[ Page 7357 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading,

Mr. Barrett –– 7357

Mr. Cocke –– 7360

Mr. Mussallem –– 7363

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7365

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the House would mind joining me this morning in welcoming a group of students from the Cormorant Elementary School in Kitimat. They are visiting us today along with their teacher Mrs. Leuze and five or six parents.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

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

There are a couple of examples that I want to give to extend the theme that I was proposing yesterday about this government being MacEachenites and extending Pierre Elliott Trudeau's policies. This government is a provincial wing of the federal Liberal Party. This bill was brought in on a plan to agree with Prime Minister Trudeau's economic policies to again experiment with the Anti-Inflation Board. This group are born-again Liberals, and they are working with Prime Minister Trudeau's disastrous economic policies.

Yesterday we got more tangible evidence about what's going on in this alliance than we've had in a long time. Yesterday at the other end of the country, while this bill was being introduced for second reading in this House, Prime Minister Trudeau was announcing what he wanted provincial governments to do in terms of public-sector restraint. Which government was the only one in Canada doing it? It is their Liberal friends here in British Columbia who are right in there in the deal with the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, this government is an extended hand of Prime Minister Trudeau's economic policies.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, my dear friend, isn't it strange that the only government in all of Canada following Prime Minister Trudeau's advice is this group over here? Who is piloting the bill through the House? That former Liberal. He's even dressed like a Liberal today, in Ottawa mourning clothes.

MR. HALL: Like an undertaker.

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

I would like to show you how they're like the Liberals in more ways than one. It's the way they spend money that demonstrates their lack of concern and feeling, or the policy of "Do as I say, not as I do." Let's examine how they live on the taxpayers' money.

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

MR. BARRETT: I was into the meat.

MR. SPEAKER: Sir Erskine May says, on page 485, where he is talking about the scope of debate in second reading: "Debate on the stages of a bill should be confined to the bill and should not be extended to a criticism of administration." I know that the Leader of the Opposition knows this and will confine his remarks so that he will be observing the rules of relevancy.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for defining those rules for me. I'm glad you brought it to my attention, because I was going to make a particular focus on the question of restraint in this bill.

They've got their arms right up past the elbows to the armpits in the trough when it comes to spending public money in terms of their own expense accounts or offices. Let's examine the measure of restraint. In 1979-80 the travel expenditures in the Premier's office, showing restraint, were $16,454. In 1980-81 they were up to $35,950, a 218 percent increase in one year. Is that what civil servants are asking? Is that what school boards are asking just to get an increase in quality of education for students? Is that what hospitals are asking to provide better health care in this province? Up 218 percent in one year — some restraint.

Let the record show that at 10:10 a.m. the Minister of Health is not here for this debate; the Minister of Labour is not here for this debate; the Minister of Municipal Affairs, masochist that he is, has just shown up; and the Minister of Education is deep in conversation. I expect, during the course of this debate, to hear those ministers who are concerned by this bill, not the minister who has to carry the can for it, stand up and defend what is going on.

The expenses of the Minister of Economic Development for 1979-80 went from $18,253 to $39,819, up 218 percent. They qualify as Liberals; they are learning how to spend public money on their offices and on themselves. They are qualifying to be the west coast version of the Ottawa Liberals. They are almost qualified to be federal cabinet ministers, the way they squander money in their offices — almost, but not quite. I saw that little clip on television last night about getting free briefcases in Ottawa. As soon as you get your free briefcase from the Prime Minister, you know you've really made it.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is up 159 percent in his expenses in one year. Some restraint! I wonder how much Calona wine is being sold after their tastes have been raised with 218 percent increases in budgets. The Minister of Finance, who is asking everyone to show restraint, has had an increase from $11,096 in expenses in his office for one year to $33,000. A threefold increase in his expenses, and he's got the nerve to tell school children there are going to be cutbacks in services? He's got the nerve to tell municipal officials: "Naughty, naughty, watch your budgets"? He's got the nerve to push policies to cut back health care while they become the highest livers, outside of Ottawa, at the public trough?

I want to talk about the Premier leading this province in terms of restraint and spending money. In 1976-77 the Premier's office spent a total of $207,000 and was still counting

[ Page 7358 ]

pencils. I remember when the Premier came in here as a frugal small-town merchant and lectured the House on how to count pencils in an office and make sure that every penny was accounted for. That was before he got a taste of the high life; before he met those Liberals that he's so chummy with in Ottawa; before he saw the Prime Minister's pool and decided that if he couldn't have a pool, he'd carry some high-class water with him. I'll bet you guys even drink bottled water. I'll bet you even order Perrier instead of a straight glass of cold water with some ice in it. I'll bet you spend more money on Perrier....

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

MR. BARRETT: I don't know; I can't even pronounce it. When you get to $37.50 for a bottle of Pouilly-Fuisse, or whatever it is, it's a bit much for me. As my friend from Terrace said, a $3.50 bottle of porch climber is the highest he's ever gone, and he pays for it himself.

The Premier who came to this Legislature and lectured us on frugal fiscal accountability in 1976-77, spent in his office $207,000. How did our high-flying Premier do in 1980-81 in restraint related to this bill? His expenses went up to $602,000.

MR. LEA: Is that cash or Social Credit?

MR. BARRETT: That's not cash; it's Social Credit. The taxpayers get hammered with this amount of money while they're being lectured to show restraint, Mr. Speaker. Last year, not only was it over $600,000, but the Premier also had an overrun — yes, an overrun — of $150,000 in his office alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

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

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

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

The Premier of this province and the Minister of Finance of this province think they're playing funny little political games by having the Premier go on television on February 18 in a three-flag performance and announce they're going to implement Pierre Elliott Trudeau's fiscal policies; and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in his speech yesterday, announced that he wanted provincial governments to do exactly what his companion group is doing here in Victoria. This is the testing ground. What is it that the federal Liberals have over this group? Was there a deal made on Pier B-C? Was it the hush up: "Maybe we won't say too much on northeast coal"? The federal Liberal government has captured the B.C. Socreds. They're nothing but an adjunct of federal government policy right here in British Columbia. Pierre Elliott Trudeau lives and breathes through the arms of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who embraces the Premier and the Minister of Finance in those Liberal policies that are destroying the economy of the province of British Columbia. They're trying to find a scapegoat in the school children, the sick people and the municipal officials of this province.

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

MR. BARRETT: Yes, they're going to become members of the right clubs now. They've made it big. They know how to dip right in there in the trough and become high spenders, while they tell the citizens of British Columbia: "Naughty, naughty. Restrain yourself."

Here's the Minister of Finance defending the furniture deal. On March 9, 1982, he said: "A government purchase of $250,000 worth of office furniture last week is appropriate, even in the light of government's restraint program." How do you justify furniture at $250,000 a pop, while we're closing hospital beds and schools? We're closing schools in almost every place in British Columbia, except Okanagan South. Where was the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) yesterday? He was opening a new school. Where was the school being opened? Purely by coincidence, in the Premier's constituency. It's got nothing to do with politics, just coincidence.

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

MR. KING: Troughligate.

MR. BARRETT: "Troughligate" — that's very interesting...and to show that they have a heart and compassion for others, rather than just confine their spending and high living to themselves, they've made some exceptions. Is it for the school children? No. Is it for the hospitals or the sick people? No. Guess who it is that they've allowed to have wage increases exceeding their own guidelines. Who is it that they would allow that for? Is it the psychiatric nurse who has to put in eight hours of tension-filled work at a mental hospital? Is it the highway employee who has to go through vicious weather conditions to serve the public to keep highways open? Is it the ambulance driver who has to rush to the scene of an accident? Is it a policeman who is faced with danger on his job every day? Is it a school teacher who wants to spend that little extra time with a student or provide more service? Is it the municipal worker who cleans up the mayor's office for a visit from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that is allowed a little bit of succour and comfort? No, Mr. Speaker. Who are the exceptions? Guess who. The biggest spoiled brat in the Social Credit's lexicon of spoiled brats, the Crown corporations — B.C. Hydro.

"B.C. Hydro Boss Stays Ahead of Inflation." Who is the B.C. Hydro boss that stays ahead of inflation? Well, my friends, it's not a Social Credit cabinet minister. They've set the pace for staying ahead of inflation. It's the next best thing to it: an ex-Socred cabinet minister, Big Bob Bonner. Big Bob and the Hydro brass stay ahead of inflation and their pay hikes surpass the union workers. Why didn't the Minister of Finance call over to Hydro and say: "Look here, boys. Show a little restraint. It's bad enough for the cabinet to be troughligate and right up to their armpits in first-class travel and wine bottles, sloshing it down with the food, but show some restraint up there at the top levels of Hydro"? Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. The high livers at Hydro are not on high voltage; they're on high expense accounts and high salaries, and they stay ahead of inflation.

Come on, Mr. Speaker. You tell me what you think of this double standard when it comes to restraint — a cutback in hospital beds, a cutback in education, a cutback in free collective bargaining. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 7359 ]

Heinrich) is not here, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Neilsen) is not here, and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is not here for a debate and a bill that affects every one of their areas of service. They don't give a fig because they're right up there with the high livers in the Crown corporations and the cabinet. Wage controls, Mr. Speaker? It's a game. Just kick the slats out of prison guards, hospital nurses, police and firemen. They're just ordinary working people serving the public. They don't sacrifice like cabinet ministers or the heads of B.C. Hydro, who are outside of these controls.

Mr. Speaker, I want to throw a little comment across from John Kenneth Galbraith that I think is most interesting. Commenting on the commitment to social policies, he said in a speech in Quebec: "Any general assault on the public services must be understood for what it is: it is an attack on the living standard of the poor." I agree with him. I'll repeat it: "Any general assault on the public services must be understood for what it is: it is an attack on the living standards of the poor." How many people on welfare could live for a year on one cabinet minister's expenses alone? How many people on welfare could live handily on one cabinet minister's expenses alone? How many people on welfare could live on just the overrun in the Premier's office? How many people out there who are asked as members of the working poor to contribute their tax money to keep this government going feel happy about the way they throw money against the wall? Everything that sticks on its own goes back to the taxpayer; everything that falls to the ground can be spent by the minister.

Look at what's happening in the hospitals. There are surgery waits of a full year, $84 million cuts and 120 beds will close. Last year we proposed $82 million in cuts from publications and from ministers' expenses. We cut the fat out of the salary, and they voted against every single one of them because the high living, luxurious Liberal policies espoused by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and practised by the provincial Socreds didn't allow them to go for those cuts. But the ordinary people will take it out in the health care.

Here are some headlines: "Hospital Workers Face Massive Cuts; Government Guidelines Can Hurt Seniors More; Wage Curbs Hit Women." Remember that statement the Premier made about equal pay for equal work? Well, we know how long that lasted.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, no, he tried to explain. First he said: "Equal pay for equal work." Then someone got to him and said: "No, no, no! It's equal pay for work of equal value. No, no, no.... I'm not sure what it is." They have it clearly understood that no matter what gender they are in cabinet, they all become big spenders for equal work.

Here are more headlines: "Bennett Insults Trustees; Restraints Penalize the Thrifty." That's the irony, Mr. Speaker. Those municipalities that have watched their budget, those that have been prudent, those that have been cautious and those that have fought against this Liberal government in Victoria and kept their spending down are the ones being punished because of their percentages.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) always was a right-wing Liberal, still is a right-wing Liberal and wants to be a right-wing Liberal. He's pushing Pierre Elliott Trudeau's policies through this particular piece of legislation. They're laughing, Mr. Speaker. They're not aware that the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag yesterday during a speech in the Maritimes. He said that he wanted provincial governments to push this kind of legislation, and the only one following Trudeau's leadership is this group over here. They are masquerading as Social Credit but are really nothing more than right-wing Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, the Crown firms are not under controls. Who are the inner cabal in the cabinet that influences the policies of this government? Every single one of them, including the present Minister of Municipal Affairs, are Liberals.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Ron Basford?

MR. BARRETT: Where is Ron Basford, the former Liberal Minister of Finance? He gets $600 a day to advise them on coal. He gets $600 a day to spend $400 million plus. And who do they hire? They hire an ex-Liberal. They've even got a welfare program for ex-Liberals as well as ex-cabinet members. They don't show restraint when it comes to Liberals or Liberal policy. They have been completely captivated by the style of the federal Liberal government and have adopted the federal Liberal government's fiscal policies. This bill is a demonstration of it. Cut back school children, cut back hospitals, cut back education, destroy free collective bargaining, but make sure that you all do it in style.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give you one small example of what may take place in the Okanagan this summer. In the Premier's own riding, the Kelowna city council has proposed a cut of $5,310 from its lifeguard budget this year. It doesn't sound like much; it certainly isn't much in terms of imported French wines. But if this goes through because of the restraint ordered by this bill, there will be no lifeguards on the city beaches on Okanagan Lake this summer, from May 24 to Labour Day. This is one small illustration of the stupidity of the enforcement of this. What we should do is to ask each cabinet minister to give up 2 percent of his travel expenses and allowances in the offices to at least ensure that there are lifeguards on the beaches of the Okanagan. If this program goes through, I am told, this is the first time there will be no lifeguards at these beaches. Oh, well, who cares?

They talk about taxation. This government has brought in more hidden taxation and indexed taxation. Who brought in the indexed gasoline tax to show restraint? I remember when the former Liberal, now Socred, Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said that he would never vote for indexed taxing unless he got a chance to do it. And he did. He voted in this House for indexed taxing on gasoline. It is a hidden, pervasive tax that costs the taxpayers of this province zillions out of their pockets, and he went along with it.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you told the municipal officials that you would never agree to the policy of indexed taxes. Then, within two weeks, you came in this House, because you've got a bad and a selective memory, and you stood up and voted for indexed taxation on gasoline.

MR. LEA: Liberal principles.

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

[ Page 7360 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Now to the bill.

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

I have so much more to comment on that it will wait for committee stage, but I want to just wind up by sharing with you a little message in the Elder Statesman, with this smiling picture, taken in 1940, of the minister of Pier B-C. Oh, no, she doesn't have that job anymore. It is of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I want to read this:

"Grace McCarthy gives assurance to Elder Statesman readers. Responding to an erroneous report that services to seniors were being cut by her ministry, the Hon. Grace McCarthy said: 'I want to stress that there will be absolutely no reduction to calibre or quantity of service provided to the elderly citizens of our province. The ministry is committed to assisting all those in need, especially senior citizens on fixed incomes.'"

It is enough to bring tears to the eyes of every senior citizen in this province. Having read this message with this smiling picture, they know that when they are being turned down for a bed in a hospital it is because somebody hasn't heard from Grace and is cutting back. When their children are forced into ever-larger classrooms it is because somebody hasn't heard from Grace. When they hear that their home care is being cut off it is only an illusion because somebody hasn't heard from Grace. And when they comfort themselves when their services are cut, when their grandchildren are punished, when their loved ones don't get care in a hospital, they can wrap this newspaper around them and say: "But Grace said it isn't so."

There is nothing more cynical or hypocritical than this particular bill, to focus on Social Credit: big spenders, destroyers of free collective bargaining, destroyers of decent health care, destroyers of decent education. They destroyed the reputation of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and made a joke out of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. All for what reason? This bill was inspired by polling. Yes, it was inspired by a question on a poll they did that said: "Do you approve of cutbacks in government spending?" I'll bet that 85 percent of the people out there said, "Yes, we approve of cutbacks in public spending," and that is what spawned this bill.

The Premier said on February 18 that he wanted to avoid cynicism. I think that was a Freudian slip. He deliberately chose the word "cynicism" unconsciously, because that was what was bothering him. He was being cynical and hypocritical that night. That's what led to this bill.

We in the New Democratic Party will not stand by and see free collective bargaining destroyed for any free citizen in a free society, particularly in this province. We in this party will not stand by and see cabinet ministers live high off the hog while hospital services are cut. We in the New Democratic Party will not stand by and see education cut back while cabinet ministers live high off the hog. We in this party will not stand by and see health care, education...freely elected municipal officials making decisions that local services be cut back. None of these things. This bill is cynical, hypocritical and political. We will oppose it right down the line.

Mr. Speaker, there are some who wondered what my position would be on this legislation. I am pleased to announce for those who have been waiting for my statement on this that my position has been broadcast on the front pages of all media, and has been the headline of every radio report. So there will be no more confusion. We oppose this Trudeau bill, sponsored by that Liberal government.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I expected that there would be a government supporter or member jumping to his feet to support this piece of legislation. However, if I were a government member or supporter, I would not have jumped to my feet to support this piece of legislation. I'll tell you why: this piece of legislation is infamous to the extent that it is creating such havoc and chaos in our province that it's got everybody, including those government supporters and members, very worried. They have made a disastrous move.

Restraint has been the byword since February 18. On that day the word was out. "Restraint, my friends, is the way to go." That is to say: "We want others to restrain themselves, but we don't want to restrain ourselves." I'm speaking now in the terms of what I believe is being said over there on the cabinet side. They say: "Do what we say. Municipal workers, do what we say, Health care workers, do what we say. Government workers, do what we say, but for heaven's sake, don't watch us." Don't watch this government, because the government members don't do what they ask others to do. They're asking the people in this province to restrain themselves, when the government members are spending vast sums on their own pet projects. But we're to overlook that. That public servant must overlook that. That health care worker, already overworked, must overlook that. "Don't do what we do; do what we say."

The government expects people to pay more interest. I suggest that this government supports the economic policies of our federal government. They believe in high interest rates. If they don't believe in them, what are they doing about it? I've seen nothing. They add fuel to the fire every time there is an increase that they bring in. They add fuel to our inflation. Speaking of fuel, just think about the fuel costs and the health care costs. I'll go into them in more detail later. Pay more for less service, particularly in health care, and at the same time earn less.

We must forgive the government for excessive taxing. The rubbish that we've heard in this chamber about no increases in taxes this year! That has to be the most magnificent piece of hypocrisy I've ever heard. There are no direct taxes, no income taxes — which, incidentally, is a much fairer way of taxing people than by increasing medicare rates, licence fees and fees for everything that happens, up to and including a $3 million tax on preventive care that is a fee for health inspection.

What this government is asking the people of the province to do is: "Dig down deep in your pockets to keep up the government cash flow. Restrain yourselves. Tighten your belts and starve if necessary, but don't expect government services to improve as a result of your increased costs. Don't expect your wages to go up in proportion to need. Go tell your banker that you're not going to pay the high interest rates, and lose your house or car or whatever." If it weren't so sad, it would be a joke. All this in the name of our balanced budget. In the long run, it's going to be a costly way of endeavouring to balance the budget.

Compensation Stabilization Act — nice title. I say it's nonsense. It is destabilization. It's the destabilization bill of this session. I'd like to deal with one aspect of that destabilization: health care. It's an utter disaster. It's in chaos. What

[ Page 7361 ]

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

What is this compensation stabilization doing? It's getting people like the editors of the Vancouver Sun to say that we now have in this province a Ministry of Unhealth. Have we ever seen anything like this before in an editorial? "At the rate that B.C.'s 110 acute-care hospitals are closing beds, laying off nurses and other staff, and cutting back on services to the public, Health Minister Jim Nielsen might soon find himself out of a job." In my view, that would be the best thing that could happen to our province. "What will be left of the province's health-care system after he has finished trying to scale down hospital costs to suit the government's need for a balanced budget may be little more than a skeleton." All this in the name of a balanced budget.

I have not seen anything in this compensation stabilization bill that is aimed at our megaprojects — not a thing. We've already noted that Crown corporations seem to be free as a bird, but not our hospitals, not our health-care system. The bill before is part of a government policy that is getting us into extreme trouble.

On the previous page in the Vancouver Sun, on the same day, May 3, is an article in which the restraint program is defended. The defence is the normal defence of a deputy minister hoping to defend his boss. Part of the defence was: "B.C. has a high standard of care compared to other provinces, with B.C. having a standard of 4.25 beds per 1,000 people, compared to figures of 3.5 in northern Ontario and 3.25 in southern Ontario." Well, Mr. Speaker, isn't that marvellous.

I hope that one of the members for North Vancouver is listening on his speaker to the following. What has happened in North Vancouver — and it's happening all over the province — is that the North Shore now has a bed ratio of 2.6 per 1,000 — not 4.25, 4.9 or 6 — since the layoffs that occurred as a direct result of this policy and these restraint programs. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Unhealth. As far as the competency of the Ministry of Health is concerned, we'll deal with that in estimates. As far as the competency of all the other ministries is concerned, we'll deal with that in estimates. In this particular restraint program — and this compensation destabilization is very much a part of it — we have got ourselves into an awful lot of trouble. When I say that on the North Shore we have 2.6 beds per 1,000, that's a result of laying off 144 employees, 72 of whom are nurses, and closing 55 acute-care beds. They have 401 beds for 145,000 people. The 200 doctors in that area are unanimous that this is totally unacceptable.

I don't think we need concern ourselves with a defence that says that compared to other jurisdictions we're still looking good, because it's happening so quickly. Hospital after hospital is announcing layoffs and bed closures. Yesterday I brought up in this House the fact that the minister was offering a bounty of $20,000 per acute-care bed closure — offering a bonus if "bounty" offends the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). Whatever it is, it's harming the health-care system of our province, and it's not good enough.

I would like to suggest that I go through a few of the hospitals and their restraints — what's happening and what's creating this situation. At Vancouver General 400 were laid off, 150 of whom are nurses, and there's a 175-bed reduction. Eventually there will be 700 people laid off. Mr. Speaker, that is going to mean there is going to be a 20 percent reduction in operating room use. It's going to extend elective surgery lists. I've already told you about Lions Gate — 144 people laid off, 55 bed closures. In that constituency there are 1,700 people waiting for elective surgery. I'll bet you their hopes of getting into a hospital went up in the last few days. Wouldn't yours if you were part of that 1,700? When it's just numbers, it's easy to pass off. But when it's family or when it's yourself waiting in pain, listening to a government that's talking about compensation stabilization, listening to a government that's talking restraint, it's hard to take, particularly when we're paying more and more and more.

Royal Inland Hospital: 129 laid off, an 84-bed reduction. That's in the great constituency of Kamloops. I wonder what that fighter from Kamloops is going to do when he stands up in this debate, the hon. member from that city. And if he doesn't. Is he going to go home and tell the folks that all is well? No, he can't, because all is not well in Kamloops; all is sick in terms of what this restraint program is doing to the people in our province. New Westminster, the Royal Columbian, my constituency: 100 staff layoffs, a 75-bed reduction; Langley: 39 beds reduced; Burnaby General: 93 layoffs, a 36-bed reduction, and an additional 18 in the summer; Nanaimo General, where my good colleague and friend serves: 65 laid off, 42 beds down and 1,500 on the elective surgery list; Royal Jubilee — kind of close, one of our neighbours: 200 laid off, 161 beds reduced, and we all know their elective surgery list; Gorge Road, extended care: 36 beds reduced, Juan de Fuca, extended care: 50 beds reduced. Mr. Speaker, the hiring freeze, the job eliminations and the compensation stabilization have all created havoc. I'm looking at 1,450 staff reductions and 1,783 bed reductions in a matter of a week or so, and we've seen just the tip of the iceberg.

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

"The minister admits the cutbacks are a real possibility for some but doesn't think they should be viewed with alarm by British Columbians.

"'Hospitals close beds every year,' he said in an interview. 'They close them in the summer for the convenience of staff holidays. Some have closed beds permanently before now, and I don't think it's made a lot of difference to the patients.'"

Holy Hannah, it hasn't made a lot of difference to the patients! If you're lucky enough to get in there, I guess it doesn't make a lot of difference to you, but if you're one of those 12,000 people now waiting for a hospital bed and, because of a restraint program, you can't get in, it makes a lot of difference. A destabilization program is the only way you can describe this piece of proposed legislation.  Lord, I wish it would be withdrawn; I wish we could have in this province a government that would not continually try to rule by divide and conquer.

If a government puts out a poll, a survey, and asks people whether they believe in government restraint, we know the answer will be yes. People do not think of the ramifications of what they're saying under those circumstances. We have seen polls in the field that have asked that very question, and we know perfectly well who sponsored those polls. It was the Social Credit government, which rules by surveys. It's one place they don't restrain themselves. They'll pay for their polls, their surveys and their PR. It's strange, isn't it? Isn't it a bit discomforting for government supporters, who only last

[ Page 7362 ]

week read the B.C. Government News, which is paid for by the taxpayers of our province, to pay for a PR piece? What did it say about health care? There were two whole pages telling the people of B.C. what a marvellous health-care system we have. Yet you cannot pick up a paper or talk to people on the street without hearing from people who are worried about our health-care system.

Other editors — it's not only the Sun.... What about the Times-Colonist? The Times-Colonist says this about the Ministry of Health and its restraint program: "The minister lives on Fantasy Island." They go on to say: "The minister, Jim Nielsen, is insulting the intelligence of all British Columbians when he suggests that the government decision to cut back $84 million from hospital board budgets will not affect the quality and availability of health care in this province." That's part of this restraint program. That's where it's all coming from.

People don't realize what they're doing to themselves. People's priorities are different than this government's priorities. They go on to say that "the minister's claim won't even fool some of the people some of the time, because even the most inept mathematician can figure out the bottom line of this equation." Yes, Mr. Speaker, even the most inept mathematician can. But I'll tell you who can really figure it out. It's that person who is one of the 12,000 now waiting for a hospital bed. Many are waiting in pain, but the minister says: "It's not going to affect you."

This is just dealing with the Victoria area: "As for elective surgery, the prospects are grim indeed. The Jubilee already has a waiting list of 1,300, some of whom have had to wait up to a year for surgery. Lists and waiting periods can only get longer, making a bad situation intolerable."

What does the Province say in their editorial? "Drastic Surgery." They talk about it just the same as everybody else in this province is talking about it: the restraint program is wrecking our health system in B.C.

The two members behind me are arguing about who's going to speak next. I hope one of them does, and I hope one of them is articulate enough to defend this government's policy around this bill.

MR. BRUMMET: Where's your leader?

MR. COCKE: He spoke for two and a half hours. Did you listen to him, Mr. Member for North Peace River? I hope that member for North Peace River goes up to his constituency and defends this bill, and I hope he takes some of the Hansards concerning this bill with him. I hope that when he does, he can come out clearly identified with the right side on this bill. But unfortunately he won't, because it's like....

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your leader?

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

MR. COCKE: I know what I did was inexcusable, Mr. Speaker. I identified some people in this House and started an argument with them, and that certainly shouldn't happen.

Mr. Speaker, the Province says it's "drastic surgery," and in the body of their editorial they say that if they're right, then the government has to re-examine its priorities to see whether spending in other departments should be trimmed to prevent that serious damage to medicare.... "Try as he might, Health Minister Jim Nielsen can't maintain the fiction that the quality of care will be maintained. It simply can't be if hospital staffs are being reduced and surgery has to be put off." That's the restraint program, Mr. Speaker.

What a time to restrain ourselves in this important area. I would like the Finance minister to think about this very important fact: economic conditions create stress. We are living in stressful times. What does stress create, according to practically every expert in the field? Stress creates illness. Where is our policy? Our policy, according to this piece of legislation, is to cut staff, wage increases, reduce morale and jeopardize the citizens of our province who are in jeopardy now. A person paying higher interest rates, worried about making payments and keeping the family budget together is under far greater stress than a person meandering along on a nice big fat expense account, doing his or her thing. Many, by far the majority, of B.C. people are in that circumstance presently. They are in a stressful state. That stressful state will create more problems in health. What are we doing at that self-same moment? We are restraining and squeezing on health care. We are reducing morale of staff. We, are therefore jeopardizing the citizens of B.C.

Where is our priority? I haven't once heard the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) say a word about any restraint in the north. What that minister is saying is that we will continue our policy of subsidization of the Japanese steel industry at any cost. But on the other hand, his colleague sitting right down the way from him, the Minister of Health, has to cut back on health care for the people in our province because of a restraint program and the damages created by this compensation stabilization. I said before and I'll say again: it's destabilizing, and it's a destabilization bill.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I guess we all know that hospital workers are facing massive cuts. We all saw those headlines. But what does a ministry official have to say about it? "The minister's aide noted that private industry, in many cases, was having to make far greater sacrifices."

I ask you to ask the people directly whether or not they want to sacrifice the health-care system in our province. That's what we should be asking. Ask the people. Is that where their priorities would be? No, the people in our province not only ask but demand a health-care system that is adequately funded and operated, and where the morale is kept up. We don't need this kind of compensation stabilization. We need real stabilization, and we're not getting it.

I suggest that the massive cuts are damaging us irreparably.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I would like to make a remark to my friend the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). He regrets having come into the House to listen to this. I don't blame him; I would too if I were a government supporter. I can suggest that downstairs there is a restaurant where they

[ Page 7363 ]

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

What are the different districts in our province saying about what's going on? In Lytton — little Lytton — they've got a shortage of nurses. Let me tell you what I can tell Lytton today: I would predict that after all the layoffs in Vancouver, there'll be no more shortage of nurses up there. What are they saying up in Rossland? "Restraint okay if the 12 percent only for salaries." They sure can't keep their medical supplies down to that. But they thought they were getting 12 percent. You know what they're getting — 7.69 percent. It's ridiculous.

What did the people at Delta Centennial say? "If the 12 percent is applied, we'll be in dire straits." I'm sure that the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) will come out fighting on this issue to see to it that his hospital doesn't end up in dire straits.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Who represents Shaughnessy?

MR. COCKE: Who represents Shaughnessy? That's the Minister of Human Resources and Pier B-C and also the Provincial Secretary and the minister of handouts for lotteries.

Ah, the member for North Peace River is going golfing, Mr. Speaker. I hope that he shoots under par, because when he shoots in the House he doesn't shoot under par.

St. Joseph's in Comox says there's a 15 to 25 percent increase in food, supply and fuel costs. In Bulkley Valley the 12 percent will amount to a cutback in care. In the Premier's riding of Okanagan South, cutbacks in care are certain. In Creston Valley a 20-bed extended-care project has been frozen.

Mr. Speaker, what they're all saying — and one person said it very well — is that the ministry has rather unrealistic goals concerning this zero-based budgeting, especially when starting the restraint program. You start with one foot in the hole, and that's where we've been. This isn't new; they've been putting the pressure on the hospitals for the last three or four years. This year most of the hospitals, 46 out of 52, wind up with a deficit. They start a restraint program with a deficit hanging around their necks. Is it any wonder we're closing down beds all over the province? It's no wonder at all.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we have before us a bill that's asking the people serving government to restrain themselves, a bill asking consumers of health care to restrain themselves. Don't get sick; we can't afford it in our province today. At the same time as we're asking people to restrain themselves, what has happened about the government and its restraint? Oh, I'm not going to allude to the way that high-flying bunch spend money; I think we all know that.

But let me think about one other aspect. While the people have been asked to restrain themselves, fees and taxes have gone up 22 percent. The government restraint program says: "Keep your wage increases down below 12 percent — really 8 percent optimum and a possibility of as much as 12 percent. Restrain yourselves, but we're not going to restrain ourselves. We're going to charge you more for everything we can. We'll charge you more for medicare. We'll charge you more for hospital care. We'll charge, charge, charge. But we want you to restrain yourselves."

What kind of policy is that? I just think that it's utterly ridiculous for us to be here discussing a bill that gives government all power. There are no figures in that bill. It gives government the power and right to really put the axe to people. It is not a bill at all; it is a piece of political propaganda. There is no question in my mind that the defence of this bill cannot be there. All it is is a reach out and a hope that people will believe that they mean what they say. I will not and cannot support this bill.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is a delightful opportunity to join in this debate, speaking on this excellent Bill 28, the Compensation Stabilization Act. It is not difficult to see the tenor and method of the opposition's debate. The whole thrust of what they have said is: spend, spend, spend. It simply cannot be done. Government is not any different than anyone else; they cannot spend money they do not have. It is the policy of this government throughout thirty years of government, not to spend beyond our ability to pay. There is to be no change in that policy. It will remain. Other governments have attempted this policy. There are many in Canada and one shining example is the province of Quebec. There we have the unusual situation where the public sector has so exceeded the wage limits of the private sector that it has come to a point now where 52 percent of the Quebec budget is for the salaries of their employees. The public sector in Quebec is being paid 12 percent to 16 percent above the private sector. Therein lies the trouble. Quebec could save a billion dollars if they dared to retrench and retract. But once they have embarked on that policy there is no way back. The way is further and deeper into disaster.

I read again from the Toronto Globe and Mail. This article is entitled "Quebec's Runaway Debt: 'If the public sector were paid at the same rate as private workers,' says Treasury Board President Yves Bérubé, 'the Quebec government would save $l billion.'"

What the opposition is asking us in this House today is to go into debt in the hope that someday when the economy turns, we'll  be able to pay back the debt. That is a fine theory, but the fact is that it does not work. Any government that has embarked on a policy of debt in bad times has only accelerated their debt when times turned, because the demands became greater and more vocal. Today we are facing that situation. To make the disaster of going into debt now would plunge this government and this country into a kind of debt from which we would never retrieve ourselves. When we saddle the future with 12 percent to 20 percent for servicing of debt, I say to you that it is a hopeless concept. This government and this party will never be a part of it. I would like to go on record now and establish what the leader said yesterday and this morning during three hours of address: "Debt, debt, debt. Go into debt in time of need." There is no way out of debt but destruction. When the minister made his opening remarks on this bill, he said clearly: "Long-term borrowing leads to inflation." Through four hours of debate the opposition has tried to prove to you that long-term debt does not lead to inflation. Any schoolboy knows that, anybody who can add and subtract knows that, and we all know that. If you try to spend what you do not have, you must borrow. When you must borrow, you must pay a price. Then the wheel turns, and gradually and inexorably you are down the chain of defeat to disaster. Inflation and disaster are the same word, but they are spelled differently. Inflation leads to disaster. Every government in Canada and the world that has

[ Page 7364 ]

trifled with the process of borrowing and the creation of inflation has gone down to horrible and disastrous consequences for its people.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) speaks eloquently about the sick in our hospitals. He is alarmed that it will be necessary for some hospitals to close beds. When anybody tampers with the health system, I say be careful. I say that to our own party, but we must adjust and not tamper. We must hold the cost of accelerating expense. We must hold back on health care now, so we can give a better and more positive reaction to the demands later. Now is the time to hold back. Now is a good time to hold back, if it must be done, because every summer — we're approaching it, as now we're in spring — without exception, almost every hospital will close 10 to 15 percent of its beds. All hospitals do this to varying degrees. They do this for the simple reason that they do not have the patients. It's a time when people go on holiday. This is not tampering with health care; this is adjustment of the system and good economics. It's proper to do it. It's done every year. Whenever we sit in this Legislature and hear, throughout the years past, of hospitals closing beds, we hear the cry from the opposition that that fearful government has closed up so many beds in this and that hospital. That fearful government did not close beds in those hospitals. Those hospitals found good economics — not to lay off staff in some cases, but staff goes on holidays. This is what is being done.

I say to the member for New Westminster, who has promptly left his seat, that in British Columbia we have a magnificent health-care system. There is none like it in Canada. I'm proud of it in every way. Our fine doctors are the best in the world. We have some of the leading specialists in the world. I say in this House that we do not have the best doctors in the world for any other reason than that they have the best environment to work in. We have some of the finest specialists. You very rarely hear of people from this province going to that famous Rochester clinic. You very rarely hear of them going anywhere, because they know that in British Columbia we have the finest specialists. People come here for treatment. Why? Because the doctors have an environment to work in. They're well paid — probably not well enough, but they have the highest pay in Canada. These men and women don't only work for pay. They work because they have a place to work in that is in cooperation with the people. The environment of the health-care system is one of the finest.

I know that we have a vocal group that is complaining bitterly about the health-care system from time to time, but they are just a vocal group. In the hospitals that I know of — I know of several in my constituency and around the Fraser Valley — people love them. Never do you see a single word of condemnation about the hospitals.

The member for New Westminster went to great length to indicate that there is a disintegration of the hospital system. They say it's disintegrating because elective surgery is getting higher and greater. I do not understand this elective surgery thing fully. I'm not going to tread into that area where angels fear to tread, to say that they should have a smaller list. I do not think, with my knowledge, as I've seen it in the past, that it is possible to have a smaller list. As British Columbia grows, as more science enters the health field and there is more possibility for additional procedures becoming evident — and doctors will take advantage of the new procedures — it increases elective surgery and elective factors. Now I'm not treading in this area, because I do not understand it. But I have never had a good doctor who was dedicated to his practice and his patients ever say to me that anyone is suffering in the hospitals — not a single one. And here am I, Mr. Speaker, a member of this Legislature, a member who should receive this information from the 80 or 90 doctors in our area. I've heard them complain of some things, but never of inadequate procedures — not once. I'll tell you that that is a record that we should be proud of.

This government has always had a policy of maintaining health care, of maintaining the service of government to people, maintaining the Human Resources level, and maintaining the forest programs that bring us the wealth of our province. But now we must be courageous; we must ask for restraint. You hear the word "cutback" used so liberally. Mr. Speaker, the word is not "cutback." The word is "restraint." I do not know one ministry, in reading over the estimates, that has not had a good increase, and yet we talk of cutbacks. What cutbacks? There are no cutbacks. The increases are not as great as they would like them to be, but, as I said before, it's a time of restraint.

To think that this government can maintain last year's budget, increase it enough to give a reasonable increase to all without hurting the economy, and bring in this bill which will put legal limits on expansion so that we do not fall into the same trap as Quebec and Ontario, so that we are strong and viable and so that we do not have to go into debt and pay the money barons of Bay Street and Wall Street.... We cannot afford to pay interest — we ourselves and our children. I can tell you seriously that any business in British Columbia in trouble today is just a business that has borrowed in good times and can't pay it. Every businessman knows that it is not the high interest rates that are killing as much as improper and careless borrowing. That's bothering business, and that would be a destructive force if it ever got into government.

I'd say that today we are probably debating one of the most important bills that has come before us for many a year, because it's a bill that lays down the policy and the thinking of this government. It says clearly that we believe in solid financing practices. That has been at the masthead of the party since I knew it, since 1952, and it has never changed.

It's not an easy thing for the Minister of Finance to restrain. I just had a very traumatic experience this morning in my own business, which I am not deeply involved in, but I give advice in a small way. I had to demand that certain restraints be made. I'm having difficulty, but I will demand it and it must be done. It's no fun creating restraints. But neither government nor I are asking for a reduction below what is acceptable. We're only asking for control. This bill calls for a certain person to take his place and see that these controls are properly, adequately and carefully applied.

The Premier of the province made an address a few weeks ago and established these standards, which are being put into law today. I tell you there was a wave of good feeling that swept this province from north to south — a complete expanse. You heard it everywhere, and they said: "It's about time." I've heard it from good, strong members of that opposition party — not members of the opposition: "It's about time, because restraints are necessary." We do not ask for plaudits. We in this party only say that it is our policy. The Premier, with his energy and ability, put it into fact. I am proud of what he did; I'm proud of the way the Minister of Finance presented the bill to this House.

[ Page 7365 ]

The purpose of the bill is quite clear; nobody can misunderstand it; we have said it, and we'll stand by it. The opposition merely says: "It is not necessary; go into debt. It's easy to go into debt now; when things come back and the forests prosper, we'll pay it back." Impossible! It's never paid back. The road of debt is the pathway to destruction. There is no other way, and it'll never change. It has always been so, and any country or any individual that has followed this will know of which I speak. I only plead. What a day it would be, Mr. Speaker, if the opposition would stand up in their place and say: "We don't like to agree with you, but this once we must. We don't like to agree with you, but we recognize as good British Columbians and Canadians that we do not want to enter onto the path of destruction." What a wonderful day it would be! We know there has to be a hard line. We do not think that it should be applied in certain ways, but we agree with you on the principle of restraint — not cutbacks, but restraint — and we will assist you in this bill." It would be a red-letter day for the province of British Columbia, and it would be said that this is a Legislature that sees the fact and acts on the truth. That is what we are asking them to do today.

There is no argument that can be presented that can oppose the principle of this bill. This bill has such a benign attitude, and the only reason it is benign.... In Quebec it cannot be benign. In Quebec they are so hopelessly out of control that there is no use whatever in cutting back the public-sector employees by 16 percent. They are too far, too hopeless. Where are they going to cut back? They have gone over the lip; they are over the edge. What will happen to Quebec? Who knows? I predict that one day that great province will go into receivership, when the federal government wants to move in. It is either that or bail them out, because there is no way you can accelerate at the rate of $4 billion a year in a province of six million people and expect the rest of the country to maintain it. Some day that province, like any other.... There is an example of socialism. I didn't want to say it. When the boat is sunk there is no bailing out; it is gone. The rest of Canada will have to move in some day and save Quebec. There is no way they can save themselves because they are on an accelerating treadmill, and that is what we must avoid here.

That is why I appeal to the members opposite that they will see the importance of supporting a bill that, in principle, says: "Restrain yourselves now that we may enjoy the fruit of our labours later and not use the fruit of our labour to pay the interest to Bay Street and Wall Street and to the money barons." You are saying to the future: "Go ahead, and spend the money, but instead of enjoying your money next year, enjoying what you have, improving the program and making British Columbia a better place to live in, we will be paying the money barons on Bay Street and Wall Street." This government does not stand for that. This government will never do this. We will stand with that flag at our masthead above all others, because that is the keynote of our policy, and that will not change.

I compliment the Minister of Finance for his courage. It is not easy to talk restraint and to say: "Bring down your expectations." It is difficult, whether it be business or government. It is tougher in government, because in government the people can always pay, but the time comes when they will pay no more, when they will refuse, when there is a rebellion, and that is the principle we have followed. Remember Proposition 13, and how the whole state of California voted to cut back expenses? Don't think that can't happen here. But the reason it doesn't happen here is that we have a ministry that is capable of seeing what's going to happen and of making arrangements for the future. That's why we're proud of our Minister of Finance, proud of the way he's handling this policy that has been established. It's not an easy policy to enforce. It's tough to look someone in the eye and say: "You have to be cut back " or "You have to go." Some people have got to go, and you never know who it will be. There is no way to avoid that. But you do not need to worry because the individual has the resiliency and the strength to stand up to adversity, We hope they are few, but they can stand up to adversity and they can win,

This bill simply states the truth. It says: believe the truth, and see it. The minister has put it down on this paper in this bill, and it's proper and right. It's proper and right for the opposition to debate it, yes, but not to condemn it. That's a great mistake. If they condemn it, they will pay for their actions. Fortunately, we do not have a government that believes in their kind of policy. Had we that, certainly we could live in a Utopia for a day or two, or for a year or two or three, but the time would come when the accounting would have to be made. In Quebec the accounting is on, and today they have nowhere to go. That will not happen here.

I appeal to members of the opposition to support this bill because it is good and proper: it is fair. We must expect less at a time of difficulty. Everyone must expect less. Our unions in negotiation, everyone. no matter who, must expect less. Our unions must expect less, our private sector must expect less. Let's not tread quietly around this thing and say we'll never reduce anyone's salary. We must, if not reduce, then hold the line. This is the time for holding the line. It's a thing you don't say. because it can come back to haunt you. Nobody can tell me that it's not right for a public-sector employee to be the same as a private-sector employee and take a reduction, if necessary for the health of the province and the future of their pensions, indexing, paid holidays and sick leave. These are benefits that the public sector gets which the private sector does not.

I think our employees are the best in the world and the highest paid in Canada, and so they should be, because they work for the finest province. But I'm telling you that many of them to whom I have spoken have said: "We realize there has to be a slowing down." I only hope that, with negotiation, judgment will be clear and understanding will be predominant in our minds that it is time for restraint. Unless we have this restraint, the future is grim and dim indeed. It need not be. This bill lays a course and a pathway to light.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Dewdney asks us in the opposition to support this bill because it's, as he puts it, a bill of restraint. I suspect that the official opposition would look favourably upon some legislative program which in fact did call for policies of restraint at a time in our economic history when obviously things aren't as rosy as they have been.

This bill that we are debating today is not a restraint bill. It's a wage-control bill for one sector of society. If the bill had a line in it which said that if cabinet ministers want to drink French wine they had to drink Kressman, or if it had a number of other elements in it that would offer some restraint on cabinet spending, such as, "We're grounding the government jets except for emergency use through the health-care program," and, "We 're not going to allow cabinet ministers to fly home every night at great public expense," or if the bill

[ Page 7366 ]

had a provision in it that cut back the excessive wages of the Premier through an income tax mechanism that said all of the money he earns from all of his sources each year beyond a certain level would be taxed at a confiscatory level so that he could only earn a hundred or a hundred and fifty grand a year and everything beyond that would go to the taxpayers because we're in a time of restraint.... If the bill said those kind of things, instead of saying to government employees who have lived for three years with restraint at 8 percent per year, many working and living at the poverty level: "You have to show the restraint. We'll keep drinking $37.50 wine. We'll keep charging meals and collecting the per diem. We'll keep flying on the government jet. We'll keep over-expending on our government offices. We'll keep spending, spending, spending because we like the good life. We'll buy $400 hotel rooms. We'll get fed by the government of Canada and collect the per diem for meals at the same time." Then you say to people who work for the public sector of this society, many of whom are just above the poverty line, that they have to show restraint? It's shameful, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is not a restraint bill. The restraint program of the government is enacted when various ministers say that they are only going to provide a certain number of dollars for programs, when the Education minister says there will be X number of dollars for education and when the Health minister says there will be X number of dollars for health, etc. That's the way in which a restraint program is implemented. This isn't a restraint program. If hospitals, municipalities and school trustees have X number of dollars to work with, they will bargain within those limits. They're required to because that's how much money they have to spend. They're like any other ordinary business and any other part of the society that we live in. You bargain with what you have to bargain with. When you reach your limits, you take a strike if you have to. That's what the employers are saying — ironically to the Hospital Employees' Union — in the hospitals in this province. Allow for free collective bargaining, and if we have to take a strike, we'll take it. That's the normal course of events in a free society. But this government doesn't believe in a free society. This government believes that you can have freedom for setting prices, you have freedom to have whatever interest rates you want. You can have freedom if you're in the private sector — at this stage in the governments' development of programs — but there will be no freedom in the public sector. Those people who contribute to the wealth of social services in this province, which is just as much a wealth as the productivity of forest workers, must show that kind of restraint by not being allowed the freedom that everybody else has in this society.

That is what is so repugnant to me about this bill, Mr. Speaker. It is purely and simply a bill for wage controls, designed as a result of poll-taking that told the government two things: (1) the public is in favour of restraint, and so it is, and so are we; and (2) that the most hated group in the public's mind were public servants — teachers and government employees. Therefore, wouldn't it be neat if we could combine these two elements of public opinion — a call for restraint and a hatred for public servants — and combine them into one bill and call it restraint? It is hypocritical and it is wrong in philosophy and in principle.

In the last few days I have gone through various publications of the United Nations and the International Labour Organization in an effort to find out what it is that the world is saying and what it is Canada and, through Canada's agreement, British Columbia has agreed to about free collective bargaining. I am not going to quote the volumes and volumes of material there is on this subject, but I do want to quote two small excerpts just to prove the point that we in this country have subscribed to those conventions which call for unlimited free collective bargaining in the private and public sectors. One of the statements goes: "It would be wrong to exclude important categories of workers employed by the state merely because they are classed as public officials." That is from the International Labour Organization. Another document from the ILO, stating Canada's position....

You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that in these conventions and documents Canada cannot have a position, because of the federal nature of our country, on an issue that transcends both federal and provincial jurisdiction without the agreement of the provinces, so B.C. has agreed to this too. What is Canada's position about free collective bargaining in the public sector? "It is desirable that all workers, including public servants, should have access to collective bargaining as a means of participating in the determination of their wages and working conditions and for regulating their relationship with the employer. This is the case in Canada." It is no longer the case in Canada.

I want to cite two historical precedents for this kind of legislation in this country, both of which were very popular in their inception, both of which were very unpopular in their practice. The first was the imposition in this province by a former Social Credit government of the mediation commission. Some members of this Legislature will remember the debates that went on at that time, both in the Legislature and in public. The initial response to the mediation commission — which was in effect a denial of free collective bargaining, a mechanism to impose compulsory arbitration on workers in all sectors of society.... People will remember that it was quite popular in its inception. "A good idea," said the public. "Get some control over these bad workers." Many workers thought it would be a good idea too. How long did that last, and how long did public opinion support the government on that issue? Not long, and the mediation commission experiment had to be abandoned in full disgrace. One of the results was the defeat of the government in 1972; it was a major issue among trade unionists and workers and the public who care about how a free society operates. They decided that that, among other issues, was enough for them to say "no more" to that government.

Then in 1975 we had another imposition of this kind of legislation — except then it was done federally — called the Anti-Inflation Board, which again was very popular initially. Many people in my own party and in the labour movement thought: "This is not a bad idea. We've got difficult times; we've got inflation running higher and we've got to get rid of a recession developing. Perhaps this is a way of dealing with it." That was another program that went down in flames in disgrace, because once it began to go into operation. people saw that it was not fair, it was not equitable, and it didn't work.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of that evidence and much more, why would the government bring in this kind of legislation at this time? My thinking is that they had decided earlier this year or late last year that they would capitalize on that sense among the public that there was a need for restraint and that public employees were not popular, and they would use that by bringing in this kind of legislation, dramatically presented in a province-wide television address, and then shortly thereafter go to the people for an election. But they didn't count on

[ Page 7367 ]

the recession deepening, they didn't count on getting caught out on their own expense-account padding, they didn't count on getting caught out on their own office expenditures, their own overruns and all the things that have become evident to the public. They didn't count on any of those things, and now they have realized that they're in a bit of a bind, because by the time they are prepared to have an election, the public will know about this bill what it knew about the mediation commission and the Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. Speaker, both the Premier and the Minister of Finance have said that this is free collective bargaining. On February 18 the Premier said: "Collective bargaining in the public sector will take place in the normal manner, but the commissioner will have the power to roll back excessive settlements."

In his Orwellian speech yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that collective bargaining will proceed as normal. Let me just digress for a moment. When I say "Orwellian speech, " I mean that this is a classic example of the kind of speech where you could get a dictionary and take every word in the speech and find the opposite for it and write the opposite words down and string them together and you will get exactly what the minister meant. It is doublespeak at its worst and I've only seen it in print in one instance in my life in a more flagrant manner, and that's in Orwell's book itself. He says, "We have free collective bargaining," and then he says, "Jump, or be pushed." That's not free collective bargaining.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let me give you an example of why this is not free collective bargaining. The minister says it is. The Premier says it is. I want to give you one example and it is the tip of the iceberg. Many other examples exist and I can cite a dozen or fifteen other specific examples, but I will relate one.

The B.C. Nurses Union organized Zion Park Manor last year. They negotiated a contract through the course of 1981. Wages were agreed to. All of the points in the contract but one significant language-oriented clause were agreed to. The employees at that extended-care hospital were making $9.10 an hour on an unorganized basis. The union rate was $11.06 in one category and $11.64 in another. The rates are going to $13 in the union agreements around the province. They're getting $9.10. The employer agreed to the contract as it is in place in the rest of the province in that industry. The Premier made his announcement on February 18 and on February 19 the employer took every single item off the bargaining table. He reneged on every single agreement he had made. He not only took the wages back, but he took the contract language back and said that all of that was over now and they were starting from scratch.

Included in the contract he took back was the management-rights clause — if you can believe that. All the contract language was taken back. The agreement that the contract would begin in July 1981 was taken back. An unfair labour practice has been charged as a result of that. Anyone who is familiar at all with labour relations in this province knows that it is a clear-cut case of unfair labour practices, and the LRB will have no option but to rule in that way. What the situation here is is that for most of 1981 an agreement was being negotiated. It was virtually concluded in early 1982, and the employer took it all off the table on February 19, 1982. Who was the employer? In this example of free collective bargaining, the employer was the government of B.C., through its agency, GERB. The union was told by Mike Davison, the government's hired right-hand man in these issues, that everything was off the table; they'd have to start from scratch, and the agreement was null and void. He said many other things as well.

On one hand, we have the minister saying that there is free collective bargaining; on the other hand, the Premier is saying that there is free collective bargaining. What do we find? The government's right-hand arm, the Government Employees Relations Bureau, is saying that there is no free collective bargaining; all the bargaining that has taken place prior to the announcement on television, which was no law by itself, is now null and void. This stuff isn't even law, and the government is following it through its agency. It is not even law yet. It was just a documentary on TV and not even a very good one. I think that is scandalous. I am not going to call the Premier or the Minister of Finance a liar, because I can't do that under the rules, but what they said and what they do are absolutely and diametrically opposed to each other. They say one thing and they do exactly the opposite. I won't call that a lie but I'll leave the public to decide what it is.

That is one example. We have a situation with another employer in the public sector — the Health Labour Relations Association — who have similar extended-care hospitals with similar agreements. In that case the employer is saying: "In newly organized units we want to pay the same rates as we pay in all the other organized units around this province. Nurses who work in extended-care hospitals who are organized should have the same rates and benefits across the province." They are not allowed to under this bill. The employer who wants to provide those benefits can't do it. That is a denial of free collective bargaining. It is an infringement on the rights of the employer. I'm not one who stands up here very often and protects the rights of the employer, because I think they have far too many in our industrial relations society. Nevertheless, the bill does precisely that. It denies those people the right to reach an agreement with their employees in newly organized units, which would be the same as those employees in long-organized units.

Mr. Speaker, has the minister considered what's going to happen as a result of this legislation, when workers are going to be held by this wage-control program to wage levels that are less than the going rate in society? Has he thought about what's going to happen in two or three years, or thereabouts in various cases, when the wage-control program comes off, if it does, and those people have to have catch-up agreements? Has he thought about what impact that has on society, what impact that creates in terms of anger and resentment? People ask why they should get a 40 percent increase when everybody else is getting an X percent increase in a certain year, and the public forgets that they've been under wage controls for so long. Has the minister considered that there are some workers in this province who have had only one freely negotiated agreement in the last eight years and are being told there will be two more years of no freely negotiated agreements? The way in which contracts expire does not fit into any legislative timetable. We actually have the situation where workers who were under AIB and into long-term contracts were able once, between the end of AIB and the beginning of this program, to have a freely negotiated agreement, and they're back into controls again.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the resentment and the anger that creates among public-sector employees? Can you

[ Page 7368 ]

imagine what that does to productivity? Isn't it the government side that always talks about productivity? Isn't it the employer who talks about increased morale and worker output? You're not going to get increased morale; you're going to get alienation. You're not going to get increased productivity; you're going to get resentment. It's already there. Government employees have lived under their own restraint program for three years, a restraint program that gave them 8 percent per year or a combined 26.5 percent increase over three years at a time when inflation was running at 8, 10, and 12 percent and higher per year — well over 30 percent in terms of cumulative effect.

Does the minister not understand and does the government not understand that every time a union negotiates a contract, that is a restraint program, an agreement that wages will not go up for X number of months or years? What employer lives by that restraint program when it comes to prices? What government lives by that restraint program when it comes to tax and fee increases? What bank or banking institution lives under that kind of restraint when it comes to interest-rate increases?

Mr. Speaker, in the way our society is organized, there is only one group of people who always live under restraint. They agree to bind and put in writing what they will live with no matter what happens over the next year or two or three, depending on the length of the agreement. They agree to restraint in doing that. Nobody else in this society agrees to restraint. Yet, in the face of that, the government is arguing that they're going to impose further restraint on those people who already accept restraint.

But you're not going to do it to some groups. You're not going to do it to doctors, because you can get better campaign contributions from the doctors as a result of last year's increase than you can from workers who don't even have enough money to pay the rent — workers who work for this government and who have lived under an 8 percent restraint program for three years. If I were a government employee under those restraints, making that kind of money — not the kind of money I'm making, but the kind of money most government employees make — I would be angry, and I suspect it would do something to my productivity and the way I felt about my job. I would suspect that if I were looking for a career in the public service, and I were working elsewhere, I would look no longer. I would suspect that if I were working in the government and I were highly skilled and highly qualified and producing good value for the taxpayers, I might look for a job in the private sector. Is that what the government wants — an increase in alienation, resentment and anger and a decrease in the quality that's provided?

Mr. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.