[ Page 7393 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Liquor distribution branch annual report and financial statements, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 7393

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

Introduction and first reading –– 7393

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

Introduction and first reading –– 7393

Oral Questions

B.C. Packers Ltd. Mr. Lea –– 7394

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

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

Health-care charges. Mr. Cocke –– 7395

Health services advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 7395

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Ms. Brown –– 7396

Mr. Brummet –– 7398

Mr. Lauk –– 7400

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 7405

Mr. Macdonald –– 7408

Mr. Levi –– 7410

Mr. Lockstead –– 7414

Mr. Passarell –– 7415

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LAUK: I would ask the House to — join me in welcoming Mrs. Helene Minishka and the B.C. Home and School Federation. They have a delegation visiting with the legislators today, and it's their day. Please make them welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Probably a favourite show for those of us who don't get much opportunity to watch television is one that shows academic excellence among the young people of our province, namely "Reach For The Top," which provides healthy, academic competition among the high schools and students of our province. Today in the gallery we have the B.C. champions with us, and I would like to introduce them and have the assembly make them welcome. I was very pleased and honoured to be present to see them win their championship, which was held earlier this year at Oak Bay Secondary School.

Let me now introduce the B.C. champions who will represent our province in Winnipeg on May 10: from John Oliver Secondary School in Vancouver, Terry Fedoruk, Sean McLaughlin, Rene Kondratzky and Grant Wong. They would be the first to tell you that much of their success is due to the assistance of their coach, Doug McLeod, who is with them. Would we all make them really welcome and wish them well in their efforts in Winnipeg.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Visiting with us today are members of the UBCM executive, and we certainly had a very fruitful and useful discussion with caucus. I would ask the House to welcome Mayor Jim Tonn of Coquitlam, the president; Mayor George Thom, vice president, mayor of Kitimat; Mr. Dan Cumming, chairman of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District; Mayor Mel Couvelier, executive board member and mayor of Saanich; Mr. Jeff McKelvey, executive director, and Mr. Richard Taylor, assistant executive director.

We also have a couple of visitors from an area that is rapidly becoming a real attraction to every entrepreneur and free-enterpriser — the beautiful city of Prince Rupert. I would ask the House to welcome Bozo Lalich and Lynne Hollet.

MR. BARRETT: In the gallery today are two future members of this honourable assembly. They are Ms. Pat Marchak, the New Democratic Party candidate in Vancouver–Point Grey, and Mr. Gerald Scott, the New Democratic Party candidate in Vancouver–Little Mountain. I ask the House to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a premature welcome; it is just a predictable result when the government finally has the nerve to call the election.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Insofar as our legislative internship program is concerned, today is of certain historic significance because it's the first time we've been honoured with a visit from a number of Ontario parliamentary interns. I'm sure all members would be very happy to welcome them to western Canada, the gateway to the Orient and our province of British Columbia. They are accompanied by their academic director, Prof. Fred Fletcher, and Mr. Graham White, assistant clerk of the Legislative Assembly, who I'm sure is watching our men in black today.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the assembly to join me in welcoming a group a students from the Moscrop Junior Secondary school, along with visitors from Quebec, their teacher Wayne Axford and others.

MR. BRUMMET: Visiting us today from Fort Nelson is a group of students from Fort Nelson Secondary school and their teacher Mr. Doug McKenzie. I ask the members to make them welcome.

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

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Jim Brandie from England, who are here visiting for a few days en route to Miami. They have a particular interest in British Columbia, because their daughter Linda has some association with my office.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We always leave the best for last. Today in the gallery is a large group of students from Brookswood Junior Secondary school in Langley, accompanied by their leader and teacher Mr. Cliff Shiskin. I'd like everyone to make them welcome.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to file an annual report. In conjunction therewith, I seek leave to file related financial statements.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman tabled the annual report and detailed financial statements of the liquor distribution branch for the year ended March 31, 1981.

Introduction of Bills

RESOURCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT (VOTING RIGHTS)

On a motion by Mr. Barber, Bill M205 Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, (Voting Rights), introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

RESOURCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT (SUBSIDIARIES DISCLOSURE)

On a motion by Mr. Howard, Bill M206 Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act (Subsidiaries Disclosure), introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 7394 ]

Oral Questions

B.C. PACKERS LTD.

MR. LEA: I have a question to the Minister of Environment in his capacity as fisheries minister. The minister is aware of the recent closure of the B.C. Packers ground-fish operation at Seal Cove in Prince Rupert. It is costing the economy 301 jobs and approximately $6 million a year in lost revenue to the city of Prince Rupert and surrounding area. The business community, the citizens' committee and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union have requested a study of the ground-fish industry of both federal and provincial governments. This includes a letter from the chamber of commerce to the Premier's office. That's the number one request they're putting forward. The number two request is that B.C. Packers ground-fish operation continue to operate until the study is completed. Could the minister tell us whether his government has decided to support the request for a study of the ground-fish industry and, if so, what action has the government taken?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I received this request from the people of Prince Rupert last week and have instructed the senior officials from the marine resources branch of my ministry to meet with them and discuss the possibilities for provincial involvement in their proposal.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary, that was on the request for a study into the ground-fish industry. What action has the provincial government taken to keep the plant open and operating until such a study is completed and available?

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

MR. LEA: Does the minister realize that 250 people were laid off last Friday and that a further 51 people will be laid off as soon as processing of the herring roe is finished? Is the minister aware that they've already closed the plant?

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

MR. LEA: I have a further question for the same minister. In transportation, airlines are forced by government to take runs that aren't quite as profitable as other runs; there is a cross-subsidization in the industry. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) can tell us that that happens in the forest industry. It happens in almost every industry.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. LEA: What B.C. Packers are doing in Prince Rupert is high-grading. They have never said that they're not making a profit on the groundfish; they said they're not making enough profit. And B.C. Packers, which is part of George Weston, last year had record sales; in 1981 they had an increase in profit of 14 percent or $95.3 million. Is it the government's policy to allow the fishing industry to high grade when other industries are not allowed to do it?

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind hon. members that the purpose of question period is to ask questions, not to bring information to the House. And there should certainly be no debate.

MR. LEA: I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, whether it's the government's policy to allow high-grading in the fishing industry. Maybe they have some other policy. I don't know, Mr. Speaker; I'm asking what the policy is. They're highgrading salmon and herring roe, and they're allowing the groundfish to just go by the wayside into concentrated industries in Vancouver. Now what is the present government's policy in terms of high-grading fish?

Is the minister aware that the 301 permanent jobs that are being lost to the city of Prince Rupert — plus the other income from supply — represent a bigger number of jobs than all the permanent jobs being created on Ridley Island through coal and grain terminals?

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will have the hon. member please review the basis on which question period is established in this room. Having done so, he would perhaps retract the statements he just made.

PRENATAL TESTING FOR
GENETIC ABNORMALITIES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Prenatal diagnosis for Down's syndrome and other genetic abnormalities is now provided by the B.C. medical plan only for women 38 and older. It has been established by the UBC department of medical genetics that testing women 35 and older, which is the standard medical practice in other jurisdictions, would provide a significant net benefit to the province. Can the minister — who is surely aware of the benefits that testing would provide — assure the House that he will lower the prenatal testing age to 35?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The question has been before the ministry for some time. With respect to lowering the age, information has been received by a number of people who specialize in that area. I believe the age for screening was originally 40 and has been brought down to 38. The question of whether to lower that level to 35 is under consideration at this time. I couldn't make a statement at this moment as to when or if the age level will be reduced to 35, but it is certainly under active consideration.

WCB HANDLING OF BENTALL CASE

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The Workers' Compensation Board, an agency under the minister's jurisdiction, has cut off the Bentall widows and their families from their pensions because the widows have refused to drop their lawsuit against the Ontario company that designed the fly-form. What action has the minister taken regarding this matter?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The philosophy behind the Workers Compensation Act is to ensure that those who are injured and those dependants whose relatives or spouses have

[ Page 7395 ]

been killed are properly looked after. The system is set up so that they are looked after. The question is difficult in that, if you deviate from the present legislation, which has been in force for a good number of years, you end up providing for somebody getting the advantage both ways. It seems to me that the system works well and in the interest of everyone. It's interesting to note that even when this case was referred to the ombudsman, it came back with: "Yes, it's a difficult matter, and it's even more difficult to address." I don't deny the legitimacy of the question, nor the sincerity with which it has been put in this House, but there is a philosophical basis to the legislation, and I think it serves most the way it is now set up.

MS. SANFORD: I might point out that the ombudsman did recommend changes to the legislation. However, this firm — Anthes Equipment Ltd. — does not pay workers' compensation payments in British Columbia. It is an Ontario firm. The dependants of the people who were killed in that accident are not financially able to continue with the suit unless the Workers Compensation Board payments are continued. It is an out-of-province company. Why is British Columbia protecting an out-of-province company?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have been advised by the WCB that there is one particular claimant who has initiated an action. I am also advised that the WCB has employed the services of counsel to carry such an action on behalf of the others. The others involved have agreed to accept what financial compensation is available, and it seems to work satisfactorily. But I am advised that the board has joined in a lawsuit, I have not seen any written evidence to that effect, but I have been advised by conversation that they are involved in the lawsuit against Anthes.

HEALTH CARE CHARGES

MR. COCKE: I have another question for the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health confirm that he is expanding the Socred policy of user-pay in the health-care system by encouraging hospitals to "maximize the charges for such things as unnecessary emergency-room use"?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, many hospitals have approached the ministry, and there have been discussions with some chairmen of hospital boards with respect to the fees that would be appropriate for the non-emergency use of emergency wards. I've been advised indirectly that a couple of hospitals have made announcements that they are going to establish certain rates. I haven't yet had the opportunity today to have someone contact those hospitals to find out if they indeed do that and what their intent may be.

We've had very, very strong representation from a number of hospitals. They are very concerned about the nonemergency use of emergency wards and the attendant costs associated with that. It has been suggested by quite a number of people that there should be fees established for that non-emergency use of emergency wards considerably in excess of the $4 rate which is applied universally at this moment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Langley hospital has announced a $25 charge for so-called unnecessary emergency room service — an increase from $4. Can the minister advise who decides when an emergency use is unnecessary?

For example, will the parents of an injured child have to phone a health ministry official before bringing their child for medical treatment? Who decides what is an emergency and what is not?

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise whether he has established a policy to give low-income residents time to pay in the event that their emergency case is ruled unnecessary under this policy? I'd just like the minister to know that it's the doctors who send their patients to emergency wards.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the member to know that if doctors sent their patients to emergency wards, then perhaps sometimes the patients wouldn't have to wait so long to find out where their doctors are. Many people, of course, appear at emergency wards without being referred by their doctors, which perhaps indicates to us why we call them emergencies.

MR. COCKE: You phone your doctor and he sends you there. It's happened to everybody in the House. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the group across the floor that I probably know more than they do collectively about this subject.

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

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[ML Speaker rose.]

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

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HEALTH SERVICES ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: I have another question for the Minister of Health. The Ministry of Health has advised the hospitals that a media campaign will be developed to remind the public of their responsibility to use hospital services wisely. Did the minister authorize this campaign, and can he advise what it will cost?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The hospital boards were advised that there would be a media campaign to inform the citizens of the province of the responsibility of utilizing our healthcare system with proper care and respect. I don't know what cost is associated with that at the present time. That hasn't yet been decided. The entire campaign has not yet been mapped out.

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

[ Page 7396 ]

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

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MR. HOWARD: The question relates to an activity of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), acting in such a way as to impair the House in the proper pursuit of its duties by refusing to answer three specific questions put to him. I realize the minister can be obstinate and not answer questions that he's not required to, but three successive refusals relating to a number of people being put out of work goes above and beyond that prescription.

If Your Honour finds that there is in fact a question of privilege and that the minister has intruded upon the House in the proper pursuit of its business, I do have a motion to move which asks the House to express its displeasure at the refusal of the Minister of Environment to answer questions during question period. Those questions related to the closure of the ground-fish operation of B.C. Packers in Prince Rupert.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, perhaps to assist you in your deliberation, Mr. Speaker, you could refer to a ruling of the Speaker in Votes and Proceedings of February 28, 1977. I refer to item 7: '"An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon if the answer be refused by a minister."

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

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

MS. BROWN: I think that maybe, in speaking against Bill 28, I should start out by reminding everyone that this piece of legislation is implementing the Trudeau Liberal wage-control request which he has brought down and that, in fact, all the government is doing in this piece of legislation is implementing the Prime Minister's request for wage controls. It is interesting also, I think, to remember that this is the first provincial government that has rushed to implement the wage controls called for by the Prime Minister.

As I did yesterday, I want to repeat that when the members opposite, on the government benches, talk about "he" in referring to public-sector employees they are ignoring the reality, which is that 51.1 percent of the B.C. government employees are women, that 80 percent of the hospital employees are women, that 84.7 percent of the Health Sciences Association employees are women and that 95.5 percent of the registered nurses of British Columbia are women. When we talk about this piece of legislation we are primarily speaking about the wage controls that are going to be applied against women who work in the public sector.

I just want to very quickly reiterate, starting with the B.C. government employees. There are something in the neighbourhood of 45,000 B.C. government employees. Of this number, as I said before, 51.1 percent are women and of that number 70 percent make less than $1,500 per month. They are concentrated in the ghettos of office assistant 1 and office assistant 2. It is interesting that when you look at those two areas you find that there are 5,631 women and only 380 men who work as either office assistant 1 or office assistant 2, so we are certainly talking about a female ghetto when we talk about office assistant 1 and office assistant 2. What we find is that the average income, really, of this particular group of employees is something in the neighbourhood of $1,386 a month. That is before the deduction for income tax and other deductions. These wages are so low — I am referring to the average wage — that most of these women would be better off if they did not work at all and, in fact, were in receipt of income assistance. Let me document this for you.

A women with two dependants who is receiving the average wage of $1,386 a month has a take-home pay of $825 after her deductions, A similar person — a single-parent mother with two dependants — in receipt of income assistance gets $770 a month. She is allowed to earn an additional $100 a month for a total of $870. In other words, if this woman with two dependants who is employed by this government as an office assistant 1 were not working but were at home and in receipt of income assistance, she would end up with $45 a month more than she is earning as an office assistant 1 employed by this government.

I want to remind you again that this government is the largest employer of women in this province and, we've got to add, also the largest exploiter of the work of women in this province. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), when she introduced her increases in the income assistance program on April 19, said that the GAIN program was to provide an income that would enable people to meet their basic living costs. Surely the government can do no less for its employees. But at present the government is doing just such a thing. We find that there are clerical workers working for the Ministry of Human Resources who are taking home a smaller pay than some of the recipients being served by those clerical workers. We also find that in most instances those clerical workers are eligible for — and have to apply for — a day-care subsidy in order that they can go out to work.

These are the people who under Bill 28 are going to have their wages restrained. These are the people who this Minister of Finance — through this piece of legislation — has decided cannot have an increase of more than 10 percent in their incomes. I think we have to keep that in mind when we debate this piece of legislation.

The reality of the situation is that over the last five years the purchasing power of both men and women in the public sector has been eroded considerably. We find, for example, that whereas in Vancouver the cost-of-living index has jumped by something in the neighbourhood of 52.3 percent in the last five years, employees of this government have had their wages increased by something like 33.5 percent. I hope the Minister of Finance is taking this into account, because it means that the purchasing power of the workers in the public sector over the last five years has fallen behind by something like 25.8 percent.

That is the reality of the situation. This is the group of people at whom this piece of legislation is directly aimed. They're being told that their wages have to be restrained, that

[ Page 7397 ]

they have to tighten their belts, that they have to accept a smaller increase in their incomes because of the fiscal policies of this government.

I realize that there are negotiations proceeding, and one would not like to tamper, interfere or even make suggestions about those negotiations. But I am interested by the fact that the trade unions involved recognize that the exploitation of the female workers is something that must be righted. When they go to the bargaining table and try to negotiate for the nearly 6,000 women workers concentrated in these particular job ghettos, what they're asking for is a catch-up clause. They're asking for the restraint to be waived and not to be taken into account. They even suggest that to bring the wages of the very lowest workers — and again, I want to remind you of the figure: 70 percent of the women who work for the provincial government — in line with that of the lowest paid men would cost something like 2.7 percent of the existing payroll. The figure that the trade union has come up with is something like $1,430,000.

I don't know whether or not that is permissible once this piece of legislation is implemented. Maybe when the Minister of Finance is closing debate on this piece of legislation he will be able to tell us that.

The reality again, Mr. Speaker, is that most of the females who work for the provincial government are concentrated in what is known as component 12. There are 10, 232 women in that component, and just over 2,000 men. That's the administrative component, where all the clerical workers are. The salary discrepancy there is that the females earn an average of $1,309 per month or $15,707 per year as opposed to the average for males of $1,758 per month and $21,095 per year. Surely that gap has to be closed. Surely that discrepancy has to be eliminated. If it's not possible for that to happen under this piece of legislation, then this piece of legislation should not have the support of the government members. It certainly does not have the support of the opposition members. That is why, Mr. Speaker, again I bring to your attention that I am opposed to this legislation.

I want to repeat the kinds of salaries that people who are office assistant 1 and office assistant 2 start with: $1,099 a month or $275 a week, which after their deductions leaves them with something like $825 a month if they have dependants. It is just not possible to meet one's basic needs on that kind of income. The health unit aides make $1,216 a month, and when you subtract their income tax and other deductions, they have a take-home pay of just over $900. The starting salary for data-processing operators is $1,267 a month, and after deductions they have something in the order of $900 a month. These are the kinds of salaries that are going to be restrained by this piece of legislation.

The government members often say that we should compare private-sector wages with public-sector wages, because they believe the public-sector wage should never be larger than the private-sector wage. They certainly have succeeded in ensuring that this is the case. A government clerk-steno earns something like $9.55 an hour on average, as compared with, for example, a clerk-steno working for Brinco, who makes something in the neighbourhood of $13.89 an hour. There isn't any fear at all that the public sector is ever going to catch up to, or surpass, the private sector. A clerk-typist working for the provincial government earns an average of $9.10 per hour, as compared to the same person working for Cominco, who would be earning something in the neighbourhood of $10.32 per hour.

I cannot believe that the Minister of Finance was aware of these figures when he introduced this piece of legislation calling on these very low-paid, underpaid, overworked workers to show restraint in terms of their negotiations. I believe the blame has to be laid squarely with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who is supposed to be responsible for the well-being of people in the public service. He has not served them well; he has not done his job; he has not fought on their behalf with Treasury Board or with the Minister of Finance, and he should be relieved of that position immediately. He should be taken away from that responsibility, because he is not serving the Public Service Commission well. If you ask any woman who works for the provincial government what she thinks about the efforts of the Provincial Secretary on her behalf, she will assure you that she would like to see that Provincial Secretary removed. She would like to see him resign his responsibility for the Public Service Commission, because if he had done his job it would not have been possible for the Minister of Finance to introduce this piece of legislation.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was reported in a newspaper article on February 25 of this year as saying: "B.C. government employees should be grateful that they have jobs. They are extremely fortunate to be employed in government and to have the security of employment and to be getting any pay increase at all." That's the comment made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I don't believe that minister could have known and understood that the people of whom he spoke would in fact be better off if they were not working and were at home in receipt of income assistance. It's because people would rather work than receive welfare, it's because people would rather support themselves than be dependent on this government, that makes it possible for this government to continue to exploit the women who work on its behalf.

To introduce legislation saying that the lowest-paid workers in the province, these employees of the provincial government, should restrain their wage negotiations in terms of increase is hypocritical, to say the least, when one takes into account that the call for restraint is coming from a government that consistently over spends its own budget. The Premier, for example, last year overspent his own budget by $150,000. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, who insisted that these underpaid, overworked female employees should be grateful that they have a take-home pay of something in the neighbourhood of $800 a month, overspent his own budget on such frills as could be avoided to the tune of $368,308.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Name them.

MS. BROWN: I'm talking about the money spent on your office furniture, on advertising, travel and all those other things. And I'm not including the lunches, the wines, or the other expenses which we have not yet found out about.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: The hypocrisy of someone who can overspend to the tune of $368,000, and then say to people who are making something in the neighbourhood of $275 a week that they should restrain themselves is really beyond compare.

[ Page 7398 ]

As I said yesterday, the people who work for non-profit organizations and societies who depend on government funding are in an even worse situation.

I want to touch very briefly on the auxiliaries. Roughly a quarter of the total public service membership is classified as auxiliary employees. This means that they do not have the job security, benefits or protection that other union members have, yet the Minister of Municipal Affairs talks about the security of working for the government. For example, the number of auxiliaries employed by the government dropped 1,000 in one month: in January 1982 it was something in the neighbourhood of 10,200; by February it had dropped to 9,200.

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

MS. BROWN: Seventy minutes already?

MR. SPEAKER: Your time has expired.

Interjection.

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

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

MR. BRUMMET: I'd just like to take my place in this debate in support of the Compensation Stabilization Act, because I believe it is necessary in these times. We were talking about restricting increases. Despite the continued efforts of the opposition to talk about cutting back wages, the intent is not to cut back wages but simply to limit the amount of increase. If we do not do that, if we do not limit these increases which involve government spending and therefore taxpayers' money, then surely even the opposition can see that we are going to have to cut back the number of jobs. When there is only so much revenue available, people either show a little less personal greed in order to keep the economy going and their fellow workers working....

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

MR. BRUMMET: Anyone in these times who wants a 30 percent increase has to be considered greedy, to the extent that they are more interested in personal gain than in their fellow workers working. That is why I maintain it is personal greed.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does the money go?

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

MR. BRUMMET: When there is a limited supply of money available, it can either go to some fortunate people, who get great increases, or they can limit their increases and it can be spread around to benefit more people. I'm sorry that some of the members of the opposition object, but I am in favour of more people gaining a little less than some people gaining a little more.

In this restraint program we're talking about controlling the increases of those people who are dependent on the taxpayer. There has been criticism that we have selected one group in society in order to restrain their increases. It has been said over and over again that the other groups in society are facing very real restraint. In the private sector restraint is very evident, and many people are hurting. When the money runs out in the private sector, they can shut down. In the public sector that is not possible.

We talk about restricting free collective bargaining. I would presume that free collective bargaining involves all of the factors that apply. Those factors are: availability of money, availability of markets for the products produced by workers, and the opportunity to shut down the operation if you can't afford to run it. That is not true in government or in the various related governments. We cannot shut down essential services in this province, Therefore all the factors of free collective bargaining do not work in the public sector. There have to be some other restraints. Legislation is not needed for the private sector. When a company can no longer afford to operate, they cannot go back and just collect money from somewhere, as government can — and remember that that collection is from the taxpayers. They have to shut down their operations if they can't afford to operate. In government we can simply go to the taxpayers and collect more. I feel that this restraint program is a wise move. It's a courageous move. I feel that it has public support, because that public is the taxpayers.

From the speeches made by the opposition, one would think that the government is supposed to serve the public servants in this province. I maintain that the government is to serve the public of this province. I think that is a major responsibility — not serve the public servants, but serve the public, and I maintain that there is a difference. I find it somewhat strange that we've heard the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the opposition saying that this is something that most of the public resents. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, they say that we are doing this strictly for political gain. I don't know how you put those two together and make any sense out of them. If, in fact, we are doing this strictly for political gain, then surely we should be doing it to please most of the public, not to antagonize them, as they suggest. So I think the argument they make that we're doing this strictly for political gain contradicts their argument that the people of this province are against it.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was quite vociferous on the point that this is for political gain, and let me quote one of his statements. I did a little research in Hansard for October 7, 1975, at which time he made this statement — this was at the time of the NDP's Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, ordering free enterprise workers back to work, as I understand:

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

It gets more interesting.

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

[ Page 7399 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Who said that?

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

I will not stand up in this Legislature performing my responsibility based on what the public wants us to do. We have to provide leadership and I don't believe we should be responsive, because quite often the public is wrong.

I find that in rather strange contrast to what that member said here yesterday — that the public is against us. I maintain that he still has the same philosophy — that the public is in favour of restraint in government spending. But he has to be against it because he doesn't believe the public knows what they're talking about. He is supporting a particular group and is locked into supporting that particular group.

Here is another interesting quote. This is from his speech yesterday when he was talking about restraint. Inadvertently, on occasion, this member actually comes out with what his real philosophy is. We hear some fine speeches from him, but once in a while, in a careless remark, he shows us what his philosophy really is. He said: "I'm not one who stands up here very often and protects the rights of employers, because I think they have far too many rights in our society now."

It's rather interesting that there's a member who is talking about job creation. It's my understanding that jobs depend upon employers. That member would like more jobs, but he feels that employers should have no rights. I just can't see the consistency there. If people are working for themselves, that may be one form of job and they are not dependent upon employers. But when they are dependent upon employers, he feels that employers have far too many rights. I would suggest that the employers of this province have shown great responsibility. Many of them are losing money. Many of them are hurting pretty badly, and they are making every effort to keep their employees on the job as much as possible. I think we should recognize their contribution.

One of the interesting things that we've heard again this afternoon, and one that we certainly heard from the Leader of the Opposition is that this restraint program somehow or other...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) may wish to have their conversation outside.

MR. BRUMMET: ...allies us with the federal Liberals and that we are acting on their behalf in trying to put in these restraints. In the first place, how he makes that connection I don't know. It is this government that has made a point of saying that we should keep our spending within our means. Certainly that example has not been set by the federal government, and we're paying the price for that. You can look at all sorts of newspaper articles: 500 jobs devoted to debt at the federal level; about six months of every year people are now working for the government with direct and indirect taxes. What we gather from this opposition is that they would have that increased. There are examples in this world, Mr. Speaker, of people getting more from government, but they pay an increasing amount of what they earn to that government in order to get that.

The opposition seem to feel that you can keep government spending. In all of the talk on the budget and these various bills, including this one, we've come to the realization that they're definitely against restraint in government spending, because all of their comments are: "You should spend more here; you should spend more there."

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

MR. BRUMMET: Well, when they were in power, Mr. Speaker, they certainly carried out their philosophy. They started with a big bag full of money and ended up with a big debt in just a few years. Imagine if they had kept that up. From what we hear from them now it would be even worse.

We have been told by this opposition that we are doing this to somehow or other favour our friends, and yet.... I hate to use the word "payoffs" but certainly they make promises and give false illusions. By implication they suggest that if the public sector will vote for them, they will give them everything they ask for. If only they vote for a NDP government in this province, those people who depend on the taxpayers can get anything they ask for, because it's only fair.

The member who just spoke mentioned low wages. No one is in favour of low wages, and no one would argue with that. What this compensation act allows is an increase of a reasonable amount, and I think that is far better than allowing an increase of a larger amount to some so that other people are out of work. How do you pay for increases in government spending, which includes payment to the public sector? There are only one or two ways: you can wipe out jobs, and of course that is very difficult to do because the public needs to be served; or you can take more from the taxpayers. So we create the false illusion that the people of this province would be better off if we only paid more to the public-sector employees. I maintain that is a false illusion, Mr. Speaker.

Times have changed. Many of the workers in the workforce realize that we are in difficult economic times and they are willing to forgo some personal increases in order to keep their fellow workers working. But the union leaders have not realized that yet, and the NDP is still so closely allied with the union leaders that they keep promising them: "Stay with us and we will get it for you." Where are they going to get it, Mr. Speaker? They can't possibly get it, because at the same time as they're saying that, they are speaking against the northeast coal project. They are saying that because we are spending some of that money now, which could be going to the people.... They're correct. We could take that $300 million and give it to the people now at the price of cancelling the jobs that that $300 million creates, at the price of cancelling the development of our resources and at the price of cancelling the revenue that's been put in by private industry. For that $300 million that the government is putting in, private industry is adding almost a billion dollars to the pot in order to provide more jobs. It would also be at the price of future revenue that's going to be generated.

Suppose we listened to the NDP and took this $300 million and distributed it among the people. What would happen next year without the jobs that those projects generate? Where would the revenue come from for the next $300 million? At the same time as we do the best to help those who are really in need, we have to keep generating job-producing projects that will create revenue for the province.

It's easy enough to say that we could take that $300 million and maybe create more jobs with it this year. I don't argue with that. You can take $300 million and you can make

[ Page 7400 ]

work projects for all kinds of jobs this year. But where do you get the money for the make-work projects next year? We have to put some of our money into some very real industries that will stimulate, maintain and diversify our economy in the future.

It must be a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition will all of a sudden put us into alliance with the Liberals in Ottawa. I wonder if that coincidence might be simply that the Alsands project has been cancelled, and the Alaska pipeline has been postponed, if not cancelled. Do you know what caused those? The national energy program caused those. The Leader of the Opposition is now trying to shift our attention, because when the national energy program came in he went to the B.C. Federation of Labour convention and said it was a terrific program and the only thing wrong with it was that it didn't go far enough, fast enough. He said that if he had any influence he would make it happen that much faster and it would go further.

Now the national energy program has, by common consensus across this country, in effect destroyed those projects, destroyed much of the revenue for this province and destroyed the oil and gas industry across this country. That was the national energy program that he supported. Now, I guess because of these recent announcements, the last thing he wants is for anyone to make the connection that it was his support of that Liberal government in Ottawa that was creating that national energy program or that it was any of his doing. So now he's trying to switch the blame to us. He does provide great entertainment.

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

MR. BRUMMET: He has his feet firmly planted in the clouds. He gives us great entertainment, ignores the economic position, simply plays politics and gives us very little substance. We are supposed to miss some of these points — that he was in favour of the national energy program that has done so much harm because he transfers our attention to some other issue. The Leader of the Opposition clearly made the point that the solution to our problems was increased government expenditure. That's the answer to the problem. He very rarely talks about where that money is going to come from. Oh, he says it will come back from those people who are working — and some of it will — but it's something like perpetual motion: you've got to put more energy into a machine than you get back out. It would be nice if we could invent perpetual motion, but we haven't reached that point yet.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We're accused of having a balanced budget as our objective. Balancing the budget is not the specific objective; it is the means by which we accomplish good management of the taxpayers' money in this province. It is the means by which we keep ourselves from going into that big black hole. That has happened in other provinces in this country. Try and get back out of that, because you always have to continue the programs and you always have to pay far more to pay off those debts. So they do not deal with the availability of funds; they simply deal with how money could be spent. There's no question that if you spend enough money, you can help a lot of people. You can help a lot more people by spending than you can by taking away from them. But there is a connection: the more we spend, the more we have to take from them. So we have to encourage those industries.

Mind you, I suppose they had a fantastic restraint program when they were in office. They used this philosophy of spending and their restraint program was that they ran out of money. When you can no longer sign the cheques, there's quite a restraint program. It came to be in a very short time. When you can't pay the bills, you have restraint. It works every time. For all they say now, when those policies were reversed in 1976 this province prospered. Those same policies are now being espoused in this act. It is this government's policy: if we use our heads and continue to develop our resources, while at the same time not overexpending in our operating expenses, we will return to prosperity. It has happened before and it will happen again.

Mr. Speaker, there's much more a person could say about this program, but it gets repetitive, I would imagine, with speech after speech. They say that this restraint is bad, and we say that restraining increases is a good thing. I think the people of this province will support the restraint on increases. Many of the cuts that are being made in this province that are hurting people are not necessary; they are necessary if we always assume that huge wage increases must take priority over everything else in budgeting. I think the people of this province are ready to say: "We do not insist on wage increases,  even though it hurts us personally and even though we like large increases." Large wage increases are not the way to go. If you hold down those wage increases, we can continue with many of the programs in this province. We've even been criticized for spending what money we put in reserve during good times. Imagine that. "Don't spend the money you put in reserve in good times. Sock it to the taxpayers instead." Yet this Finance minister and this government have said that we're looking to good times in the future, so we will spend those reserves in order to help the people now. If all of our organizations in this society took that attitude, Mr. Speaker, there would be very few people hurting in this province and we would be on the road to prosperity a lot faster. We have to share our problems as well as share our prosperity. If we're not prepared to do that, then we are certainly going to go on the road to ruin.

As the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said yesterday: "What we've heard is negativism, defeatism and procrastination from the opposition." We have to go on with the building program and the resource development in this province. At the same time, we have to take some steps to ensure that government does not take more money than the public can afford to give. I think this compensation act says: "Let's restrain increases." It does not say "cutbacks."

MR. LAUK: You know, I've always appreciated the speeches given by the hon. member for North Peace River. I do believe, though — and I say this with as much respect as is due under the circumstances — that the hon. member's fuzzy economics are clouding his view of this bill. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for North Peace River really believes that the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this province are sincere in drafting and presenting this bill to the Legislature. I really believe the hon. member for North Peace River believes that.

The bill is a cynical, political move. It's not designed to restrain. It's not designed as any kind of fair stabilization program. It's not designed to last any length of time. It is designed as a crass, cynical, political move.

[ Page 7401 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'll deal with some of the remarks of the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) first, before providing my view of this bill. He suggested that there was deficit financing under the NDP. This is the kind of mythology that's been pressed on, largely led through the current Minister of Finance's public representations that were not true.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Order!

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

MR. LAUK: No, Mr. Speaker, and the course of action in the House is that if an hon. member is in any way offended under the rules, he will rise and say so. A little shout of "order" does not bring the Speaker's attention to the matter.

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

MR. LAUK: The Chair intervenes only when there is an imputation directly given through an unparliamentary expression. The Chair does not intervene simply by having the minister saying "order." He must rise in his place and take the point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair intervenes when the Chair feels it is necessary to intervene. The hon. member continues on Bill 28. The points are well taken. Please continue.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for North Peace River is trying to extend the mythology of NDP deficit spending. This year all the special perpetual funds and special funds created by two administrations — the previous Social Credit and the NDP administration — were raided by the Ministry of Finance. Didn't you hear about that, through the Speaker, to the member for North Peace River? You call it a balanced budget.

Where has the hon. member been for the last two months during this debate? Wasn't the hon. member listening? Where are the special funds? Where is the First Citizens' Fund, helping native Indians around the province? Where are the funds that have been created by successive administrations in this province for specific purposes to help British Columbia citizens, which administrations, including this one, swore they would leave untouched? Do you call that deficit financing? Nothing like that happened during the NDP administration.

MR. BRUMMET: Nothing very much happened.

MR. LAUK: Oh, very cute.

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

MR. LAUK: Special funds at the end of the NDP administration were intact. Surpluses were intact. The operating budget was intact. You've seen the kind of debate, Mr. Speaker, that is inflammatory in this House. It's based on mythology and false information. It gives the wrong impression. They continue to say so. I don't care what they do out on the hustings. I can battle them from constituency to constituency if they want, but in this chamber truth is the hallmark of debate. That's good advice.

We saw, earlier this afternoon, the hon. Premier introduce the champions of "Reach for the Top." I think the hon. member for North Peace River has given us an example of "reach for the bottom" in the kind of debate he's presented in this bill today.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: "Fuzzy economics," indeed, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member suggests that you can't take money from the public and give it back to the public — that it's not creating cutbacks, it's restraining increases, and so on. Where was he last spring when the NDP moved several motions to reduce the Social Credit budgets for advertising, furniture and travel on the part of the ministers? Eighty-two million dollars. He wants to hold back people who can hardly pay their rent, buy their food and support their families, but will he stand in his place with courage and vote against that government voting for the motions to cut back their own personal profligate travel and advertising budgets? Do we need advertising? Have you seen the advertising that goes out? I've got an example of the first piece of what I call "Bill Bennett Social Credit advertising." I'm using that because of the expression used — not to be disrespectful. Do you remember that in 1975? Do you remember when he was Leader of the Opposition, and went up and down this province asking for a mandate, and he got it? He called it: "Let's get it straight." Do you remember that pamphlet?

Yesterday the hon. minister of french wine — Consumer and Corporate Affairs — answered in question period that it is now the policy of the government to abolish rent control. That is the first time it has been said in this Legislature.

"Let's get it straight: (1) rent control will not be repealed; (2) Social Credit will protect and improve the Mincome Plan;" — they eliminated the Mincome plan — " (3) Social Credit will protect the jobs of workers in Crown corporations; (4) Pharmacare is here to stay; (5) Social Credit will preserve farmland." We didn't know they were going to preserve farmland for their friends; nevertheless that was their fifth promise. It said: "Do not be conned, frightened, intimidated by NDP scare tactics." Do you remember all of that, Mr. Speaker? I remember that. He says, and this is Bill Bennett speaking: "Our party began as a real party of the people." Well, he's right, it began as a real party of the people, but it soon left that stage. "Not of any special- interest group," he said. On the second page of that pamphlet there's a smiling picture of a much younger person than he is today.

Here are some of the things he promised. Where have they gone to? "Housing for all citizens encouraged by grants and tax incentives through the private sector. The Alberta system of community-care homes for senior citizens." Have you seen any? "Mincome will be improved by directly linking benefits to increases in the cost-of-living index." Remember that promise? What happened to that one? Never done. "Provincial income taxes will be held at the line." Here's a good one, Mr. Speaker. This will amuse you. "The trend toward centralization of education will be reversed and local school boards will be granted greater autonomy over education and individual teachers greater freedom and security to create a positive learning atmosphere in the class-

[ Page 7402 ]

room." Remember that? There's the former principal of a high school. He supports this party. That's probably why he joined. He saw that and he said: "Hey, that sounds great." Here's another one that'll cause a chuckle or two. "Freedom of choice will be given to the people of B.C. In purchasing their auto insurance." Remember that? Here's the one that's relevant to the stabilization act before us. "Management of natural resources will emphasize performance by industry in terms of environmental protection...and the Social Credit Party is committed to fair wages for workers." That's what he said.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) has given me a lot of springboards in my speech, but he suggested through his fuzzy and woolly headed economics that if you take money from the public and give it back.... We're not cutting back wages for civil servants; what we're doing is restraining the increases. It's the same theory.

Then he says the NDP is opposed to restraint. Well, nobody on earth is opposed to restraint as long as it doesn't have anything to do with them. You know what I mean, Mr. Speaker? I'm for disarmament, nuclear disarmament. I was in the march with 40,000 people. Maybe the hon. member was there. But when you mention disarmament, does that mean we pass a law disarming ourselves? Does that mean we must pass a law disarming one group of people and nobody else? Sure, we're for disarmament, but what does it mean in practical terms? It means we have to sit down and work out a fair, careful and responsible plan to disarm. That's what we must do, because I assume we're all in favour of disarmament. We're all in favour of restraint, but do we pass a law singling out one group of civil servants in the whole of the economic sector and say we're going to limit them? Is that fair? Is that the kind of law that the hon. member for North Peace River wishes to propose and support? I think not. Where was the hon. member in 1979? The NDP said: "Mind your Ps and Qs, because in the 1980s there's going to be a terrible recession. It's going to be a dangerous recession and you've got to be very careful with the province's finances and the province's economic planning because in the eighties we're going to be in a downturn." Where was the hon. member for North Peace River then, Mr. Speaker?

Even up to last year, the Premier of this province took that speech that I gave in 1979 and he laughed. He said: "The little fellow from Vancouver Centre doesn't know what he's talking about. The NDP doesn't know what they're talking about. We're the ones that know economics. We're the financial wizards." Now they're on the edge of the abyss. They haven't planned for it. They're caught short. They're without money, they're without programs, they're without ideas.

So what do they do? They hit the people who have made less during the inflationary period than any other sector in the province. Civil servants have had an 8 percent-a-year increase. On average, that's 3 or 4 percent behind inflation every year. Now they're going to hit them. Everybody else has been making 17 and 18 and 20 percent. Now he's going to hit the little civil servant. What about the increases of the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) ? He accepted 20 and 30 percent increases every year since he was elected. Has he rushed to Treasury Board and given it back, saying that it's not fair? He's keeping his, but he's going to hit the civil servants; and he's calling that fair. He says that's going to take us out of the depression. Fuzzy-headed economics!

I'd be a little bit more impressed if the hon. member could tell me why his government ignored the NDP warning that the recession was around the corner. Why didn't they plan? Why didn't the former broadcaster, the Minister of Finance, find someone intelligent enough to tell him that there may have been some truth in what we were saying? Instead, he was locked in his office counting paper clips and frothing at the mouth at ICBC and the NDP programs. He should have been looking forward to the time which we charged would occur and planned for it. Did he do it? No. In his ineptitude and bankruptcy, as far as ideas are concerned, he brings in this shabby, sneaky, backstabbing little piece of legislation. It is unfair, it is cruel, it is mean, it is arrogant. If you are going to have restraint, have restraint for everybody. That's the democratic system, not this elitist view that we've got so many slaves on the public purse and they're going to toe the line.

Where was the Minister of Finance, where were all the hon. members of the government side, when the opposition voted motion after motion, totalling $82 million in cutbacks last year? They were not essential areas that we asked to be cut back. They were travel for the ministers, advertising for the ministers, office furniture. Why didn't they accept our motions to cut back? We didn't ask that the whole budget be cut out; we just moved that they cut back what they were asking for to the previous year's level — that's all. Did they go for that? It would have totalled $82 million. That's probably much more than they're going to save by this so-called stabilization act.

This year the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) has asked for $80,000 in his personal travel budget. All over the province he's being called Vasco da Gama Smith. An Education minister that needs $80,000 for travel? Is that restraint? We've had a show of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs' (Hon. Mr. Hyndman's) expenditures for 1981. Have you seen those bills? They add up. You multiply that minister by — how many ministers are there? — 19. That's pretty high living, Mr. Speaker. Yet with a straight face they come into this House and say that the NDP is against restraint. What we're against, Mr. Speaker, is hypocrisy. What we're against is selfishness, and being unfair and unjust to one group as opposed to another.

The BCGEU and the civil servants have been left, I think, about 16 to 18 percent behind, if you take inflation into consideration. While almost everybody else in the organized working area were getting 15 and 20 per cent increases because of inflation, the civil servants got 8 percent. They're the ones we're hitting. Does that seem fair? What did the government give doctors? What did the government cave in and give other people? When it comes to the civil service — ordinary people; people whom they don't like to look at too often; ordinary people who can't raise enough money for rent and food and to send their kids to school, to keep their families....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. minister of lands and whatever says that I'm a fat-cat lawyer. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, here is the hon. minister who is supporting this bill that is unfair.... He comes from the working class. He hasn't seen a working person for some time now. He's the ex-Minister of Labour. I wonder if he thinks this bill is fair. I don't think so.

[ Page 7403 ]

What has the government done about the economy that we're faced with such so-called restraint legislation? Do you know what they have done since 1976? They ignored our warnings; that was bad enough. But they also shut down any possibility of a steel mill — perhaps in your constituency, Mr. Speaker. They shut down Railwest. Now we need it to build cars for the ALRT, but they shut it down; they said it was uneconomic. They shut down the NDP's proposal for an oil refinery, a copper smelter and many other projects. And do you know what? They stand up and say it's uneconomic. When the NDP get up and say, "We are spending a billion dollars of public money to subsidize coal to Japan and here are the figures," they say: "Well, you're negative." They shut down the steel mill, Railwest factory, oil refinery and copper smelter, and subsidize coal sales — raw coal right out of the land — creating not one permanent job for a British Columbian, not one permanent job for a person born and raised in this province. That money is just flowing over to Tokyo, and they're laughing at us every day. We raise that with the government, and the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) says we're being negative.

This government has nothing but policies of greed and despair. On the one hand the hon. member for North Peace River and the treasury benches argue in the debate in this bill — if we hear from some of them I'm sure they will — that we've got to restrain, we've got to work together, we've got to cooperate. Is that working together and cooperating — the personal profligacy of the treasury benches, of cabinet ministers at public expense? The unfairness in the application of this formula of restraint only to the public sector, which has been held back for three years? And the government getting off the hook that has destroyed our economy by shutting down major programs and then going into a ballocks of a program up in the northeast?

AN HON. MEMBER: Which you announced.

MR. LAUK: I announced something that would be a benefit to the province of British Columbia, not a sellout to the Japanese steel mills, Mr. Speaker.

It's the policies of greed and despair that mark this government. I say greed, because this government has placed greed on a pedestal since they came to office. They've allowed greed to flourish in this province. They're not upset with the greed of major corporations or banks or financial institutions; they're not upset with the people who are robbing money from ordinary working people in this province — the people who can't make mortgage payments. What upsets them is when the ordinary people want to get ahead just a little bit; then they get slapped down. Then the member for North Peace River has the nerve to call those public servants greedy. You heard him: right in this House he said they're greedy. What about the greed of someone who would spend $500 on one supper? What about the greed of someone who tries to pick out of the public purse a trip down to Arizona? What about the greed of the financial institutions and the banks that are charging 20 percent and 22 percent on mortgages? Does that upset the government? Oh, no, that's free enterprise; that's this great big casino in the sky that we all support.

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy that surrounds the debate on this bill on the government side has reached an all-time low, and that's why I say it was fitting today that we introduced "Reach for the Top" champions, because they can look down on this side and see the champions of "Reach for the Bottom." The government was warned and took no action, and now with the devastated economy and with bankruptcy in ideas they run for cover.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Peace River touched upon all important points, and I'm glad he did, because it reminds me of the points I wanted to raise in my speech. He has denied that there was any complicity between the Social Credit government and Pierre Trudeau. Now look at the evidence; look at it logically and factually. The Premier left this province in February....

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

But look at the facts. In February the Premier goes to the federal-provincial conference. You'll remember, as I do and the press certainly does, that the Premier was very saddened. The Minister of Finance joined him, as I recall. Neither was in what I would call a good mood. Actually, no British Columbian was. Perhaps not even any Canadians were. Times are not good now, but they weren't good then. So I was rather puzzled when the Premier came back in a rather happy mood. I'll tell you what happened there: Trudeau had a private meeting with the Premier and suggested the restraint program.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He says it's imagination. The night he met with Trudeau, Trudeau suggested the restraint program to the Premier of this province, and the Premier was so impressed that Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the architect of disaster, was talking to him that he agreed to institute his restraint program. No other Premier in the country did; every other Premier said: "No. You've created a disaster. Don't ask us to take it out on our civil servants." But the Premier of B.C. was only too willing to run back and do it and stab his own civil servants in the back.

Mr. Speaker, in Charlottetown last week the Prime Minister of this country confirmed the allegations made by the leader of this opposition. In Charlottetown he said, when he called upon the public for support that escaped him at the federal-provincial economic conference in February: "British Columbia is the only province to have imposed wage restrictions on its public servants in the wake of the February meeting."

MR. MACDONALD: In the wake.

MR. LAUK: In the wake, indeed, Mr. Speaker. And here we have the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who's now way out of his seat — out of seat, out of mind — who has denied that there's complicity between the architect of disaster, the black prince from Ottawa, and the Premier of the province of British Columbia. There's proof positive. You see, Mr. Speaker, when you're in bed with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, he talks. Mr. Speaker, Pierre Elliott Trudeau has blown the whistle. He's explained that there was complicity between Premier Bennett and the federal government.

Interjections.

[ Page 7404 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) and all other members who are interrupting to come to order.

MR. LAUK: I can understand why they're upset, Mr. Speaker. The people of British Columbia know full well that Trudeau has been the architect of the economic disaster in this country, and they themselves know how upset they are to learn of the complicity between the Prime Minister of Canada and their own Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who put them back in?

MR. RITCHIE: The NDP.

MR. LAUK: Listen to them chirp now, Mr. Speaker. "Who put them back in?" "The NDP." I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the NDP would never dream of entering into this kind of disgraceful conspiracy to stab the civil servants of the province of British Columbia in the back. And he's playing the willing duke. Trudeau says he wants to freeze salaries of civil servants making more than 50 grand a year, and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: And he mocked the other Premiers.

MR. LAUK: And he mocked the other Premiers for their response in February. Trudeau said: "It seemed like a simple enough idea to me." But do you know the results? "You do what you want, but we'll do what we want." "You do it," said the federal government, "and bring down the inflation rate." And Premier Bennett was the only one that complied.

MR. MACDONALD: They call that leadership.

MR. LAUK: That's right, Mr. Speaker.

The other point that should be made is this: my friend the member for North Peace River is saying that we're anti-employer, but we're not anti-employer. The Employers Council is controlled by large employers, and ordinary employers — I'm one; I'm an ordinary employer.... There are lots of small businessmen and entrepreneurs in this province that are small employers, but let's talk about the big employers.

This is a secret memorandum sent out by the Employers' Council of British Columbia, advising how to get through to the Premier's office. It says:

"Sometimes it takes a program to know who the players are in the Premier's office."

This is the report to their members.

"The departure of executive director Audrey Schatz was followed recently by the cabinet order changing Deputy Minister Patrick Kinsella to principal secretary, Norman Spector to deputy minister" and so on.

Are you ready for this?

"This can confuse business since improved communications with industry was part of both Mrs. Schatz's and Mr. Kinsella's job descriptions. In fact, Mr. Kinsella is saying that his role as principal secretary will see him continuing as the number one contact for business with the Premier's office. The new job should even allow him more time and flexibility to deal with contacts in the industry.

"On the other hand, some Victoria insiders think that Dr. Spector's position in the hierarchy makes him an obvious source of help with thorny bureaucratic problems."

And then he goes on to describe some differences.

"This will probably not be the way things work in Victoria. The Premier's deputy is backed by no strong tradition of presiding over the senior bureaucrats. It stands to reason that a political adviser like Mr. Kinsella can be more influential than a civil servant. Politics and policy tend to get blurred at the top. Mr. Kinsella's new advantage comes from his ability to get fully involved with policy while participating in political decisions. Publicly and privately, business is being assured that Mr. Kinsella is still their chief contact." — I wonder why? — "It may take several months of jockeying before we see this confirmed, but for the moment it is the best conclusion.

"For those readers particularly interested in the Premier's inner council, a short Who's Who appears on the next page of this report."

MR. KING: Go on. Let's hear this.

MR. LAUK: This is a private memorandum to all members of the Employers Council.

MR. SPEAKER: If we could return to the bill, it would be most appreciated.

MR. LAUK: They mention later on how this applies to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I'll be tabling this.

"Patrick Kinsella, principal secretary to the Premier, a former organizer with the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario. Mr. Kinsella has found the political climate in B.C. much harsher than he's used to. The change in his title from deputy minister to principal secretary reflects the difficulty of having both a top bureaucrat and an unabashed political operative in the same individual. Despite the change, he still makes the most money, and may be expected to continue to have control over most of the office's operations. Mr. Kinsella will continue to attend cabinet meetings. He is easygoing and affable."

The next is:

"Norman Spector, age 33, deputy minister to the Premier. Dr. Spector is an acceptably abrasive intellectual who has risen meteorically in the B.C. public service. His brains seem to be his strong suit, rather than personality. He's not keen on politics, but thrives on policy, much like his mentor, Intergovernmental Relations Deputy Minister James Matkin. He is apparently an architect of the government's restraint program."

You see how it relates to the bill?

There's a fellow here called Michael Bailey, but I think he's an advance man.

The Employers Council seems to know a great deal about what's going on in the Premier's office. The Employers Council apparently knew about the restraint program before it was going to be announced. This kind of inside information, this familiarity of the Employers Council directly with the Premier's office is, I suggest to you, the reason we have a restraint bill that is so unfair, a restraint bill that deals with

[ Page 7405 ]

wages of one sector of our economy and not wages and prices of the entire sector. Ordinary people do not have the ear of the Premier, but the Employers Council does. They know what's going on. They have even psyched everybody out there. They've got a computer printout, a psycho-printout, on everybody in the Premier's office.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Central Fraser Valley said: "I don't steal documents." I suppose he's suggesting that I might have stolen this document.

MR. RITCHIE: No, I'm not.

MR. LAUK: You wouldn't suggest that? I'm glad, because it comes from your office. It says: "Have a look at this, Gary. For your information. Regards, Billy Ritchie."

MR. SPEAKER: Although levity is always appreciated, perhaps we could get back to the bill.

MR. LAUK: I don't know what he's got against the Premier's office, or why he wants the opposition to have this, Mr. Speaker, but the chairman of the Socred caucus must know what he's doing.

I have brought in this memorandum to demonstrate the access that the Employers Council has to the Premier's office, and how they apparently seemed to know about the restraint program before it was announced; to demonstrate why ordinary people in this province feel they're being ignored by this government and why they feel this government represents only the handful of elite, large employers of this province, not ordinary people. The whole program is set up to stick it to a few little people and make it appear as if it's a restraint program that's going to benefit us all. It's not going to benefit us all; it's going to get the government out of a jackpot that they've created by ignoring advice and by planning for the recession. That's going to be done at the expense of people down at the low end of the totem pole as far as wages are concerned. It is a cynical, negative, sneaky, back-stabbing piece of legislation. It is totally unfair.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I don't blame the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) for saying that my time limit is up. If I were a Socred, I would wish that I would be sitting down right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were.

MR. LAUK: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we measure our members here from the neck up and not from the neck.... Did you get it over there? I'll only have to repeat what I was going to say.

Mr. Speaker, we're opposed to this legislation on the basis that it is unfair. It is dealing with public-sector employees only at the expense of people who have not had a fair increase for three years. It is designed to get the government off the hook for their own ineptitude, their own lack of planning and their own lack of prudence during the last three years since they were solemnly warned by the NDP that the coming recession would take place. They ran out of money.

They've raided the perpetual funds. They're in deficit spending already and they wish to sock it to their own personal slaves, the civil servants. That's why every hon. member should vote against this bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to enter the debate until I had an opportunity to peruse the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition in his summary yesterday.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

While our debate is taking place in this chamber today, an emergency debate is going on in the House of Commons with respect to the state of the economy in Canada. We're in a time of record inflation in our country, with a deep depression in the performance of the private sector. I vividly recall the evening in which the New Democratic Party in Ottawa combined with the Liberals to defeat the then-Conservative government.

MR. LEGGATT: Were you a Liberal then, Pat?

HON. MR. McGEER: No. I wasn't in bed with the Liberals then, but you were.

Mr. Speaker, what was significant about that debate was that the issue defeating the Conservative budget and the Conservative government was a proposed 18-cent-a-gallon increase in gasoline prices. The Liberals complained about inflation and said they would never ever do such a thing as impose an outrageous increase of as much as 18 cents a gallon in gasoline prices,

The Conservative government was defeated and those pious people in opposition — the New Democratic Party and the Liberals — campaigned to the people on a program of restraint in energy prices, this being such an important component of the cost of living in our country.

Since the Liberal government has been elected, gasoline prices have increased in Canada in less than two years by 77 cents a gallon, and there has been no fewer than 15 price increases. What is there about those actions that has relevance to this particular debate? It's merely this: be careful of what pious people say when they're in opposition. Ask yourself: is this piety sincere or hypocritical?

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition telling us about how embarrassed he was to have gone down to pay respect to the Queen and to discover that he was in a hotel suite in Ottawa with carpets up to his ankles, how he tippytoed across, and how terrible it was for a member of this Legislative Assembly to find himself involuntarily in such luxury — as though that Leader of the Opposition, if in office, would never ever do such a thing.

What I found so difficult to reconcile, as I listened to those pious remarks, was that when that Leader of the Opposition was elected Premier of British Columbia his first act was to double his own salary and become the highest-paid politician in Canada. I remember being on the other side of the House when be was Premier of British Columbia and stood up in the House and said: "If we have the money we'll spend it." I say watch the hypocritical members of this House. The problem was that they not only spent all that was coming in, they spent a lot that they didn't have. If I sound less than pleased when I hear the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, it's because I still have scars on my back

[ Page 7406 ]

from trying to clean up the profligacy that they left behind in the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and all the unpaid bills that came streaming in in the first year we were in office, taking a 10 percent wage cut. When I hear the members of that opposition standing up in this House, telling about all the restraints they put into practice, all the cuts they were proposing for this government, I thought only of the doubling of the salaries, of the commitment to spend all the money that came in, and then of the performance of spending hundreds of millions of dollars that didn't come in.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, to this House and to the people of the general public: beware of that opposition, just as the public should have been wary of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party that combined to defeat a government in Canada that was bringing forward a program of restraint in this country. The opposition in the House of Commons of that day lied to the people of Canada. Their performance since has proved it. I say to you that there is everything in the record against the protestations of the New Democratic Party. In the past they did exactly the opposite of what they're saying. If they ever got power in British Columbia, they would again be the first to double their own salaries, as they did before, and make themselves the highest-paid politicians in Canada. They've done it before and they'd do it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: It isn't true.

HON. MR. McGEER: You wouldn't immediately double your salaries like you did before? I only say that the record in British Columbia speaks for itself, not the pious, hypocritical words of those politicians.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much are you getting, Pat?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not as embarrassed by the MLAs' salaries today as I was by the raises given to the MLAs as soon as the New Democratic Party took office in 1972. That was embarrassing. The highest-paid politicians in Canada; and they'd do it again.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. All members will have an opportunity to speak in the debate. At this time the Minister of Science has the floor.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I'm getting long in the tooth, because I've been here many years. I watched them say these things in opposition years ago, I watched them in office doing the opposite of what they said, and I watch them now in opposition again making pious promises. I only think: what would happen if this irresponsible group were ever to have the reins of power in British Columbia once more? Would they do even more damage than they did the last time? Would they be even more extravagant than they were before? It's my conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that they would be, that we would never find under a socialist party in British Columbia a genuine restraint program, something that dispenses fairness in British Columbia at a time of world economic difficulty — because, that's what we face.

Nearly all the public money which is spent whether by the federal government of the United States, the federal government of Canada....

AN HON. MEMBER: Argentina.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting that the member raised the question of Argentina, because I came into this House after having visited that country, warning that to put in the policies the New Democratic Party had been advocating would bring the same economic ruin that has been experienced by the country of Argentina, and that in order to keep civil liberties in that country and somehow....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, go and get Hansard. A tragic country — and I only say that the economic policies are precisely the same. Therefore a country which has no economic out embarks upon military adventurism and creates a tragedy for the world. But the consequence, again, is exactly the policies you have been advocating and that have been put into practice in their country to the dismay of their citizens and now of the world. But the New Democratic Party never listened to what was said. I think you did, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that some of the people in British Columbia did. But they didn't listen to it over there; and if they had, they wouldn't understand, because I don't think the New Democratic Party fully appreciates the folly of the policies they put forward.

Without repeating points made at that time, I would merely say that governments are spending public money mostly on civil servants and quasi civil servants. If you run deficits that amount to enormous proportions of the national wealth and therefore act as a genuine drain on the economy, you do that because you are paying civil servants and quasi civil servants that the private sector cannot afford to sustain. If in attempting to carry that monkey on the public's back governments then go — as our national government has gone — to the lending public and set interest rates of 19 percent, as Canada has done with its government bonds, where does that leave the private sector? That leaves the private sector unable to perform, because fixed assets which don't produce a cash flow are theoretically increasing at the inflation rate, and yet to meet a payroll you've got to have the cash coming in the door. The traditional economic method of reducing inflation is to increase interest rates and therefore bring about deflation. But what is the consequence of that, Mr. Speaker? The consequence is to wreak havoc, to inflict punishment, to cause distress in the private sector.

Who remains sheltered? Those in the public sector are the ones who remain sheltered, because the payroll is met through taxes and government borrowing. You apply the traditional methods of curing inflation and you hit the people who are innocent. You protect the people who, through the cumulative effect of government policy, are the ones creating the problem. When a restraint program is put in place in British Columbia, it's intended to redress that balance. It's intended to take less out of the private sector, which cannot afford to provide it, and to give less to the public sector, because there isn't that much coming from the private sector to support them.

Not all dollars in an economy are equal. There is a hierarchy of dollars. The most valuable are those that lead to future manufacturing; the exploration for mines, gas wells and oil wells; the roads to forest resources; and the research work that leads to inventions. These are the most valuable

[ Page 7407 ]

dollars, because they ultimately lead to manufacturing. Those are the next most valuable dollars, because they employ people, produce goods and provide for exports. They also provide for the service industries to manufacturing. These are the next most important dollars because, again, they provide jobs in the private sector.

The least important dollars in terms of economic leverage are those dollars that come from the public sector, because they don't lead to the production of goods, exports or any of those things that provide for multipliers. Those jobs in the public sector are only used for consumer leverage and nothing more. They're the least important. But the most unfortunate weakness of democracy is that the currency of elections is not dollars but votes. The hierarchy of votes goes in the opposite direction. But if democracy is to survive, and if the free world's economic system is to survive, there must be a rationalization between the value of dollars and the value of votes. There must be a proper balance between the private sector and the public sector. I think you can see that if the most votes go to people who will take the most out of the private sector, they will do the most damage to an economy, and eventually a country will collapse and the horrors of depression will arrive. We're moving in that direction.

Our government may be too small to reverse the current of the world, but at least by this restraint bill we understand the nature of the imbalance and the corrective actions that must be taken not just by us but by the world.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: The groans come from the opposition. I only say: listen to those groans, because it's groans of that kind and philosophy of the kind that has been put forward by the New Democratic Party, whether practised by a socialist government or not, that has led to the economic difficulty that the world is experiencing today.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I will ask the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) to come to order. I will ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) to come to order. Hon. members, at certain times interjections can be tolerated, but when those interjections constantly flow, more so than the speaker, it's difficult to comprehend.

HON. MR. McGEER: "Friedmanism," contemptuously says the socialist, Mr. Speaker. Better Friedmanism than communism. That's the ultimate, because what these people have said.... They don't like that word. I'm not calling them communists. I'm merely saying that communists believe in state ownership of everything; they don't believe in any private enterprise at all.

When I listen to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) talk about "confiscating the private sector" and "demanding that the government owns everything," I don't think of socialism, Mr. Speaker. I certainly don't think of free enterprise. But there are countries that practise government ownership of everything. Like they say in Czechoslovakia: "Everything is ours, but nothing is mine." That's the philosophy that the people across really believe in their hearts. I'm only saying, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If there are further outbreaks during the debate, I will have no alternative but to ask those members to leave this assembly. The Chair has been more than tolerant in putting up with interjections and remarks from the government benches. Every member shall have an opportunity to speak in this chamber without interruption.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the harshest words to the opposition in this House are those that tell the truth. That's the difficulty that we face this afternoon. When it comes time to tell the truth, reflect on the consequences of the policies advocated by the members opposite, as we must recall, the test of those policies and philosophies we had for a brief period in British Columbia, between 1972 and 1975. That was the genuine indication of their intent and their spirit. This is what is causing the difficulty in the debate, because it is hard to face. When the members opposite cry for fair play, ask for more for the public sector, demand — as the member for North Island did — confiscation of the private sector in order to pay for it....

MR. GABELMANN: When?

HON. MR. MCGEER: May I advise that the member for North Island read his speeches. I would similarly advise that the Leader of the Opposition read his speeches.

MR. GABELMANN: Since when is lying....

[The Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Be seated, hon. members. I will ask at this time that the member who made the remark — the member for North Island — withdraw the remark that he made in this House a few moments ago. Does the member so withdraw?

MR. GABELMANN: Which one, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That there was a lie told by the member.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't say that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair can resolve the matter simply. If the member in any way inferred that a member of this House was lying, would he so withdraw that remark?

MR. GABELMANN: I am sorry I used the word "lie." What I meant to say was that everything he said was utterly false.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The remark is withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think that again one has to examine the record — mostly the record of performance but also the record of what was stated in the House. I am quite happy to let Hansard....

[ Page 7408 ]

MR. MACDONALD: You never quoted. You just make up things that people are supposed to have said. You never quote the record.

HON. MR. McGEER: Let me quote the record then. This is from the member for North Island. "If the bill had a provision in it that cut back the excessive wages of the Premier through an income tax mechanism that said all of the money he earns from all of his sources each year beyond a certain level would be taxed at a confiscatory level...." That is the point. We don't believe, as they do, in confiscatory taxation. We don't believe in socialism. We do believe in a fair distribution of the wealth of British Columbia between the public and private sectors. We do say that the private sector must lead the public sector in wages and benefits, because this is where the bread and butter in the province comes from. We cannot have a situation in British Columbia where the public sector, using the taxation power of government, bleeds the private sector to the point where it can no longer support the people of British Columbia and, in effect, collapses. That is what we must avoid and all steps must be taken at the public level to see that the private sector in this province survives.

I only say: beware of the socialist opposition. They do not believe in the private sector. They only believe in more for themselves by doubling their salaries, more for the public sector, less for the private sector and ultimately, if that course of action is pursued, ruination of the wealth we have come to enjoy and will continue to enjoy in British Columbia if people follow the wise policies of this government and pursue, as voters, the wise policies that they followed in defeating the New Democratic Party in 1933, 1937, 1941, 1945, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1969, 1975 and 1979, only missing once — to their eternal regret — in 1972. Never again! That is why I am supporting this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the second member for Vancouver East, I would again caution all members that in this chamber each and every member has a right to speak and a right to be heard. While interjections can be tolerated on occasion, constant interjections that make the address by the member indiscernible are not to be tolerated and will not be tolerated by the Chair. I would ask all members to bear that in mind.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I want to make two points of order. Firstly, everything you said is correct, but the member also had a responsibility not to misrepresent what other members are saying. The second point of order is that nowhere in the minister's speech did he talk about the principle of this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for North Island makes a very good point, and I think if we reflect not only on what has been said this afternoon but even go back as far as to the opening remarks by the opening speaker.... The same parallels could be drawn for the designated speaker for the opposition. The debate has been rather wide-ranging, hon. members, and that wide-ranging debate is attributed to both sides of the House. It is each member's duty to bring himself within the confines of the bill before us.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it's becoming a fun thing to listen to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. There's one characteristic about those speeches: he makes great sweeping statements, but he never quotes figures. He says, for example, that we came in here in 1972 and doubled the salaries. He says that the Premier of British Columbia was the highest-paid politician in Canada. I use his exact words. Here we have a minister of the Crown and someone who comes from the universities to whom a certain amount of exact statement might be reasonably ascribable....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I wouldn't hold him to exactitude, but time after time he keeps dropping these clunkers which are factually untrue.

The Premier of British Columbia at that time was not the highest-paid politician in Canada. If the minister would reflect — and he never reflects before he speaks — he would know that. As for the salaries that were increased at that time at which he expresses pious indignation, he voted for them. He never thinks before he gets up to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is a little embarrassing.

MR. MACDONALD: You voted for them. You didn't speak against them either, Mr. minister. You didn't say a word.

Then he keeps putting words in other people's mouths. I made notes as I was sitting here. He said that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) demanded that the government own everything. Will the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications tell the House when the member for North Island made that statement?. He never said that. He never said that in his life. It's pure fiction.

HON. MR. MCGEER: He said it on May 4, 1982, at 11:38 a.m.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you never get anything right.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Dave Stupich will say you're always right. He thinks you do a good job.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I'm not listening to a $10,000 man. I couldn't believe it could be that much. How could it be that much? I couldn't believe it, you know. My God, the CBC guy got.... A deputy minister only got $150,000. You just got enough to pay your part of your legal costs. Then when we offered you the BCRIC shares, you wouldn't take them because you knew they were worthless. That was for the common people of British Columbia — to have the BCRIC shares in their pockets.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

[ Page 7409 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Can we pull this together now. Let's have orderly debate.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, never mind anything more about the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. He talks about debts and he always goes into these great things, but he never quotes the truth and never quotes the record. That minister is an empty vessel making a lot of noise. The old Liberal.... I was going to tell the Premier before he left....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're too late. You've got to be quick.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, will you tell him that the minister who just spoke didn't defend this Bill 28 at all, because the government ranks are ashamed of it. They know it is discriminatory against certain groups in society. They say it dispenses fairness, yet it picks out only certain groups for punishment, while in this ripoff society everybody else, with their leave and let, is getting away with profits, speculative games, special privileges of all kinds. The minister didn't defend the bill; he barely referred to the bill that is before the House at the present time, a bill that Paul Weiler said would not work. Paul Weiler is a respected name not only in British Columbia but in all of Canada and the United States as well. He said you cannot, through a bill such as Bill 28, control inflation by picking out three or four groups in society and letting the rest of the thing run wild. He said it is not only unfair but that it would not work.

So the Minister of Universities doesn't attempt to defend the bill. And neither do the other speakers; they go through these old clippings files. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Hall) was quite correct. This is what I wanted to tell the Premier before he left the chamber, so one of the other members will tell him what he already knows: this bill was made on Sussex Drive in Ottawa. I want to repeat one part of the press statement from May 4 that was quoted by the member for Vancouver Centre: "British Columbia is the only province to have imposed wage restrictions on its public servants in the wake of the February meeting, arising right out of the Trudeau request."

AN. HON. MEMBER: Made in Sussex Drive.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right, made in Sussex Drive. It's a Trudeau bill that we're debating today, and Trudeau himself has not had the nerve to try to impose this kind of control on the public service of Canada. He's left it to his tame poodle dog running around in the province of British Columbia to pick up the scent and do it here in this province. There are parallels between what is happening in Ottawa and what is happening in the province of British Columbia. You have in Ottawa profligate spending by the ministers of the Crown on not just their salaries, but particularly on their travel allowances, perks, entertainment, public relations and government advertising. Michael Pitfield, Trudeau's close buddy and good friend, buys a new desk and, in what is supposed to be a time of restraint, pays $4,850 for it.

MR. LEA: That would buy a good meal out here.

MR. MACDONALD: Michael Pitfield could give some of the ministers of the Crown in British Columbia a pretty good run for their travel expenses. He's flying first class back and forth every weekend between Ottawa and Boston, where he's part of the university establishment — presumably he has a salary there too. That costs the taxpayers.

But the parallel with what's happening in British Columbia is striking to anyone who thinks about it. Travel expenses of ministers of the Crown are going up 22 percent at a time when they turn to their own civil servants, who have restrained themselves already on a contract for 8, 8 and 8 over three years, and put them under restraint. Where is the restraint on the profligate ways of the government opposite? It's nowhere to be found.

There's another parallel between Ottawa and the province of British Columbia, and that's the old-boy Liberal network. The Liberal party, to its credit, has two wings.

MR. SEGARTY: The left wing and the right wing.

MR. MACDONALD: Of the Liberal party? In a sense, that's right. You have the true Grits, like Gordon Gibson Jr., who, when he ran as leader of the provincial Liberal Party — I am tracing the origins of this bill, Mr. Speaker — was not given any money by the fat cats of the Liberal establishment. Then you have the old die-hard establishment Liberals like Paul Manning, who was appointed to manage B.C. Place by the Social Credit government; like Ron Basford, who didn't help Gordon Gibson in the provincial Liberal Party but who is appointed for northeast coal at $600 a day plus, presumably, his private.... But he doesn't have much of a pension. Did he get a pension from the federal government too? No.

Then you have not only the Trudeau request for this bill and compliance by the Premier of British Columbia; you also have the Liberal network, the old-style establishment die-hard Liberals, represented on the government benches by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, who has just taken his place; by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who is not here; and by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). That is the old establishment Liberal connection. That is where this bill came from: from Sussex Drive, from Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The press points this out. He mocks the other premiers of Canada, saying: "Why didn't you restrain your public servants?" And the other nine premiers of Canada said: "What would be fair about picking out one group? Why pick out just teachers, hospital people and the public service and let the construction trades go their own way, passing it on to the public; let the speculative ripoffs continue; let prices do what they will in an inflationary period; let profits rise and pick out the lower-paid echelons of society for punishment?" The other nine wouldn't do it and Trudeau mocks them, but he doesn't mock Premier William Bennett, the premier of the province of British Columbia, because Premier William Bennett carried out his behest.

We live in a very unfair society, and this kind of legislation, which makes the unfairness more acute, is discriminatory in the real sense of that word. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications said that the least important dollars are those that come from the public sector. I don't deny that there are important investment dollars in the private sector but there is also very important public work being performed in the public sector. I am surprised at a minister of the Crown who downgrades our public-sector

[ Page 7410 ]

employees in the way he does. He has the B.C. Research Council under his jurisdiction, and there is no more imaginative, able group in this province in terms of sparking new manufacturing industries and new technology. Why does a government downgrade its own public service? He says the least important dollars, to use his words, are in the public sector. I say that the least important dollars show up in the kind of speculative ripoffs at the expense of the people of the province of British Columbia that we see happening around us time after time, encouraged and allowed to flourish by this government.

Take, for example, Crofton Manor, which has 162 units, mostly senior people. They were given six months notice by Neil Cook, the owner. Neil Cook sold it, at a pre-taxed profit of $6 million, to real estate and sports team flipper Nelson Skalbania for $10.2 million. Mr. Skalbania was once going to run as the Social Credit candidate in Vancouver East but he was too busy in this kind of speculative ripoff to patrol the streets or meet people. Mr. Skalbania plans to sell it off as condominiums, for a total of $16 million. Without a nail being pounded in, here we have an example of the kind of speculative profiteering that is allowed by a government with no housing policy. We see it in the way they give liquor licences to their political friends, take a public franchise and create vast private capital gain in the hands of their friends. We see it where the Minister of Agriculture presides. Unlike Winston Churchill, who said, "I will not preside over the liquidation of the British Empire," the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says: "I am presiding over the liquidation of the agricultural land reserve of British Columbia." That's what you are doing. When the farmland is gone, will it make your job easier, Mr. Minister? He didn't say it, but that's what he is doing. You're presiding over the liquidation of the agricultural land reserve, for the benefit of your friends, for the benefit of the political friends of this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a vicious attack.

MR. MACDONALD: It is a vicious attack, and I mean to continue it. I mean to carry it to every corner of this province. There are only so many dollars at large. You can increase the sum total, but when you give vast increases in wealth to the Spetifores, the Gloucesters and the rest of them, somebody pays for those dollars. They do not fall out of a tree. We have what the economists call a zero-sum society. The dollars the government spends on hotel rooms at $400, the dollars the government spends on French wines, the dollars the government spends on travel expenses.... There was $59,000 budgeted for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in a single year. Those aren't his personal expenses; it's just travel. All those dollars come out of somebody else's pocket. The instant wealth you created for Spetifore and his sons — where he could go at once to the bank and say, "Lend me $26 million on this property now" — came out of the pockets of the ordinary people of British Columbia. It did not fall as dollars off some tree.

If a government wants to bring in restraint legislation, they ought to set an example of restraint. Pierre Elliott Trudeau suggests that you do this, and the government heeds his behest; but he was too ashamed of the example he was setting to do it himself for the public service of Canada. He wouldn't do it, but he let your Premier do it. Your Premier did it. What was the deal? What was the arrangement? Money for the takeover of the Pier B-C convention centre? What was it? Why would he be the only one all across Canada to pick up the Trudeau ball and run with it, and just pick on the public servants — the teachers, the hospital people? There must have been some reason for that.

It's a bill that discriminates. That's too obvious. We've all pointed it out. But it has to be said.

The government employees' union, as has been pointed out in this debate, accepted increases of 8 percent over a period of three years. When the third year was starting, they came to the government — as the Minister of Finance will know — and they said: "In view of the inflation which is taking money out of the pockets of government employees, let us reopen the contract." I think that a private-sector employee, in the interests of industrial relations, would have said: "Yes, things have changed very substantially since you signed that agreement. In the interests of future stability, we will reopen the third year of that contract." But the government employees' union was turned down flat by the Minister of Finance and the government when they asked that that contract be opened up.

I think it was cynical politics right from a year ago. I think the planning of a confrontation with the public servants has been in the minds of the government right from the time they refused to open up that third year of the public-service contract. As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) said in a very thoughtful speech, this bill results from the taking of polls, to try to find a scapegoat, to try to find a whipping boy, to promote the idea — which some people might readily accept, if they didn't know the facts — that civil servants have too easy a time. We all know that's not true. Teachers and public servants generally — make them the scapegoat. Blame the labour bosses. Heat up the negotiations that are now going on with the government employees' union so that there will be a confrontation. I think the government wants a confrontation. I don't think they want a contract. You're dealing with decent people, and we all know that, because we work around this building and we see the whole public service wherever they work throughout the province. They're good people. They don't deserve to be put 16 percent or 18 percent behind the rises in the cost of living and then be denied an increase. They want comparability. They're doing a good job for people. Why should they be picked out as a scapegoat when it won't do anything for inflation. They're being picked out because it's a cynical political ploy. They're being picked out because this government hopes to be able to blame the labour bosses.

That's why the minister who just took his seat before I stood up — and I'm going to sit down myself — didn't defend the bill. Did he? He didn't defend the bill. He scarcely referred to it because he knows that this bill is indefensible. It's a Kinsella and Heal bill and it's a cynical political ploy. This kind of discriminatory legislation against certain groups in our society should be rejected by this Legislature.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, the presentation of this piece of legislation really goes back to February, when the Premier decided to make a public announcement, got everybody worked up about what he was going to say, got his makeup on straight and then went on TV. That was the out-of-town test for this play that he's now developed. He brought it into town, into this House, and in the three days that we've been debating this bill, he's had the poorest houses of any presentation

[ Page 7411 ]

that I've ever seen here. We've had times in this debate, which is supposed to be the keystone of that government's legislation, when we've had the Minister of Finance in the House with the former Minister of Finance and not another minister in evidence. We've not had more than two members over there get up and make a speech in which they've addressed themselves to the bill.

Yesterday we had the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) get up and, because he doesn't understand the real power within the bill — what it's going to do to people — he resorted to the kind of tactic that we heard this afternoon from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). That's his version of the "Sieg heil" speech. He does it every time there's a bill to speak on. He gets up, talks about the same unfact and then he sits down. All he's really done is make an absolute fool of himself, and that's not new with that minister.

Yesterday we had the Minister of Agriculture tell us that this was an important piece of legislation. I can remember when he was a backbencher, when he sat in this House during the debate on the AIB, before he got into the cabinet, and was referred to then as just Mr. Hewitt. When we were talking about that piece of legislation in the same way that we're talking about this piece of legislation from this side, we said then that it was unfair and that it would not work. He got up and this is what he said:

I would ask the hon. members on the opposite side of the House to take some time to read the bill and understand the purpose of it. In section 2 you're looking at the purpose of the bill, which says: "The purpose of this act is to authorize the investigation of the effects of inflation on prices, commodities and wages." It says "temporary regulations" and it says "cooperation with Canada." Mr. Speaker, I would think that that would be an important part to understand — that those three words meant investigation, temporary regulation and cooperation.

Then he goes on to do his bombast.

Mr. Speaker, the party over there, if it were in power, would be looking at regulation on a permanent basis — regulation of people in this province, regulation of production in this province and regulation of prices in this province — in a socialist state, and I'm not in favor of that type of thinking in this House,

Obviously, he hadn't read his colleague the Minister of Finance's speech when he introduced the bill, because towards the end the minister dwells on the fact that the purpose of the act is to differentiate between the guidelines in part 2 and the regulations in part 3. The guidelines are voluntary while the regulations are mandatory. The very thing that upset him six or seven years ago is now quite acceptable to him. Why is it acceptable? Because he found himself a scapegoat. As my colleague the second member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said, they set out to create the confrontation. They need to go to the people. They want that kind of an election issue.

Some six years ago, when the Minister of Finance introduced the AlB legislation — he's no longer the Minister of Finance now — he talked about the 150,000 public servants and their contribution to the state in a different way than we've heard from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) this afternoon. It had to be the most insulting speech ever made about public servants in this province, from a man who spent most of his life as an indirect public servant, in any case. That's the kind of comment that he has to make. That kind of bombastic speech, a mass of unfact, was a straight Sieg heil speech just to rally the troops, but they're not very rallyable. That's the sad part about what's happening over there. They are not in any way prepared to defend the bill that they presented. Not one of them, except the Minister of Finance, has addressed even the principle of the bill. They have no understanding of it. The only thing they've been told is: "If we rattle the chain of the public servants, they'll probably try and go on strike and then we'll go to the people and we'll take a vote."

That's what they're doing: building it up in a gradual way. I can remember when Trudeau wound up the last ministers' conference, when he went through each comment of every minister that was there and said to our own Premier: "Well, if you want to do something about public-sector restraint, you go back to your own province and put your own house in order." Like the little lapdog that he is, he came running back here and said to his people that draw the legislation together: "That's the way we've got to do it. That's the idea. We've got to put together a piece of legislation." On the way back he began to feel a little worried — had the Prime Minister agreed, then where would he be?

Mr. Speaker, the February 22 issue of the Ottawa Citizen makes a comment about the statement made by the Premier prior to the legislation. After all, we got the introduction and then we got the legislation. The headline was: "Bennett Playing Political Games."

"It's easy to see, as they might say in British Columbia, where Premier Bill Bennett is coming from. He's scared stiff that the NDP will win the next provincial election, and so he's contrived a provincial economic recovery program that is clearly designed to fool most of the people some of the time. Bennett has announced that civil-service salaries will be limited to 10 percent increases. That is blatantly unfair, because across Canada civil service increases have not been outrunning the rate of inflation. In fact, B.C.'s 40,000 civil servants have won only 8 percent wage hikes in each of the past three years, perhaps making them the group of unionized working Canadians who have fallen farthest behind in inflation. It's already obvious that the B.C. labour movement — arguably the nation's most militant" — and by God, you've got to be militant in this province, given its history — " is going to fight back, and that may be the confrontation that Bennett seeks to try to thwart the NDP."

That's what we've been saying here is what the genesis of the bill is. It really has nothing to do with the economy. We warned last year and the year before that if they didn't stop the kind of spending that they were doing as a government, they would he facing this province with ruin. There's nothing they can do about that now. They've got us so far into the glue that they're now in a panic. So what have they done? With their strategist they've contrived to have a confrontation.

Old "Jobs!" has just walked in: the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). I can remember when he created a confrontation in this province in 1972 with his little 88. We know where that put them. Bill 88 was one of the less progressive pieces of labour legislation, but that was the kind of thing that showed that even back in 1972 the government of the day was looking for that kind of confrontation. The article from the Ottawa Citizen goes on to say: "If the public can be conned into believing that the Socred government is on the right track, and if the NDP ties to labour can be exploited, it's possible Bennett can reverse his party's declining fortunes, but it's brazenly dishonest." And it is dishonest. The reflection of the dishonesty is in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I

[ Page 7412 ]

don't know how often we have to say it to those people over there. They will get up and defend the arguments that we make about the previous increases that the public servants in this province have had over the past three years: 8 percent, 8 percent and 8 percent, which is two to three percentage points behind inflation. They don't discuss that at all. Most of them, with their rather stick-in-the-mud researches, go back to 1974, 1975 and 1976, and these are the examples they offer as the basis of the arguments they give for the legislation. Seven years later they haven't come up with one original idea that they can defend in terms of how they deal with the finances in this province.

After all, we heard the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications say: "You doubled the salaries." We know he took it. But does the public out there know that the Premier of this province makes $82,000 a year, that all those cabinet ministers over there make $74,000 a year, that they have massive overruns in their offices? Is that not getting through to the public? Is that not the kind of spending way out of line that we talked about last year and the year before?

Then the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) got up yesterday and said: "There have been no tax increases at all." Then what's Cominco doing shut down? Because there are more ways to create tax increases than simply increasing the personal or corporate tax. They found a new way, through the back door. They decided to increase the water rights. So what did you get out of that? You got $120 million. That's not taxation; it's a euphemism. That has created an enormous amount of unemployment. There is no development.

Today I met with representatives from my riding. Two of them are school trustees. They gave us a small example of what restraint means to that municipality. I am not talking about schools. They have a program out there in which they make empty schoolrooms available to groups. In some of them they have day-care centres, preschool and co-ops. They just said that there is no way, with the restraint instructions they have had, that they can continue to service those groups. That is a very small example of the effect this is going to have.

It is a chain reaction, almost like the domino theory. People are going to be knocked sideways time after time. That didn't go into the thinking when they thought about this legislation. That is the sad part about it.

It is what my colleague from Surrey said: megalegislation. It has been tried before in this province and it didn't work. It was tried with the AIB, and all we have is an admission by the Minister of Finance that they reviewed 30 cases of high prices and didn't get to the other 350 cases. What they did do was to roll back working people's salaries in such a way that many of them never quite caught up. Those people who are not caught up are the very victims of this piece of legislation.

There is no logic in what they've said in their presentation of the bill. It is not logical, and it is a complete disregard for the kind of legislation that has been debated and passed in this House and the way that there has been an attempt by the previous administration to develop a climate of labour relations that would be a great advantage to this province.

When we talk about labour-management relationships we have to listen to the people who know what it is all about — people who have worked in it; people like the Weilers. I also have in mind an article by Mr. Doug H. Cameron, who was the Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour at the time he wrote this article. He is now the deputy minister. On June 25, 1980, in a Sun article titled: "Labour Relations in the Eighties" he talks about the shape of things to come. This is directly related to this, because he is talking about the collective bargaining process. He was saying: "Inflation, unemployment and high interest rates could lead to demands for substantial wage increases in the 1980s." It is prophetic but we know that that is the case. We know what has happened in terms of inflation. "Disillusioned with three-year agreements, unions will demand catch-up increases patterned on recent high settlements. The bargaining conditions of skilled tradesmen will continue to be strong until we can overcome critical shortages or the current keen competition among employers lessens." He is laying out what the reality was two years ago. It is more of a reality even today. He then says: "Benefits and working conditions will continue to be major items at the bargaining table. Improved pensions, dental care, legal services, a shorter work week, longer vacations will be among union demands. Occupational health and safety concerns will come to the fore and the 'hazardous environments....'" We've had enough discussion and recognition of those problems. Then he says: "There are no instant answers to questions that have taken decades to develop. We do not have to accept all of the past in plotting our courses for the 1980s, but to abandon it would be disastrous."

This bill sets out to abandon one of the basic tenets of our society that has now been established as a result of 50, 60 and 70 years of history of labour strife, labour relations and government involvement — the collective bargaining process. We had the Minister of Agriculture say yesterday: "The bargaining will continue as it has in the past, within guidelines." What is he talking about? You don't bargain within guidelines. You take away the basic tenets of collective bargaining if you suddenly remove the goal post and say: "That's as far as you can kick the ball." But that's what he believes — and he's a member of the cabinet — and he's proud of what he says. He says: "The bargaining will continue as it has in the past, within guidelines, and Mr. Peck, the commissioner, is there to resolve the issues that are contentious within the guidelines — and that's fair." Well, that's his definition of what's fair. It's a most ill-conceived idea in terms of dealing with their problems in terms of revenue.

They have a basic financial problem of covering the outgo by what comes in. This is the government that after seven years is operating in an atmosphere of the highest unemployment rate in the history of this province. Well over 200,000 people are looking for work in this province. Well over 150,000 people are on the welfare rolls. We have an endless number of plants closing down. We have, in fact waited for seven years for that government to come out with an economic plan, and two years ago we heard from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) that he had the solution: we will go to northeast coal and that will solve all our problems. So they sucked out of both the revenue and the economy of this province well over a billion dollars. Where are we? We are more in the glue now than we were two years ago, and this province has never been in worse shape.

So it does boil down, Mr. Speaker, not to the issue of economic solutions, but to the issue of election solutions. That's what this piece of legislation is all about. It has nothing to do with solving the financial problems of the government, other than to go to the people and try to convince them that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. In seven years

[ Page 7413 ]

we have seen the kind of expenditures that have never been made by any government before. How could it be that from 1975, when the last budget was $3.2 billion, we have come to be dealing with a budget of $7.8 billion? We're dealing with all of that, and now we are here talking about restraint.

Nobody over there has talked about restraint. Nobody over there suggested that the cabinet ministers take a reduction in pay, that they do away with their excessive expense accounts. No, we won't tell people about that! They have adopted a style of governing that was completely foreign to the government that I served in. It wasn't first class, it wasn't always the best of everything, because you were too attuned to what was going on out there. But here there is complete and absolute disregard for the feeling of people out there. Why should it be that a government like this, with enough on its plate, now has to become the butt of the numerous jokes that are going around in the community about the kind of wine they drink, the kind of hotels they stay at and the rate at which they spend money? And in the midst of all this, they're trying to convince people who are not convinced that somehow restraint is an honourable and desirable thing in our province. By example it will never work. In practice it cannot work, because you cannot single out one part of our society — it's been tried before — and then say: "Those are the people we're going to lean on."

This is not California; it's not Mr. Jarvis who's presenting this bill. You cannot stampede people in this province the way he attempted to stampede people in California any more than those people did down on the Prairies. That's not what the people are listening to. They're listening to some of the very serious problems. And if this one is your solution....

That's it, Mr. Speaker. It's put to us as their solution to restraint: "We're going to restrain people." But why this group? We are in the position of defending this group because they're the best example through the last three to four years of those who have exercised the most restraint — and this is the very group they're attacking. They've never said why. There is no suggestion, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the presentation even by the minister. But somehow, because this group of people has been responsible for the high expenditures in government and then the lack of revenues without which it can't make the books balance — and they don't balance; they don't balance in terms of the budget....

My friend asked: where are the special funds? We have a new kind of newspeak here — balanced budgets. They used to know about balanced budgets years ago, when the old Premier was around. He had a newspeak too: revenue, expenditures, debt and contingent liability. Now we have a new definition of what the situation is in terms of balanced budgets. You spend more than you take in, but you say to the people: "We have a balanced budget, because we're going to raid the piggy banks." That's the kind of newspeak that we have.

The end result is: while wallowing around looking for a solution, in desperation they start attacking the public servants. It has been traditional in this House for more than a hundred years that you do not attack public servants. You do not go after that sector, because they do not have that kind of representation. We've always had a tradition here that if we're going to attack anybody we'll attack ministers; we will not attack public servants. We have a wholesale attack by the government in this legislation. It's a complete break with the upstanding feeling that we have about what is tradition in terms of the public service. Even former Premier W.A.C. Bennett would never have tolerated that vicious attack on our public service, which culminated in that disgusting speech that we heard this afternoon from the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer). We have a complete break with tradition. They're going to do it their way, in the most bombastic way, with arguments based on no facts. We have yet to have one minister, aside from the Minister of Finance, stand up and tell us exactly what the facts are with respect to the application of this bill. That's the challenge you should meet. If you are so convinced that this is the way to go, then tell us what it is. Nobody gets up. Everybody sits there. They clap and they applaud the bombastic garbage that comes out of the mouth of the Minister of Universities, which has no relevance whatsoever to the bill. None of them stand up and say anything.

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that there's a great worry out there. This was the main weapon in your armoury. This was the one that was going to work. Well, it's not working. People out there do not understand why it is that you've singled out the public service for this kind of exercise. They do not understand how they have the audacity to do it in the face of the kinds of scandals that are hovering around the government, in terms of their profligacy and how they spend money.

In light of that, how much credibility do you think you can have out there? You haven't got any. There is no credibility in respect to what you're trying to say about restraint. Everybody is saying the same thing. "If they want us to restrain ourselves, then they better restrain themselves."

You are in the midst of a great contradiction out there. Nobody believes it. Yet not one of them has been able to stand up, speak to the principle of the bill, deal with the public service in the reality of the past three years' salary increases — which were two and three percentage points less than anybody else in this province. If you recognize those facts — and they are facts; they're written up for everybody to see — and understand them all, then you can get up and say that they're getting too much money and we've got to hold them back. After coming to that conclusion, you must look at the real problem — and we pointed it out last year: if you continue to spend money at the rate you are spending money, you are going to get into trouble. They were warned about it for three years. They only remember 1974 and 1975. Well, people have longer memories than that. You're going to raid over a billion dollars of special funds. Nobody believes it at all. Minister after minister.... Even the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) got up in this House and said: "We're going to make great programs available to forestry." And then they took them all back again. They took all the money back; they never even spent it. Where's the money now? It has disappeared into the big pot, which is going to bail them out when they get the big problem.

We keep throwing the charge across the floor to those people that if you believe so much in this legislation, then get up and debate the bill. Don't sit there and think that that bombast of a Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is going to carry you through, because he isn't. He's been making that speech since 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, in 1973 he started to get nervous, in 1974 he didn't know whether to come or go, and in 1975 he made the big move and he dashed across the floor. If that's the guy that's going to lead you to the promised land you're going to need some traffic signals, because he's not going to lead you anywhere. That is my challenge to them: if you think this bill is so good, then get up and debate it. Don't run out of the House.

[ Page 7414 ]

If they are going to get up and debate the bill, then let them look at the facts, Let them tell us what is so difficult about what it costs to maintain the public service when they've been getting increases of 8 percent a year. Where is the problem when they have been two and three percentage points behind everybody else? The problem is the size of the government, the kind of expenditures it has made and its complete and absolute lack of planning. That is where the problem is with the government. Let them address those facts. I have no trouble in voting against this kind of legislation. They've offered the same arguments that they offered with the AIB and they go in spades for this one. This is a disaster as a bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I fully expected to see some government member take his place in this debate and defend this bill that we're now debating, but there is no defence for a bill like this. They know it over there. I don't expect to see the government members taking their place in this debate to defend this bill which is totally undefendable.

I, along with my colleagues, will not be supporting this bill. I am sure that comes as a great surprise and shock to the minister. Once again, this type of legislation, which I term to be anti-labour legislation, is a wage-control bill. It has been said so often in this House, but that is exactly what it is. It's a wage control bill that picks on a certain relatively small sector of our workforce for no other reasons than political reasons. That is one of the reasons I won't be supporting this bill.

There is nothing in this bill that discusses price controls. There are no price controls. Inflation is rampant in this province under the Social Credit government. They want to keep our public-sector employees at some arbitrary wage level. We don't know what that is at the present time, because there is no compensation rate set out in this bill. There are no profit controls. If there is anybody left in this province making a profit after the Social Credit government leaves this province, which I doubt, but if there is, there are certainly no profit controls in this bill. So they haven't done anything about that. There is no control of interest rates in this bill coming from a government that has shown absolutely no imagination in job creation in terms of stimulating the economy.

MR. BARBER: Except in the wine industry.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The wine industry is flourishing in France at the present time.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria is interrupting and not from his chair.

MR. BARBER: I'm in Rosemary's chair.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He's doing very well.

In my view, this government has done absolutely nothing in this bill to instil confidence in any sector of the population of this province. It's not a restraint bill at all. It's just a wage control bill for a small, segregated sector of our working people. It picks on a sector of employees who have shown great restraint in the past. This bill is aimed at a union of the public-sector employees who are just coming off a contract at 8 percent per year over the last three years. People doing the same jobs in other sectors are receiving considerably more. I could quote figures. A deckhand in the B.C. Ferry Corporation at the present time receives approximately $300 a month more than an employee doing the same job on a vessel operated by the Ministry of Highways.

This bill has nothing in it to stimulate and do anything for small businesses. We have the highest rate of increase in small businesses going into receivership in the history of this province. What's this government doing about it? There's nothing in this bill dealing with that. They've singled out one sector of the economy strictly for political reasons and in an attempt.... Mark my words, during the course of this bargaining with the BCGEU, this government will purposely, provoke a confrontation with those union members, utilizing this bill, and call an election on the issue. They'll say: "Look at how good we are. By gosh, we're going to practise restraint and we're going to pick on the government employees." They'll go through an election on that issue and say: "We can control labour." They can't control bankruptcies in small businesses and they can't control their own spending. Member after member has got up in this House and pointed out the way the government is wasting money by ministerial travel, ministerial expenses and propaganda. The list goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, this government shows no restraint, however, when it comes to increasing taxes and increasing licence fees, etc. I'd like to give you just one example. We have many, many examples — like increases in health care — and I'll get to those in a minute. One example that I would like to appear in the record is some figures I received from the pulpmill people in the Powell River area. MacMillan Bloedel in Powell River paid a water-licence fee of $130,000 with two hydroelectric bonds in 1980. This year, 1982, they will pay $1.7 million for the same licensing, and it is expected to go to $3.5 million by 1984. Is that within the Premier's 8 percent, 10 percent or 12 percent guidelines? It is not. It's rare that I stand in this House and defend a large company, but companies, like people, must be able to make ends meet.

Here we are facing layoffs again: two- and three-week layoffs in the Powell River company. The government has arbitrarily increased those water licence fees out of sight, in order to attempt to balance this budget — which is not a balanced budget. In fact, the debt of this government has more than doubled — I think about tripled — since Social Credit became the government in 1975. The government has shown no restraint when it comes to increasing fees for these purposes.

The effects of this bill are being felt in some sectors already — particularly in the field of education. We know that in community colleges, for example, programs are being cut left, right and centre. In my area we have two major community colleges, and they are feeling the effects of the restraint bill, which means unemployed teachers as well. And the quality of education is affected.

Right now in the health-care field, the first real effect of this program is the cutback in hospital services. I'd like to give you a few examples. Vancouver General: closure of 175 acute-care beds and a staff reduction of 700 people; Nanaimo General: closure of 42 beds and a layoff of 65 staff; Royal Inland in Kamloops: a closure of 84 beds and a layoff of 129 staff, half of whom are nurses; Lions Gate, Cranbrook, Royal Columbian, Royal Jubilee; the list goes on. In fact, this is just the beginning.

I think it's a bit ironic, Mr. Speaker, that in December 1981 there was a shortage of about 470 nurses in British Columbia hospitals. The government began a vigorous drive

[ Page 7415 ]

to recruit nurses from other parts of the country and from elsewhere.

Underfunding of these hospital budgets means fewer beds, fewer nurses and longer waiting-lists. The quality of health care in this province is directly affected by this so-called restraint bill.

As I said before, the government itself — those people sitting on treasury benches — have shown no restraint at all in their actions. Last year we moved motion after motion — I won't display this, because we can't do that in this House, but I just want to peek at the figures here — to cut government spending by the people in treasury benches for ministerial travel, office expenses, propaganda and advertising purposes. The total saving would have added up to almost $82 million had the government accepted our motions to cut those luxury items. Do you know what we could have done with $82 million in this province in terms of education, healthcare services or increasing the incomes of our seniors? A lot. But no, they had to go travelling all over the world. They consulted with no one in preparing this bill. The legislation exists. This bill is totally uncalled for; it is not needed. We have the Labour Code of British Columbia, which every other industry finds they're able to deal with and are able to handle any labour-management problems that may arise. But, no, this government brings in a political bill for political purposes and that's wrong.

I want to close by saying that in my view, Mr. Speaker, this bill was made in Ottawa by the federal Liberals. That's understandable because there are so many ex-Liberals or Liberals in disguise sitting over on the treasury benches on the government's side. The first Premier in all of Canada to comply with the request of the Prime Minister was the Premier of this province, Bill Bennett. I suspect that a deal was made behind the scenes in Ottawa: if Bill Bennett would come back to British Columbia and initiate this type of bill, there would be a trade-off for Pier B-C and perhaps northeast coal. There are Liberals in charge of northeast coal; there are Liberals in charge of the B.C. Place stadium now being constructed in Vancouver. Those are all Liberals; they're not Conservatives. They're not Social Credit people — not the old line, hard-core Social Credit people that we've known and grown to love in the past. These are Liberals in disguise on Social Credit benches.

We are paying dearly for those people who walked across the floor and filtered into the ranks of the Social Credit Party, and are now directing operations — all Liberals on the treasury benches. We are paying dearly for that in British Columbia now.

Last, but not least, the application of this bill, particularly under section 17, will give cabinet full authority. They will overrule Mr. Peck. In the final analysis it will be the cabinet that makes the decisions, on a political basis and for political reasons, on what compensation will be paid to the employees affected by this bill, to all the people affected by this bill. It will be the cabinet; it will not be Mr. Peck or his commission.

In closing, I will not support this bill. It is not a fair bill, it is not an equitable bill, and I will be voting against it.

MR. PASSARELL: I would like to talk about this wage control bill and its 34 sections — 34 sections that destroy collective bargaining in this province and punish public employees. We see cutbacks in health and education and social programs, while this restraint program allows cabinet ministers to fly around the world, to buy high-priced French wine — wine so expensive that it is difficult to pronounce. This restraint program, as it applies to this government, allows money to buy political hacks from Ontario, to buy expensive furniture for their fancy offices, to have cabinet tours that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, to have private luncheons in communities such as Dease Lake, and to have a constant overrun — all at the expense of workers of this province, who are subject to wage control by the government. But the government allows taxes to rise; allows user fees, such as hunting licences, to rise, allows motor-vehicle licences to increase; and in just the last few days, allows the cost of pay telephone calls to rise by 150 percent. A 150-percent increase that is restraint by this government.

This afternoon's Vancouver Sun carries a story headed: "Some government employees 'earn less than welfare.' "I'd like to read the first paragraph of this excellent article: "Several hundred female clerical employees of the provincial government are earning less in take-home pay than they would get if they were on welfare, their union leader said Tuesday." It is a terrible shame in this province to have articles such as this saying that some government employees are earning less than they would receive on welfare.

Bill 28 punishes the public employees of this province. It is not to exceed 24 months — two years of a restraint program. The BCGEU has had a restraint program at 8 percent on their contracts for the last three years. They've had 8 percent while mortgages have increased dramatically, personal loans have been at over 20 percent, and government taxes have doubled in many instances, particularly in user fees.

There is an interesting section in this bill on registration. It says: "Every public-sector employer should register with the commissioner, in the form and manner required by him, within 30 days after the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council assents to this act or within a further period of time permitted by the commissioner." What is this registration and what is the government implying with registration? Section 19 of this bill covers the investigation of the wage restraint plan. It gives the registrar "the power, privileges and protection of sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act." Mr. Speaker, I wonder why this government has to bring in the Inquiry Act for this program. Why not bring in the power, the privileges and the protection of the Inquiry Act to investigate government travel overruns. expensive hotel rooms for cabinet ministers, excessive spending by cabinet ministers, and fancy French wines at elaborate private dinner parties.

Mr. Speaker, other sections of this bill that make up this wage restraint program are sections 21 and 22, which explain the enforcement of this act. Would it not be wiser to have enforcement of the government's wild spending sprees? Another Section in part 4, the general aspect of this bill, speaks of filing orders in the supreme court — a decision is made as if it were an order of a court.

Section 32: "Agreement with federal government." Mr. Speaker, to be cheek-to-cheek with the bad-news characters in Ottawa.... I don't know if it would be proper to say that they're in bed with the Liberals, but they're certainly getting very close to climbing into bed with them. This is nothing more than a Trudeau bill. The Social Credit government is doing the work for the Trudeau government in Ottawa; the Trudeau Liberals and the Bill Bennett Socreds are working together to develop and implement wage controls in this province.

[ Page 7416 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two points: I think that some of the points being made by the member in the debate now would be more appropriate in committee. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it seems that we have recently had an increasing use of surnames in this chamber, rather than identification of the constituency from which a member comes. I would draw that to the attention of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The points are well taken. The reference by which we talk about other members of the House is their constituency designation or their office designation. I would recommend that we continue that practice. Also, hon. member, although a brief reference to individual sections may well be tolerated, it is better to hold debate on a section to the committee stage.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the House should express its thanks through you to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for drawing to our attention that henceforth we should refer to the member who sits next to him as the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett).

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, and it is an abuse of the rules.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm a bit puzzled by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that in dealing with the bill at this stage one should not refer to sections of this bill or deal with sections of the bill. It's almost impossible to make a decision on a bill without dealing with a specific section. I don't know how we can make a judgment on which way to vote on a bill, at this stage, without referring to specific areas and sections of the bill — unless I misunderstood your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you did, hon. member. I said that perhaps a passing reference to a section would be in order in the debate at second reading when we're in debate on principle. But to debate a section by itself would better be held to the committee stage. That is the practice and the rule of this House, and the hon. member knows them very well.

MR. LEGGATT: On the same point of order, you used the word "better," but I take it that it does not violate the rules of this House to deal with a bill at this stage.... You can surely deal as intensively and carefully with a section as you want us at this stage of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Not in second reading, hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL: I wouldn't want to read the sections of this bill to get it in Hansard, because the public might find out about this thing. But I will not refer to....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Do you think the public is as thick as you are?

MR. PASSARELL: The voice from the back: mister fortrel — the member for Yale-Lillooet.

We see the Trudeau Liberals in support of this present government trying to develop and implement wage controls, without addressing a much more serious problem in this province; that is, the outrageous price increases that many residents of this province — particularly in the north — are faced with.

Since I can't refer to sections of this act — specifically section 33, which talks about the Hydro and Power Authority act........ I will not breach the privileges of this House and talk about the Stikine-Iskut dam; I'll save that for the committee stage. I know the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is quite pleased with it, since it's another Trudeau government statement of position. I know the minister would always go to bat for his previous employer-boss.

Mr. Speaker, we've seen Social Credit impose pay limits on defenceless public employees. We've seen cutbacks in hospital spending in the millions of dollars and restraints that close schools and lay off dedicated teachers, at the expense of our children's education. The tax burden of every taxpayer in this province has doubled in the last five years, and I wonder how this government can bring in a wage restraint program after they've allowed so many increases in the taxes that people pay. We've seen millions and millions of dollars allocated for a football stadium in the south, billions of dollars to subsidize Japanese steel companies. Then we have a cabinet minister tell residents up north that if they don't like living in the north they should move south. We've seen cutbacks in highway construction and paving at the expense of northern residents. Paving contracts are down by 41 percent, road construction and improvement down by $16 million. All in all this bill will destroy the right of free collective bargaining in this province and will take away the bargaining rights of school teachers and highway employees. School teachers will no longer be free to negotiate their pay, fringe benefits, accommodation costs and the debushing flights from the north. This government goes on its merry way — apocalypse now — with helicopter trips across this province.

Public servants, those essential workers in this province, have been held at 8 percent for the last three years and are now being restricted to below the cost of living in this province with this restraint bill. It's very similar to what the Social Credit government presented in 1978 and 1979 with its right-to-work policy. Three short years later we now see a wage restraint bill brought in by the same government — restraint to limit wages but no restraint on price increases. This is nothing short of the skulduggery that the Trudeau government brought upon this province. This government is cheek to cheek and bum to bum with the Trudeau government, with the blessings of the Liberal cabinet ministers in this coalition.

Before we go on with this bill, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom, moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.