[ Page 7331 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Committee on Crown Corporations report on British Columbia Railway.

Mr. Kempf –– 7331

Ministry of Labour annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7331

Oral Questions

Hospital beds. Mr. Cocke –– 7331

Elective surgery lists. Mr. Cocke –– 7332

Investigation of members' expenses. Mr. Davis –– 7332

Hospital budgets. Mr. Leggatt –– 7332

Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Mr. Mussallem –– 7333

Mr. Lorimer –– 7335

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7337

Division –– 7341

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7341

Mr. Barrett –– 7344

Appendix –– 7355

The House met at 2 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All members of this House, I'm sure, are always pleased by meeting those people who help us in our political endeavours. It gives me great pleasure at this time to introduce to the assembly the B.C. Young Socreds who have been with our members this morning. They're a great group of people. We enjoyed a scintillating and productive debate with them today on some very interesting issues. Would the House please welcome the president, Mary Hemmingson, vice-president Ron Finnigan, youth coordinator Peter Wearing and all the B.C. Young Socreds who are with us today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We in Surrey are particularly fortunate to have a very active young Social Credit group. There are a number represented here today. I would like to introduce them to the House. We have Susan Bubela, John Fengler, and Laura Fisher, who was chosen Miss Surrey 1982 –– I might add that the judges had a difficult task from a great list — I was the MC at the pageant — and they certainly chose well. We also have Harry Guttormson, Jana Kirkwood, Peter Rolvink, Karen Roussy, Debbie Swindels, Rachel Tutte, Heidi Van Lissem, my son Wim Vander Zalm, Angela Weber and Joe Weber. I ask the House to bid them a big welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: For the first time this year I have the honour of introducing someone from the riding of Nelson-Creston. In the members' gallery today is Colleen McCrory. She is the driving force behind the Valhalla wilderness conservancy. I wish the members would bid her welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it's indeed an honour for me to introduce to the House a very good friend of mine from Central Fraser Valley, Michael Horn. Would the House please extend a warm welcome to him.

MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today we have a visitor from the energy heartland of British Columbia. I would like this House to welcome Mayor Jack Dick of the district municipality of Hudson's Hope.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As you know, I don't often get the opportunity to introduce constituency representatives from the great South Peace River area, because they're up there opening up the province for the rest of the people, so the people here on Vancouver Island can live in the lap of luxury. Visiting with us today is the mayor of the great city of Dawson Creek, Mayor Bob Trail. I hope the House will make him very warm and welcome.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome the mayor of Prince George, Elmer Mercier, and two aldermen who are accompanying him today, Steve Sintich and George McKnight.

MR. HOWARD: Over the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition, the Member of Parliament for Prince Rupert, the mayor of Terrace and I had the pleasure of being in attendance at the signing by the mayor of Terrace of a proclamation relating to the Salvation Army and its activities in this country over the years. I'd like to take this opportunity to say how much we appreciate the fact that Captain Gillespie of the Salvation Army led us in prayers today.

MR. KEMPF: ME Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I today table the report by the Committee on Crown Corporations on the British Columbia Railway. It's the most concise and detailed report ever brought down on the BCR or, to my knowledge, on any other railway. It is a report of which, on behalf of the staff, the BCR subcommittee and the committee as a whole, I'm very proud.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, when various ministers file their various reports, I would trust they continue to do so without any debate.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the 1981 annual report of the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL BEDS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm that within the hospital program of his ministry we have the absurd situation of extended-care hospitals closing beds because of a shortage of funds and the Ministry of Health offering hospitals in the same area a $20,000 bonus to close their acute-care beds?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for New Westminster has asked a very general question, presumably with some specifics in mind. If he'd like to offer the specifics perhaps I could respond.

MR. COCKE: The question is about a bounty of $20,000 per bed offered by the Ministry of Health for their closing down the beds. This is per a letter to the hospital administrators dated April 7, 1982, signed by the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Cardiff. Is it the minister's policy to offer a bounty of $20,000 per acute-care bed to have them closed down?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There is a program which has been developed by the ministry, and the information has been sent to the various hospitals. It is improperly described by the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: In light of the Juan de Fuca Hospital's closing 50 extended-care beds in this region because of a $750,000 shortfall in their budget.... Now the Royal Jubilee and the Victoria General are being offered a grant to close down acute-care beds so that they may be converted to extended-care beds. Is this the minister's policy?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very pleased to peruse the Blues when they're available to find out if there is a common theme in all those questions that could be answered.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, is it the minister's policy to accommodate chronically ill, mostly elderly patients in inappropriate care — that's acute-care beds — and to convert those acute-care beds to extended-care beds at an extended-

[ Page 7332 ]

care bed rate? Is that the minister's policy? If he doesn't understand that, then he is....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, if the question is quite specific, the policies of the ministry will gladly be spelled out to the member with respect to the accommodation of citizens in the province, elderly or not. Over the past year there has been a major switch in the priorities of construction of hospital beds from acute care to extended care or intermediate care. If the member would like some of the statistics, I'd be pleased to find them and offer them to him.

In response to his question "Is it your policy to accommodate elderly people in inappropriate accommodation?" the answer to that would be no, that is not the policy.

ELECTIVE SURGERY LISTS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the new policy, what has the minister decided to do for the over 12,000 people in our province now awaiting elective surgery?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the people who would be on elective-surgery lists will receive their surgery as their doctors are available, as their own schedules permit and as the beds are available in the various hospitals throughout the province. That policy has been in place for a long time. Elective surgery lists are not a novel situation in the province. The policy is to accommodate those people who are on the elective surgery lists as readily as possible, depending on their own circumstances, the circumstances of their position and the circumstances of the hospital they wish to enter. That is the general policy, and I think it's consistent with the policy we've had for many years.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in this letter dated April 7, under "Incentives," the letter states: "A one-time bonus of $20,000 per bed will be paid to hospitals which can reduce their number of rated acute-care beds." Can the minister confirm that he is paying a bonus of $20,000 a bed to close them down?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to take the question as notice so I can produce the information that might acquaint the member for New Westminster with that policy in some detail. But I can say that it is not to close the bed down. Perhaps he might read the rest of the letter.

INVESTIGATION OF MEMBERS' EXPENSES

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed through you to the Attorney-General. It arises out of the fact that the province is responsible for the administration of justice in British Columbia. Is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police undertaking, or has it undertaken, an intensive examination into the private and business transactions of the second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), investigations of the character to which I as an honourable member was exposed in 1977-1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In response to the hon. member's question, I have no knowledge at the moment with respect to the activities of the RCMP. I can assure you, Your Honour, the member and all members of this House that every action appropriate to the circumstances is and will be taken by this ministry.

MR. DAVIS: Again to the Attorney-General: are the private and business transactions of any other member of this honourable Legislature being investigated by the RCMP at the present time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have no knowledge of such investigations.

MR. DAVIS: Would the Attorney-General use his good offices to ensure, insofar as he can, when any hon. member of this House is subject to an investigation of that character, that that hon. member be made aware of that investigation at as early a date as possible and that that hon. member have access to the results of that investigation when it has been concluded?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Investigations into any citizen, whether or not a member of this House, are carried out in accordance with the procedures which are appropriate to all criminal investigations.

HOSPITAL BUDGETS

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Health. Under the Hospital Insurance Act, regulation 7, there are provisions for adjustments to be paid to general hospitals where necessary to properly reimburse hospitals for services provided to their patients. On April 7 a directive went out from the deputy minister to all hospital administrators informing them that "the grant allocated to your hospital will remain fixed from the beginning of the fiscal year and not subject to quarterly or year-end adjustment." Can the minister advise why he and his ministers have decided to fly in the face of the regulations under the Hospital Insurance Act and not to provide for quarterly or year-end adjustments to hospitals, in effect fixing their budget without any chance for correction?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I believe the member for Coquitlam-Moody is offering a legal opinion as to the interpretation of section 7 of that act. He is, I believe, concluding that the letter is in violation of that section. I will accept his legal argument and ask our legal counsel for their opinion.

MR. LEGGATT: I wasn't offering a legal opinion. I usually charge for those. My question to the minister is this: regardless of the legal interpretation of the Hospital Insurance Act and of regulation 7, will the minister confirm that he no longer is going to provide hospital administrators with any adjustment in regard to the budget? He has now told them that their budget is fixed and, regardless of the provisions of that act, there won't be adjustment at any time following that year. Will he confirm that in fact this is the position his ministry has taken, and will he tell us why they have taken that position?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Basically, the member is correct in his interpretation of the directive and of the information sent to the various hospitals as to the allocation of the grant for this fiscal year. They have been advised that we basically expect those hospitals to live within their budget.

Historically, budgets for hospitals have been struck at different times of the year. I believe this year was perhaps the earliest the hospitals have received their grant allocation figure. Traditionally in British Columbia, there has been

[ Page 7333 ]

review of hospital budgets at year end, whether on a quarterly, semi-annual or annual basis, and adjustments have been made to take certain circumstances into consideration. The concept of providing them with their global budget figure as early in the fiscal year as possible has now been adopted.

Basically, the hospitals have been advised that the amount contained in the communication to them is the budget figure we anticipate and expect they will make use of for that year. It would be incorrect to suggest there would be no opportunity for any hospital or institution to bring to the ministry's attention certain circumstances for which they perhaps feel no responsibility. This has occurred in the past on frequent occasions. It would be very difficult to say that no circumstances at all could be or would be considered by the Ministry of Health with respect to a hospital. Some specifics in the past year were taken into consideration and considered outside of the global budget and grant to the hospitals, but as a principle this year the hospitals have been advised that the Ministry of Health expects them to function within the parameters of those budget guidelines and we have advised them that we do not anticipate those facilities to go into a deficit position.

So as a general directive, yes. As a general directive we anticipate and expect those facilities to stay within those stated budgetary guidelines.

MR. LEGGATT: Why?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The why is, I hope, fairly obvious. There is a serious restriction on the capacity of the Ministry of Health to expend taxpayers' dollars in this field. The ministry represents in excess of 30 percent of the provincial budget. The overall expenditures for the ministry this year will increase approximately 17 percent. We have worked with the hospitals. We have attempted to assist all hospitals in developing their budgets, and the message is as clear as we can offer it to them: there are limitations on the amount of money available for health expenditures in the province, and particularly in the case of hospitals. Hospitals are receiving an increase this year, on average, of about 8 percent. Many of the hospitals have advised us that they require a considerably higher increase than that to meet what they consider their obligations at the same level. Our ministerial officials dispute some of their figures, and ongoing discussions will take place.

Other hospitals have advised us that they feel they can maintain their level of service at that approximate level. Basically, it is a matter of allocating funds for hospitals as the main portion of our 30 percent of the provincial budget. I suppose the very simple message to those responsible for administering hospitals is that there is not an endless amount of money available to them. We are asking them to attempt to manage within the constraints required by the allocation of funds.

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 15.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982
(continued)

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, it it a pleasure to rise in my place again in support of the second reading of Bill 15. It is a pleasure for many reasons. One thing that comes particularly to mind is that it is a time for retrenchment, a time for being responsible with the finances of British Columbia. This bill dictates that clearly.

I cannot go on with my few and very short remarks without referring to a statement made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) last Friday. I cannot pass by this point, because it is such a major statement that was made by the member. It was a statement that should be taken as one of importance. When an hon. member of this House makes a sweeping statement, it must be accepted for what it's worth. But it's the right of another member to question the veracity of such a statement. And I do so now.

The member for New Westminster said: "I built the Royal Columbian Hospital." He might have meant: "I built a lot of the Royal Columbian Hospital." But he didn't do that, he said: "I built the Royal Columbian Hospital." I want to tell him that the Royal Columbian Hospital was built in 1910 or 1912.

MR. LEGGATT: You were there.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I wasn't there. And neither were you. And not many members in this chamber were there. But I'm proud of those who were and are here. They should not be referred to with derision; they should be referred to with respect. That's very important.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what happened at the Royal Columbian Hospital. I'll ask you to bear with me as I lay out the details, because that was a major statement. It requires more than a flashing reply. He was indicating that they did a great deal with the Royal Columbian Hospital. During the regime of the NDP, nothing — except two little items — was done for the Royal Columbian Hospital. The rest was done — completed and finished — during the regime of our previous Social Credit government and the one today.

I'll just go over these a little bit — it will take about two or three minutes. The 105-bed nurses' residence and training school at the Royal Columbian Hospital was completed on May 31, 1962 at a cost of $1,400,000. It was the first time there was a nursing school at that hospital. There was an addition to the emergency department of 24 emergency recovery and treatment beds. That gain of 15 was approved in 1962 and finished in September, 1965, at a total project cost of $481,000.

You'll notice this is all during Social Credit. We in this government have always maintained that our main priority is health. It still is health and it has never changed. It has always been so.

In 1966, the Social Credit government built a temporary lab. Electrical renovations took place in 1968. A trauma unit was constructed in 1969. All of this was under the Social Credit government. And the member for New Westminster said: "I built the Royal Columbian Hospital."

I might say in passing that the Royal Columbian Hospital Act was proclaimed in 1901. And yet he said: "I built the Royal Columbian Hospital."

I must play this out, because I notice that as soon as he heard this he escaped out the door.

[ Page 7334 ]

Anyway, expansion, phase one: construction of modular units contained 174 replacement beds for those in the old 1912 wing, approved in 1967 and completed in 1971 — all these things during the regime of the Social Credit government. The power plant was completed in 1973. That was during their regime in office — I have to admit that — but we, Social Credit, started it in our days.

Now here is what they did do: they demolished the 1912 wing for a cost of $114,000. That negative group demolished the wing all by themselves. I go on. They did another little thing too, a psychiatric day-care unit, 20 spaces — approved in 1974 and completed in 1975 — for $101,000, that little bitty thing. That's all they did — that psychiatric unit, psychiatric beds.

Now we move to Social Credit again: approved in principle and the job completed, for a total of $28 million, an additional 30 psychiatric in-patient beds, completed approximately in 1980 — all these major things were done by our government. But yet he said — and he escaped out of this chamber — "I built the Royal Columbian Hospital. No 'I nearly built, ' or 'I partly built, ' but 'I built it.' " Now you've got to take everything they say with a little grain of salt. I could go on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Is this under Bill 15?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, it is, because we're debating hospital expenditures, Mr. Speaker. I could go on further in detail, but I think I'll drop it at that. I must caution this House, when they hear a debate from the hon. members opposite, to take it with a grain of salt, because it doesn't mean that much.

Today we are debating the second reading of Bill 15. Certainly it's not a bill that could be applauded, because it's a bill of restraint. That is the problem with Bill 15, but we must have restraint. The hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) laughs. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what is happening in the great province of Quebec. Let me quote from an article in the Globe and Mail, entitled "Quebec's Runaway Debt":

"The Quebec government is on a collision course with 320,000 civil servants, teachers and hospital workers. It has asked the public sector unions to accept a reduction of 60 percent in salary."

Now if that is not trauma, I don't know what trauma is.

"Quebec may have little choice. Five years ago the province's accumulated deficit was only $5 billion. The figure now exceeds $16 billion. The annual deficit for 1981-82 will be more than $3 billion."

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that what this government stands for is pay as you go, pay our debts without mortgaging the future, without mortgaging the young people of today. We have in the gallery today a fine and gallant group of Social Credit young people, and we're not a government that will ever mortgage their lives away with debts, as the Quebec government has mortgaged away the lives of their young people; as Ontario mortgages away the lives of their young people and young people yet to come. I can say for those two provinces, as for Canada, that generations yet unborn are being mortgaged.

Yet we stand here and are being criticized for calling for restraint. Mr. Speaker, Bill 15 calls for restraint, and restraint is the order of this day, and I think that we will be applauded by all governments — municipal or otherwise — when they see the facts before them, when they see the necessity for restraint. The municipalities are complaining at this time, and I can understand their complaints. They're not all complaining, but some are complaining, I can understand. They got the news kind of late. It was impossible to get it sooner, because this recession hit very suddenly and without warning. But we have to meet the challenge, and this government is prepared to meet that challenge. In some cases municipalities are displeased, but in many cases they are not. I will give you an example of the municipalities of Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Mission. They don't like it, exactly, but they say they've got to live with it, because it's necessary to show restraint.

Every business in our jurisdiction of British Columbia — and, I'm sure, in all of Canada — has to pull in, has to lay off people. There is no other way, because they have to live within their budget or fail. The only difference with the public sector is that we do not fail; we just raise taxes. But in Quebec they're mortgaging the future of their people. Certainly there are such things....

I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs is very concerned that he has to hold back on expenditures on sewers and other municipal matters, but you can see the wisdom of this. The interest rates are too high just now, but the time will come when interest rates come down. We must look at the positive side — then those projects will be all go. But at this time I ask that understanding be given. Restraint is necessary.

That's part of our philosophy of paying as we go, and this philosophy will never be changed. I'm certain that the people of British Columbia, especially the young people, those who pay the taxes and the old people who are living on fixed pensions, will say: "We want restraint. We must have restraint." For those people of British Columbia we are legislating, not for those who are spending every day, like they spend in Quebec and Ontario, who say another day will come and the sun will shine brighter. The sun will never shine brighter. If we're in debt today, we'll be in debt forever, because it's a disease that takes hold of a jurisdiction and never lets go. It got hold of Canada; it got hold of Ontario, Quebec and other provinces — without mentioning their names. It's necessary for us, as we are today totally out of operating debt and paying as we go.... And to all the people of British Columbia I say that it will continue that way.

Certainly medicine is hard to take. I remember very well when we were children — and no one here can look back that far, but we were children at one time — and along came spring and the worst part about spring was not spring; it was sulphur and molasses. That's an old remedy. I'm sure the young Socreds up there never heard of it. But when we were youngsters, no sooner had the weather got warm and we wanted to go out to play than we had a couple of tablespoons of sulphur and molasses. Do you remember that, Mr. Member? Wouldn't that kill you? Science got into the picture and they found that wasn't necessary. Hooray for science.

We have to realize that this government does not stay still. We do not say restrain, hold back and tighten up. We say; "Tighten up as much as you can, but go in places where you can go and build up new jobs." I want to say that I have never, in all my knowledge of government and in all my knowledge of the past, seen anything that appealed to me more or excited me more than Expo 86. Think that just six months ago we would have been saddled with a debt of $50 million or $60 million, and suddenly this great production, this convention centre, this centre for the ships or whatever you call it....

What do you call that centre?

[ Page 7335 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Pier B-C.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Pier B-C. Suddenly this project is going to be built without cost to the people of British Columbia. What could be better than that? And the northeast coal project, the biggest project to ever hit Canada, is without cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia, but to the benefit of Canada.

I say that is where we stand. We stand for production; we stand in a rising atmosphere of people and we look at the future with courage because we can do that. We're financially sound. But I say that any government that sells the souls of the people just to get a benefit today is making a great mistake. We will be applauded when time shows the wisdom of our actions, and the people of British Columbia will say they did right when they were there.

MR. LORIMER: I have committed the cardinal sin of reading the bill before I speak on it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First time.

MR. LORIMER: It may be the first time, but I won't bother again. I'm afraid the member who just sat down failed to read the bill, and the others who spoke on behalf of the government obviously didn't read the bill. They're talking about restraint. There's no restraint whatsoever in this bill. There may be some saving of money as far as the provincial government is concerned.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's the taxpayers.

MR. LORIMER: But it means extra expense to the municipalities — and they're taxpayers. So to suggest that this is any type of restraint is ludicrous. These members haven't understood either the needs of municipalities or the variety of transfers of funds between provincial governments and municipal governments. But I think the main reason that they spoke that way was that they forgot to read the bill — and they may have made a better speech because of that.

The only benefits from this bill go to the provincial government at the expense of the municipalities. I wonder why, Mr. Speaker, people laugh when the government members talk about restraint. I don't think they take them seriously and it's a pity.

The Sewerage Assistance Act states that the government shall pay its share of the costs to provide certain sewerage services within a municipality. The government "shall" make the payments; in its place, the new act says the government "may" make grants to the municipalities. Those are two separate things. One is a legislative requirement for the senior government to finance and assist in the construction of sewerage services to municipalities. The other merely says that they "may" make grants if they so desire. They always could make grants, of course, so there's nothing new in this. The Sewerage Assistance Act has been killed by this bill; the transmission act has also been killed. The bill before us has one purpose only: so that the provincial government can save money at the expense of the municipalities. History in this province has been set back at least 10 years. We're back to the old Social Credit government days of 1972: keep in conflict with local governments; starve them; keep them on their knees. The government will save money and can now sprinkle some largess over the deserving municipalities at the expense of other municipalities.

I was shocked when I heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) state that there had been no reduction in the municipal share of welfare costs since the 1960s, apart from the reduction brought about two or three years ago by this government. Now he and his staff know that the former 15 percent municipal share of welfare costs was reduced to 10 percent under the New Democratic Party administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you remember that, Bill, even though you said it wasn't so?

MR. LORIMER: Why did the minister say that no reduction had taken place since the 1960s. The statement is false. It makes one wonder how many other inaccuracies were contained in his speech. The minister, again, has been very careless with the truth.

Another principle of this bill is that some of the provisions are retroactive. Retroactive legislation is, generally speaking, poor legislation, but in the past few years more and more bills have been coming before us which have retroactive portions introduced. They're always plugging holes, changing the rules or moving the goal-posts, and doing it retroactively. It's little wonder the municipalities now do not trust this government. They know it's flying by the seat of its pants — bringing in legislation to cover up errors that were made in previous legislation, and so on.

Section 1 is made retroactive to April 1980. I can't understand the reason for this provision; maybe the minister can tell us what it is. When a municipality is undertaking sewerage work, surveys have to be made, engineering has to be done. If it is done by outside help, tenders have to be called, and it could be well over a year before the construction is started and up to two years in completion. During that period work is being done on the project. A number of these projects will have started after April 1980 and be well on their way, and moneys paid out by the municipalities for the process. Budgeting could be based on the financial goal-posts that are set at the time of the making. Now the rules are changed, and the financial strain due to the retroactivity of this bill could be very difficult for a municipality to manage. I don't know if that's the purpose of the retroactivity, but I hope the minister will tell us what his ideas are in this regard.

This bill makes any long-term planning very difficult. The municipalities will not know whether they have to budget for the total cost of the sewerage system they're intending to proceed with, and which is needed for a number of reasons, not the least being a health reason. They will not know whether or not there will be some money coming from above — a grant from the provincial government to assist them. If they play their cards right and are not critical of the government, maybe a grant will come. If not, they can expect to finance the project on their own tax base.

The minister wants to be a great white father. He wants to be able to sprinkle his largess over the municipalities as he sees fit and where he wants. He believes that this type of legislation does two things of benefit to the government. It will keep the municipalities in line and reduce criticism of government action. The second reason is that it will be a great political plus for the minister and members of his government to pass out the cheques from time to time to any favoured municipality that may be getting a grant from this government. They'll be bribed with their own money. It will be sprinkled from above to the deserving municipalities. If it

[ Page 7336 ]

follows the principle of the lottery funds, we know where the preferred municipalities may be located.

This minister is great at ribbon-cutting, and this government is good at turning sod, but they're very slow after the ceremonies to follow up with any action whatsoever.

Let's look at the situation in communities of less than 5,000 population. The minister has said that by the removing of welfare costs the local taxpayers will benefit. That's true: local taxpayers will benefit by the total removal of the costs of welfare. However, this bill has the financial effect of causing, in most municipalities, probably double the burden on the municipality as an expense compared to the relief they get from the removal of the welfare costs. I don't think the municipality worries too much whether a transfer of payments or whatever is called welfare or some other term. What concerns the municipality is the net result to that particular municipality. In most cases in this province today, they will find that they are being given with one hand about half what is being taken away with the other, so the argument on welfare costs has very little merit.

Towns of under 5,000 population pay no welfare charges in any event. Those small communities not only don't get any benefits; all they get is the hammer. A number of those communities throughout the interior of this province, on Vancouver Island and in non-urban areas, are going to suffer severely from this legislation. They're going to have to go to the expense, for a variety of reasons, of building sewerage systems. Some of them have been started. Some of them have been planned for a period of up to two years, and are in the process of being completed. Now they find they're not going to get financing from their government. With a very limited tax base, these small towns will have serious problems in trying, at the last minute, to finance on their own small tax base the costs of sewage disposal systems, due to the changing of the legislation which we see before us today.

What do we hear from the Social Credit rural members in this House? We don't hear very much. There's no mention of what's going to happen to those small towns in the interior. There are the communities of Clinton, Greenwood, Pouce Coupe, and a variety of different communities that paid no welfare charges and are now being asked to finance the total costs of these projects. This is not restraint at all. This is merely transferring the responsibility for financing to local taxation, instead of through general taxation by the provincial government. The provincial government will have money in its pockets; the municipalities, once again, will have the short end of the stick.

During this session we have before us a number of bills which take authority, funds, power and decision-making from local governments in order to centralize government in Victoria — centralizing its power and its purse in Victoria. Less and less responsibility and jurisdiction are given to local areas. The government is bent on a program of centralization. The most distressing part of the whole process, of the direction taken by this government, is the animosity being created between the provincial and municipal governments. I'm suggesting that the government should not be using municipalities as whipping boys. This was the situation during the previous Social Credit administration in the sixties. The enemy was the municipality. During my term as Minister of Municipal Affairs I was happy to patch up the relationship between the municipal and provincial governments, to give the municipalities greater authority, and relieve them of some of their tax burden, as in the sewerage bill, the administration of justice bill and so on.

In my opinion, when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was Minister of Municipal Affairs, he also made an effort to cooperate with the municipalities. But the present minister is going back to the pre-1972 era — the Dan Campbell syndrome — in battling with the municipalities and blaming them for everything. I want to warn the government that holding a big stick over municipalities is counterproductive. All you have to do is look at history to determine what the results will be.

When our government amended the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act.... There had been an act in place before 1972. However, there was very little call on the act because very few municipalities could come within the terms of the act. Provincial government payments out of that act averaged $5 million a year. Basically, those payments went to small communities. We brought in new legislation which allowed every municipality to take advantage of this act. There was great excitement in the municipalities, because they could then proceed with the necessary sewerage projects, which had been needed for years. As a result, sewerage facilities were built throughout the province.

When the amendments to the bill were brought into the House, they were met with great enthusiasm by the Social Credit members, who were then in opposition. I want to quote the present Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser) in debate on second reading, May 2, 1974:

I would agree with the minister that, hopefully, it will give assistance on sewage facilities to some municipalities. But I think there are a few things" — he was getting negative — "that will probably happen that will nullify the good parts of this bill. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that this would probably help smaller municipalities, whatever happens, but for the medium-sized and larger I'm very much doubtful of the assistance.

Well, it turned out that the Minister of Transportation was wrong. The large municipalities used this legislation to a great degree. The provincial treasury paid millions of dollars to assist them and the local taxpayers to put in the needed facilities.

What did the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) say?

Mr. Speaker, I stand to support this legislation as well. It's not often that I stand in my place and say that I think that the government has introduced good legislation.

This bill is being done away with.

In fact, this legislation is going to make it possible for the community of Invermere to proceed with the installation of sewers and treatment facilities in that municipality. They have done some examination and feasibility studies on the projected cost in that community as to what it would cost to install sewers, and it was prohibitive and it was unrealistic.

This is the act that you're doing away with. This is the act that you're killing by this legislation. I'm sure you can't have the support of these members who spoke at the time and found out how helpful this bill was to so many of their smaller communities and to the larger communities. The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) spoke on that bill. She was very negative. However, she did say: "I think this is a very distressing situation because the bill, if it is as we believe it is, is a good bill. The minister should be complimented for bringing it in and meeting a much-known need in British Columbia." That's what she said, and I couldn't help but agree with her. She spoke for quite some time — she was quite lengthy in her speeches in those days. The rest of it was mainly negative so I won't read it. I'm sure you wouldn't want to listen to that. What she was forecasting didn't come about anyway. This was in 1974. We still had a little breath

[ Page 7337 ]

left to do some more good deeds and to bring in good legislation for the people of this province to help distribute the wealth of this province among local governments and the provincial government. We didn't grab it all; we gave it out.

For the financial health of this province, there has to be a fair sharing of the funds raised within this province. I think this government sometimes forgets that the people who are financing the provincial government are the same people who are financing the federal government and also financing the school boards and the municipal governments. There has to be a fair sharing of finances. In my opinion, this government is doing away with two bills that recognize this principle of sharing.

It's not a question of saving money. The taxpayers are going to pay the same amount, but it's going to be a larger amount in that the money is all going to come from local taxation. This government is going in reverse — back to the days of the sixties.

This situation today is very similar to the situation in 1969. I want to quote from the Province of January 31, 1969, which carried a report on a very fine speech that was made in this House. It's just coincidental that it was my maiden speech:

"Lorimer said that the government must strengthen the municipal financial position and beef up regional districts to make them work. He further recommended work in cooperation with the municipalities or regional districts of the Fraser Valley in connection with a full transportation study. He then said that the government is starving municipalities, and anytime a gift is given to a municipality, it gives additional financial responsibility to more than take care of the grant given."

Now that's exactly the same situation that we have before us today.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Did you say that?

MR. LORIMER: I said that in 1969. In 1972, things improved. There was a new government, a government that recognized the need to have our municipalities financially stable. And I said earlier, Mr. Minister of Finance, that I thought you were trying to do the same thing. But the disaster came with the new minister's appointment and directions from cabinet since that time to starve the municipalities to save the moneys for the province and to save the power and the purse for the provincial government.

There's no difference in the attitude of the provincial government toward the municipalities today than there was in the days of Dan Campbell — no difference whatever. As a result, we are unable to support this legislation in any way.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've kept some notes of the various questions asked and observations made. I hope I may answer them because obviously the members opposite may have read the bill, as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) said, but they're certainly not very familiar with the workings of the revenue-sharing program as it has been over the years and as it will continue to be.

The statement made by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon was that this sets history back about ten years. I should hope it doesn't, because really ten years takes us back to about the beginning of the NDP, and talk about a history that was disastrous for the province, not only for its people but for those that were affected directly in municipal affairs! I can assure you, Mr. Member, those were the years. I know; I was was there. I can recall as well, Mr. Speaker, the day of the embarrassment to many of us at the UBCM in 1975, when the Premier of that day, the Leader of the Opposition now, came with that minister, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, and stood before that assembly, and there was a loud boo through the whole of the audience. It was a disaster; they had to walk off the stage, because they couldn't take the heat. I can remember that day. Was that the government, was that the group that was treating municipalities so well? It was a disaster that certainly I don't want to go back to, and in no way will this legislation take us back to those years beginning about 1972.

If we're talking about the worth of the program, Mr. Speaker, and if we're talking about the effect of changing the sewerage assistance program from what it was to what's proposed in the legislation, let's again think back to 1975 when the total worth of that sewerage assistance program was about $5 million. What is it today, Mr. Speaker? It's $50 million — a considerable change. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon should certainly have researched his material a whole lot more than simply reading a two-page bill. There is much more to be done. You must look at the nature, the workings of the program as it was and as it's intended to continue.

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon said — and I take objection to this: "This Ministry of Municipal Affairs with its minister has not done much for municipalities, not like in the days that we were there." I can recall those days that they were there. Let me compare again, Mr. Speaker, because I think it brings the whole of this program and the proposed change into proper perspective.

Certainly that ministry under the then minister, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, was involved in transit, but how much involvement did the municipalities have? Were they a part of it through the Urban Transit Authority? No, it was off the comer of somebody's desk in that ministry. Where was the municipal involvement? And what were they contributing? The total contribution for transit and for grants to municipal governments was only about a quarter of what those grants are today, because this government, through proper management, has made available those revenues that have made the municipalities prosper.

I was the mayor of Surrey in those days, and no matter how hard we tried we could not keep the mill rate down to what it is today, because that municipality, like every other municipality, has had the benefit of this revenue-sharing program.

Mr. Speaker, talk about comparing! It almost embarrasses me to get involved in debate with that member who mentioned what they did then and what's happening now: those few old buses that came from Saskatoon compared with $700 million worth of ALRT — how can you begin to compare, Mr. Member? Shame on you! Shame on the NDP! I'm so disappointed.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that again there aren't too many members from the opposition in the House today. When I gave my introductory remarks, which might have been of tremendous assistance to them, last Monday.... It's reported in the paper — and I really don't know, its accuracy, but the writer is Allen Garr who's often written well about the NDP — that they were all playing golf. I certainly wish they had been here when I gave my introductory re-

[ Page 7338 ]

marks, but they were out on the golf course. Shame on the NDP — out on the golf course when they should be working in the House! Turf them out, Mr. Speaker.

If that's the subject the member wanted to raise, I could go on comparing the ministry then to what it is today, and I could bring in the way they brought in the Islands Trust and the ALR and all of these things. But I won't get into that, because I want to concentrate as much as possible on the various points raised by individual members in speaking to the bill. If I can set the record straight, I hope they'll have a better understanding of what's being proposed by this government, and then they can go back to their constituencies and give the straight and honest goods. Certainly I'm very grateful that when certain changes were introduced back in 1974 by the then NDP government, members on this side spoke in support of it. Why not? If you bring in a good piece of legislation, that's the right thing to do. But I have yet to hear much positiveness from those members; they must always be so negative. It's disappointing, to say the least.

I was also a little upset by the remarks made by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who is the Municipal Affairs critic. I would really appreciate a good critic, because I think our democratic system requires that we not only have effective members in government but hopefully that we have effective members in opposition, and I look to that member for constructive criticism. He is the most negative person I've come across yet. I would give of my time to meet with that member on a regular basis to make him a little more aware of the workings not only of government but of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in the hope that it could possibly assist him to do a little better than he does in his role as critic.

That particular member stood up and said: "This is fraud. It's misleading. Read the budget speech. It's bad. It has not been presented fairly or honestly." I ask: what is more fair? I understand and appreciate that people will read things into whatever is presented, or they'll perhaps present it in their way. But if you readjust two little paragraphs from what was said in the budget speech and then read from some of the statements made by that member's running mate the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), you'll see what is more misleading or more fraudulent. I would suggest that the statements made in the budget speech by the Minister of Finance are certainly very descriptive of the proposals that were put forth and which we're now debating.

MR. SPEAKER: These have to do with Bill 15.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Bill 15.

The speech reads in part: "In particular, the Revenue Sharing Fund, which was introduced in 1977 by this government to provide an assured and predictable method of sharing provincial revenue with local government, will be broadened to include several additional programs. The sewerage assistance program, the utility underground program and the restructure assistance program will be financed now from the Revenue Sharing Fund." Isn't that honest? That certainly says it the way it is and the way it's proposed. Why couldn't the members read or understand this simple statement made during the debate of the budget speech?

It goes on to say in the second paragraph: "Most significantly, the requirement that local government pay a share of social welfare costs will be phased out over two years. This will result in an important cost saving to local governments. For example, the saving to local governments will be $26.6 million in 1982-83 alone. In the future these costs will continue to be carried by the senior levels of government." What is more honest than that? It phases out the program. The saving is there this year. The balance of it will be phased out next year, and then there will be no cost for social assistance to municipalities. It goes on: "With this program consolidation it now will be possible to reduce the diverse and costly financial interaction between the province and local government. Program efficiency and service to the taxpayer will be improved." This was the section or portion that the first member for Victoria was referring to when he said, "fraud, misleading, dishonest, it isn't there." It's there, if he could just read it twice and understand. It's right there in this budget document.

(Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

Talk about misleading. Let's see what the second member for Victoria had to say. For pages and pages in Hansard of April 29, 1982, morning sitting, he goes on about the pollution of the waters around Vancouver Island — how you soon won't be able to swim; how the beaches will be polluted; and how things are going from bad to worse because of all these outfalls and the sewage getting into the ocean. For pages and pages, he talks about pollution. He says: "The government is wiping out this act — the Sewerage Assistance Act — so that if Victoria or the Capital Regional District, in their wisdom, decide to call upon the provincial government to enter into a sharing formula to provide treatment facilities here so that we could have clean water — we could have bathing in our adjacent marine waters — that request would be competing directly out of general revenue with northeast coal and the other monumental projects that the Social Credit government has underway. Talk about misleading dishonesty. Talk about fraud. That certainly is a good example for anyone reading this....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. minister. The minister is not referring to any hon. member in his remarks, I'm sure; but if he is, would he clear that at this time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm only reading from the budget speech and from Hansard of April 29, and I certainly do not intend to call a member a fraud. But it's terribly misleading for a person who may later pickup this material and receive from it, particularly should they be encouraged by members of the opposition, the impression that somehow these changes will eliminate the benefits available to them from the revenue-sharing program when it comes to providing sewerage facilities. I think it's shameful, and I'm hoping that somehow this may be corrected in one way or another by the hon. member so that it doesn't leave the wrong impression, because the moneys for the revenue sharing programs are moneys provided out of general revenues. They are provided according to a formula which was established by government and which is again in effect this year as it was previous to this year. That program went from $210 million last year to $235 million this year. So it is not competing with the great projects that the government is involved in otherwise. I don't want to debate, as the member did, the various projects which are of such benefit to British Columbians, such as northeast coal, B.C. Place, ALRT and all of the many other great and wonderful projects which will assist our economy. I don't want to bring these projects into

[ Page 7339 ]

debate, but these projects are not competing with the sewerage assistance program. I wanted to set the record straight on that, Mr. Speaker, and I'm hoping that those who receive Hansard from the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and read in their copy the speech of April 29 also take the trouble to read the response that is being provided today, because otherwise they could be left with a wrong impression.

The one thing that has certainly been raised in this debate over and over by a number of members.... And I certainly appreciate the comments made by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) and others, when they referred to the need for restraint. I can honestly say that I sincerely wish that our economy, the Canadian economy and the world economy were such that we might have more moneys flowing into the revenues of the province so that we had more to share and more to provide municipalities. I wish that were so, but that isn't the situation.

Restraint is certainly called for by all levels of government, because, as the first member for Victoria unfortunately overlooked, the source of all moneys is the taxpayers.

MR. COCKE: You're driving out the young Socreds.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They're a great group, hon. member, and they're hard workers for the party. They understand and appreciate free enterprise and they look to a wonderful future in British Columbia under a free enterprise government. No socialism. I'm sure they'll agree.

The first member for Victoria, the critic for Municipal Affairs, who unfortunately failed badly on this particular bill, did mention that another alderman in Victoria.... I forget his name now. He's certainly fairly active in the political party from which the first member for Victoria comes. I'm looking for his name. I did mark it down here someplace. I could contact him and see if possibly he has any suggestions. The first member for Victoria went on to say that this particular alderman in Victoria had said taxes would have to increase by 19 percent, I believe — some ridiculous amount. That was the NDP alderman who serves on the Victoria council and who works with the first member for Victoria in the Legislature.

MR. HALL: Blencoe.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Alderman Blencoe; that's his name. Thank you. This council member said taxes will have to increase by something like 19 percent because of the change in the revenue-sharing program. In 1981, revenue-sharing was up about 22 or 23 percent from 1980; 1980, it was up about 19 or 20 percent from 1979; 1979, it was up about 15 or 18 percent from 1978. For the whole of that period, revenue-sharing was up about 400 percent from 1975. But did that council member for Victoria, Mr. Blencoe, ever say during those increases that they were going to reduce taxes? I can't recall it once. While the province has given them more and more money, they've still had to increase taxes. The moment there is a change in the program and there should be some reduction, they talk about tax increases. That's all the NDP know. That's their whole thinking — to raise taxes. That's all you ever hear.

I would ask the member for Victoria to ask his friend on Victoria council if possibly they couldn't sit down and responsibly do as we're having to do: look at those budgets, pare where you can, bring a little restraint into play and ask yourself how much the taxpayers can really afford. Are we not, as elected individuals representing the people in our communities or constituencies, responsible to them, and should we not keep in mind that there's a limit to what they can pay in taxes? I would suggest that's the question you ought to ask your friend on council, hon. member.

My colleague, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), is a fine fellow and I'm glad he's in the House, but I want to straighten out a few things for him. Maybe my colleague got his information from some members of council, but I don't believe this to be the council position. If it is, I think they should be asked the same question: where are the priorities? My colleague for Surrey said: "Oh, they'll have to cut out parks programs, a swimming pool, a firehall, a library; all of these programs will have to be cut out." The one thing he didn't mention was their proposed $5-million municipal addition to house more bureaucracy. Why can't they cut out that particular extension? Maybe that's where the priority ought to be. I don't believe for a moment they need to cut back on that library, that parks program, that firehall or swimming pool in Surrey. I don't believe for one moment those programs need to be cut out. Surrey, because of the tremendous assist they'll receive from this provincial government in the various programs, is relatively well off, and much better off than during those NDP years in 1973-75. It's not just what's presented; it's how it's presented. Again we've heard from other members, and once more the figures ought to be compared.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked about the North Cowichan loss of revenue. We should keep in mind, in discussing this revenue-sharing program, that there's a large fund of $235 million, $99 million of which this year is unconditional. Last year $165 million was unconditional, granted. In part it's because of the changes through the folding in of the sewerage assistance program. As well, in part, it's because of the increased moneys required to fund the various water projects which have always been a part of the revenue-sharing program. No mention has been made of that, as I recall.

In the North Cowichan program, unconditional moneys in 1981 were $1,195,390. There's a $30,000 basic grant, for a total of $1,225,390. In 1982, for this coming year the unconditional is $769,557; the saving in the social-assistance charges is $364,200; the basic grant is $35,835. This makes a total of $1,169,592 or about $55,000 or 0.05 percent less than what it was in 1981. It's a whole lot different from the figure that was mentioned by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, because they're not taking into account the savings from the social-assistance program when they're presenting it their way. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) said: "What about all those little communities in the north? Where are those members from the north speaking on behalf of the little communities?" He says they didn't pay welfare and now they're going to suffer the cost of removal of the welfare. In effect, that was the story, but he failed to mention that the basic grant program has been changed to take that into account and to give those smaller communities a larger basic grant. The whole of the story wasn't told.

Then there's the figure from the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). Let me find the slip from Comox. We certainly had the member for Comox.... I'll find Mackenzie here — I see he's in the House. The member for Mackenzie (Mr.

[ Page 7340 ]

Lockstead) said the program being cut from $162 million to $99 million will seriously cut into sewer and water programs. That's nonsense, Mr. Speaker. How can he get those two mixed up? The reduction in the unconditional grants from $162 million to $99 million is not a cut into the sewer and water programs. Those are other programs over and above, as a part of the whole revenue-sharing program; and to suggest, as he did, that the reduction in the unconditional will cut into those two programs only shows that he doesn't understand the program at all. He says that Powell River lost $228,000 on account of this change. Again, Mr. Speaker, he obviously hadn't gone to the trouble of figuring it out, because the details are here — if he wants them, I'll give them to him. For Powell River, in particular, the change in 1981 was $999,775. In 1982 — adding together those three programs — it comes to $905, 238. If you deduct $905,000 from $999,000, there's no way you could possibly end up with $228,000, unless you were the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — and that doesn't say much for his teacher. I'm afraid his teacher is somewhat ashamed of him.

I'm pleased to see the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is in the House so that I can give him the figure as well. The unconditional for New Westminster for 1981 was $2,715,926. Add to that the basic grant of $30,000 and you have a total of $2,745,926. In 1982 the unconditional was $1,784,526. Add to that the saving because of the removal of social assistance, and you've got an additional $771,000. The basic grant is $32,448 and the total is $2, 87,974. Mr. Speaker, the reduction in the whole of that program in a year of restraint for the whole of New Westminster is about....

MR. COCKE: Half a million dollars.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: About $200,000. As a matter of fact, it's less than $200,000.

MR. COCKE: You're spacy.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that member for New Westminster obviously attended school with the member for Mackenzie.

I'm sorry that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) isn't in the House today because the member is playing golf.... No, I don't think so. The member for Nanaimo obviously has a busy day now with the income tax. All accounting firms are rather busy around April 30, so I'm sure that isn't the case — he's not playing golf. But, Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo went into some detail about how these programs would affect the industry, commerce and the people of his constituency. Again, the Nanaimo figures certainly aren't what they were made out to be, but I think it should be mentioned as well that this particular revenue sharing program — its highways program, its water-assistance portion — have been a tremendous help to the city of Nanaimo. I would suspect that the member for Nanaimo, who is also involved with the Commonwealth or NDP Hotel — whatever the name of it is — should be grateful that the underground wiring program might be of some assistance to them. Possibly they'll be turning to city council to have some of those wires buried underground to serve that hotel, and city council will in turn be coming here. So the program will continue to assist business and industry in all communities, including Nanaimo.

I was waiting for the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to come in, because she was quite right about a mistake I made with respect to the changes in the percentages for the social assistance program. She's just come through the door. In 1971 the government then reduced the percentages from 20 percent to 15 percent, and in 1974 the NDP government reduced it from 15 percent to 10 percent. I'll tell you, hon. member, that it was not intended in any way to be misleading, but it has to be remembered that 1974 was the year of the $100 million overrun. If you recall, that's when even though the percentage charge to municipalities came down, the per capita charges to municipalities for social assistance went skyrocketing. The NDP social assistance program was totally out of control — a complete disaster and one the people of British Columbia will probably never forget. That was the change and that was the year, which is why the percentages unfortunately got lost in the magnitude of the figures. The hon. leader of the NDP will recall that year. It was terribly embarrassing for him then as it must be now, so I'll make no more mention of that $100 million overrun. In any case, it was supposedly a clerical mistake.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) was critical about too much time being spent by the ministry, the minister and the government in ribbon-cutting and sod-turning. Well, I don't apologize for that. I wish we could have a lot more ribbon-cutting and sod-turning. That certainly is indicative of the tremendous growth that we've experienced in British Columbia. It's too bad they didn't have some sod-turnings during those NDP years. There weren't any sod-turnings or ribbon cuttings; it was a disaster.

But, Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish that somehow the economy in the whole of the country and British Columbia will again start to put more moneys into the revenue-sharing program, because as the revenues increase to the province, so does the revenue increase for the revenue-sharing program. These changes, certainly at first — it is showing, and I have said this right along — have a negative impact on the unconditional part of the whole of the revenue-sharing program, but there is also a real benefit which has not been mentioned by the members of the opposition. I would ask the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) to listen carefully and keep this in mind. The sewerage assistance program has been rising considerably in the last several years because the federal government discontinued their $25 million community assistance program. It was only in effect for two years and was then used as a reduction off the top from the various sewer projects throughout the province. When that discontinued, it directly impacted on the sewerage assistance program.

Similarly the high percentages of interest charged by the financial institutions are bad, but we're stuck with them until perhaps there is a change of attitude at the federal levels both in Ottawa and Washington. It's a fact of life and it's having a tremendous impact on all sectors of the economy. It similarly has had its effect on the sewerage assistance program. Historically, however, the percentage increase in the sewerage assistance program has been considerably less than the percentage increase in the social assistance charges to municipalities. In the long haul, the interest rates will come down for the sewerage assistance programs with the complete removal of the welfare program as a burden on municipalities.

In the long haul, as we had predicted earlier, not only will sewerage assistance come down as a portion of the Revenue Sharing Fund, but, with the welfare removed, the moneys left

[ Page 7341 ]

for municipalities to provide their various programs will be better and more than what they have been under the program during the last several years. That has been excellent. In effect the program is an improvement, but we agree there has to be some change in the interest rates before we will see much of that improvement take effect in the sewerage assistance portion of the Revenue Sharing Fund.

These are not negative changes. These are positive changes. I think these are changes that will also make local government much more accountable. The sewerage assistance program, the water program and the road improvement program are all properly something that local government should be involved with and over which they should have some say, and into which they should have and can have some input. The welfare program, however, was not something you could directly relate to municipalities because they had no part in the decision-making that led to the charge for that welfare program. The municipalities have, over the years, continually called for the removal of that welfare program. It has now been accomplished, or will be accomplished in total this time next year, and that's a commendable change. I'm sure responsible people in local government will agree that this will make the process of local government more accountable in the end, and will lead to more decision-making in local government, wherever they may be in the province.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

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

Bill 15, Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to move second reading of Bill 28, Compensation Stabilization Act, to explain it to hon. members to the extent that I am able and, of course, to speak in support of it.

May I first outline the government's rationale for introducing the legislation at this time. I will then discuss the operation of the Compensation Stabilization Act itself. I believe it is vitally important from the outset for this House and for the people of British Columbia to have a clear understanding of the reasons for the government's decision to introduce a bill of this nature in the spring of 1982. Through the winter and early this year the provincial government was faced with a situation which I described at length in earlier remarks: a rapidly deteriorating economic situation, the main elements of which were generated outside and therefore beyond the control of this province. In Ottawa late last year the federal government introduced a damaging budget, and then at the beginning of 1982, at the first ministers' conference on the economy, it provided what I think most observers would say was relatively little constructive leadership. Abroad — that is, away from Canada and the United States — the economies of the developed countries were clearly in disarray. The key American export market was particularly depressed.

In this atmosphere of uncertainty the government of British Columbia was faced with the task of shaping a budget and keeping the province's economy on course. The decision was made that whatever else might be done and could be done, the government had to ensure that its own house was in order. Government spending had to be controlled so that as much as possible of the province's financial resources could be freed for maintaining people services in a period of economic downturn, and also give us the opportunity to create employment. In practical terms, this meant restricting public-sector expenditure on the one hand, while stabilizing public-sector compensation on the other.

So, Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members will know, on February 18 of this year the Premier announced a two pronged restraint on government programs. The first aspect of that program is a 12 percent upper limit on increases in public-sector expenditure in fiscal 1982-83. The second aspect is the compensation stabilization program, the subject of the bill now before us for second reading.

Bill 28 is designed to capture the essence of the promise made by the Premier of the province of British Columbia on that day, February 18, that the wage restraint program would not interfere with free collective bargaining. This is accomplished by the design of the enforcement of the restraint. 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 message is very clearly as follows: jump safely or be pushed; it is a matter of choice. If the two sides involved choose to jump safely and follow the guidelines, then they will find a safe landing and nothing will happen to them. If they ignore the guidelines, then of necessity they will be pushed into the regulations and the consequences could be serious, because the regulations are more stringent and could apply for more than 24 months.

The bill offers voluntary restraint, with compulsion only if necessary. Therefore the enforcement contemplated is flexible. It reflects the reality of the marketplace. Collective

[ Page 7342 ]

bargaining will continue under Bill 28. The negotiation process requires room in which to move. If rigid barriers prevent options from being explored, voluntary agreements will not be made. Flexibility is an essential to the life of the negotiation, and particularly in this legislation. Bill 28 is designed to give life to the negotiation process. The two separate paths of part 2 and part 3 provide flexibility because the guidelines are voluntary. The law does not encourage self-administration of the guidelines by the parties affected. The result will be a healthy climate for negotiation in the public sector of this province.

In describing Bill 28, perhaps the title itself deserves some comment. The bill establishes a stabilization program, not a program with strict numerical limits. The stabilization program is short-term in nature and deliberately flexible in its operation. Based on the experience of earlier attempts to control compensation increases, an emphasis has been placed on self-administration, and the continued freedom of the parties concerned to bargain collectively. A description of the program is perhaps the easiest way this afternoon of illustrating these features.

The program applies to the public sector only and is designed to ensure that all public-sector employees are affected comparably. Generally speaking, public-sector employees will be subject to the program for 24 consecutive months. As I intend to point out later, there may be some exceptions to this rule, but essentially employees will be in the program for only two years: a limited period of time. In addition, the program will deal with groups of employees only and not to employees as individuals. The effect of this is to leave room for flexibility in determining the increases in compensation for particular identifiable employees. So although a group's average allowable increase might be in the range of 10 percent, some members of that group — such as those at the lower pay levels — could receive more than that figure, while others might receive less.

The composition of these groups will be straightforward: existing collective bargaining units will stand as groups. Non-unionized employees will be formed into separate groups according to occupation, their ranking, or other reasonable criteria.

I think that one particular group merits particular mention: the executive. This group — made up of chief executive officers and some senior managers in the public service — will have their compensation frozen. The situation of the members of this group will be studied, and a special set of guidelines will be issued quite soon.

To return to the program itself, it has a limited two-year cycle and it applies only to groups of public-sector employees. The program itself is to be administered by a commissioner, Mr. Ed Peck. Mr. Peck is well known and respected for his professionalism in the labour relations community. He is to operate as the head of an independent agency.

This last point should be emphasized, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Peck's independence will be real; it must be, or a program such as this will not work. The individual cases dealt with by Mr. Peck will be subject to the usual restrictions of administrative law. Otherwise he will be free to do his job as he sees fit and according to the letter and spirit of this legislation and its following guidelines and regulations. There is to be no question of interference in his conduct of individual cases which go before him.

Mr. Peck's agency will have a small staff, the chief officers of which are named by title in the bill. This legislation will not give birth to another cumbersome, bureaucratic apparatus. It mandates a lean administration, committed to a minimum of red tape and to timely decisions. Again, given the nature of labour relations, prompt rulings are absolutely vital, or the whole process could grind to a halt.

Public-sector employers will be required to file two categories of information with the commissioner. The first is a registration form which indicates when groups within a public-sector organization will enter the program and who these groups are made up of. The question of entry into the program perhaps merits further comment. For groups consisting of bargaining units, the date of entry into the program will be the day following the expiry date of their collective agreement. For groups not composed of a bargaining unit, the date of entry will generally be determined by the traditional timing of annual increases. For example, the usual time for increases for management-excluded personnel in the public sector is October; groups under this heading would therefore enter the program at that particular point. This registration procedure will allow the commissioner to judge his future workload and to keep track of groups as they enter the program.

May I submit to hon. members that it's important to remember that at this initial entrance point, all employers and employees in the public sector are formulating their compensation plans under the voluntary self-administering guidelines. Bargaining in good faith must be carried out. The range of increase for salary and benefit settlement is 8 percent to 14 percent total compensation. Many other issues are, as always, negotiable. To claim that bargaining cannot take place is, with respect, misinformed or political posturing. The public-sector employer community cannot hide behind the guidelines, claiming that the government has restricted collective bargaining. The guidelines, while not legally enforceable, are meaningful and realistic targets that will achieve stability within the public sector.

The unionized public-sector employees who ignore the guidelines are flouting the reality of the private sector in the face of their less fortunate, unemployed unionized neighbours. Both parties to the negotiations have a stake in ensuring their side is well represented and their case well made within the voluntary spirit of realistic collective bargaining.

The second type of information the commissioner will receive from employers will be known as compensation plans. The employer will file one such compensation plan for each group as it enters the program. The easiest example here is a bargaining unit. Within 30 days of reaching a settlement with such units, the employer will forward to the commissioner a description of the terms of the collective agreement, including all forms of pay, benefits and perks agreed to. This description will constitute the compensation plan for that group of employees. The same filing process will be followed for groups not composed of a bargaining unit. Clearly, depending on their contracts, some groups will enter the program in its first year, while others will not enter until year two. Ultimately, however, all groups of employees will have compensation plans filed with the commissioner and, since each group will be in the program for two years, each will have two compensation plans filed, unless — and I think that this is a reasonable situation for most groups to strive towards — a settlement is reached involving a two-year agreement. Under those circumstances only one compensation plan would be necessary.

[ Page 7343 ]

Even before a compensation plan is filed, the commissioner or his staff may have been assisting the parties to reach an agreement or, if you will, establish a plan which falls within the compensation guidelines. Here is another key point, Mr. Speaker: at this first stage, the acceptability of a compensation plan will be judged by the compensation guidelines. This document will be issued by the executive council, and will, speaking in the strict sense, have no force in law. The guidelines will nonetheless contain the main features already announced in compensation bulletin No. 3, which was dated March 18. The guidelines will indicate when groups enter the program, how long they remain in it and under what conditions. They include the percentage limits beyond which increases in total compensation should not go.

At the guideline stage these limits will have three components: a basic income-protection factor of 10 percent; an experience-adjustment factor of 2 percent, which could be added to or subtracted from that figure; and a special- circumstances factor, which is a possible additional 2 percent. So the commissioner will determine whether the increase proposed in a compensation plan conforms to the limit provided for in the guidelines. The commissioner may work with the parties to assist them in meeting those guidelines. As part of this effort, he may even authorize his compensation mediator to suggest an acceptable settlement in writing. It should be noted, however, that the onus lies on the parties to work out an acceptable solution within the parameters of the guidelines, which are written so as to give the parties and the commissioner considerable leeway in trying to reach a successful conclusion.

TO the extent that parties work constructively within the framework of the guidelines, a considerable degree of freedom to bargain collectively will in fact be retained. The whole point of developing a two-step process in the first place is to provide scope for the parties to reach agreement without government interference. In order to provide an incentive for the parties to take full advantage of this option, however, an alternative and frankly a more stringent system has been established.

This is similar to the federal procedure under the anti-inflation program. While under that program there was only one set of rules, there were two enforcement mechanisms. Under the AIB some leeway was allowed. However, when a case was referred to the administrator, the rules were far more stringent. The parties recognized this, and they avoided the rigid application of the rules by the administrator to the extent — I think this is significant — that he heard only 350 cases out of 100,000 filed with the Anti-Inflation Board.

To repeat, while here in British Columbia there is a single agency, there are two sets of rules, the first involving voluntary self-administration and the second involving enforceable regulatory compliance. The choice is for the parties concerned to make. Let's assume that, despite all the efforts of the parties and the commissioner, the compensation plan still does not, in the commissioner's judgment, conform to the guidelines. At that point, the commissioner may decide that the plan should be made subject to the compensation regulations. These regulations will be issued by the Lieutenant-Governor-In-Council. They will have the full force of law and will be drafted in a more precise and formal fashion than the guidelines. The degree of flexibility allowed to the commissioner under the regulations will be significantly reduced. Such practices as cost-accounting may be used in determining a plan's acceptability under those regulations.

Beyond this broad differentiation, the regulations will have three specific features distinguishing them from the guidelines. First, under the regulations, the experience-adjustment factor will be applied differently. Under the guidelines, the 2 percent available under this heading could be applied in both years in which a group is in the program. If a compensation plan falls under the regulations in the first year a group is in the program, the 2 percent will not be available in the second year. The only option for this factor in the second year will be for a maximum of 2 percent to be subtracted from the allowable increase. The difficulty of measuring, with legal precision, this type of exception is one reason for applying this factor to the guidelines, and not to the regulations.

The second major difference concerns the length of time that a group will be subject to the program. Under the regulations, the commissioner will have the power to extend that time. If, in the commissioner's view, circumstances warrant, he could keep a compensation plan, subject to the regulations, for up to 24 months after the date of his order. Since the commissioner's orders in this regard would probably be made several months after the original filing date of a compensation plan, this could leave a group subject to the program for longer than the normal two years.

Thirdly, the regulations differ from the guidelines because they give the commissioner the power to roll back settlements which in the end the parties cannot make conform. Such rollbacks, in common with all the commissioner's decisions, are fileable with the court and enforceable as a court order.

At this point I want to emphasize that the government hopes and expects that the measures called for under the regulations side of this legislation will not be utilized in the majority of cases. Certainly, as I said a few minutes ago, the federal experience in AIB suggests that the voluntary side of the process will dispose of most of the compensation plans filed. To the degree that this occurs, the compensation stabilization program will be self-administering. Once a compensation plan falls under the regulations, however, it should be kept in mind that the commissioner will have to administer the law in all respects.

A word also about how the existing system of arbitration fits into the compensation stabilization program. A parallel procedure will govern arbitration awards, with arbitrators having to, if you will, rearbitrate until the awards meet the guidelines. The arbitrator will retain the power to act while an award is subject to the guidelines. The arbitrator will lose the power to act if an award falls under the regulations.

Finally, I'd like to deal with one criticism which has arisen in connection with this bill and which I consider to be inaccurate. Some have argued that this legislation is flawed by the fact that no numerical limits are included in the text of the bill itself. The charge is made that somehow this leaves the program open to government, with the inference that government would somehow find it expedient to reduce the limit unfairly and with no justification or qualification. The suggestion is further made that, because the numerical limits do not appear in the bill, this House is being asked to buy a pig in a poke. I would make several points with regard to this claim, and I would like to do so with emphasis.

First, the fact that percentage limits will appear only in regulations is entirely in keeping with past practice in this and in other jurisdictions. The federal legislation setting up its anti-inflation program, for example, contained no guideline numbers; these were put into the regulations.

[ Page 7344 ]

Secondly, the percentage figures for the program were announced by the Premier on February 18 and remain the same in both the guidelines and the regulations. The key figure in that respect is the 10 percent income-protection factor.

Thirdly, if numerical limits were put in, the whole procedural approach it contains would be impossible. The key to the program is the two-stage process with its unenforceable guidelines. Once numbers appear in the bill the guidelines lose their informal, flexible character.

Fourth, this government has nothing to hide from the people of British Columbia about the compensation stabilization program. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that this government would alter the program beyond recognition. It was announced earlier this year, and this bill follows that announcement. It would be at variance with this government's demonstrable efforts to consult the affected public widely on this program. It is an issue which has no substance.

For members and for those who observe this House, I would refer to the lead editorial in the Globe and Mail of Friday, April 30, which identifies the problems being experienced very severely now in the province of Quebec. I refer to that province making reference in no way to the party which forms the government but rather to the province as a whole. I think that in a few paragraphs the editorial says volumes about what this government in British Columbia has found it necessary to do. Fortunately we have been able to do it sufficiently early.

I want to conclude the opening of this debate by pointing out that this program is completely fair to all those involved, but most importantly it is particularly fair to the taxpayers of British Columbia, many of whom are today temporarily unemployed. I look forward to the debate. I am sure it will be lengthy. I move second reading of Bill 28.

MR. BARRETT: May I say at the outset that I have been honoured by my colleagues to be the designated speaker on this bill. I think you should know that right at the outset.

I have a great deal to say about this bill, but just some observations to open with. I do not understand why this bill has been brought forward in the House on this day when the Premier of the province is not here to listen to the debate. It is the decision of the government to call a bill on any given day. The government knew when it intended to call this bill. The government told the opposition that it would call the bill today; we were prepared for the bill. But we are disappointed that the government made a decision to call the opening of this debate on a day the Premier would not be here to listen.

Having known the Premier's penchant for running and hiding from issues, it is noteworthy that the government has had since February 18, when the Premier made the announcement on behalf of the Minister of Finance as to the nature of this bill.... Until today the government saw fit not to give any details, beyond the Premier's announcement, as to what is happening and who the bill affects. I want to make some other comments about that.

I find it interesting, and I think the record should show, that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) are not in their seats, yet all three have made statements about this legislation before and during the sitting of the House.

I think that the working men and women of this province, the municipal elected officials and the ordinary taxpayers of this province should know that not only are the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education not here, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who will allow dictatorial decisions to be made under this bill, is not here either. As a matter of fact, what they've done is to let the Minister of Finance take the heat for legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with him.

Now why do I say that they're allowing the Minister of Finance to take the heat over this bill? Because, Mr. Speaker, he's the only one that they could get to bring this bill in and present it without knowing what he's talking about. If you listen to his opening comments, anybody who had any doubt at all about whether or not he knew what he was talking about might as well forget it. What did he say? These are his words, Mr. Speaker. He said: "This legislation is telling the workers to jump safely or be pushed. Free collective bargaining is not going to be interfered with as long as you do it our way."

What you do is you jump his way in free collective bargaining. You have the freedom to jump or not to jump. Mumbo-jumbo. This bill is nothing more than compulsory wage control designed for one sector of the community. The designing of that wage control has nothing to do with economics, nothing to do with finance, but everything to do with politics. That's all it is: it's a political bill. Who wrote that junk for you, through you, Mr. Speaker? Who wrote that mumbo-jumbo junk that you read?

Mr. Speaker, he said that this has nothing to do with labour and nothing to do with collective bargaining. Well, if it's got nothing to do with collective bargaining, why do they have sections in there saying, "if you don't bargain to this end, we'll interfere"? I want to read you some other quotes. He said: "This gives life-blood to the negotiations." That's what he said. I wrote it down as I heard it. He said: "This bill gives life-blood to the negotiations." Well, I want to tell you that my colleague here behind me from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who has had many year's experience in labour management negotiations, says that it's embalming fluid. That's what it is.

This is how they give life-blood to free collective bargaining. What they're going to say is this: "Now you go in the room, management, and you go in the room, labour, and you hammer out a deal. Let's make a deal. If we don't like your deal then we're going to tell you what your deal should be — but we don't want to interfere in the free collective bargaining process." Hogwash! This kind of reasoning was used by Mussolini when he took over all collective bargaining in Italy and said that they had the right to bargain as long as they did it in his framework. You don't look like Mussolini.

MR. HOWARD: He just thinks like him.

MR. BARRETT: No, there is absolutely no comparison between Mussolini and the Minister of Finance. They were both a little bit short of hair. But, Mr. Speaker, do you mean to tell me that the Minister of Finance really believed the illogic of his statements here in the opening of that bill? Is he trying to peddle the line that free collective bargaining is alive today under this legislation as long as you do it our way?

Hypocrisy! Absolute hypocrisy for political purposes!

Why did this bill come into being? We should first have some historical context. This bill came into being because a year ago the government decided to embark upon a political

[ Page 7345 ]

strategy to get itself elected. The classic political strategy in getting itself re-elected was first of all to find a group that it could pick on in society and hope that all of society will mobilize against them as long as it doesn't affect the mainstream. Last year, Mr. Speaker, who did they have in mind? They had the doctors — the doctors were the test pilots of this legislation. Nothing personal. It's like the Mafia. "Nothing personal — it's just your turn in the barrel." Last year it was the doctors' turn. What did they do? They said: "This is how we're going to handle you doctors. This is how we're going to handle the negotiations." Then they brought in that bill. You recall it, Mr. Speaker. They later withdrew it on arbitration and the whole cockamamie scheme they'd drawn up. The Minister of Health was in the House during those debates, wasn't he? He attended every word, didn't he, Mr. Speaker? Oh, yes, he was the knight in shining armour. He was fighting the doctors. He was saving the patients from the vicious pickpocketing by the doctors.

What's happened in a year? Since he lost against the doctors, he's decided to take on the patients. That's what's happened in a year. Within one year he has now left the doctors alone and he's attacking the sick of British Columbia through this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, remember that the sick are a minority group. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the Minister of Health came in with a bill outlawing anybody who became ill. It's against the law to be sick in British Columbia. That's their next move, because if you're sick you're going ask for compensation out of your payments in terms of services.

Why did they pick on the Minister of Finance to do this? Why was he left alone? Where is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)? When the Minister of Finance starts lecturing this House about free collective bargaining — this doesn't impede free collective bargaining — has he actually put that question to the Minister of Labour? Have you turned to the Minister of Labour and said: "By the way, I'm bringing in this bill today that restricts the amount the union members can negotiate for. Could you tell me, if I put this restriction on management and labour, does that interfere with free collective bargaining?" "Oh," says the Minister of Labour, "would you restate the question so I can understand it?" So he says to the Minister of Labour: "I'm bringing in this bill, and this bill says that you can bargain any way you want; but if you don't bargain my way in the end, I'm going to impose a settlement. Can you tell me if this in any way infringes on free collective bargaining?" Guess what the Minister of Labour did about it. He took off. The Minister of Labour would be too embarrassed to answer that question. Don't come in here and peddle the guff that this bill is somehow in complete sympathy with free collective bargaining. This bill is a dictatorial political statement for political purposes. Because it didn't work on the doctors last year, you've decided to pick on civil servants and public-sector employees — it's their turn in the barrel.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I watch with interest. The Premier announced this on February 18, with three flags behind him. It was a three-flag-rating press conference. Doug Heal has them on the basis of how many flags — it's one-star, two star, three-star. This required a three-flag performance. There he was on television, which was going all over British Columbia on February 18 with the three-flag performance prescribed by Doug Heal. We don't know how many rehearsals. Put the makeup on. The presentation was that something big was going to be announced on February 18. Little did we know that it wasn't another lottery; little did we know that it wasn't going to be the opening of the House; little did we know that it wasn't going to be an election. It was going to be this program of "restraint." How much did it cost to rehearse the Premier for the program?

When you talk about restraint, the amount of money spent out of the Premier's office in an attempt to refurbish his image and his logic is fantastic. You think it's been limited to 8 percent, 10 percent or 12 percent? You couldn't limit a $1 million budget on a 10 percent basis to improve his image. What did he do that night? I want to read some of the words that he said. It's really interesting.

Before I do that I want to go back to another comment made by the minister. He said that Mr. Peck is going to have all the authority under this legislation. That's what you said, Mr. Minister. On page 6 of the bill, part 1, all of the authority rests in the cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; and Peck will do as he's told by the cabinet. That's what's going to happen. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me how the Minister of Finance can stand up in this House and look solemnly at the opposition and announce that Mr. Peck is going to have all the authority and then dismiss page 6 of the bill that delegates all the authority to Mr. Peck from the executive council? I'm convinced that the one saving grace about giving the Minister of Finance this bill is that he doesn't know what he's talking about and that allows him to read that preamble with a straight face. You've never been involved in labour-management negotiations, and you've been allowed to carry the can for this bill by saying that Mr. Peck has all the authority. You explain to us, if he's got all the authority, what section 17 is doing in this bill. Make a note of it when you wind up, and read your notes. You said Mr. Peck has all the authority. I want you to make a note of it too, Mr. Speaker, because you'll recall that I asked this question about the compensation regulations. All of this is a political front, using Peck as the front man. Behind it, all the political manoeuvring will go on in the cabinet and all those regulations will be left flexible.

All you're doing is playing politics with the lives of people who work for public bodies. Do people who work for public bodies deserve less in terms of rights? Are they to be kicked around by this government, entirely for political purposes? Certainly the doctors were last year. This year it's their turn.

Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that the bill was called at approximately 4:15 p.m., and the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education are still not here. This bill vitally affects all those services that they provide. Are they embarrassed? Are they ashamed? Are they hiding too?

Every newspaper in this province has outlined the details of the cuts in the hospital services because of this bill. Where is the Minister of Health? The trade union movement of this province is concerned about the assault on free collective bargaining. Where is the Minister of Labour? Schools are closing and teachers and parents all over this province are concerned about the impact of this bill on education. Where is the Minister of Education? We know where the Premier is. This bill was called by the government on a day that the Premier wouldn't be here. It was all designed — not for debate in this House, not for serious consideration — as a result of a public poll that says: "When in trouble kick public

[ Page 7346 ]

employees." That is all it is. "Last year we tried to kick the doctors. It didn't work, so this year we're going to kick government employees, municipal employees and teachers. That is our target this year. But we don't mean to play politics with them personally; it's just that it is their turn in the barrel."

Did you hear what the minister said about segregating groups within the trade union movement? He said: "We don't want to interfere with collective bargaining, but there may be some groups within the bargaining unit who we want to treat differently." Can you imagine an employer coming into collective bargaining negotiations and being told what the ground rules are by an outsider — saying that you can deal separately with groups within the bargaining unit directly and interfere with it. "Oh, but this is not an interference with collective bargaining." I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance doesn't even know what free collective bargaining means. The Premier said that night: "Most inflation is caused internally and the large part of the inflationary factor is excessive government spending, particularly when government spends more than it earns, goes into the capital market and borrows for current services." So who is he blaming that on? He is blaming that on the employees. I'll come back to that in a minute when I ask the minister to explain the $134 million overrun. Who caused that? The taxpayers? The government employees? The teachers? Hospital workers? It was caused by the government itself, which hasn't given a full accounting of the whole budget.

The Premier said at his press conference: "We believe that not all inflation is caused by external markets." I can tell you that we know who has caused the inflation here in British Columbia. It is the government, known as Social Credit and represented by the minister that actually went out and supported the tight-money policy and papers of 1978 delivered at federal-provincial conferences and supported the fiscal policy.

I want to read an editorial. The minister didn't quote his editorial, I'll read an editorial here from the Times-Colonist. The Times-Colonist is represented here in the press gallery. It is a radical, left-wing organization that masquerades its radical left-wing line by its columnist who writes right-wing stories. But it is all a front because we've now seen an exposure of that plot. We know a party member when we see one. On February 24, 1982, the Times-Colonist cut out the doubletalk. This editorial was written before they heard the Minister of Finance speak. Listen to what they say in the Times-Colonist. I think it is even distributed in the minister's own constituency.

The time now, Mr. Speaker, is 18 minutes to five. Let the record show that the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education are not in their seats and yet this legislation affects their ministries more than any others in this House.

The editorial reads:

"When Premier Bennett imposed wage and spending controls throughout the provincial public service last week, he said: 'Collective bargaining in the public sector will take place in the normal manner.' Now Finance Minister Hugh Curtis has repeated this nonsense, claiming the government is still committed to the practice of free collective bargaining in the public sector. Who are they trying to kid? The obvious truth is that no employer can unilaterally announce wage limits and still retain bargaining in any traditional sense. Why does the government pretend it can? If it has the courage of its convictions, it does not need to employ doubletalk."

I quote again from the Times-Colonist. It asked this question:

"The obvious truth is that no employer can unilaterally announce wage limits and still retain bargaining in any traditional sense. Why does the government pretend it can? If it has the courage of its convictions, it doesn't need to employ doubletalk." That's what he gave us at the opening — doubletalk.

Here in the Prince George Citizen is an editorial from a constituency represented by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich).

MR. LORIMER: Who? Where is he?

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Labour. He doesn't want to stick around for this. He knows better.

Look at how this editorial starts out. I should read this part to you. Tuesday, February 16, 1982.

"It hasn't been recorded how Labour minister Jack Heinrich reacted to Premier Bill Bennett's warning to government employees to settle for modest wage increases or face the consequences of massive layoffs, but he would be entitled to a moan and a groan of despair. What his boss said last week was a bald threat, a clear violation of the collective bargaining process which the Labour minister has always been quick to defend."

Where is he now, when this editorial asks these questions?

"The Premier's warning endangered the process and places him in a position where he can be accused of blackmail."

Mr. Speaker, this appeared in the public press as an opinion. They said that the Premier could be accused of blackmail.

"However well-intentioned his remarks, it is unfortunate that he has only helped worsen an already uneasy labour climate in B.C. It's time Jack Heinrich had a few friendly words of advice for his boss."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I find that very interesting. No response to that editorial.

Mr. Speaker, the government says: "Trust us." They want to be believed about what they're doing on this legislation, they want to be believed about their fiscal responsibility, and they want to be believed about what is going on. This bill is nothing but bunkum designed for political purposes, and the minister has been left alone in the House with one erstwhile friend to sit next to him while the rest of the cabinet, except for two in the corner, have taken off for the day. Now he's going to be left by the biggest spender of all. He's getting ready to go.

I'm glad that minister is here, because while the government says it has tight control in terms of fiscal restraint and says in this bill that it wants to be more accountable to the public in terms of expending public funds, the Minister of Finance, who has given this bill, gave the minister who is leaving now $45 million for northeast coal, without any explanation, one week before the end of the fiscal year. That's right. They've got money to throw around without any explanation, but no money to deal with health problems, education problems or proper labour-management negotiations.

[ Page 7347 ]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to page 40 of the budget speech from the same Minister of Finance. "Long-term borrowing forecast for the British Columbia Railway Co. will be used to fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line." This is the minister who is giving us the doubletalk today about this legislation. Here's a statement in his speech saying that they're going to go into debt. In spite of this government's argument about long-term debt leading to inflation, they're going to go into massive debt on the Tumbler Ridge line.

The minister was asked in this House: "I've a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the government decided that the long-term borrowing forecast for B.C. Railway will be used to fund interim borrowing in '82-83 for construction of the Tumbler branch line?" Let's get it straight. Let's set this scene so we understand what we're dealing with. We're dealing with the minister, if he is to be believed, who tells us that long-term financing leads to inflation. In his report to this House he says that there will be long-term borrowing for B.C. Rail. And when he was asked if there will be long-term borrowing for B.C. Rail, this was his answer: "There are a number of matters with respect to funding of B.C. Rail activities which are still in the development stage insofar as the government's concerned. I'm afraid I cannot assist the member further on that particular point; it is a matter of developing policy."

Mr. Speaker, the minister delivered a speech in this House, and the appendix in it, in terms of fiscal matters related to this bill, states clearly that long-term borrowing, which is a policy that this government is opposed to because it adds to inflation.... He claims that long-term borrowing....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I don't know what Frank said, but you listen to what you said.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor. I'm hoping the Leader of the Opposition will relate this to the bill shortly.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, these comments are related to the Minister of Finance, who has brought in a labour bill and given as the reason fiscal responsibility in the public sector. We're asked to believe this minister who talks about fiscal responsibility in the public sector. In his budget speech he said: "Long-term borrowing by the British Columbia Railway will take place for the Tumbler Ridge line"; and when that statement was read back to him as a question in this House, he said that policy hadn't been decided yet.

Mr. Speaker, you're asking us to trust a minister who doesn't even back up his own words in the budget speech? The public and the employees of this province are supposed to believe the minister, who gives conflicting statements about a simple matter when a statement from his own speech is read back to him? Very clearly the minister's best defence is that he really doesn't know what's going on in his own department and in terms of financing here in British Columbia. Why did you make conflicting statements? Why did you tell us that inflation is fed by long-term debt? Why did you tell us in your budget speech that long-term debt will be okayed on the B.C. Railway, and then when you were asked about it you said you hadn't made up your mind yet? I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to these kinds of issues.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The minister has been told to carry the can for this bill. The minister has been told that it's his responsibility to go in there with this public-employee-bashing bill. The polls say they're the group to kick around. They're the group to cut back on. I'm going to give you some examples of those cutbacks; but no civil servant, public employee or hospital worker should take any of this personally. It has nothing to do with them personally. It is only politics, that's all. Don't take it personally if you can't pay your mortgage or if you've lost your free collective bargaining or if you don't have a job any more. It's nothing personal; it's just politics. And we want you to vote for us, even though we've driven a nail right through you.

I can see them now. Can you see them on the campaign trail, asking for the votes of these workers because they've defended them from themselves? The minister said here that this is not an imposition on collective bargaining. What he is really saying is: wage control if necessary but not necessarily wage control. Where have we heard that before?

I want to read some comments from Mr. John Crispo. Mr. Crispo is a member of the faculty of management studies at the University of Toronto. He is on leave as the Chevron visiting professor of management at Simon Fraser University. This is what he says about controls — and he ought to know: "If anything, controls and guidelines are used to distract public attention from the very real and tough fiscal and monetary measures that are usually required." That's true. The illustration I've given of distracting people's attention is the amount of money poured up against the wall in northeast coal, without any explanation to this province. In one week $45 million slipped through the cracks of a government warrant, without any explanation to this House. So what do you do to distract them? Well, controls and guidelines are used to distract public attention from the very real and tough fiscal and monetary measures that are usually required.

In this respect, these policies might well be described as an exercise in political fraud. The fraud is made worse by the public having been conned into believing that such policies can actually solve inflationary problems; those are the words of Mr. Crispo. Controls invariably result in an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare, presided over by gnomes and mandarins with little or no experience in the world of reality. Controls can also be counted upon to create a monumental make-work project for the cadre of accountants, consultants and lawyers who man both sides of the control barricades. But the worst thing about controls is that they deal with symptoms rather than the sources of the problem. "Meanwhile the public will doubtless be treated to more futile gestures in the form of controls and guidelines, " he says later on, "in the hope that these will fool the people into believing that their governments are serious about inflation, when in fact they are not."

This government has done much to fuel inflation with its mania for irresponsible megaprojects, designs for edifice

[ Page 7348 ]

complexes, with no return of jobs for the people of British Columbia. And when they got caught spending and squandering tens of millions of dollars on public projects that have no payback for the people of British Columbia, they decided to punish the very taxpayers who provided the money in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the jobs from northeast coal that this government is squandering money on are going to Japan and Belgium. You tell them up there in Fort St. John how happy you are that Korea is going to build two ships to carry the coal to Japan. You tell the unemployed up there in Fort St. John how happy you are that Belgium is going to build two ships to carry B.C. coal to Japan. You tell them up in Fort St. John that this $21 million contract for the stacker reclaimer has gone to Japan to keep them employed. You tell them up in Fort St. John about the multimillion-dollar contract to go to France to employ French workers to build a conveyor belt. You tell them how this government closed down the Railwest car plant so it can buy cars from Quebec and Ontario and northwest United States. The policy that should be in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that the government ask the Belgians, the Koreans, the Japanese and the Americans to pay welfare and unemployment insurance here in B.C.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than a political smoke-screen based on hypocrisy. It is nothing more than a political bill designed to pick on a group of employees to take the heat off their own actions or inactions.

Mr. Speaker, it is now three minutes to five. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is not in his seat. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is not in his seat. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is not in his seat, and neither is the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). This bill is designed to interfere in collective bargaining, and the Minister of Labour is not in his seat. This bill will cut hospital budgets, and the Minister of Health is not in his seat. This bill will cut municipal budgets, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs is not in his seat. This bill will limit budgets and impair the learning experiences of British Columbia children, and the Minister of Education is not in his seat.

What does it mean, Mr. Speaker, when they're not around? I'll tell you what it means. This bill was designed for political purposes outside of this House. They don't give a fig about its impact. They're playing politics with the lives of British Columbians, the education of British Columbians and the free rights of British Columbian to bargain collectively in a free society.

The Premier selected this day to be away from the House. He announced it all in February. "Do it my way," he says. Well, let's deal with selective restraints. The minister talked about the Anti-Inflation Board. I think it was good that we had the public confession that the minister is now comparing this legislation to the AIB, which was a dismal failure. There is no effort in this legislation to curtail mortgage costs for government employees. Will the minister bring in a freeze program for mortgages for government employees? If they're going to freeze their wages, will he ask the banks to freeze the mortgage rates for government employees at a lower rate than other people? That sounds fair to me. Has he made a single approach to the banks in British Columbia and Canada, saying: "Look, I'm going to curtail the wages of hospital workers, public employees and government employees. Will you lower your mortgage rates for these people? Will you not foreclose if they can't make their payments because they're to be the sacrificial goats in our restraint program?" There's no answer to that.

Mr. Speaker, the Institute for Research on Public Policy put out a special supplement after an evaluation of the AIB controls, and this is what they said:

"In their book entitled Wage Controls in Canada, 1975-78: A Study of Public Decision-Making, two Carleton University professors of public administration, Allan M. Maslove and Gene Swimmer, maintain that the anti-inflation program 'marked the most radical peacetime, direct intervention in the economy in Canadian history.' That it was the most radical intervention there is little doubt. But successful? No, and Maslove and Swimmer hold out little hope of success for any similar program in the future."

Every single bit of research has proven that the Anti-Inflation Board moves by the federal government were a failure. At least in those moves there was an attempt to curtail profits — albeit just wording, but there was a recognition of that. There was nothing from the Minister of Finance in that regard. You've taken away free collective bargaining from these employees. You've cut the municipal budget, you've cut the hospital budgets and you've cut the education budgets, but you've done nothing on the other side of the coin. Not only is it political, Mr. Speaker, but it is grossly unfair when you ask citizens to accept that kind of legislation.

This is a free society. People expect that governments, when they lead and ask for sacrifices, will also protect them on the other end. You are sacrificing nothing, but you are sticking the heads of CUPE members, BCGEU members, municipal workers and hospital workers in the fiscal noose that you've designed for political purposes. Will you be there to help them save their homes, their cars and their jobs? That is one side of the coin. Who will be there to argue for the sick who do not get proper care in hospitals? Who will be there to argue for the children who do not get proper education in British Columbia? Who will be there to argue for freedom of choice at the municipal level when citizens go and vote for a municipal government that has no authority to set up its own budget?

I made some comments earlier about Mussolini. This kind of government intervention that is unfair in law and in practice smacks of Big-Brotherism. When the interpretation given by the minister is added, it is Orwellian Big-Brotherism.

I want to go on and read some further quotes. Here is an article by Don McGillivray of Southam News: "Wage Curbs No Answer to Canada's Deep Recession."

"When the Anti-Inflation Board controls were imposed in 1975, wage increases had already passed their peak and were on the decline, with an average 19 percent in the public sector that year and about 15 percent in the private sector. Three years later, in 1978, public-sector wage increases had been sharply reduced to 16.8 percent and private-sector settlements had been pulled down to an average of 7.3 percent. This should have made a big difference in prices, if wage restraints are a key factor. But the inflation rate was 9.5 percent in December, 1975, when controls were actually enacted, and 9.2 percent in January, 1979, when they were lifted."

In other words, wage increases were cut but price increases were not. It is a matter of record, and the record proves that this economic policy is clearly designed, after this experience, for political premises.

[ Page 7349 ]

"In 1979 wage settlements averaged 8.1 percent in the public sector and 8.6 percent in the private sector, but inflation was 9.1 percent. In 1980 wage settlements averaged 10.2 percent in the public sector and 9.9 percent in the private sector, but inflation was 10. 1 percent. In the first half of 1981, with inflation at 13.4 percent, public and private wage settlements averaged 12.2 percent. The people touting wage restraints as a cure-all should look back a little. Not only would it be mistimed, but it has already been applied with no visible affect on the inflation rate."

So what is affecting the inflation rate? What is it that this bill attempts to distract from by talking about fighting inflation? In 1975 the indirect and direct debt of this province totalled $4.8 billion. In 1981 that direct debt had gone up to $9.8 billion — almost a doubling of the debt in five years under Social Credit. Was the debt doubled by public-sector wages? Was the debt doubled by private-sector wages? No, the debt was doubled by a Socred government that has turned the economy of British Columbia into a stinking mess that now has close to 200,000 people unemployed, with more bankruptcies, more foreclosures and more unemployed than at any time since the Depression. What is its answer to depression in British Columbia, caused partly by Social Credit economic policies? It is this gibberish nonsense about attacking the cost of education, the cost of health and the collective bargaining process.

It is five minutes after five. This debate started at twenty minutes after four. The minister opened with his statement. This bill affects the education of the children of this province, it affects the health care of the citizens of this province and it affects free collective bargaining in this province. Let the record show that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) aren't in their seats and that the Minister of Education (Hon Mr. Smith) couldn't bother to be here for this debate. There are eight government members in attendance. If all the opposition were to walk out of the House there wouldn't even be a quorum in this debate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You might as well.

MR. BARRETT: And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Minister of Forests mumbling, saying: "You might as well" — if that's all the support you can muster for the debate of this legislation, it shows that the whole thing was designed for acceptance outside the House and not debate here in the House.

MR. BRUMMET: At least they're working, not golfing.

MR. BARRETT: Well, there are not many people working in your riding, my friend, when 1,200 show up at a WCC meeting and ask what you're doing about jobs. There are more unemployed people in your riding since Social Credit was elected than at any other time in history since the Depression, and you haven't got a word to say about it. There are 200,000 people without jobs in this province, there are over 92,000 people on unemployment insurance, and all we get is snide remarks from a backbencher who hasn't got the intelligence to understand what this bill is doing to freedom in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, will he go up there and giggle when hospital beds are closed in his riding? Will he go up there and giggle when civil servants are pushed around in his riding? Will he go up there and giggle when schools are closed in his riding? Let the record show that he giggled in this debate while people expected leadership.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's nice to be down here in Victoria where the folks up there in Peace River will never see you, or the folks in North Vancouver will never hear a whimper from you, or the folks of 17 percent unemployment in Kamloops will see the member sitting there putting his heart into his work. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the record of this province is one of dismal economic mess under Social Credit, and rather than deal with that problem they decide to pick on some groups in society, to kick them around for political purposes.

People say: "Oh, in a time of high unemployment it's a good thing to kick around public employees. At a time when people don't have jobs they're jealous of civil servants." Mr. Speaker, I worked in the prison system in this province before I became a legislator, and I ask any one of the cabinet ministers to do a 24-hour shift as a prison guard and then ask them to bargain for restrained wages. I ask the cabinet to spend some time working in a hospital emptying bedpans and telling those people that they deserve a cut in their wages. I ask the members of this cabinet to spend per diems that an ordinary janitor gets compared to their 45 bucks a day and see how they feel. I ask the cabinet to drink a $3 bottle of Calona wine at dinner rather than $37.50 Pouilly Fuisse — four bottles for six people, and then tell the people about it.

Mr. Speaker, this is a "let them eat cake" bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, let them drink Pouilly-Fuisse.

MR. BARRETT: I can't even pronounce it, it costs so much. Mr. Speaker, $37.50 for one bottle of wine; six of them slopped down four bottles in one night, and then they've got the nerve to come in here and tell civil servants: "Naughty, naughty, you can buy three bucks' worth of Calona red and be a porch-climber like the rest of us."

MR. NICOLSON: One of those people was a nondrinker.

MR. BARRETT: I apologize, Mr. Member — four bottles for five people at $37.50 each. All those wine-stompers in France are happy with cabinet ministers in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, public restraint is what this government is calling for; cut back is what they call for. Do you remember the incident about that $75,000-a-year man from Ontario? What's his name? Kinsella — Kin-sell-a-you anything, Mr. Speaker. He gets 75,000 bucks a year to shine the Premier's image, and what does he need to do it? He needs $15,000 of soft-bottom furniture to rest his derriere in while they drink French wine, Mr. Speaker — not ordinary furniture that the unemployed in Fort St. John can't buy; not ordinary furniture that those involved in collective bargaining can't buy; not ordinary furniture that the people in West Vancouver sit in — $15,000 worth of custom-made furniture, Mr. Speaker, to show restraint.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't pick on the furniture; that's not fair. Don't pick on the $37.50 bottle of wine; they're sacrificing for us. Look at how they're sacrificing. Look at

[ Page 7350 ]

the agony and the despair that they're evidencing in the cutbacks in hospitals and schools. Look at the face of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, (Mr. Ree), laden with chagrin and worrying about what's happening in schools in his area. Would you wake him up, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, look at the desperation and concern of the members on the back bench who are intimately involved in this debate, and let the record show that at 5:12 p.m. the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) showed up for a bill that he should have brought into this House, that he should be piloting through this House, that he should be supporting because he knows it is an attack on free collective bargaining. Isn't that right?

There are only 30 percent unemployed in Prince George. Really, you must never look at statistics that way. You should never look at 30 percent unemployed in Prince George. You've got to look at it the other way: 70 percent of them are working. Aren't they lucky?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, some land sales, my friend says. That is the little magic of how to change agricultural land into rolling hills, but we'll show some restraint by not bringing that into the debate.

This bill and this government are laced with hypocrisy and cynicism. This bill is cynical, hypocritical, political claptrap designed to save the skin of a government that's no longer trusted by the average citizen of this province.

Which member of our group was it who discovered that warehouse with a quarter of a million dollars' worth of furniture that had been ordered? The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) discovered the quarter of a million dollars' worth of furniture that had been ordered so they could plan the restraint program sitting in soft chairs. Who was it who discovered that after the restraint program was announced they decided to paint their campaign logo on the side of the ferries? "Get the spirit" is the biggest cynical joke in the history of this province. "Get the spirit. Cut your budgets. Save money while we blow taxpayers' dollars in innovative ways." I ask you this as a quiz, my friends: What office of the cabinet or Premier overran its budget by $150,000 in one year alone because of political trips? Three guesses, and the first two don't count. You're right: the Premier's office. Yes, my friends. At the time of restraint, after the speech was announced, $150,000 was slipped in under the door, and someone said: "Here, Bill, this'll take care of the incidentals while we work out the restraint program." Is that cynicism? Oh, no! Is that hypocrisy? Oh, no! Let's, get it straight. It's not cynicism, it's not hypocrisy, it's Social Credit, and we know it for what it is.

MR. HOWARD: The $150 was for make-up.

MR. BARRETT: No, that was the $150,000. A hundred and fifty dollars wouldn't buy enough to cover up the thing.

Here is the Vancouver Province of February 23, 1982. "Mr. Bennett has exempted from the austerity program such developments as the northeast British Columbia coal deal" — I mentioned that — "and B.C. Place in Vancouver. Local governments will see some inequity in that approach." I want to tell you that the Vancouver Province is being cynical. The Premier said, "I don't want anybody to be cynical about this legislation when I bring it in, " but the Province says that local governments will see some inequity about that approach. They say:

"Some municipalities, such as Surrey, have been carrying the heaviest growth loads in recent years, and their growth rates can't suddenly be turned off. They have ongoing costs that likely will not be met within the 12 percent guidelines. Municipal and regional district spending, overall, has been growing less than 12 percent, below the government's own spending, which has been rising at more than 15 percent."

Did you hear that? The government's own spending has been rising at over 15 percent because they've been blowing it on furniture, ministerial travel and the $81 million that we attempted to slash last year from the budget in publications and in consultants. But they tell the municipalities to behave themselves. Cynicism.

"Since the government has already set its own exemptions, the guidelines will put the squeeze primarily on ministries providing consumer services. The biggest targets, therefore, are likely to be health and hospital care, social services and education."

This is the Vancouver Province, February 23. I want to give an award to the Vancouver Province. They were absolutely right. In five days they figured out what the scam was right from the start. But will the Vancouver Province be shocked to learn that almost 55 minutes of this debate have gone on and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Neilsen), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) haven't been in here one minute and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has been here 12 minutes, and they really don't give a fig? This is all for political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, this editorial goes on and gives some advice to politicians: "The MLAs who will have to enact Mr. Bennett's program will have to show some political spine to approve cutbacks in these politically sensitive services. Cutting medical services affects far more and could make the exercise more broadly unpopular." They've been given the choice to cut ministerial budgets in terms of travel, in terms of hacks and flacks and aides, in terms of advertising, in terms of publication, in terms of $37.50 bottles of wine, but what is it that they cut? Hospital beds. They're closing schools throughout this province. They're attacking collective bargaining in this province. But don't worry about it, because I'm going to let you in on a secret. Even since February 18, when this austerity program was announced, most of them still buy first-class tickets on airplanes.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes. There they are, right up there with the pilot, flying on their own energy. Right up there with the pilot, sitting in first-class in the lap of luxury. Uncork the wine; let's have a feast; bring on the meals. The civil servants will pay; CUPE will pay; BCGEU will pay; the hospitals will pay; the children will pay. What do they care? Raise your hands over there, those of you who don't travel first class any more. Just nod your head, Mr. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), if you travel first class. Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), do you travel first class? Never, or hardly ever? Mark it down, gang. He never travels first class. Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), do you travel first class? No, I'm not talking about your car that we spend

[ Page 7351 ]

about $400 a month to rent. We're not talking about that. I'm talking about your flying. Do you travel first class?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in Prince George, anyway.

MR. BARRETT: Do you travel first class? I'd ask the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) this: when you go to Europe or you travel back east, do you fly first class?

I don't want to ask the minister from Okanagan North where she travels in a plane, because she doesn't even know where the plane is going after last year's trip to Manila. Remember that one? She started out to Hong Kong, but got bypassed on the way to the Philippines and ended up in Manila a week later for a conference she was supposed to attend. Is that wasting money? Not on your life. Her missing of a conference is the best money we could spend, Mr. Speaker.

How about the Minister of Highways, Mr. Speaker? I want to know....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I heard the insinuations by the Leader of the Opposition about the Manila conference. They are not true. I would ask him to withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't travel first class?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: No, I didn't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister has asked for the withdrawal of a statement. Does the member wish to withdraw the statement?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, to make your job easier, I want to know just what it is she wants me to withdraw. Did she go to Manila?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order raised by the minister, the Chair is a little unclear as to specifically what the member found offensive and asked for a withdrawal on.

MR. BARRETT: Just tell me what you want me to withdraw and I'll withdraw it.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Your untruths.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is in a very difficult position recognizing what it is the minister wishes withdrawn.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the Hansard for the exact wording of the Leader of the Opposition. When one listens to him speak it is very difficult to find out just what he is saying, except that consistently in this House — last year and this year — the Leader of the Opposition, who is supposed to be a man of honour and credibility, has inferred that I went to a conference which had been cancelled. Mr. Speaker, I was never booked into that conference. I never had any intention of attending that conference. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw and to cease and desist from this continual attack of smear and innuendo.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the only opportunity that an hon. member has to correct the record is under standing order 42. It's not under a standing order to ask for a withdrawal, except if there's an unparliamentary expression used. Therefore, the hon. minister's request of the speaker is out of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any remark that intimated that the minister went to a conference that she didn't go to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: That's just so we set the record straight, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to follow the minister's request, and I did so.

I want to go on with my comments comparing this government and its standards of restraint with how they intend to handle the civil servants. I want to ask the Minister of Finance if any orders have been given from his office since the minister made his announcement. The Premier made the announcement on February 18 that for the duration no more cabinet ministers are travelling first class any more, whether it's three months or six months or until the election is called. Have you issued an order that no more cabinet ministers are to travel first class during periods of restraint? Have they been doing it since the announcement was made? I want to ask the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who is an honourable member: do you travel first class? I want to get it straight. I consider the member a first-class minister. I want to know how he travels.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What has really been going on is that the Bacchanalian feast that these people brought themselves into when they were elected to office has been going on unabated. It's not do as I do, Mr. Speaker; it is do as I say. I want to tell you a little experience I had before I go through these numbers. The other day I came back from Ottawa. I went to see Her Majesty and she was pleased to see me there because I am her loyal leader of the opposition. I came back on the plane the next day after staying in a hotel room that had been booked by the government. They had booked a hotel room for me. My secretary instructed them that since the Leader of the Opposition was on an austerity program, all the Leader of the Opposition needs is one small room and one small bed.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I take it back: a middle-sized bed. Those were the instructions. I arrive in Ottawa and what is available for me at the Four Seasons Hotel but two rooms and a little side room there. I didn't want to walk on the rug, because I didn't want to pay for that half I snuck in tippy-toe to the bedroom and they had this bed that could have floated the Queen Elizabeth battleship or freighter or whatever it is. It was a huge bed. I spent two nights in the bed. I tried to get the taxpayers' money worth. I want to tell you that I was in posh surroundings where the rug was up over my ankles in my bare feet. I had doilies wrapped in the room. I have never lived in such luxury as when I went to visit the Queen. I had hand cloths to pick up the hand cloths. I told my secretary: "Remember, I want a single room. Something like the Y would be fine." But I figured this was the cheapest room in the joint because we are on an austerity program. I went down

[ Page 7352 ]

and, lo and behold, guess what the room was per night? This is the kind of room they book for people on an austerity program.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy dollars.

MR. BARRETT: Wrong!

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Come on, this is not Motel 6 I'm talking about. This is high-flying living under Social Credit. The bill for one night — and I don't want any government employee, any CUPE member, any summer employer or anyone who's unemployed up in Fort St. John to hear this — was $210 for a hotel room. I asked for a small room, Mr. Speaker. Two nights is $420, tax included, and a $4.50 suit press. I would have thought for that price we would have been taken to the cleaners, but all I got was my suit pressed. You know what I did, Mr. Speaker? I came home and I didn't put in for my per diem, because I didn't spend any money down there, except for one breakfast I bought. The government of Canada bought my supper — thank you, taxpayers.

MR. LEVI: Did you pay for your own milk?

MR. BARRETT: No, I drink my coffee black, my friend. I was entitled to three days per diem at $45 a pop, and $410 for a hotel room, to go back to Ottawa. Guess what I did? I came home and told Shirley. I said: "Look at that! A hotel room for 210 bucks a night." She said: "Who was with you?" I said: "No, it's just the room alone that cost the $210." Four hundred and twenty bucks for two nights in an empty room with a bed, and the other room was a suite!

MS. BROWN: I hope you're not complaining.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not complaining, but what I did was this: I wrote the comptroller-general, and I said: "Don't send me my per diem. I didn't order this bedroom. My secretary specifically made it clear to the government member in the Premier's office who was arranging this that the Leader of the Opposition does not need a suite. Instead of following my orders, they put me in a suite just like the cabinet ministers and the Premier. The suites range in price from $210 to $425 per night, for the presidential suite. I don't think President Reagan was in that suite that night.

MR. BARBER: How about President Bennett?

MR. BARRETT: No, I don't know what suite he was in.

What I did, Mr. Speaker, was tell the comptroller-general not to give me my $45 per diem for the three days. I sent him a cheque for $64 and said, "This is to cover the difference, " because all I wanted was a small room with a small bed. In that hotel a small room with a small bed cost, I think, $95 or $110 per night. I told my secretary to send the money back.

Mr. Speaker, I can't, in good conscience, after I watched the Premier on television, justify spending $210 a night for a hotel room. I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker: How much are they spending for their hotel rooms? How much are they putting in for their per diems? How are they travelling? How have they been living since they've asked the people of British Columbia to have restraint?

I got on the plane on the way back and I sat next to unnamed British Columbia citizen. The man is worth, as I understand it, $125 million and he's sitting next to me in economy. That's how he got to be a 125 millionaire, I suppose. I said: "What are you doing here, Mr. British Columbian?" I won't give his name; I think it was in a Vancouver newspaper. He said to me: "Oh, I'm travelling economy." I said: "You've got enough money to buy this aircraft and the crew and pay off the mortgages of everybody in this plane, and you are travelling economy." He said: "Yes, because these are hard times, and even though I can afford it, even though I have the money to do it, I must give leadership and a demonstration to my employees, my staff and my companies to cut back at a time like this, so I'm sitting back here in economy." He is an industrial leader in the province of British Columbia who understands what it is to give psychological leadership in cutbacks.

Mr. Speaker, has there been one cabinet minister who has gone economy since the restraint? Has there been one cabinet minister who has asked for a smaller room? Has there been one cabinet minister who has lifted his little pinkie in an attempt to cut his high living and high style? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker — restraint for everyone except cabinet ministers.

Now I know, Mr. Speaker, that there will be newspaper articles saying that you can't ask weary cabinet ministers to sit back in cabin class with the ordinary people. I know that there will be editorials written saying that you can't ask cabinet ministers to steep in a single bed in a single room. I know that there will be apologists for the Social Credit government who will say that cabinet ministers carry a heavy burden and need to have a luxurious bed to rest in and room to walk in and meals to dine on and wine to wash them down. Mr. Speaker, I don't ask the cabinet to go to the YMCA or the YWCA, but a little restraint in hotel bills, a little restraint in the choice of wine, a little restraint in meals, and a little restraint in first-class travel would go a long way to let the citizens of British Columbia believe that they mean what they're talking about.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, did you hear that? There is the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition: by raising the stuff I'm being chippy. Oh, naughty, naughty me. I promise never to repeat this speech in this House, but I don't promise not to repeat it in Fort St. John, Prince George, Kamloops, the Fraser Valley and in every other part of this province where this cynical, hypocritical government brings in this bill of restraint for themselves while they live high on the hog as if it were the golden days of Nero, fiddling while British Columbia burns. There are 200,000 unemployed, 95,000 on welfare and tens of millions of dollars being wasted on megaprojects, and they've got the nerve to continue to live in their Roman togas, travelling first class up in the front of the planes, first class in hotels, with first-class wines. I won't repeat that in this House, Mr. Speaker. I won't embarrass them here, but I'll tell it in every comer of this province — particularly in the Kootenays; particularly in Kamloops; particularly in Fort St. John; particularly in Prince George, where they've got 30 percent unemployed; particularly in the Cariboo; and particularly in North Okanagan, where they close hospital beds and cut schools and cut back on services. I'll tell them it's all okay because this government is still flying high.

[ Page 7353 ]

Restraint? Hypocrisy! Cynics, Mr. Speaker! This government is made up of the most hypocritical collection of cynics that has ever been elected anywhere in this whole nation of Canada, and they've got the nerve to leave the Minister of Finance to bring in the bill by himself.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that it is now 24 minutes to 6 o'clock. While schools are being closed in this province of British Columbia, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is not in his seat. While hospital beds are being closed in the province of British Columbia, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is not in his seat. While services to people are being cut as a direct result of this kind of legislation, they haven't been in this House for one minute of the debate. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has sat here to watch the death of collective bargaining for the last half-hour. How about it, Mr. Minister of Labour?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: He's not in shell-shock, Mr. Member. How about it, Mr. Minister of Labour? Will you go out in the hallway and tell the world that you believe as Minister of Labour that this is not an assault on free collective bargaining?

Who created this economic mess that forced the restraint in this program? Why, Mr. Speaker, it was many forces out there. But one of the forces was the high cost of money — the interest rates. Has there been any effort at all by the Social Credit government to deal with the high cost of money that leads to this restraint? I want to read to you excerpts of the British Columbia position paper, "Towards an Economic Strategy for Canada." Who are the culprits in this time of huge profits? Who is it that causes the money supply to shrink up by high interest rates? It is Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada. It is not Pierre Trudeau. It is not Premier Bill Bennett who has caused this need for restraint. It is Bouey. If Bouey were gone, everything would be all right. But there is something behind it. I want to quote here from page 13 of the government of British Columbia's "Towards an Economic Strategy, " related to restraint.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that although perhaps to use what he is using as an example would be in order, to depart on a debate in itself on that subject would not be in order under this bill.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to go to Manila. I am going to stay right here and not depart.

Part of the reason for restraint is to deal with deficits. I want to read you a section on monetary policy related to that and restraint in this bill. This is the government of British Columbia's official position before this restraint bill came in. I'd like to read it out to the House to see how it relates to a change in policy. "Monetary policies, alterations in money supply and interest rates, have powerful but complex impacts on the economy. Because of the acute difficulties associated with using monetary policy as an instrument of short-term economic management, the emphasis should be on longer term price stability." There is not a word in this legislation about price stability. This was delivered in February 1978 — four short years ago — and this government has not changed its position. "Specifically, the money supply, appropriately defined, should be allowed to grow at an annual rate that allows for the real growth of the economy but reduces the rate of inflation. The Bank of Canada's current monetary policy, which is largely in harmony with this view, should be supported." Yes, here is Premier William R. Bennett, leader of all the British Columbia Socreds, saying to the federal government that the tight-money policy and high interest rates should be maintained, and the result of it leads to this legislation today — restraint on working people in the province.

The minister who is piloting this bill through the House did not tell us, as a reason for restraint, that the monetary policies of Canada, as subscribed to by W.R. Bennett, the Premier of British Columbia, led to this sorry mess. There has been no change in that economic position. Mr. Bouey derives his greatest support for high interest rates that have led to this restraint bill directly from the Social Credit government, and no other basis than that. They supported the fiscal policies of the Trudeau government. They are in bed with the Trudeau government. Let me say that this is Pierre Trudeau's bill. You are the fall guys for it. This is nothing more than the economic policy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Mr. MacEachen in his current budget, extended by this quasi-Liberal government on the west coast that has been taken over by those Liberal members.

If there was ever a bill drawn up in the office of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, this is the bill that was. This was given to them by the federal Liberals. The federal Liberals told them to implement it, and the federal Liberals are watching their Liberal experiment here in British Columbia. It is the hand of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who works through the arm of the minister and the Premier of this province to bring in this kind of legislation. It is a combined assault. They mask that they are different Socreds. This is nothing but a right-wing Ottawa-oriented Liberal government taking its orders from Trudeau in this legislation.

This policy was spawned by the federal Liberal Party under the AIB. The minister chose some specific examples, as you noticed in his introduction, from the AIB. Those specific examples were not a mistake or a problem. This legislation is designed to be the test pilot for future Liberal legislation in Canada if Pierre Elliott and his supporters here in this cabinet continue to rule in this country.

It is federal Liberal fiscal policies that have brought this mess, and it was the support of Social Credit to those federal Liberal fiscal policies that are part and parcel of what is going on.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, just because that member is wearing dark glasses, he's not a Liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why he is a Liberal.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, he is a Liberal; that's why he's wearing the dark glasses.

Let us understand that since the government of British Columbia took their position in Ottawa in 1978 at the economic conference, when they supported the Liberal government's high-cost-of-money policy, and since they have been in bed with Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his fiscal policies, they have decided to take it out on the people, rather than on the super-rich and the corporations.

[ Page 7354 ]

We don't have a Social Credit bill here today. This is nothing but a west coast edition of the Anti-Inflation Board, sponsored by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Liberals who dominate that cabinet.

Who is the brain trust in that cabinet? Let's rule out Fort St. John from the beginning. Who is the brain trust of that group? Let's rule out Kootenay for seconds. Who is the brain trust, Mr. Speaker? Let's rule out Kamloops for third. I'll tell you who the brain trust is: the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), former Liberal; the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), former Liberal; the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), former Liberal; and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), former Liberal, former Tory, former whatever it is to become a Socred. Yes, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is a former Liberal too; and the minister of science, technology and way-out space is also a former Liberal. They are the cabal who offered this bill and rammed it down the throats of the genuine Socreds who were left in that group — all three of them, led by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). The last three Socreds didn't have a chance in cabinet when this Liberal bill was foisted on them. That's why he sits in the corner all alone. He sits there in intellectual solitude.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. And now to the principle of the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill is a support of federal Liberal fiscal policies, as designed by Allan MacEachen and Pierre Elliott Trudeau; there's no question about it.

While this government talks of restraint, while it pursues those federal Liberal policies here in the province of British Columbia with this kind of bill, while it kicks around working people and takes away their collective bargaining rights in this bill........ Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is 5:48. This debate started shortly after 4. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is not in his seat, and has not yet been here. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is not in his seat and has not been here yet, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has sat quietly — since ten minutes after five — pondering over why he's not responsible for piloting this bill through the House.

MR. SPEAKER: And now to the principle of the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the principle of the bill. This bill is a bill designed to destroy collective bargaining for a selected group of employees in British Columbia for political and hypocritical purposes. Not in winding up, Mr. Speaker, but just in getting started, in case anybody is confused, we do not intend to vote for this legislation. Just in case some members of the government who are quick to think and put together any plan other than opposition, let me point out some further reasons why we are opposed to this Liberal designed legislation. It's right out of the hip pocket of Pierre Elliott Trudeau through the mouth of the Minister of Finance, this fiscal policy designed by right-wing MacEachenites who support Pierre Elliott Trudeau in this policy.

The total provincial tax burden — excluding corporation income tax — has risen from our last budget, the New Democratic Party's budget, of $1.419 billion to this year's budget of $3.362 billion. Is that restraint with the taxpayers' pockets? No, Mr. Speaker.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will be the first to break down this huge increase in taxation on the people of British Columbia from a total of $1,401 per person to $2,806 per person. That's a jump from $1,401 per person under the New Democratic Party to $2,806 for every single employee in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the direct tax burden on the average citizen of British Columbia has doubled in five years. Is that restraint? There's no restraint on the Minister of Finance picking money out of people's pockets. If I may coin a phrase developed in Saskatchewan, what has the Minister of Finance put in your jeans lately? Is it a cork out of a bottle of Pouilly Fuisse? Is it an explanation as to why your child doesn't get an education? Is it a note from the hospital: "Please go home and don't be sick today"? What has this government put in your pocket lately, other than a load of grief and both hands?

This same minister who is now the leading exponent of the federal Liberal government economic policy — that of Mr. MacEachen and Prime Minister Trudeau — announced last fall that he was going to order a spending review. That's right. People thought he meant it. "We're going to have every single capital project studied, " he said. This was the sharp knife of the Minister of Finance, who announced to the citizens of British Columbia that we have to restrain ourselves in spending tax money. Oh, but what does it say in the small print, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis, says that B.C. Place doesn't count; the coal project doesn't count. We're not reviewing any of that stuff. We're just going to review how many hospital beds we can cut, how many schools we can close, how many children's educations we can cramp, and how many sick people will have to wait to get into the hospitals.

MS. BROWN: Single mothers.

MR. BARRETT: Single mothers? Well, that's nothing. But here is the cruel irony. After making that statement on Tuesday, February 2, on Wednesday, February 3, a naughty Vancouver Sun reporter wrote an article saying that Curtis was ignoring the review. One day he announces the review that excluded B.C. Place and B.C. Coal, and what do we find the next day?

"The government's 45-day spending review of capital projects has been interrupted long enough for Finance Minister Hugh Curtis to announce a $250,000 capital project down the block from the B.C. Legislature. On Monday, the same day that Curtis proclaimed an immediate review of government capital projects, his ministry was preparing an announcement on the expansion and improvement of the walkway in Victoria's the Inner Harbour."

I want to thank the minister for expanding the walkway in the Inner Harbour. It is a decent place for people who are on their way to the Central City Mission or the Salvation Army for a free bowl of soup in this time of unemployment to get a little spazieren before they get there.

Oh, it was in the Capital Regional District. Oh, Mr. Speaker, we know what that spazieren does for the voters, don't we? A little lighthearted spazieren down to get your bowl of soup for the voters. Would that relate to Saanich, my friends? Who is cynical enough to say that? Guess who, Mr. Speaker? I am. There it is, Mr. Speaker: go down and take your little spazieren for your bowl of soup, because the reviews don't relate to anything that might affect the minister in his own riding.

[ Page 7355 ]

Oh, wait, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a note. I thought I recognized the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), and so help me gracious, it is indeed he. At seven minutes to six clock he arrived. Let us all hear it for the Minister of Education. [Applause.] We must show sympathy to the Minister of Education. Most politicians like him spend their time cutting ribbons when they open buildings. This is the only Minister of Education going around cutting ribbons on padlocks for closing schools down because of his budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To the debate.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'm out of order, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad you brought it to my attention.

HON. MR. SMITH: I cut a ribbon today.

MR. BARRETT: You cut a ribbon today. Was it in Oak Bay by any chance?

HON. MR. SMITH: No.

MR. BARRETT: Where was it, my friend?

HON. MR. SMITH: In the Okanagan.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker. Was it in a socialist riding, my friend? Hardly likely. Was it in Okanagan South, by any chance? Oh, begorra, Mr. Speaker! Look at the leprechaun of the Minister of Education. He's told us that by chance there is a new school opening in Okanagan South — just by chance it's not in a socialist riding. Just by chance it's not a ministerial riding. Just by chance it's in the Premier's riding — the only place that is getting that kind of service.

MR. SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. BARRETT: Are we not going to finish today? Tonight? Would you like me to adjourn the debate?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Carry on with your knocking.

MR. BARRETT: I just got through my introductory remarks. Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow and the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom tabled the report of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

12 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With respect to section 13 (r), Taxation (Rural Area) Act (RSBC 1979, chapter 400), and section 398 (q), Municipal Act (RSBC 1979, chapter 290) —

1. What properties are exempt from property tax in whole or in part because of their use in the control or abatement of water, land or air pollution?
2. What was the amount of tax revenue foregone for each property so exempted in the last year for which tax records are complete?
3. Which level of Government lost the revenue in each case and how much?
4. Who certifies that the property exempted is for the control or abatement of water, land or air pollution and how often?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis (Minister of Finance) stated that in his opinion the reply to Question 12 should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House and thereupon presented such Return.