing the

willing duke. Trudeau says he wants to freeze salaries of civil

servants making more than 50 grand a year, and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: And he mocked the other Premiers.

MR. LAUK:

And he mocked the other Premiers for their response in February.

Trudeau said: "It seemed like a simple enough idea to me." But do you

know the results? "You do what you want, but we'll do what we want."

"You do it," said the federal government, "and bring down the inflation

rate." And Premier Bennett was the only one that complied.

MR. MACDONALD: They call that leadership.

MR. LAUK: That's right, Mr. Speaker.

The

other point that should be made is this: my friend the member for North

Peace River is saying that we're anti-employer, but we're not

anti-employer. The Employers Council is controlled by large employers,

and ordinary employers — I'm one; I'm an ordinary employer.... There

are lots of small businessmen and entrepreneurs in this province that

are small employers, but let's talk about the big employers.

This

is a secret memorandum sent out by the Employers' Council of British

Columbia, advising how to get through to the Premier's office. It says:

"Sometimes it takes a program to know who the players are in the Premier's office."

This is the report to their members.

"The

departure of executive director Audrey Schatz was followed recently by

the cabinet order changing Deputy Minister Patrick Kinsella to

principal secretary, Norman Spector to deputy minister" and so on.

Are you ready for this?

"This

can confuse business since improved communications with industry was

part of both Mrs. Schatz's and Mr. Kinsella's job descriptions. In

fact, Mr. Kinsella is saying that his role as principal secretary will

see him continuing as the number one contact for business with the

Premier's office. The new job should even allow him more time and

flexibility to deal with contacts in the industry.

"On

the other hand, some Victoria insiders think that Dr. Spector's

position in the hierarchy makes him an obvious source of help with

thorny bureaucratic problems."

And then he goes on to describe some differences.

"This

will probably not be the way things work in Victoria. The Premier's

deputy is backed by no strong tradition of presiding over the senior

bureaucrats. It stands to reason that a political adviser like Mr.

Kinsella can be more influential than a civil servant. Politics and

policy tend to get blurred at the top. Mr. Kinsella's new advantage

comes from his ability to get fully involved with policy while

participating in political decisions. Publicly and privately, business

is being assured that Mr. Kinsella is still their chief contact." — I

wonder why? — "It may take several months of jockeying before we see

this confirmed, but for the moment it is the best conclusion.

"For

those readers particularly interested in the Premier's inner council, a

short Who's Who appears on the next page of this report."

MR. KING: Go on. Let's hear this.

MR. LAUK: This is a private memorandum to all members of the Employers Council.

MR. SPEAKER: If we could return to the bill, it would be most appreciated.

MR. LAUK: They mention later on how this applies to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I'll be tabling this.

"Patrick

Kinsella, principal secretary to the Premier, a former organizer with

the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario. Mr. Kinsella has found

the political climate in B.C. much harsher than he's used to. The

change in his title from deputy minister to principal secretary

reflects the difficulty of having both a top bureaucrat and an

unabashed political operative in the same individual. Despite the

change, he still makes the most money, and may be expected to continue

to have control over most of the office's operations. Mr. Kinsella will

continue to attend cabinet meetings. He is easygoing and affable."

The next is:

"Norman

Spector, age 33, deputy minister to the Premier. Dr. Spector is an

acceptably abrasive intellectual who has risen meteorically in the B.C.

public service. His brains seem to be his strong suit, rather than

personality. He's not keen on politics, but thrives on policy, much

like his mentor, Intergovernmental Relations Deputy Minister James

Matkin. He is apparently an architect of the government's restraint

program."

You see how it relates to the bill?

There's a fellow here called Michael Bailey, but I think he's an advance man.

The

Employers Council seems to know a great deal about what's going on in

the Premier's office. The Employers Council apparently knew about the

restraint program before it was going to be announced. This kind of

inside information, this familiarity of the Employers Council directly

with the Premier's office is, I suggest to you, the reason we have a

restraint bill that is so unfair, a restraint bill that deals with

[ Page 7405 ]

wages

of one sector of our economy and not wages and prices of the entire

sector. Ordinary people do not have the ear of the Premier, but the

Employers Council does. They know what's going on. They have even

psyched everybody out there. They've got a computer printout, a

psycho-printout, on everybody in the Premier's office.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

The hon. member for Central Fraser Valley said: "I don't steal

documents." I suppose he's suggesting that I might have stolen this

document.

MR. RITCHIE: No, I'm not.

MR. LAUK:

You wouldn't suggest that? I'm glad, because it comes from your office.

It says: "Have a look at this, Gary. For your information. Regards,

Billy Ritchie."

MR. SPEAKER: Although levity is always appreciated, perhaps we could get back to the bill.

MR. LAUK:

I don't know what he's got against the Premier's office, or why he

wants the opposition to have this, Mr. Speaker, but the chairman of the

Socred caucus must know what he's doing.

I have brought in

this memorandum to demonstrate the access that the Employers Council

has to the Premier's office, and how they apparently seemed to know

about the restraint program before it was announced; to demonstrate why

ordinary people in this province feel they're being ignored by this

government and why they feel this government represents only the

handful of elite, large employers of this province, not ordinary

people. The whole program is set up to stick it to a few little people

and make it appear as if it's a restraint program that's going to

benefit us all. It's not going to benefit us all; it's going to get the

government out of a jackpot that they've created by ignoring advice and

by planning for the recession. That's going to be done at the expense

of people down at the low end of the totem pole as far as wages are

concerned. It is a cynical, negative, sneaky, back-stabbing piece of

legislation. It is totally unfair.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

I don't blame the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) for saying that my time limit is up. If I were a Socred, I

would wish that I would be sitting down right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were.

MR. LAUK:

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we measure our members here from the

neck up and not from the neck.... Did you get it over there? I'll only

have to repeat what I was going to say.

Mr. Speaker, we're

opposed to this legislation on the basis that it is unfair. It is

dealing with public-sector employees only at the expense of people who

have not had a fair increase for three years. It is designed to get the

government off the hook for their own ineptitude, their own lack of

planning and their own lack of prudence during the last three years

since they were solemnly warned by the NDP that the coming recession

would take place. They ran out of money.

They've raided the

perpetual funds. They're in deficit spending already and they wish to

sock it to their own personal slaves, the civil servants. That's why

every hon. member should vote against this bill.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to enter the debate until I

had an opportunity to peruse the contribution made by the Leader of the

Opposition in his

summary yesterday.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

While

our debate is taking place in this chamber today, an emergency debate

is going on in the House of Commons with respect to the state of the

economy in Canada. We're in a time of record inflation in our country,

with a deep depression in the performance of the private sector. I

vividly recall the evening in which the New Democratic Party in Ottawa

combined with the Liberals to defeat the then-Conservative government.

MR. LEGGATT: Were you a Liberal then, Pat?

HON. MR. McGEER: No. I wasn't in bed with the Liberals then, but you were.

Mr.

Speaker, what was significant about that debate was that the issue

defeating the Conservative budget and the Conservative government was a

proposed 18-cent-a-gallon increase in gasoline prices. The Liberals

complained about inflation and said they would never ever do such a

thing as impose an outrageous increase of as much as 18 cents a gallon

in gasoline prices,

The Conservative government was defeated

and those pious people in opposition — the New Democratic Party and the

Liberals — campaigned to the people on a program of restraint in energy

prices, this being such an important component of the cost of living in

our country.

Since the Liberal government has been elected,

gasoline prices have increased in Canada in less than two years by 77

cents a gallon, and there has been no fewer than 15 price increases.

What is there about those actions that has relevance to this particular

debate? It's merely this: be careful of what pious people say when

they're in opposition. Ask yourself: is this piety sincere or

hypocritical?

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition

telling us about how embarrassed he was to have gone down to pay

respect to the Queen and to discover that he was in a hotel suite in

Ottawa with carpets up to his ankles, how he tippytoed across, and how

terrible it was for a member of this Legislative Assembly to find

himself involuntarily in such luxury — as though that Leader of the

Opposition, if in office, would never ever do such a thing.

What

I found so difficult to reconcile, as I listened to those pious

remarks, was that when that Leader of the Opposition was elected

Premier of British Columbia his first act was to double his own salary

and become the highest-paid politician in Canada. I remember being on

the other side of the House when be was Premier of British Columbia and

stood up in the House and said: "If we have the money we'll spend it."

I say watch the hypocritical members of this House. The problem was

that they not only spent all that was coming in, they spent a lot that

they didn't have. If I sound less than pleased when I hear the remarks

made by the Leader of the Opposition, it's because I still have scars

on my back

[ Page 7406 ]

from

trying to clean up the profligacy that they left behind in the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and all the unpaid bills that

came streaming in in the first year we were in office, taking a 10

percent wage cut. When I hear the members of that opposition standing

up in this House, telling about all the restraints they put into

practice, all the cuts they were proposing for this government, I

thought only of the doubling of the salaries, of the commitment to

spend all the money that came in, and then of the performance of

spending hundreds of millions of dollars that didn't come in.

say to you, Mr. Speaker, to this House and to the people of the general

public: beware of that opposition, just as the public should have been

wary of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party that combined to

defeat a government in Canada that was bringing forward a program of

restraint in this country. The opposition in the House of Commons of

that day lied to the people of Canada. Their performance since has

proved it. I say to you that there is everything in the record against

the protestations of the New Democratic Party. In the past they did

exactly the opposite of what they're saying. If they ever got power in

British Columbia, they would again be the first to double their own

salaries, as they did before, and make themselves the highest-paid

politicians in Canada. They've done it before and they'd do it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: It isn't true.

HON. MR. McGEER:

You wouldn't immediately double your salaries like you did before? I

only say that the record in British Columbia speaks for itself, not the

pious, hypocritical words of those politicians.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much are you getting, Pat?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not as embarrassed by the MLAs' salaries today as I

was by the raises given to the MLAs as soon as the New Democratic Party

took office in 1972. That was embarrassing. The highest-paid

politicians in Canada; and they'd do it again.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. All members will have an opportunity to

speak in the debate. At this time the Minister of Science has the floor.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I'm getting long in the tooth, because I've been

here many years. I watched them say these things in opposition years

ago, I watched them in office doing the opposite of what they said, and

I watch them now in opposition again making pious promises. I only

think: what would happen if this irresponsible group were ever to have

the reins of power in British Columbia once more? Would they do even

more damage than they did the last time? Would they be even more

extravagant than they were before? It's my conclusion, Mr. Speaker,

that they would be, that we would never find under a socialist party in

British Columbia a genuine restraint program, something that dispenses

fairness in British Columbia at a time of world economic difficulty —

because, that's what we face.

Nearly all the public money

which is spent whether by the federal government of the United States,

AN HON. MEMBER: Argentina.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting that the member raised the question

of Argentina, because I came into this House after having visited that

country, warning that to put in the policies the New Democratic Party

had been advocating would bring the same economic ruin that has been

experienced by the country of Argentina, and that in order to keep

civil liberties in that country and somehow....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, go and get Hansard .

A tragic country — and I only say that the economic policies are

precisely the same. Therefore a country which has no economic out

embarks upon military adventurism and creates a tragedy for the world.

But the consequence, again, is exactly the policies you have been

advocating and that have been put into practice in their country to the

dismay of their citizens and now of the world. But the New Democratic

Party never listened to what was said. I think you did, Mr. Speaker,

and I hope that some of the people in British Columbia did. But they

didn't listen to it over there; and if they had, they wouldn't

understand, because I don't think the New Democratic Party fully

appreciates the folly of the policies they put forward.

Without

repeating points made at that time, I would merely say that governments

are spending public money mostly on civil servants and quasi civil

servants. If you run deficits that amount to enormous proportions of

the national wealth and therefore act as a genuine drain on the

economy, you do that because you are paying civil servants and quasi

civil servants that the private sector cannot afford to sustain. If in

attempting to carry that monkey on the public's back governments then

go — as our national government has gone — to the lending public and

set interest rates of 19 percent, as Canada has done with its

government bonds, where does that leave the private sector? That leaves

the private sector unable to perform, because fixed assets which don't

produce a cash flow are theoretically increasing at the inflation rate,

and yet to meet a payroll you've got to have the cash coming in the

door. The traditional economic method of reducing inflation is to

increase interest rates and therefore bring about deflation. But what

is the consequence of that, Mr. Speaker? The consequence is to wreak

havoc, to inflict punishment, to cause distress in the private sector.

Who

remains sheltered? Those in the public sector are the ones who remain

sheltered, because the payroll is met through taxes and government

borrowing. You apply the traditional methods of curing inflation and

you hit the people who are innocent. You protect the people who,

through the cumulative effect of government policy, are the ones

creating the problem. When a restraint program is put in place in

British Columbia, it's intended to redress that balance. It's intended

to take less out of the private sector, which cannot afford to provide

it, and to give less to the public sector, because there isn't that

much coming from the private sector to support them.

Not all

dollars in an economy are equal. There is a hierarchy of dollars. The

most valuable are those that lead to future manufacturing; the

exploration for mines, gas wells and oil wells; the roads to forest

resources; and the research work that leads to inventions. These are

the most valuable

[ Page 7407 ]

dollars,

because they ultimately lead to manufacturing. Those are the next most

valuable dollars, because they employ people, produce goods and provide

for exports. They also provide for the service industries to

manufacturing. These are the next most important dollars because,

again, they provide jobs in the private sector.

The least

important dollars in terms of economic leverage are those dollars that

come from the public sector, because they don't lead to the production

of goods, exports or any of those things that provide for multipliers.

Those jobs in the public sector are only used for consumer leverage and

nothing more. They're the least important. But the most unfortunate

weakness of democracy is that the currency of elections is not dollars

but votes. The hierarchy of votes goes in the opposite direction. But

if democracy is to survive, and if the free world's economic system is

to survive, there must be a rationalization between the value of

dollars and the value of votes. There must be a proper balance between

the private sector and the public sector. I think you can see that if

the most votes go to people who will take the most out of the private

sector, they will do the most damage to an economy, and eventually a

country will collapse and the horrors of depression will arrive. We're

moving in that direction.

Our government may be too small to

reverse the current of the world, but at least by this restraint bill

we understand the nature of the imbalance and the corrective actions

that must be taken not just by us but by the world.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:

The groans come from the opposition. I only say: listen to those

groans, because it's groans of that kind and philosophy of the kind

that has been put forward by the New Democratic Party, whether

practised by a socialist government or not, that has led to the

economic difficulty that the world is experiencing today.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I will ask the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) to

come to order. I will ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt)

to come to order. Hon. members, at certain times interjections can be

tolerated, but when those interjections constantly flow, more so than

the speaker, it's difficult to comprehend.

HON. MR. McGEER:

"Friedmanism," contemptuously says the socialist, Mr. Speaker. Better

Friedmanism than communism. That's the ultimate, because what these

people have said.... They don't like that word. I'm not calling them

communists. I'm merely saying that communists believe in state

ownership of everything; they don't believe in any private enterprise

at all.

When I listen to the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) talk about "confiscating the private sector" and "demanding

that the government owns everything," I don't think of socialism, Mr.

Speaker. I certainly don't think of free enterprise. But there are

countries that practise government ownership of everything. Like they

say in Czechoslovakia: "Everything is ours, but nothing is mine."

That's the philosophy that the people across really believe in their

hearts. I'm only saying, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. If there are further outbreaks during the debate, I will

have no alternative but to ask those members to leave this assembly.

The Chair has been more than tolerant in putting up with interjections

and remarks from the government benches. Every member shall have an

opportunity to speak in this chamber without interruption.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, the harshest words to the opposition in this House are

those that tell the truth. That's the difficulty that we face this

afternoon. When it comes time to tell the truth, reflect on the

consequences of the policies advocated by the members opposite, as we

must recall, the test of those policies and philosophies we had for a

brief period in British Columbia, between 1972 and 1975. That was the

genuine indication of their intent and their spirit. This is what is

causing the difficulty in the debate, because it is hard to face. When

the members opposite cry for fair play, ask for more for the public

sector, demand — as the member for North Island did — confiscation of

the private sector in order to pay for it....

MR. GABELMANN: When?

HON. MR. MCGEER:

May I advise that the member for North Island read his speeches. I

would similarly advise that the Leader of the Opposition read his

speeches.

MR. GABELMANN: Since when is lying....

[The Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Be seated, hon. members. I will ask at this time that

the member who made the remark — the member for North Island — withdraw

the remark that he made in this House a few moments ago. Does the

member so withdraw?

MR. GABELMANN: Which one, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That there was a lie told by the member.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't say that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The Chair can resolve the matter simply. If the member in any way

inferred that a member of this House was lying, would he so withdraw

that remark?

MR. GABELMANN: I am sorry I used the word "lie." What I meant to say was that everything he said was utterly false.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The remark is withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, I think that again one has to examine the record — mostly

the record of performance but also the record of what was stated in the

House. I am quite happy to let Hansard ....

[ Page 7408 ]

MR. MACDONALD: You never quoted. You just make up things that people are supposed to have said. You never quote the record.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Let me quote the record then. This is from the member for North Island.

"If the bill had a provision in it that cut back the excessive wages of

the Premier through an income tax mechanism that said all of the money

he earns from all of his sources each year beyond a certain level would

be taxed at a confiscatory level...." That is the point. We don't

believe, as they do, in confiscatory taxation. We don't believe in

socialism. We do believe in a fair distribution of the wealth of

British Columbia between the public and private sectors. We do say that

the private sector must lead the public sector in wages and benefits,

because this is where the bread and butter in the province comes from.

We cannot have a situation in British Columbia where the public sector,

using the taxation power of government, bleeds the private sector to

the point where it can no longer support the people of British Columbia

and, in effect, collapses. That is what we must avoid and all steps

must be taken at the public level to see that the private sector in

this province survives.

I only say: beware of the socialist

opposition. They do not believe in the private sector. They only

believe in more for themselves by doubling their salaries, more for the

public sector, less for the private sector and ultimately, if that

course of action is pursued, ruination of the wealth we have come to

enjoy and will continue to enjoy in British Columbia if people follow

the wise policies of this government and pursue, as voters, the wise

policies that they followed in defeating the New Democratic Party in

1933, 1937, 1941, 1945, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1969,

1975 and 1979, only missing once — to their eternal regret — in 1972.

Never again! That is why I am supporting this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, prior to recognizing the second member for Vancouver

East, I would again caution all members that in this chamber each and

every member has a right to speak and a right to be heard. While

interjections can be tolerated on occasion, constant interjections that

make the address by the member indiscernible are not to be tolerated

and will not be tolerated by the Chair. I would ask all members to bear

that in mind.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I want to

make two points of order. Firstly, everything you said is correct, but

the member also had a responsibility not to misrepresent what other

members are saying. The second point of order is that nowhere in the

minister's speech did he talk about the principle of this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the member for North Island makes a very good point, and

I think if we reflect not only on what has been said this afternoon but

even go back as far as to the opening remarks by the opening

speaker.... The same parallels could be drawn for the designated

speaker for the opposition. The debate has been rather wide-ranging,

hon. members, and that wide-ranging debate is attributed to both sides

of the House. It is each member's duty to bring himself within the

confines of the bill before us.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Speaker, it's becoming a fun thing to listen to the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. There's one characteristic

about those speeches: he makes great sweeping statements, but he never

quotes figures. He says, for example, that we came in here in 1972 and

doubled the salaries. He says that the Premier of British Columbia was

the highest-paid politician in Canada. I use his exact words. Here we

have a minister of the Crown and someone who comes from the

universities to whom a certain amount of exact statement might be

reasonably ascribable....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I wouldn't hold him to exactitude, but time after time he keeps dropping these clunkers which are factually untrue.

The

Premier of British Columbia at that time was not the highest-paid

politician in Canada. If the minister would reflect — and he never

reflects before he speaks — he would know that. As for the salaries

that were increased at that time at which he expresses pious

indignation, he voted for them. He never thinks before he gets up to

speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is a little embarrassing.

MR. MACDONALD: You voted for them. You didn't speak against them either, Mr. minister. You didn't say a word.

Then

he keeps putting words in other people's mouths. I made notes as I was

sitting here. He said that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

demanded that the government own everything. Will the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications tell the House when the member

for North Island made that statement?. He never said that. He never

said that in his life. It's pure fiction.

HON. MR. MCGEER: He said it on May 4, 1982, at 11:38 a.m.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you never get anything right.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Dave Stupich will say you're always right. He thinks you do a good job.

MR. MACDONALD:

Oh, I'm not listening to a $10,000 man. I couldn't believe it could be

that much. How could it be that much? I couldn't believe it, you know.

My God, the CBC guy got.... A deputy minister only got $150,000. You

just got enough to pay your part of your legal costs. Then when we

offered you the BCRIC shares, you wouldn't take them because you knew

they were worthless. That was for the common people of British Columbia

— to have the BCRIC shares in their pockets.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

[ Page 7409 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Can we pull this together now. Let's have orderly debate.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, never mind anything more about the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. He talks about debts and he

always goes into these great things, but he never quotes the truth and

never quotes the record. That minister is an empty vessel making a lot

of noise. The old Liberal.... I was going to tell the Premier before he

left....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're too late. You've got to be quick.

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, will you tell him that the minister who just spoke didn't defend

this Bill 28 at all, because the government ranks are ashamed of it.

They know it is discriminatory against certain groups in society. They

say it dispenses fairness, yet it picks out only certain groups for

punishment, while in this ripoff society everybody else, with their

leave and let, is getting away with profits, speculative games, special

privileges of all kinds. The minister didn't defend the bill; he barely

referred to the bill that is before the House at the present time, a

bill that Paul Weiler said would not work. Paul Weiler is a respected

name not only in British Columbia but in all of Canada and the United

States as well. He said you cannot, through a bill such as Bill 28,

control inflation by picking out three or four groups in society and

letting the rest of the thing run wild. He said it is not only unfair

but that it would not work.

So the Minister of Universities

doesn't attempt to defend the bill. And neither do the other speakers;

they go through these old clippings files. The first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Hall) was quite correct. This is what I wanted to

tell the Premier before he left the chamber, so one of the other

members will tell him what he already knows: this bill was made on

Sussex Drive in Ottawa. I want to repeat one part of the press

statement from May 4 that was quoted by the member for Vancouver

Centre: "British Columbia is the only province to have imposed wage

restrictions on its public servants in the wake of the February

meeting, arising right out of the Trudeau request."

AN. HON. MEMBER: Made in Sussex Drive.

MR. MACDONALD:

That's right, made in Sussex Drive. It's a Trudeau bill that we're

debating today, and Trudeau himself has not had the nerve to try to

impose this kind of control on the public service of Canada. He's left

it to his tame poodle dog running around in the province of British

Columbia to pick up the scent and do it here in this province. There

are parallels between what is happening in Ottawa and what is happening

in the province of British Columbia. You have in Ottawa profligate

spending by the ministers of the Crown on not just their salaries, but

particularly on their travel allowances, perks, entertainment, public

relations and government advertising. Michael Pitfield, Trudeau's close

buddy and good friend, buys a new desk and, in what is supposed to be a

time of restraint, pays $4,850 for it.

MR. LEA: That would buy a good meal out here.

MR. MACDONALD:

Michael Pitfield could give some of the ministers of the Crown in

British Columbia a pretty good run for their travel expenses. He's

flying first class back and forth every weekend between Ottawa and

Boston, where he's part of the university establishment — presumably he

has a salary there too. That costs the taxpayers.

But the

parallel with what's happening in British Columbia is striking to

anyone who thinks about it. Travel expenses of ministers of the Crown

are going up 22 percent at a time when they turn to their own civil

servants, who have restrained themselves already on a contract for 8, 8

and 8 over three years, and put them under restraint. Where is the

restraint on the profligate ways of the government opposite? It's

nowhere to be found.

There's another parallel between Ottawa

and the province of British Columbia, and that's the old-boy Liberal

network. The Liberal party, to its credit, has two wings.

MR. SEGARTY: The left wing and the right wing.

MR. MACDONALD:

Of the Liberal party? In a sense, that's right. You have the true

Grits, like Gordon Gibson Jr., who, when he ran as leader of the

provincial Liberal Party — I am tracing the origins of this bill, Mr.

Speaker — was not given any money by the fat cats of the Liberal

establishment. Then you have the old die-hard establishment Liberals

like Paul Manning, who was appointed to manage B.C. Place by the Social

Credit government; like Ron Basford, who didn't help Gordon Gibson in

the provincial Liberal Party but who is appointed for northeast coal at

$600 a day plus, presumably, his private.... But he doesn't have much

of a pension. Did he get a pension from the federal government too? No.

Then

you have not only the Trudeau request for this bill and compliance by

the Premier of British Columbia; you also have the Liberal network, the

old-style establishment die-hard Liberals, represented on the

government benches by the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications, who has just taken his place; by the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams), who is not here; and by the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). That is the old

establishment Liberal connection. That is where this bill came from:

from Sussex Drive, from Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The press points this

out. He mocks the other premiers of Canada, saying: "Why didn't you

restrain your public servants?" And the other nine premiers of Canada

said: "What would be fair about picking out one group? Why pick out

just teachers, hospital people and the public service and let the

construction trades go their own way, passing it on to the public; let

the speculative ripoffs continue; let prices do what they will in an

inflationary period; let profits rise and pick out the lower-paid

echelons of society for punishment?" The other nine wouldn't do it and

Trudeau mocks them, but he doesn't mock Premier William Bennett, the

premier of the province of British Columbia, because Premier William

Bennett carried out his behest.

We live in a very unfair

society, and this kind of legislation, which makes the unfairness more

acute, is discriminatory in the real sense of that word. The Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications said that the least

important dollars are those that come from the public sector. I don't

deny that there are important investment dollars in the private sector

but there is also very important public work being performed in the

public sector. I am surprised at a minister of the Crown who downgrades

our public-sector

[ Page 7410 ]

employees

in the way he does. He has the B.C. Research Council under his

jurisdiction, and there is no more imaginative, able group in this

province in terms of sparking new manufacturing industries and new

technology. Why does a government downgrade its own public service? He

says the least important dollars, to use his words, are in the public

sector. I say that the least important dollars show up in the kind of

speculative ripoffs at the expense of the people of the province of

British Columbia that we see happening around us time after time,

encouraged and allowed to flourish by this government.

Take,

for example, Crofton Manor, which has 162 units, mostly senior people.

They were given six months notice by Neil Cook, the owner. Neil Cook

sold it, at a pre-taxed profit of $6 million, to real estate and sports

team flipper Nelson Skalbania for $10.2 million. Mr. Skalbania was once

going to run as the Social Credit candidate in Vancouver East but he

was too busy in this kind of speculative ripoff to patrol the streets

or meet people. Mr. Skalbania plans to sell it off as condominiums, for

a total of $16 million. Without a nail being pounded in, here we have

an example of the kind of speculative profiteering that is allowed by a

government with no housing policy. We see it in the way they give

liquor licences to their political friends, take a public franchise and

create vast private capital gain in the hands of their friends. We see

it where the Minister of Agriculture presides. Unlike Winston

Churchill, who said, "I will not preside over the liquidation of the

British Empire," the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says: "I

am presiding over the liquidation of the agricultural land reserve of

British Columbia." That's what you are doing. When the farmland is

gone, will it make your job easier, Mr. Minister? He didn't say it, but

that's what he is doing. You're presiding over the liquidation of the

agricultural land reserve, for the benefit of your friends, for the

benefit of the political friends of this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a vicious attack.

MR. MACDONALD:

It is a vicious attack, and I mean to continue it. I mean to carry it

to every corner of this province. There are only so many dollars at

large. You can increase the sum total, but when you give vast increases

in wealth to the Spetifores, the Gloucesters and the rest of them,

somebody pays for those dollars. They do not fall out of a tree. We

have what the economists call a zero-sum society. The dollars the

government spends on hotel rooms at $400, the dollars the government

spends on French wines, the dollars the government spends on travel

expenses.... There was $59,000 budgeted for the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in a single year.

Those aren't his personal expenses; it's just travel. All those dollars

come out of somebody else's pocket. The instant wealth you created for

Spetifore and his sons — where he could go at once to the bank and say,

"Lend me $26 million on this property now" — came out of the pockets of

the ordinary people of British Columbia. It did not fall as dollars off

some tree.

If a government wants to bring in restraint

legislation, they ought to set an example of restraint. Pierre Elliott

Trudeau suggests that you do this, and the government heeds his behest;

but he was too ashamed of the example he was setting to do it himself

for the public service of Canada. He wouldn't do it, but he let your

Premier do it. Your Premier did it. What was the deal? What was the

arrangement? Money for the takeover of the Pier B-C convention centre?

What was it? Why would he be the only one all across Canada to pick up

the Trudeau ball and run with it, and just pick on the public servants

— the teachers, the hospital people? There must have been some reason

for that.

It's a bill that discriminates. That's too obvious. We've all pointed it out. But it has to be said.

The

government employees' union, as has been pointed out in this debate,

accepted increases of 8 percent over a period of three years. When the

third year was starting, they came to the government — as the Minister

of Finance will know — and they said: "In view of the inflation which

is taking money out of the pockets of government employees, let us

reopen the contract." I think that a private-sector employee, in the

interests of industrial relations, would have said: "Yes, things have

changed very substantially since you signed that agreement. In the

interests of future stability, we will reopen the third year of that

contract." But the government employees' union was turned down flat by

the Minister of Finance and the government when they asked that that

contract be opened up.

I think it was cynical politics right

from a year ago. I think the planning of a confrontation with the

public servants has been in the minds of the government right from the

time they refused to open up that third year of the public-service

contract. As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) said in a very

thoughtful speech, this bill results from the taking of polls, to try

to find a scapegoat, to try to find a whipping boy, to promote the idea

— which some people might readily accept, if they didn't know the facts

— that civil servants have too easy a time. We all know that's not

true. Teachers and public servants generally — make them the scapegoat.

Blame the labour bosses. Heat up the negotiations that are now going on

with the government employees' union so that there will be a

confrontation. I think the government wants a confrontation. I don't

think they want a contract. You're dealing with decent people, and we

all know that, because we work around this building and we see the

whole public service wherever they work throughout the province.

They're good people. They don't deserve to be put 16 percent or 18

percent behind the rises in the cost of living and then be denied an

increase. They want comparability. They're doing a good job for people.

Why should they be picked out as a scapegoat when it won't do anything

for inflation. They're being picked out because it's a cynical

political ploy. They're being picked out because this government hopes

to be able to blame the labour bosses.

That's why the

minister who just took his seat before I stood up — and I'm going to

sit down myself — didn't defend the bill. Did he? He didn't defend the

bill. He scarcely referred to it because he knows that this bill is

indefensible. It's a Kinsella and Heal bill and it's a cynical

political ploy. This kind of discriminatory legislation against certain

groups in our society should be rejected by this Legislature.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Speaker, the presentation of this piece of legislation really goes

back to February, when the Premier decided to make a public

announcement, got everybody worked up about what he was going to say,

got his makeup on straight and then went on TV. That was the

out-of-town test for this play that he's now developed. He brought it

into town, into this House, and in the three days that we've been

debating this bill, he's had the poorest houses of any presentation

[ Page 7411 ]

that

I've ever seen here. We've had times in this debate, which is supposed

to be the keystone of that government's legislation, when we've had the

Minister of Finance in the House with the former Minister of Finance

and not another minister in evidence. We've not had more than two

members over there get up and make a speech in which they've addressed

themselves to the bill.

Yesterday we had the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) get up and, because he doesn't understand

the real power within the bill — what it's going to do to people — he

resorted to the kind of tactic that we heard this afternoon from the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

That's his version of the "Sieg heil" speech. He does it every time

there's a bill to speak on. He gets up, talks about the same unfact and

then he sits down. All he's really done is make an absolute fool of

himself, and that's not new with that minister.

Yesterday we

had the Minister of Agriculture tell us that this was an important

piece of legislation. I can remember when he was a backbencher, when he

sat in this House during the debate on the AIB, before he got into the

cabinet, and was referred to then as just Mr. Hewitt. When we were

talking about that piece of legislation in the same way that we're

talking about this piece of legislation from this side, we said then

that it was unfair and that it would not work. He got up and this is

what he said:

I would ask the hon. members on

the opposite side of the House to take some time to read the bill and

understand the purpose of it. In

section 2 you're looking at the

purpose of the bill, which says: "The purpose of this act is to

authorize the investigation of the effects of inflation on prices,

commodities and wages." It says "temporary regulations" and it says

"cooperation with Canada." Mr. Speaker, I would think that that would

be an important part to understand — that those three words meant

investigation, temporary regulation and cooperation.

Then he goes on to do his bombast.

Mr.

Speaker, the party over there, if it were in power, would be looking at

regulation on a permanent basis — regulation of people in this

province, regulation of production in this province and regulation of

prices in this province — in a socialist state, and I'm not in favor of

that type of thinking in this House,

Obviously, he hadn't

read his colleague the Minister of Finance's speech when he introduced

the bill, because towards the end the minister dwells on the fact that

the purpose of the act is to differentiate between the guidelines in

part 2 and the regulations in

part 3. The guidelines are voluntary

while the regulations are mandatory. The very thing that upset him six

or seven years ago is now quite acceptable to him. Why is it

acceptable? Because he found himself a scapegoat. As my colleague the

second member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said, they set out to

create the confrontation. They need to go to the people. They want that

kind of an election issue.

Some six years ago, when the

Minister of Finance introduced the AlB legislation — he's no longer the

Minister of Finance now — he talked about the 150,000 public servants

and their contribution to the state in a different way than we've heard

from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) this afternoon. It had to be the most insulting speech ever

made about public servants in this province, from a man who spent most

of his life as an indirect public servant, in any case. That's the kind

of comment that he has to make. That kind of bombastic speech, a mass

of unfact, was a straight Sieg heil speech just to rally the troops,

but they're not very rallyable. That's the sad part about what's

happening over there. They are not in any way prepared to defend the

bill that they presented. Not one of them, except the Minister of

Finance, has addressed even the principle of the bill. They have no

understanding of it. The only thing they've been told is: "If we rattle

the chain of the public servants, they'll probably try and go on strike

and then we'll go to the people and we'll take a vote."

That's

what they're doing: buil