1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7357 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading,

Mr. Barrett –– 7357

Mr. Cocke –– 7360

Mr. Mussallem –– 7363

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7365

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the House would mind joining me

this morning in welcoming a group of students from the Cormorant

Elementary School in Kitimat. They are visiting us today along with

their teacher Mrs. Leuze and five or six parents.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I just have another six or seven hours to go on this bill, which I will condense into the next 30 minutes.

There

are a couple of examples that I want to give to extend the theme that I

was proposing yesterday about this government being MacEachenites and

extending Pierre Elliott Trudeau's policies. This government is a

provincial wing of the federal Liberal Party. This bill was brought in

on a plan to agree with Prime Minister Trudeau's economic policies to

again experiment with the Anti-Inflation Board. This group are

born-again Liberals, and they are working with Prime Minister Trudeau's

disastrous economic policies.

Yesterday we got more tangible

evidence about what's going on in this alliance than we've had in a

long time. Yesterday at the other end of the country, while this bill

was being introduced for second reading in this House, Prime Minister

Trudeau was announcing what he wanted provincial governments to do in

terms of public-sector restraint. Which government was the only one in

Canada doing it? It is their Liberal friends here in British Columbia

who are right in there in the deal with the Prime Minister. Mr.

Speaker, this government is an extended hand of Prime Minister

Trudeau's economic policies.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, my dear friend, isn't it strange that the only government in all

of Canada following Prime Minister Trudeau's advice is this group over

here? Who is piloting the bill through the House? That former Liberal.

He's even dressed like a Liberal today, in Ottawa mourning clothes.

MR. HALL: Like an undertaker.

MR. BARRETT: It's an undertaker for free collective bargaining in British Columbia.

would like to show you how they're like the Liberals in more ways than

one. It's the way they spend money that demonstrates their lack of

concern and feeling, or the policy of "Do as I say, not as I do." Let's

examine how they live on the taxpayers' money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition, before he gets into the meat of his debate today....

MR. BARRETT: I was into the meat.

MR. SPEAKER:

Sir Erskine May says, on page 485, where he is talking about the scope

of debate in second reading: "Debate on the stages of a bill should be

confined to the bill and should not be extended to a criticism of

administration." I know that the Leader of the Opposition knows this

and will confine his remarks so that he will be observing the rules of

relevancy.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

defining those rules for me. I'm glad you brought it to my attention,

because I was going to make a particular focus on the question of

restraint in this bill.

They've got their arms right up past

the elbows to the armpits in the trough when it comes to spending

public money in terms of their own expense accounts or offices. Let's

examine the measure of restraint. In 1979-80 the travel expenditures in

the Premier's office, showing restraint, were $16,454. In 1980-81 they

were up to $35,950, a 218 percent increase in one year. Is that what

civil servants are asking? Is that what school boards are asking just

to get an increase in quality of education for students? Is that what

hospitals are asking to provide better health care in this province? Up

218 percent in one year — some restraint.

Let the record

show that at 10:10 a.m. the Minister of Health is not here for this

debate; the Minister of Labour is not here for this debate; the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, masochist that he is, has just shown up;

and the Minister of Education is deep in conversation. I expect, during

the course of this debate, to hear those ministers who are concerned by

this bill, not the minister who has to carry the can for it, stand up

and defend what is going on.

The expenses of the Minister of

Economic Development for 1979-80 went from $18,253 to $39,819, up 218

percent. They qualify as Liberals; they are learning how to spend

public money on their offices and on themselves. They are qualifying to

be the west coast version of the Ottawa Liberals. They are almost

qualified to be federal cabinet ministers, the way they squander money

in their offices — almost, but not quite. I saw that little clip on

television last night about getting free briefcases in Ottawa. As soon

as you get your free briefcase from the Prime Minister, you know you've

really made it.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is up 159 percent in his expenses in

one year. Some restraint! I wonder how much Calona wine is being sold

after their tastes have been raised with 218 percent increases in

budgets. The Minister of Finance, who is asking everyone to show

restraint, has had an increase from $11,096 in expenses in his office

for one year to $33,000. A threefold increase in his expenses, and he's

got the nerve to tell school children there are going to be cutbacks in

services? He's got the nerve to tell municipal officials: "Naughty,

naughty, watch your budgets"? He's got the nerve to push policies to

cut back health care while they become the highest livers, outside of

Ottawa, at the public trough?

I want to talk about the

Premier leading this province in terms of restraint and spending money.

In 1976-77 the Premier's office spent a total of $207,000 and was still

counting

[ Page 7358 ]

pencils.

I remember when the Premier came in here as a frugal small-town

merchant and lectured the House on how to count pencils in an office

and make sure that every penny was accounted for. That was before he

got a taste of the high life; before he met those Liberals that he's so

chummy with in Ottawa; before he saw the Prime Minister's pool and

decided that if he couldn't have a pool, he'd carry some high-class

water with him. I'll bet you guys even drink bottled water. I'll bet

you even order Perrier instead of a straight glass of cold water with

some ice in it. I'll bet you spend more money on Perrier....

AN HON. MEMBER: Never had a glass. What's it like?

MR. BARRETT:

I don't know; I can't even pronounce it. When you get to $37.50 for a

bottle of Pouilly-Fuisse, or whatever it is, it's a bit much for me. As

my friend from Terrace said, a $3.50 bottle of porch climber is the

highest he's ever gone, and he pays for it himself.

The

Premier who came to this Legislature and lectured us on frugal fiscal

accountability in 1976-77, spent in his office $207,000. How did our

high-flying Premier do in 1980-81 in restraint related to this bill?

His expenses went up to $602,000.

MR. LEA: Is that cash or Social Credit?

MR. BARRETT:

That's not cash; it's Social Credit. The taxpayers get hammered with

this amount of money while they're being lectured to show restraint,

Mr. Speaker. Last year, not only was it over $600,000, but the Premier

also had an overrun — yes, an overrun — of $150,000 in his office alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. BARRETT: A $150,000 warrant overrun in the Premier's office.

MR. KING: That would have bought a lot of cartons of milk down at the little store.

MR. BARRETT: That would have bought a whole dairy, the way things are going in British Columbia.

The

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

think they're playing funny little political games by having the

Premier go on television on February 18 in a three-flag performance and

announce they're going to implement Pierre Elliott Trudeau's fiscal

policies; and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in his speech yesterday,

announced that he wanted provincial governments to do exactly what his

companion group is doing here in Victoria. This is the testing ground.

What is it that the federal Liberals have over this group? Was there a

deal made on Pier B-C? Was it the hush up: "Maybe we won't say too much

on northeast coal"? The federal Liberal government has captured the

B.C. Socreds. They're nothing but an adjunct of federal government

policy right here in British Columbia. Pierre Elliott Trudeau lives and

breathes through the arms of the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who embraces the Premier and the Minister

of Finance in those Liberal policies that are destroying the economy of

the province of British Columbia. They're trying to find a scapegoat in

the school children, the sick people and the municipal officials of

this province.

MR. LEA: Garde's bringing the Socreds to the right club.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, they're going to become members of the right clubs now. They've

made it big. They know how to dip right in there in the trough and

become high spenders, while they tell the citizens of British Columbia:

"Naughty, naughty. Restrain yourself."

Here's the Minister

of Finance defending the furniture deal. On March 9, 1982, he said: "A

government purchase of $250,000 worth of office furniture last week is

appropriate, even in the light of government's restraint program." How

do you justify furniture at $250,000 a pop, while we're closing

hospital beds and schools? We're closing schools in almost every place

in British Columbia, except Okanagan South. Where was the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) yesterday? He was opening a new school.

Where was the school being opened? Purely by coincidence, in the

Premier's constituency. It's got nothing to do with politics, just

coincidence.

To show that the cabinet is not entirely miserly, to show that their profligate ways are not just confined to them....

MR. KING: Troughligate.

MR. BARRETT:

"Troughligate" — that's very interesting...and to show that they have a

heart and compassion for others, rather than just confine their

spending and high living to themselves, they've made some exceptions.

Is it for the school children? No. Is it for the hospitals or the sick

people? No. Guess who it is that they've allowed to have wage increases

exceeding their own guidelines. Who is it that they would allow that

for? Is it the psychiatric nurse who has to put in eight hours of

tension-filled work at a mental hospital? Is it the highway employee

who has to go through vicious weather conditions to serve the public to

keep highways open? Is it the ambulance driver who has to rush to the

scene of an accident? Is it a policeman who is faced with danger on his

job every day? Is it a school teacher who wants to spend that little

extra time with a student or provide more service? Is it the municipal

worker who cleans up the mayor's office for a visit from the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that is allowed a little

bit of succour and comfort? No, Mr. Speaker. Who are the exceptions?

Guess who. The biggest spoiled brat in the Social Credit's lexicon of

spoiled brats, the Crown corporations — B.C. Hydro.

"B.C. Hydro Boss Stays Ahead of Inflation." Who is the B.C. Hydro

boss that stays ahead of inflation? Well, my friends, it's not a Social

Credit cabinet minister. They've set the pace for staying ahead of inflation.

It's the next best thing to it: an ex-Socred cabinet minister, Big Bob Bonner.

Big Bob and the Hydro brass stay ahead of inflation and their pay hikes surpass

the union workers. Why didn't the Minister of Finance call over to

Hydro and say: "Look here, boys. Show a little restraint. It's bad

enough for the cabinet to be troughligate and right up to their armpits in first-class

travel and wine bottles, sloshing it down with the food, but show some restraint

up there at the top levels of Hydro"? Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. The high livers

at Hydro are not on high voltage; they're on high expense accounts and high

salaries, and they stay ahead of inflation.

Come

on, Mr. Speaker. You tell me what you think of this double standard

when it comes to restraint — a cutback in hospital beds, a cutback in

education, a cutback in free collective bargaining. The Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr.

[ Page

7359 ]

Heinrich) is not here, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Neilsen) is not here,

and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is not here for a debate and

a bill that affects every one of their areas of service. They don't give

a fig because they're right up there with the high livers in the Crown corporations

and the cabinet. Wage controls, Mr. Speaker? It's a game. Just kick the

slats out of prison guards, hospital nurses, police and firemen. They're

just ordinary working people serving the public. They don't sacrifice like

cabinet ministers or the heads of B.C. Hydro, who are outside of these controls.

Mr. Speaker, I want to throw a little comment across from John Kenneth Galbraith

that I think is most interesting. Commenting on the commitment to social policies,

he said in a speech in Quebec: "Any general assault on the public services

must be understood for what it is: it is an attack on the living standard of

the poor." I agree with him. I'll repeat it: "Any general assault

on the public services must be understood for what it is: it is an attack on

the living standards of the poor." How many people on welfare could live

for a year on one cabinet minister's expenses alone? How many people on

welfare could live handily on one cabinet minister's expenses alone? How

many people on welfare could live on just the overrun in the Premier's office?

How many people out there who are asked as members of the working poor to contribute

their tax money to keep this government going feel happy about the way they

throw money against the wall? Everything that sticks on its own goes back to

the taxpayer; everything that falls to the ground can be spent by the minister.

Look

at what's happening in the hospitals. There are surgery waits of a full

year, $84 million cuts and 120 beds will close. Last year we proposed

$82 million in cuts from publications and from ministers' expenses. We

cut the fat out of the salary, and they voted against every single one

of them because the high living, luxurious Liberal policies espoused by

Pierre Elliott Trudeau and practised by the provincial Socreds didn't

allow them to go for those cuts. But the ordinary people will take it

out in the health care.

Here are some headlines: "Hospital

Workers Face Massive Cuts; Government Guidelines Can Hurt Seniors More;

Wage Curbs Hit Women." Remember that statement the Premier made about

equal pay for equal work? Well, we know how long that lasted.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, no, he tried to explain. First he said: "Equal pay for equal

work." Then someone got to him and said: "No, no, no! It's equal pay

for work of equal value. No, no, no.... I'm not sure what it is." They

have it clearly understood that no matter what gender they are in

cabinet, they all become big spenders for equal work.

Here

are more headlines: "Bennett Insults Trustees; Restraints Penalize the

Thrifty." That's the irony, Mr. Speaker. Those municipalities that have

watched their budget, those that have been prudent, those that have

been cautious and those that have fought against this Liberal

government in Victoria and kept their spending down are the ones being

punished because of their percentages.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) always was

a right-wing Liberal, still is a right-wing Liberal and wants to be a

right-wing Liberal. He's pushing Pierre Elliott Trudeau's policies

through this particular piece of legislation. They're laughing, Mr.

Speaker. They're not aware that the Prime Minister let the cat out of

the bag yesterday during a speech in the Maritimes. He said that he

wanted provincial governments to push this kind of legislation, and the

only one following Trudeau's leadership is this group over here. They

are masquerading as Social Credit but are really nothing more than

right-wing Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, the

Crown firms are not under controls. Who are the inner cabal in the

cabinet that influences the policies of this government? Every single

one of them, including the present Minister of Municipal Affairs, are

Liberals.

Curbs won't necessarily lower B.C.'s borrowing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Ron Basford?

MR. BARRETT:

Where is Ron Basford, the former Liberal Minister of Finance? He gets

$600 a day to advise them on coal. He gets $600 a day to spend $400

million plus. And who do they hire? They hire an ex-Liberal. They've

even got a welfare program for ex-Liberals as well as ex-cabinet

members. They don't show restraint when it comes to Liberals or Liberal

policy. They have been completely captivated by the style of the

federal Liberal government and have adopted the federal Liberal

government's fiscal policies. This bill is a demonstration of it. Cut

back school children, cut back hospitals, cut back education, destroy

free collective bargaining, but make sure that you all do it in style.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to give you one small example of what may take place in

the Okanagan this summer. In the Premier's own riding, the Kelowna city

council has proposed a cut of $5,310 from its lifeguard budget this

year. It doesn't sound like much; it certainly isn't much in terms of

imported French wines. But if this goes through because of the

restraint ordered by this bill, there will be no lifeguards on the city

beaches on Okanagan Lake this summer, from May 24 to Labour Day. This

is one small illustration of the stupidity of the enforcement of this.

What we should do is to ask each cabinet minister to give up 2 percent

of his travel expenses and allowances in the offices to at least ensure

that there are lifeguards on the beaches of the Okanagan. If this

program goes through, I am told, this is the first time there will be

no lifeguards at these beaches. Oh, well, who cares?

They

talk about taxation. This government has brought in more hidden

taxation and indexed taxation. Who brought in the indexed gasoline tax

to show restraint? I remember when the former Liberal, now Socred,

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said that he would

never vote for indexed taxing unless he got a chance to do it. And he

did. He voted in this House for indexed taxing on gasoline. It is a

hidden, pervasive tax that costs the taxpayers of this province

zillions out of their pockets, and he went along with it.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, you told the municipal officials that you would never agree to the

policy of indexed taxes. Then, within two weeks, you came in this

House, because you've got a bad and a selective memory, and you stood

up and voted for indexed taxation on gasoline.

MR. LEA: Liberal principles.

MR. BARRETT: He is very liberal about his principles: say one thing here and do something else.

[ Page 7360 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Now to the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this restraint.

have so much more to comment on that it will wait for committee stage,

but I want to just wind up by sharing with you a little message in the Elder Statesman ,

with this smiling picture, taken in 1940, of the minister of Pier B-C.

Oh, no, she doesn't have that job anymore. It is of the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I want to read this:

"Grace McCarthy gives assurance to Elder Statesman

readers. Responding to an erroneous report that services to seniors

were being cut by her ministry, the Hon. Grace McCarthy said: 'I want

to stress that there will be absolutely no reduction to calibre or

quantity of service provided to the elderly citizens of our province.

The ministry is committed to assisting all those in need, especially

senior citizens on fixed incomes.'"

It is enough to bring

tears to the eyes of every senior citizen in this province. Having read

this message with this smiling picture, they know that when they are

being turned down for a bed in a hospital it is because somebody hasn't

heard from Grace and is cutting back. When their children are forced

into ever-larger classrooms it is because somebody hasn't heard from

Grace. When they hear that their home care is being cut off it is only

an illusion because somebody hasn't heard from Grace. And when they

comfort themselves when their services are cut, when their

grandchildren are punished, when their loved ones don't get care in a

hospital, they can wrap this newspaper around them and say: "But Grace

said it isn't so."

There is nothing more cynical or

hypocritical than this particular bill, to focus on Social Credit: big

spenders, destroyers of free collective bargaining, destroyers of

decent health care, destroyers of decent education. They destroyed the

reputation of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and made a

joke out of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. All for what reason?

This bill was inspired by polling. Yes, it was inspired by a question

on a poll they did that said: "Do you approve of cutbacks in government

spending?" I'll bet that 85 percent of the people out there said, "Yes,

we approve of cutbacks in public spending," and that is what spawned

this bill.

The Premier said on February 18 that he wanted to

avoid cynicism. I think that was a Freudian slip. He deliberately chose

the word "cynicism" unconsciously, because that was what was bothering

him. He was being cynical and hypocritical that night. That's what led

to this bill.

We in the New Democratic Party will not stand

by and see free collective bargaining destroyed for any free citizen in

a free society, particularly in this province. We in this party will

not stand by and see cabinet ministers live high off the hog while

hospital services are cut. We in the New Democratic Party will not

stand by and see education cut back while cabinet ministers live high

off the hog. We in this party will not stand by and see health care,

education...freely elected municipal officials making decisions that

local services be cut back. None of these things. This bill is cynical,

hypocritical and political. We will oppose it right down the line.

Mr.

Speaker, there are some who wondered what my position would be on this

legislation. I am pleased to announce for those who have been waiting

for my statement on this that my position has been broadcast on the

front pages of all media, and has been the headline of every radio

report. So there will be no more confusion. We oppose this Trudeau

bill, sponsored by that Liberal government.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I expected that there would be a government supporter or

member jumping to his feet to support this piece of legislation.

However, if I were a government member or supporter, I would not have

jumped to my feet to support this piece of legislation. I'll tell you

why: this piece of legislation is infamous to the extent that it is

creating such havoc and chaos in our province that it's got everybody,

including those government supporters and members, very worried. They

have made a disastrous move.

Restraint has been the byword

since February 18. On that day the word was out. "Restraint, my

friends, is the way to go." That is to say: "We want others to restrain

themselves, but we don't want to restrain ourselves." I'm speaking now

in the terms of what I believe is being said over there on the cabinet

side. They say: "Do what we say. Municipal workers, do what we say,

Health care workers, do what we say. Government workers, do what we

say, but for heaven's sake, don't watch us." Don't watch this

government, because the government members don't do what they ask

others to do. They're asking the people in this province to restrain

themselves, when the government members are spending vast sums on their

own pet projects. But we're to overlook that. That public servant must

overlook that. That health care worker, already overworked, must

overlook that. "Don't do what we do; do what we say."

The

government expects people to pay more interest. I suggest that this

government supports the economic policies of our federal government.

They believe in high interest rates. If they don't believe in them,

what are they doing about it? I've seen nothing. They add fuel to the

fire every time there is an increase that they bring in. They add fuel

to our inflation. Speaking of fuel, just think about the fuel costs and

the health care costs. I'll go into them in more detail later. Pay more

for less service, particularly in health care, and at the same time

earn less.

We must forgive the government for excessive

taxing. The rubbish that we've heard in this chamber about no increases

in taxes this year! That has to be the most magnificent piece of

hypocrisy I've ever heard. There are no direct taxes, no income taxes —

which, incidentally, is a much fairer way of taxing people than by

increasing medicare rates, licence fees and fees for everything that

happens, up to and including a $3 million tax on preventive care that

is a fee for health inspection.

What this government is

asking the people of the province to do is: "Dig down deep in your

pockets to keep up the government cash flow. Restrain yourselves.

Tighten your belts and starve if necessary, but don't expect government

services to improve as a result of your increased costs. Don't expect

your wages to go up in proportion to need. Go tell your banker that

you're not going to pay the high interest rates, and lose your house or

car or whatever." If it weren't so sad, it would be a joke. All this in

the name of our balanced budget. In the long run, it's going to be a

costly way of endeavouring to balance the budget.

Compensation

Stabilization Act — nice title. I say it's nonsense. It is

destabilization. It's the destabilization bill of this session. I'd

like to deal with one aspect of that destabilization: health care. It's

an utter disaster. It's in chaos. What

[ Page 7361 ]

we have before us is a compensation stabilization bill that is part of the chaos. It is creating chaos, as much as anything.

What is this compensation stabilization doing? It's getting people like the editors of the Vancouver Sun

to say that we now have in this province a Ministry of Unhealth. Have

we ever seen anything like this before in an editorial? "At the rate

that B.C.'s 110 acute-care hospitals are closing beds, laying off

nurses and other staff, and cutting back on services to the public,

Health Minister Jim Nielsen might soon find himself out of a job." In

my view, that would be the best thing that could happen to our

province. "What will be left of the province's health-care system after

he has finished trying to scale down hospital costs to suit the

government's need for a balanced budget may be little more than a

skeleton." All this in the name of a balanced budget.

I have

not seen anything in this compensation stabilization bill that is aimed

at our megaprojects — not a thing. We've already noted that Crown

corporations seem to be free as a bird, but not our hospitals, not our

health-care system. The bill before is part of a government policy that

is getting us into extreme trouble.

On the previous page in the Vancouver Sun ,

on the same day, May 3, is an

article in which the restraint program is

defended. The defence is the normal defence of a deputy minister hoping

to defend his boss. Part of the defence was: "B.C. has a high standard

of care compared to other provinces, with B.C. having a standard of

4.25 beds per 1,000 people, compared to figures of 3.5 in northern

Ontario and 3.25 in southern Ontario." Well, Mr. Speaker, isn't that

marvellous.

I hope that one of the members for North

Vancouver is listening on his speaker to the following. What has

happened in North Vancouver — and it's happening all over the province

— is that the North Shore now has a bed ratio of 2.6 per 1,000 — not

4.25, 4.9 or 6 — since the layoffs that occurred as a direct result of

this policy and these restraint programs. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the

Ministry of Unhealth. As far as the competency of the Ministry of

Health is concerned, we'll deal with that in estimates. As far as the

competency of all the other ministries is concerned, we'll deal with

that in estimates. In this particular restraint program — and this

compensation destabilization is very much a part of it — we have got

ourselves into an awful lot of trouble. When I say that on the North

Shore we have 2.6 beds per 1,000, that's a result of laying off 144

employees, 72 of whom are nurses, and closing 55 acute-care beds. They

have 401 beds for 145,000 people. The 200 doctors in that area are

unanimous that this is totally unacceptable.

I don't think

we need concern ourselves with a defence that says that compared to

other jurisdictions we're still looking good, because it's happening so

quickly. Hospital after hospital is announcing layoffs and bed

closures. Yesterday I brought up in this House the fact that the

minister was offering a bounty of $20,000 per acute-care bed closure —

offering a bonus if "bounty" offends the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). Whatever it is, it's harming the

health-care system of our province, and it's not good enough.

would like to suggest that I go through a few of the hospitals and

their restraints — what's happening and what's creating this situation.

At Vancouver General 400 were laid off, 150 of whom are nurses, and

there's a 175-bed reduction. Eventually there will be 700 people laid

off. Mr. Speaker, that is going to mean there is going to be a 20

percent reduction in operating room use. It's going to extend elective

surgery lists. I've already told you about Lions Gate — 144 people laid

off, 55 bed closures. In that constituency there are 1,700 people

waiting for elective surgery. I'll bet you their hopes of getting into

a hospital went up in the last few days. Wouldn't yours if you were

part of that 1,700? When it's just numbers, it's easy to pass off. But

when it's family or when it's yourself waiting in pain, listening to a

government that's talking about compensation stabilization, listening

to a government that's talking restraint, it's hard to take,

particularly when we're paying more and more and more.

Royal

Inland Hospital: 129 laid off, an 84-bed reduction. That's in the great

constituency of Kamloops. I wonder what that fighter from Kamloops is

going to do when he stands up in this debate, the hon. member from that

city. And if he doesn't. Is he going to go home and tell the folks that

all is well? No, he can't, because all is not well in Kamloops; all is

sick in terms of what this restraint program is doing to the people in

our province. New Westminster, the Royal Columbian, my constituency:

100 staff layoffs, a 75-bed reduction; Langley: 39 beds reduced;

Burnaby General: 93 layoffs, a 36-bed reduction, and an additional 18

in the summer; Nanaimo General, where my good colleague and friend

serves: 65 laid off, 42 beds down and 1,500 on the elective surgery

list; Royal Jubilee — kind of close, one of our neighbours: 200 laid

off, 161 beds reduced, and we all know their elective surgery list;

Gorge Road, extended care: 36 beds reduced, Juan de Fuca, extended

care: 50 beds reduced. Mr. Speaker, the hiring freeze, the job

eliminations and the compensation stabilization have all created havoc.

I'm looking at 1,450 staff reductions and 1,783 bed reductions in a

matter of a week or so, and we've seen just the tip of the iceberg.

What does the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) say in defence of this restraint program? This is from the Province , April 26:

"The

minister admits the cutbacks are a real possibility for some but

doesn't think they should be viewed with alarm by British Columbians.

"'Hospitals

close beds every year,' he said in an interview. 'They close them in

the summer for the convenience of staff holidays. Some have closed beds

permanently before now, and I don't think it's made a lot of difference

to the patients.'"

Holy Hannah, it hasn't made a lot of

difference to the patients! If you're lucky enough to get in there, I

guess it doesn't make a lot of difference to you, but if you're one of

those 12,000 people now waiting for a hospital bed and, because of a

restraint program, you can't get in, it makes a lot of difference. A

destabilization program is the only way you can describe this piece of

proposed legislation. Lord, I wish it would be withdrawn; I wish

we could have in this province a government that would not continually

try to rule by divide and conquer.

If a government puts out

a poll, a survey, and asks people whether they believe in government

restraint, we know the answer will be yes. People do not think of the

ramifications of what they're saying under those circumstances. We have

seen polls in the field that have asked that very question, and we know

perfectly well who sponsored those polls. It was the Social Credit

government, which rules by surveys. It's one place they don't restrain

themselves. They'll pay for their polls, their surveys and their PR.

It's strange, isn't it? Isn't it a bit discomforting for government

supporters, who only last

[ Page 7362 ]

week read the B.C. Government News ,

which is paid for by the taxpayers of our province, to pay for a PR

piece? What did it say about health care? There were two whole pages

telling the people of B.C. what a marvellous health-care system we

have. Yet you cannot pick up a paper or talk to people on the street

without hearing from people who are worried about our health-care

system.

Other editors — it's not only the Sun .... What about the Times-Colonist ? The Times-Colonist

says this about the Ministry of Health and its restraint program: "The

minister lives on Fantasy Island." They go on to say: "The minister,

Jim Nielsen, is insulting the intelligence of all British Columbians

when he suggests that the government decision to cut back $84 million

from hospital board budgets will not affect the quality and

availability of health care in this province." That's part of this

restraint program. That's where it's all coming from.

People

don't realize what they're doing to themselves. People's priorities are

different than this government's priorities. They go on to say that

"the minister's claim won't even fool some of the people some of the

time, because even the most inept mathematician can figure out the

bottom line of this equation." Yes, Mr. Speaker, even the most inept

mathematician can. But I'll tell you who can really figure it out. It's

that person who is one of the 12,000 now waiting for a hospital bed.

Many are waiting in pain, but the minister says: "It's not going to

affect you."

This is just dealing with the Victoria area:

"As for elective surgery, the prospects are grim indeed. The Jubilee

already has a waiting list of 1,300, some of whom have had to wait up

to a year for surgery. Lists and waiting periods can only get longer,

making a bad situation intolerable."

What does the Province

say in their editorial? "Drastic Surgery." They talk about it just the

same as everybody else in this province is talking about it: the

restraint program is wrecking our health system in B.C.

The

two members behind me are arguing about who's going to speak next. I

hope one of them does, and I hope one of them is articulate enough to

defend this government's policy around this bill.

MR. BRUMMET: Where's your leader?

MR. COCKE:

He spoke for two and a half hours. Did you listen to him, Mr. Member

for North Peace River? I hope that member for North Peace River goes up

to his constituency and defends this bill, and I hope he takes some of

the Hansard s concerning this bill with him. I hope that when he

does, he can come out clearly identified with the right side on this

bill. But unfortunately he won't, because it's like....

MR. BRUMMET: Like in everything else, you're wrong.

MR. COCKE: Good stuff! He's going to come out and do his thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your leader?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Mr. Member, you'll assist in maintaining order if you address the principle here.

MR. COCKE:

I know what I did was inexcusable, Mr. Speaker. I identified some

people in this House and started an argument with them, and that

certainly shouldn't happen.

Mr. Speaker, the Province

says it's "drastic surgery," and in the body of their editorial they

say that if they're right, then the government has to re-examine its

priorities to see whether spending in other departments should be

trimmed to prevent that serious damage to medicare.... "Try as he

might, Health Minister Jim Nielsen can't maintain the fiction that the

quality of care will be maintained. It simply can't be if hospital

staffs are being reduced and surgery has to be put off." That's the

restraint program, Mr. Speaker.

What a time to restrain

ourselves in this important area. I would like the Finance minister to

think about this very important fact: economic conditions create

stress. We are living in stressful times. What does stress create,

according to practically every expert in the field? Stress creates

illness. Where is our policy? Our policy, according to this piece of

legislation, is to cut staff, wage increases, reduce morale and

jeopardize the citizens of our province who are in jeopardy now. A

person paying higher interest rates, worried about making payments and

keeping the family budget together is under far greater stress than a

person meandering along on a nice big fat expense account, doing his or

her thing. Many, by far the majority, of B.C. people are in that

circumstance presently. They are in a stressful state. That stressful

state will create more problems in health. What are we doing at that

self-same moment? We are restraining and squeezing on health care. We

are reducing morale of staff. We, are therefore jeopardizing the

citizens of B.C.

Where is our priority? I haven't once heard

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) say a word about any restraint in the north. What that

minister is saying is that we will continue our policy of subsidization

of the Japanese steel industry at any cost. But on the other hand, his

colleague sitting right down the way from him, the Minister of Health,

has to cut back on health care for the people in our province because

of a restraint program and the damages created by this compensation

stabilization. I said before and I'll say again: it's destabilizing,

and it's a destabilization bill.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

guess we all know that hospital workers are facing massive cuts. We all

saw those headlines. But what does a ministry official have to say

about it? "The minister's aide noted that private industry, in many

cases, was having to make far greater sacrifices."

I ask you

to ask the people directly whether or not they want to sacrifice the

health-care system in our province. That's what we should be asking.

Ask the people. Is that where their priorities would be? No, the people

in our province not only ask but demand a health-care system that is

adequately funded and operated, and where the morale is kept up. We

don't need this kind of compensation stabilization. We need real

stabilization, and we're not getting it.

I suggest that the massive cuts are damaging us irreparably.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

I would like to make a remark to my friend the member for North Peace

River (Mr. Brummet). He regrets having come into the House to listen to

this. I don't blame him; I would too if I were a government supporter.

I can suggest that downstairs there is a restaurant where they

[ Page 7363 ]

serve coffee. I'm sure they would serve him if he were to go down there. Then he won't have to listen to it.

What

are the different districts in our province saying about what's going

on? In Lytton — little Lytton — they've got a shortage of nurses. Let

me tell you what I can tell Lytton today: I would predict that after

all the layoffs in Vancouver, there'll be no more shortage of nurses up

there. What are they saying up in Rossland? "Restraint okay if the 12

percent only for salaries." They sure can't keep their medical supplies

down to that. But they thought they were getting 12 percent. You know

what they're getting — 7.69 percent. It's ridiculous.

What

did the people at Delta Centennial say? "If the 12 percent is applied,

we'll be in dire straits." I'm sure that the member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson) will come out fighting on this issue to see to it that his

hospital doesn't end up in dire straits.

Shaughnessy: they just hope against hope that the government will at least give them six months before they get into this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who represents Shaughnessy?

MR. COCKE:

Who represents Shaughnessy? That's the Minister of Human Resources and

Pier B-C and also the Provincial Secretary and the minister of handouts

for lotteries.

Ah, the member for North Peace River is going

golfing, Mr. Speaker. I hope that he shoots under par, because when he

shoots in the House he doesn't shoot under par.

St. Joseph's

in Comox says there's a 15 to 25 percent increase in food, supply and

fuel costs. In Bulkley Valley the 12 percent will amount to a cutback

in care. In the Premier's riding of Okanagan South, cutbacks in care

are certain. In Creston Valley a 20-bed extended-care project has been

frozen.

Mr. Speaker, what they're all saying — and one

person said it very well — is that the ministry has rather unrealistic

goals concerning this zero-based budgeting, especially when starting

the restraint program. You start with one foot in the hole, and that's

where we've been. This isn't new; they've been putting the pressure on

the hospitals for the last three or four years. This year most of the

hospitals, 46 out of 52, wind up with a deficit. They start a restraint

program with a deficit hanging around their necks. Is it any wonder

we're closing down beds all over the province? It's no wonder at all.

Mr.

Speaker, I suggest that we have before us a bill that's asking the

people serving government to restrain themselves, a bill asking

consumers of health care to restrain themselves. Don't get sick; we

can't afford it in our province today. At the same time as we're asking

people to restrain themselves, what has happened about the government

and its restraint? Oh, I'm not going to allude to the way that

high-flying bunch spend money; I think we all know that.

But

let me think about one other aspect. While the people have been asked

to restrain themselves, fees and taxes have gone up 22 percent. The

government restraint program says: "Keep your wage increases down below

12 percent — really 8 percent optimum and a possibility of as much as

12 percent. Restrain yourselves, but we're not going to restrain

ourselves. We're going to charge you more for everything we can. We'll

charge you more for medicare. We'll charge you more for hospital care.

We'll charge, charge, charge. But we want you to restrain yourselves."

What

kind of policy is that? I just think that it's utterly ridiculous for

us to be here discussing a bill that gives government all power. There

are no figures in that bill. It gives government the power and right to

really put the axe to people. It is not a bill at all; it is a piece of

political propaganda. There is no question in my mind that the defence

of this bill cannot be there. All it is is a reach out and a hope that

people will believe that they mean what they say. I will not and cannot

support this bill.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is a delightful

opportunity to join in this debate, speaking on this excellent Bill 28,

the Compensation Stabilization Act. It is not difficult to see the

tenor and method of the opposition's debate. The whole thrust of what

they have said is: spend, spend, spend. It simply cannot be done.

Government is not any different than anyone else; they cannot spend

money they do not have. It is the policy of this government throughout

thirty years of government, not to spend beyond our ability to pay.

There is to be no change in that policy. It will remain. Other

governments have attempted this policy. There are many in Canada and

one shining example is the province of Quebec. There we have the

unusual situation where the public sector has so exceeded the wage

limits of the private sector that it has come to a point now where 52

percent of the Quebec budget is for the salaries of their employees.

The public sector in Quebec is being paid 12 percent to 16 percent

above the private sector. Therein lies the trouble. Quebec could save a

billion dollars if they dared to retrench and retract. But once they

have embarked on that policy there is no way back. The way is further

and deeper into disaster.

I read again from the Toronto Globe and Mail .

This

article is entitled "Quebec's Runaway Debt: 'If the public sector

were paid at the same rate as private workers,' says Treasury Board

President Yves Bérubé, 'the Quebec government would save $l billion.'"

What

the opposition is asking us in this House today is to go into debt in

the hope that someday when the economy turns, we'll be able to

pay back the debt. That is a fine theory, but the fact is that it does

not work. Any government that has embarked on a policy of debt in bad

times has only accelerated their debt when times turned, because the

demands became greater and more vocal. Today we are facing that

situation. To make the disaster of going into debt now would plunge

this government and this country into a kind of debt from which we

would never retrieve ourselves. When we saddle the future with 12

percent to 20 percent for servicing of debt, I say to you that it is a

hopeless concept. This government and this party will never be a part

of it. I would like to go on record now and establish what the leader

said yesterday and this morning during three hours of address: "Debt,

debt, debt. Go into debt in time of need." There is no way out of debt

but destruction. When the minister made his opening remarks on this

bill, he said clearly: "Long-term borrowing leads to inflation."

Through four hours of debate the opposition has tried to prove to you

that long-term debt does not lead to inflation. Any schoolboy knows

that, anybody who can add and subtract knows that, and we all know

that. If you try to spend what you do not have, you must borrow. When

you must borrow, you must pay a price. Then the wheel turns, and

gradually and inexorably you are down the chain of defeat to disaster.

Inflation and disaster are the same word, but they are spelled

differently. Inflation leads to disaster. Every government in Canada

and the world that has

[ Page 7364 ]

trifled

with the process of borrowing and the creation of inflation has gone

down to horrible and disastrous consequences for its people.

The

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) speaks eloquently about the sick

in our hospitals. He is alarmed that it will be necessary for some

hospitals to close beds. When anybody tampers with the health system, I

say be careful. I say that to our own party, but we must adjust and not

tamper. We must hold the cost of accelerating expense. We must hold

back on health care now, so we can give a better and more positive

reaction to the demands later. Now is the time to hold back. Now is a

good time to hold back, if it must be done, because every summer —

we're approaching it, as now we're in spring — without exception,

almost every hospital will close 10 to 15 percent of its beds. All

hospitals do this to varying degrees. They do this for the simple

reason that they do not have the patients. It's a time when people go

on holiday. This is not tampering with health care; this is adjustment

of the system and good economics. It's proper to do it. It's done every

year. Whenever we sit in this Legislature and hear, throughout the

years past, of hospitals closing beds, we hear the cry from the

opposition that that fearful government has closed up so many beds in

this and that hospital. That fearful government did not close beds in

those hospitals. Those hospitals found good economics — not to lay off

staff in some cases, but staff goes on holidays. This is what is being

done.

I say to the member for New Westminster, who has

promptly left his seat, that in British Columbia we have a magnificent

health-care system. There is none like it in Canada. I'm proud of it in

every way. Our fine doctors are the best in the world. We have some of

the leading specialists in the world. I say in this House that we do

not have the best doctors in the world for any other reason than that

they have the best environment to work in. We have some of the finest

specialists. You very rarely hear of people from this province going to

that famous Rochester clinic. You very rarely hear of them going

anywhere, because they know that in British Columbia we have the finest

specialists. People come here for treatment. Why? Because the doctors

have an environment to work in. They're well paid — probably not well

enough, but they have the highest pay in Canada. These men and women

don't only work for pay. They work because they have a place to work in

that is in cooperation with the people. The environment of the

health-care system is one of the finest.

I know that we have

a vocal group that is complaining bitterly about the health-care system

from time to time, but they are just a vocal group. In the hospitals

that I know of — I know of several in my constituency and around the

Fraser Valley — people love them. Never do you see a single word of

condemnation about the hospitals.

The member for New

Westminster went to great length to indicate that there is a

disintegration of the hospital system. They say it's disintegrating

because elective surgery is getting higher and greater. I do not

understand this elective surgery thing fully. I'm not going to tread

into that area where angels fear to tread, to say that they should have

a smaller list. I do not think, with my knowledge, as I've seen it in

the past, that it is possible to have a smaller list. As British

Columbia grows, as more science enters the health field and there is

more possibility for additional procedures becoming evident — and

doctors will take advantage of the new procedures — it increases

elective surgery and elective factors. Now I'm not treading in this

area, because I do not understand it. But I have never had a good

doctor who was dedicated to his practice and his patients ever say to

me that anyone is suffering in the hospitals — not a single one. And

here am I, Mr. Speaker, a member of this Legislature, a member who

should receive this information from the 80 or 90 doctors in our area.

I've heard them complain of some things, but never of inadequate

procedures — not once. I'll tell you that that is a record that we

should be proud of.

This government has always had a policy

of maintaining health care, of maintaining the service of government to

people, maintaining the Human Resources level, and maintaining the

forest programs that bring us the wealth of our province. But now we

must be courageous; we must ask for restraint. You hear the word

"cutback" used so liberally. Mr. Speaker, the word is not "cutback."

The word is "restraint." I do not know one ministry, in reading over

the estimates, that has not had a good increase, and yet we talk of

cutbacks. What cutbacks? There are no cutbacks. The increases are not

as great as they would like them to be, but, as I said before, it's a

time of restraint.

To think that this government can

maintain last year's budget, increase it enough to give a reasonable

increase to all without hurting the economy, and bring in this bill

which will put legal limits on expansion so that we do not fall into

the same trap as Quebec and Ontario, so that we are strong and viable

and so that we do not have to go into debt and pay the money barons of

Bay Street and Wall Street.... We cannot afford to pay interest — we

ourselves and our children. I can tell you seriously that any business

in British Columbia in trouble today is just a business that has

borrowed in good times and can't pay it. Every businessman knows that

it is not the high interest rates that are killing as much as improper

and careless borrowing. That's bothering business, and that would be a

destructive force if it ever got into government.

I'd say

that today we are probably debating one of the most important bills

that has come before us for many a year, because it's a bill that lays

down the policy and the thinking of this government. It says clearly

that we believe in solid financing practices. That has been at the

masthead of the party since I knew it, since 1952, and it has never

changed.

It's not an easy thing for the Minister of Finance

to restrain. I just had a very traumatic experience this morning in my

own business, which I am not deeply involved in, but I give advice in a

small way. I had to demand that certain restraints be made. I'm having

difficulty, but I will demand it and it must be done. It's no fun

creating restraints. But neither government nor I are asking for a

reduction below what is acceptable. We're only asking for control. This

bill calls for a certain person to take his place and see that these

controls are properly, adequately and carefully applied.

The

Premier of the province made an address a few weeks ago and established

these standards, which are being put into law today. I tell you there

was a wave of good feeling that swept this province from north to south

— a complete expanse. You heard it everywhere, and they said: "It's

about time." I've heard it from good, strong members of that opposition

party — not members of the opposition: "It's about time, because

restraints are necessary." We do not ask for plaudits. We in this party

only say that it is our policy. The Premier, with his energy and

ability, put it into fact. I am proud of what he did; I'm proud of the

way the Minister of Finance presented the bill to this House.

[ Page 7365 ]

The

purpose of the bill is quite clear; nobody can misunderstand it; we

have said it, and we'll stand by it. The opposition merely says: "It is

not necessary; go into debt. It's easy to go into debt now; when things

come back and the forests prosper, we'll pay it back." Impossible! It's

never paid back. The road of debt is the pathway to destruction. There

is no other way, and it'll never change. It has always been so, and any

country or any individual that has followed this will know of which I

speak. I only plead. What a day it would be, Mr. Speaker, if the

opposition would stand up in their place and say: "We don't like to

agree with you, but this once we must. We don't like to agree with you,

but we recognize as good British Columbians and Canadians that we do

not want to enter onto the path of destruction." What a wonderful day

it would be! We know there has to be a hard line. We do not think that

it should be applied in certain ways, but we agree with you on the

principle of restraint — not cutbacks, but restraint — and we will

assist you in this bill." It would be a red-letter day for the province

of British Columbia, and it would be said that this is a Legislature

that sees the fact and acts on the truth. That is what we are asking

them to do today.

There is no argument that can be presented

that can oppose the principle of this bill. This bill has such a benign

attitude, and the only reason it is benign.... In Quebec it cannot be

benign. In Quebec they are so hopelessly out of control that there is

no use whatever in cutting back the public-sector employees by 16

percent. They are too far, too hopeless. Where are they going to cut

back? They have gone over the lip; they are over the edge. What will

happen to Quebec? Who knows? I predict that one day that great province

will go into receivership, when the federal government wants to move

in. It is either that or bail them out, because there is no way you can

accelerate at the rate of $4 billion a year in a province of six

million people and expect the rest of the country to maintain it. Some

day that province, like any other.... There is an example of socialism.

I didn't want to say it. When the boat is sunk there is no bailing out;

it is gone. The rest of Canada will have to move in some day and save

Quebec. There is no way they can save themselves because they are on an

accelerating treadmill, and that is what we must avoid here.

That

is why I appeal to the members opposite that they will see the

importance of supporting a bill that, in principle, says: "Restrain

yourselves now that we may enjoy the fruit of our labours later and not

use the fruit of our labour to pay the interest to Bay Street and Wall

Street and to the money barons." You are saying to the future: "Go

ahead, and spend the money, but instead of enjoying your money next

year, enjoying what you have, improving the program and making British

Columbia a better place to live in, we will be paying the money barons

on Bay Street and Wall Street." This government does not stand for

that. This government will never do this. We will stand with that flag

at our masthead above all others, because that is the keynote of our

policy, and that will not change.

I compliment the Minister

of Finance for his courage. It is not easy to talk restraint and to

say: "Bring down your expectations." It is difficult, whether it be

business or government. It is tougher in government, because in

government the people can always pay, but the time comes when they will

pay no more, when they will refuse, when there is a rebellion, and that

is the principle we have followed. Remember Proposition 13, and how the

whole state of California voted to cut back expenses? Don't think that

can't happen here. But the reason it doesn't happen here is that we

have a ministry that is capable of seeing what's going to happen and of

making arrangements for the future. That's why we're proud of our

Minister of Finance, proud of the way he's handling this policy that

has been established. It's not an easy policy to enforce. It's tough to

look someone in the eye and say: "You have to be cut back " or "You

have to go." Some people have got to go, and you never know who it will

be. There is no way to avoid that. But you do not need to worry because

the individual has the resiliency and the strength to stand up to

adversity, We hope they are few, but they can stand up to adversity and

they can win,

This bill simply states the truth. It says:

believe the truth, and see it. The minister has put it down on this

paper in this bill, and it's proper and right. It's proper and right

for the opposition to debate it, yes, but not to condemn it. That's a

great mistake. If they condemn it, they will pay for their actions.

Fortunately, we do not have a government that believes in their kind of

policy. Had we that, certainly we could live in a Utopia for a day or

two, or for a year or two or three, but the time would come when the

accounting would have to be made. In Quebec the accounting is on, and

today they have nowhere to go. That will not happen here.

appeal to members of the opposition to support this bill because it is

good and proper: it is fair. We must expect less at a time of

difficulty. Everyone must expect less. Our unions in negotiation,

everyone. no matter who, must expect less. Our unions must expect less,

our private sector must expect less. Let's not tread quietly around

this thing and say we'll never reduce anyone's salary. We must, if not

reduce, then hold the line. This is the time for holding the line. It's

a thing you don't say. because it can come back to haunt you. Nobody

can tell me that it's not right for a public-sector employee to be the

same as a private-sector employee and take a reduction, if necessary

for the health of the province and the future of their pensions,

indexing, paid holidays and sick leave. These are benefits that the

public sector gets which the private sector does not.

think our employees are the best in the world and the highest paid in

Canada, and so they should be, because they work for the finest

province. But I'm telling you that many of them to whom I have spoken

have said: "We realize there has to be a slowing down." I only hope

that, with negotiation, judgment will be clear and understanding will

be predominant in our minds that it is time for restraint. Unless we

have this restraint, the future is grim and dim indeed. It need not be.

This bill lays a course and a pathway to light.

MR. GABELMANN:

The member for Dewdney asks us in the opposition to support this bill

because it's, as he puts it, a bill of restraint. I suspect that the

official opposition would look favourably upon some legislative program

which in fact did call for policies of restraint at a time in our

economic history when obviously things aren't as rosy as they have been.

This

bill that we are debating today is not a restraint bill. It's a

wage-control bill for one sector of society. If the bill had a line in

it which said that if cabinet ministers want to drink French wine they

had to drink Kressman, or if it had a number of other elements in it

that would offer some restraint on cabinet spending, such as, "We're

grounding the government jets except for emergency use through the

health-care program," and, "We 're not going to allow cabinet ministers

to fly home every night at great public expense," or if the bill

[ Page 7366 ]

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 so that he could only earn a hundred or a

hundred and fifty grand a year and everything beyond that would go to

the taxpayers because we're in a time of restraint.... If the bill said

those kind of things, instead of saying to government employees who

have lived for three years with restraint at 8 percent per year, many

working and living at the poverty level: "You have to show the

restraint. We'll keep drinking $37.50 wine. We'll keep charging meals

and collecting the per diem. We'll keep flying on the government jet.

We'll keep over-expending on our government offices. We'll keep

spending, spending, spending because we like the good life. We'll buy

the per diem for meals at the same time." Then you say to people who

work for the public sector of this society, many of whom are just above

the poverty line, that they have to show restraint? It's shameful, Mr.

Speaker.

This bill is not a restraint bill. The restraint

program of the government is enacted when various ministers say that

they are only going to provide a certain number of dollars for

programs, when the Education minister says there will be X number of

dollars for education and when the Health minister says there will be X

number of dollars for health, etc. That's the way in which a restraint

program is implemented. This isn't a restraint program. If hospitals,

municipalities and school trustees have X number of dollars to work

with, they will bargain within those limits. They're required to

because that's how much money they have to spend. They're like any

other ordinary business and any other part of the society that we live

in. You bargain with what you have to bargain with. When you reach your

limits, you take a strike if you have to. That's what the employers are

saying — ironically to the Hospital Employees' Union — in the hospitals

in this province. Allow for free collective bargaining, and if we have

to take a strike, we'll take it. That's the normal course of events in

a free society. But this government doesn't believe in a free society.

This government believes that you can have freedom for setting prices,

you have freedom to have whatever interest rates you want. You can have

freedom if you're in the private sector — at this stage in the

governments' development of programs — but there will be no freedom in

the public sector. Those people who contribute to the wealth of social

services in this province, which is just as much a wealth as the

productivity of forest workers, must show that kind of restraint by not

being allowed the freedom that everybody else has in this society.

That

is what is so repugnant to me about this bill, Mr. Speaker. It is

purely and simply a bill for wage controls, designed as a result of

poll-taking that told the government two things: (1) the public is in

favour of restraint, and so it is, and so are we; and (2) that the most

hated group in the public's mind were public servants — teachers and

government employees. Therefore, wouldn't it be neat if we could

combine these two elements of public opinion — a call for restraint and

a hatred for public servants — and combine them into one bill and call

it restraint? It is hypocritical and it is wrong in philosophy and in

principle.

In the last few days I have gone through various publications of the United

Nations and the International Labour Organization in an effort to find out what

it is that the world is saying and what it is Canada and, through Canada's

agreement, British Columbia has agreed to about free collective bargaining.

I am not going to quote the volumes and volumes of material there is on this

subject, but I do want to quote two small excerpts just to prove the point that

we in this country have subscribed to those conventions which call for unlimited

free collective bargaining in the private and public sectors. One of the statements

goes: "It would be wrong to exclude important categories of workers employed

by the state merely because they are classed as public officials." That

is from the International Labour Organization. Another document from the ILO,

stating Canada's position....

You

must remember, Mr. Speaker, that in these conventions and documents

Canada cannot have a position, because of the federal nature of our

country, on an issue that transcends both federal and provincial

jurisdiction without the agreement of the provinces, so B.C. has agreed

to this too. What is Canada's position about free collective bargaining

in the public sector? "It is desirable that all workers, including

public servants, should have access to collective bargaining as a means

of participating in the determination of their wages and working

conditions and for regulating their relationship with the employer.

This is the case in Canada." It is no longer the case in Canada.

want to cite two historical precedents for this kind of legislation in

this country, both of which were very popular in their inception, both

of which were very unpopular in their practice. The first was the

imposition in this province by a former Social Credit government of the

mediation commission. Some members of this Legislature will remember

the debates that went on at that time, both in the Legislature and in

public. The initial response to the mediation commission — which was in

effect a denial of free collective bargaining, a mechanism to impose

compulsory arbitration on workers in all sectors of society.... People

will remember that it was quite popular in its inception. "A good

idea," said the public. "Get some control over these bad workers." Many

workers thought it would be a good idea too. How long did that last,

and how long did public opinion support the government on that issue?

Not long, and the mediation commission experiment had to be abandoned

in full disgrace. One of the results was the defeat of the government

in 1972; it was a major issue among trade unionists and workers and the

public who care about how a free society operates. They decided that

that, among other issues, was enough for them to say "no more" to that

government.

Then in 1975 we had another imposition of this

kind of legislation — except then it was done federally — called the

Anti-Inflation Board, which again was very popular initially. Many

people in my own party and in the labour movement thought: "This is not

a bad idea. We've got difficult times; we've got inflation running

higher and we've got to get rid of a recession developing. Perhaps this

is a way of dealing with it." That was another program that went down

in flames in disgrace, because once it began to go into operation.

people saw that it was not fair, it was not equitable, and it didn't

work.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of that evidence and much

more, why would the government bring in this kind of legislation at

this time? My thinking is that they had decided earlier this year or

late last year that they would capitalize on that sense among the

public that there was a need for restraint and that public employees

were not popular, and they would use that by bringing in this kind of

legislation, dramatically presented in a province-wide television

address, and then shortly thereafter go to the people for an election.

But they didn't count on

[ Page 7367 ]

the

recession deepening, they didn't count on getting caught out on their

own expense-account padding, they didn't count on getting caught out on

their own office expenditures, their own overruns and all the things

that have become evident to the public. They didn't count on any of

those things, and now they have realized that they're in a bit of a

bind, because by the time they are prepared to have an election, the

public will know about this bill what it knew about the mediation

commission and the Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. Speaker, both

the Premier and the Minister of Finance have said that this is free

collective bargaining. On February 18 the Premier said: "Collective

bargaining in the public sector will take place in the normal manner,

but the commissioner will have the power to roll back excessive

settlements."

In his Orwellian speech yesterday, the

Minister of Finance said that collective bargaining will proceed as

normal. Let me just digress for a moment. When I say "Orwellian speech,

" I mean that this is a classic example of the kind of speech where you

could get a dictionary and take every word in the speech and find the

opposite for it and write the opposite words down and string them

together and you will get exactly what the minister meant. It is

doublespeak at its worst and I've only seen it in print in one instance

in my life in a more flagrant manner, and that's in Orwell's book

itself. He says, "We have free collective bargaining," and then he

says, "Jump, or be pushed." That's not free collective bargaining.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let

me give you an example of why this is not free collective bargaining.

The minister says it is. The Premier says it is. I want to give you one

example and it is the tip of the iceberg. Many other examples exist and

I can cite a dozen or fifteen other specific examples, but I will

relate one.

The B.C. Nurses Union organized Zion Park Manor

last year. They negotiated a contract through the course of 1981. Wages

were agreed to. All of the points in the contract but one significant

language-oriented clause were agreed to. The employees at that

extended-care hospital were making $9.10 an hour on an unorganized

basis. The union rate was $11.06 in one category and $11.64 in another.

The rates are going to $13 in the union agreements around the province.

They're getting $9.10. The employer agreed to the contract as it is in

place in the rest of the province in that industry. The Premier made

his announcement on February 18 and on February 19 the employer took

every single item off the bargaining table. He reneged on every single

agreement he had made. He not only took the wages back, but he took the

contract language back and said that all of that was over now and they

were starting from scratch.

Included in the contract he took back was the management-rights clause — if

you can believe that. All the contract language was taken back. The agreement

that the contract would begin in July 1981 was taken back. An unfair labour

practice has been charged as a result of that. Anyone who is familiar at all

with labour relations in this province knows that it is a clear-cut case of

unfair labour practices, and the LRB will have no option but to rule in that

way. What the situation here is is that for most of 1981 an agreement was being

negotiated. It was virtually concluded in early 1982, and the employer took

it all off the table on February 19, 1982. Who was the employer? In this example

of free collective bargaining, the employer was the government of B.C., through

its agency, GERB. The union was told by Mike Davison, the government's hired

right-hand man in these issues, that everything was off the table; they'd

have to start from scratch, and the agreement was null and void. He said many

other things as well.

one hand, we have the minister saying that there is free collective

bargaining; on the other hand, the Premier is saying that there is free

collective bargaining. What do we find? The government's right-hand

arm, the Government Employees Relations Bureau, is saying that there is

no free collective bargaining; all the bargaining that has taken place

prior to the announcement on television, which was no law by itself, is

now null and void. This stuff isn't even law, and the government is

following it through its agency. It is not even law yet. It was just a

documentary on TV and not even a very good one. I think that is

scandalous. I am not going to call the Premier or the Minister of

Finance a liar, because I can't do that under the rules, but what they

said and what they do are absolutely and diametrically opposed to each

other. They say one thing and they do exactly the opposite. I won't

call that a lie but I'll leave the public to decide what it is.

That

is one example. We have a situation with another employer in the public

sector — the Health Labour Relations Association — who have similar

extended-care hospitals with similar agreements. In that case the

employer is saying: "In newly organized units we want to pay the same

rates as we pay in all the other organized units around this province.

Nurses who work in extended-care hospitals who are organized should

have the same rates and benefits across the province." They are not

allowed to under this bill. The employer who wants to provide those

benefits can't do it. That is a denial of free collective bargaining.

It is an infringement on the rights of the employer. I'm not one who

stands up here very often and protects the rights of the employer,

because I think they have far too many in our industrial relations

society. Nevertheless, the bill does precisely that. It denies those

people the right to reach an agreement with their employees in newly

organized units, which would be the same as those employees in

long-organized units.

Mr. Speaker, has the minister

considered what's going to happen as a result of this legislation, when

workers are going to be held by this wage-control program to wage

levels that are less than the going rate in society? Has he thought

about what's going to happen in two or three years, or thereabouts in

various cases, when the wage-control program comes off, if it does, and

those people have to have catch-up agreements? Has he thought about

what impact that has on society, what impact that creates in terms of

anger and resentment? People ask why they should get a 40 percent

increase when everybody else is getting an X percent increase in a

certain year, and the public forgets that they've been under wage

controls for so long. Has the minister considered that there are some

workers in this province who have had only one freely negotiated

agreement in the last eight years and are being told there will be two

more years of no freely negotiated agreements? The way in which

contracts expire does not fit into any legislative timetable. We

actually have the situation where workers who were under AIB and into

long-term contracts were able once, between the end of AIB and the

beginning of this program, to have a freely negotiated agreement, and

they're back into controls again.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the resentment and the anger that creates among public-sector employees? Can you

[ Page 7368 ]

imagine

what that does to productivity? Isn't it the government side that

always talks about productivity? Isn't it the employer who talks about

increased morale and worker output? You're not going to get increased

morale; you're going to get alienation. You're not going to get

increased productivity; you're going to get resentment. It's already

there. Government employees have lived under their own restraint

program for three years, a restraint program that gave them 8 percent

per year or a combined 26.5 percent increase over three years at a time

when inflation was running at 8, 10, and 12 percent and higher per year

— well over 30 percent in terms of cumulative effect.

Does

the minister not understand and does the government not understand that

every time a union negotiates a contract, that is a restraint program,

an agreement that wages will not go up for X number of months or years?

What employer lives by that restraint program when it comes to prices?

What government lives by that restraint program when it comes to tax

and fee increases? What bank or banking institution lives under that

kind of restraint when it comes to interest-rate increases?

Mr.

Speaker, in the way our society is organized, there is only one group

of people who always live under restraint. They agree to bind and put

in writing what they will live with no matter what happens over the

next year or two or three, depending on the length of the agreement.

They agree to restraint in doing that. Nobody else in this society

agrees to restraint. Yet, in the face of that, the government is

arguing that they're going to impose further restraint on those people

who already accept restraint.

But you're not going to do it

to some groups. You're not going to do it to doctors, because you can

get better campaign contributions from the doctors as a result of last

year's increase than you can from workers who don't even have enough

money to pay the rent — workers who work for this government and who

have lived under an 8 percent restraint program for three years. If I

were a government employee under those restraints, making that kind of

money — not the kind of money I'm making, but the kind of money most

government employees make — I would be angry, and I suspect it would do

something to my productivity and the way I felt about my job. I would

suspect that if I were looking for a career in the public service, and

I were working elsewhere, I would look no longer. I would suspect that

if I were working in the government and I were highly skilled and

highly qualified and producing good value for the taxpayers, I might

look for a job in the private sector. Is that what the government wants

— an increase in alienation, resentment and anger and a decrease in the

quality that's provided?

Mr. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada