[ Page 7417 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Mr. Passarell –– 7417

Mr. Davis –– 7418

Mrs. Dailly –– 7421

Mr. Kempf –– 7424

Mrs. Wallace –– 7427

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT
(continued)

MR. PASSARELL: Yesterday I discussed the ramifications of this wage control bill on the public employees — a bill that was devised by the Trudeau government in Ottawa — and how it failed to address the price increases in this province. But today, through the graciousness of my heart, I am going to present some positive solutions so that this government may take my solutions and withdraw this bill.

The first solution is that the government cut back on travel with first-class airline tickets and cut back on the buying of fancy imported French wines at dinner parties. Instead of spending hundreds of dollars on private cabinet dinner parties for four or five guests, I have a solution here — a policy that this government should bring forth to save the taxpayers by the wiser use of tax dollars for government spending sprees. The solution I have is that this government be restricted to its entertainment and dining policies by only eating at Brownies Chicken, McDonald's Hamburgers, Dairy Queen, Dragon Dan's Chop Suey Kitchen. That way cabinet ministers would not waste hundreds of dollars for a few friends at a dinner party.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, could you bring the government to order?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may we have orderly debate, please. The member for Atlin has the floor.

MR. PASSARELL: The Premier is talking about buying French wine.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, up there we don't buy French wine either. Porch climber is good enough for the good people of the north.

For travel, I have another suggestion. Instead of many cabinet ministers using government aircraft to take quick jaunts back to Vancouver for supper every day, I have three solutions. First, when cabinet ministers go back to their home ridings in Vancouver, they should take the public bus to the ferry, get off, walk onto the ferry, take it across to the other side and get on the bus again. Second, in cases of emergency, when cabinet ministers have to get back quickly, the government could buy two pairs of roller skates. Third, they could allow the Science minister to develop a hot-air balloon — it could carry the B.C. logo on it — and a little basket on the bottom that would be capable of carrying ten cabinet ministers back and forth between Vancouver and Victoria.

For wine, a policy should be developed whereby no cabinet minister buys imported wine at taxpayers' expense. We have an excellent wine industry in this province. It's about time we used our tax dollars to support this industry instead of the wine industry of France.

One of the more positive solutions here, one that I think most members would respect, is to cut the cost of paper. This government could save millions and millions of dollars if it would stop duplicating reports.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what's the matter with the Premier today; he seems to be quite verbal from his seat. I don't know whether or not it has something to do with being in Alaska, but I would expect the Premier to come to order and listen to these positive solutions that could save his government millions and millions of dollars.

An example of this duplication is the amount of paper that the government sends out. I received five copies of the publication called "Northeast Coal Development News" for April 1982. Wouldn't one do? In Atlin I received five of these on the same date to the same address. This government could save millions and millions of dollars by sending one copy, not five, of the same publication to one address. Many of us receive three or four copies of the same publications. Maybe the Premier could talk to his cabinet and get more restraint on government reports, instead of using tax dollars to send five copies of a report to one address. Instead of holding down government employee wages through punitive legislation, this government should show restraint and leadership by not duplicating thousands and thousands of government reports, new releases and announcements. One copy to each address would be sufficient.

In health care, this wage restraint bill has had a detrimental effect. Yesterday we found out that St. Paul's Hospital, at 100 percent capacity, was ordered to cut back by $4.4 million, which in practical terms means 165 staff to be cut and 40 beds to be closed. When individuals in the far north are sick and require major surgery, in many cases they go to St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. By restricting hospital care in major Vancouver hospitals through this government's tight money policy, you're penalizing the residents of this province for getting sick, and I'm opposed to that.

Another positive solution: this government makes over $200 million from the sale of booze. The percentages on imported wines are higher. Instead of placing this $200 million in general revenue for the development of football stadiums, I would ask that this money be placed in an emergency hospital fund so that not one hospital bed is closed in this province and not one nurse is laid off.

This week the Premier announced the wage restraint program to our Alaskan neighbours, and explained that the province would not have funding in the near future to develop the Dease Lake railroad through northern British Columbia to connect to Alaska. This project would have supplied much-needed labour and skilled jobs in the far north to a project that would return all the benefits to the province of British Columbia and its residents. It's not like the northeast coal deal that uses B.C. tax dollars to subsidize Japanese steel companies. Another aspect of the Premier's visit to Alaska as regards Bill 28, a major topic in that speech and a concern of the Alaskans' for a number of years, is the $7.6 billion

[ Page 7418 ]

Stikine-Iskut project, which has cost this province $45 million in feasibility studies. As a sign of restraint, this government should cancel immediately any further studies on the Stikine-Iskut hydro, project. This money could be used to finance salaries of teachers and government employees to reach a just settlement through the proper channels of collective bargaining.

Also in showing restraint, the Premier said he would exchange information with the government of Alaska on the Stikine-Iskut project. I wonder why this government and the Premier are in the position of exchanging information with a foreign country at taxpayers' expense while denying the residents of British Columbia that same information. If all the government reports were made public, it would not be necessary to set up special committees with foreign countries.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Bill 28 restrains the wrong people and only brings further hardships upon the public employees of this province. This bill could only be devised by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his supporters in the west, the B.C. Social Credit Party. As a final thought, if there's anything to restrain in this province, it's the Premier and wolves, and not government employees.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Compensation Stabilization Act, in its essentials is a government restraint act. That at least is its principal intent: restraint. It will restrain the spending of tax dollars at the provincial, regional and local levels in this province. It's workable in that it establishes guidelines which our administrators can use, and it's realistic in that it will help to tailor the spending of provincial, regional and local administrations, reduce them and bring them into line with the money that government, at these several levels, can reasonably raise from the taxpayers in British Columbia.

We have to face facts. Our provincial income, overall, is levelling off. Even with inflation at, say, 10 percent a year, we're likely to see our gross provincial product go up 10 percent or less. In other words, we're at a standstill in real income terms. We have no more real income to go around in 1982 than was spent in 1981, and yet many of our provincial administrators — and that includes regional and municipal people — expect to spend 15 percent or perhaps even 40 percent more. It's true of our hospital administrations and it's true of some school districts. It's true of many public servants who've become accustomed not only to job security but also to a standard of living which continues to move ahead of the rest of the community.

It's a well-documented fact that the average wage paid in the public sector in Canada is higher than that paid in the private sector. At one time it was the reverse. It was certainly the reverse before the Pearson era in Ottawa, when public servants gained the right to bargain collectively. Civil servants then — and that was in the early 1960s — were paid less because they had security of employment, among other things. They weren't ever going to be laid off if they had some tenure, so their rate of pay tended to lag behind that of other taxpayers whose income fluctuated widely and whose employment could not be guaranteed from one month, let alone one year, to the next.

Statistics Canada gives us some interesting figures in this connection: public servants across Canada became better paid than other Canadians in comparable vocations in the late 1960s. They had moved out ahead of their fellow workers by between 6 percent and 28 percent by the mid –– 1970s. Now the differential is anywhere from 7 percent at the low end to as much as 60 percent at the high end — and I'm talking about comparable jobs, jobs which can be compared between the public sector and the private sector. Public servants, in other words, are now not only secure in their employment are usually better paid and often much better paid than the majority of taxpayers in this country and the majority of taxpayers in British Columbia.

The latest figures from Revenue Canada also contain some other bits of information, some of which governments, as employers, may be reluctant to admit. There is a ranking of 1979 income levels for various categories of employees. Employees in business rank six, seven and eight. In other words, ranked in terms of levels of income they rank below the first six categories — the first six categories all being public-service employee groupings.

Who make up these six highest-paid groupings reported by Revenue Canada? They're not all civil servants in the strictest sense of the word. They include nurses, teachers, hospital technicians and professors, whose salaries are paid indirectly, rather than directly, out of the public purse. Interestingly enough, the teaching profession, as a group, leads all the rest, followed by federal government employees, members of the Canadian Armed Forces and provincial government employees, in that order. Taken together — that is, lumping all six groups together — they earned an average of 30 percent more than their private-sector equivalents in 1979. The figure for 1981 is more like one-third — perhaps as high as 35 percent more.

What about rates of increase of remuneration in recent years? Obviously public servants have improved their circumstances more rapidly than private-sector employees have. Let us take the five-year interval between 1974 and 1979. According to Revenue Canada the real incomes of business employees rose, over that entire period, by less than 6 percent. I'm talking about real income — purchasing power. Federal government employees, meanwhile, enjoyed a jump of more than 13 percent. Provincial government employees, Canada-wide, were up 12 percent. That's roughly double the rate that the private-sector employees enjoyed.

Breaking it down into smaller and more easily recognized groups, we find that the teaching profession achieved an average annual income boost of 19 percent and health workers were going up at a 16 percent rate. No wonder the federal government also is beginning to put a brake on spending of this kind. It's certainly no wonder that our Minister of Finance, faced particularly with declining revenues from the resource section, is having to bring in restraint legislation in British Columbia as well.

I've got some statistics here that bear more particularly on rates of pay across Canada for certain categories. These figures relate to 1981. These are rankings for rates of remuneration in these different employment categories — rankings as between provinces. The rate of pay of teachers in British Columbia ranks number one in Canada. It's higher than Alberta, Ontario and other provinces. Hospital nurses are number one. British Columbia nurse assistants are number one in Canada. X-ray technicians are number one. Civic workers — labour category, municipal level — are number one in Canada. Engineers in government: British Columbia ranks number two, behind Alberta. When it comes to social workers, we're ahead of Ontario but behind Alberta.

[ Page 7419 ]

Wage settlements in 1981. Workers in education in this province are up 15 percent; health workers are up 21 percent; municipal government employees are up 14 percent; and provincial Crown corporation employees are up 14 percent. Canada-wide, the average wage settlement in the private sector in 1981, by contrast, was 11 percent. In the United States the average wage settlement was up 8 percent. In other words, wage settlements were less impressive in the United States, by a considerable margin, than they were in Canada. Wage settlements in the public sector were much greater in this province, and indeed in Canada, than were wage settlements in the private sector.

These public sector-private sector comparisons wouldn't be complete if I didn't also refer to the incomes earned by employers in the private sector. Incidentally, looking at overall numbers for Canada, it's interesting to note that industry declined from some 40 percent of activity in this country in the 1950s to around 30 percent today. While public-service employees were chalking up their virtually risk-free real gains of 11 percent, 12 percent or 13 percent in the late seventies, Canada's business proprietors actually saw their incomes — I am generalizing over the entire sector — collectively shrink by a similar amount. Farmers lost more than 12 percent. Self-employed professionals were even worse off. They suffered a drop of more than 20 percent in their real income or living standards. Small business has been off correspondingly. So one can understand why restraint in the area of wage and salary compensation paid in the public sector, at least, has to be introduced now and practised for the next year or two at the very least.

Perhaps I should repeat myself. In the latter half of the 1970s the losers, relatively speaking, were almost all in the private sector. Their incomes not only fell behind those of employees in government but they actually declined in real terms — that is, Canada-wide. Civil servants were up and the bulk of the taxpaying public — their real employers — were down; down in real terms if we take the interval from 1974 to 1979 as the interval for comparison. The inescapable conclusion from these Revenue Canada statistics is that it pays — increasingly so — to earn your keep in the public as opposed to the private sector. Become a public servant and you are not only securing your employment but you are better paid, and increasingly better paid, than your fellow workers out there in the private sector.

Public servants listening to these figures will say that they are inflated. They are right, in a way, if we are talking merely about wage increases in any particular classification or job level. But incomes rise not only because the basic rate increases but also because there are automatic upward adjustments within each income pay bracket in the public service, increases which take place a year or so at a time — as long as you don't get into trouble or commit some crime or another. This upward migration in income occurs with a degree of regularity in the public service; marking time in terms of actual income is rare. Falling back, it seems, is impossible. This is a far cry, obviously, from the private sector where one can lose his or her job at any time, where people have to switch from one industry — perhaps even from one vocation — to another with some degree of frequency. The private sector workers, in other words, are the risk-takers. Under these circumstances, one really has to wonder why. In good years they should be paid more than public servants rather than less. They should certainly gain relative to public servants. But this hasn't happened in the last two decades in this country, and it doesn't look as if it is likely to happen in the immediate future either.

There are marked differences within the public service as well. The pay gap from top to bottom is wider than it used to be. Whereas the lowest-paid public servants in Canada were 7 percent better off, on the average, than their private-sector counterparts in 1979, those at the top of the heap, on the average, were 60 percent better off. The pyramid, in terms of numbers of employees, is also getting fatter at the top. It is not necessarily narrower at the bottom, but the pyramid is developing remarkable shoulders of its own. Promotion within the ranks gives us more senior bureaucrats as compared to junior bureaucrats. More civil servants are giving orders and fewer civil servants are taking orders.

When I first became a minister in Ottawa there were deputy ministers and little else at the deputy minister level. Now there are deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers. This organizational change is being copied by provincial governments as well. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say that our public service at all levels is becoming increasingly top-heavy. It is a hierarchy with an increasing emphasis on "high," and it has a financial and administrative momentum of its own.

As an ordinary member of this Legislative Assembly I have to be concerned, not only because of the large number of civil servants — those who are living better than the average taxpayer — but because the public generally seems to think that politicians are also able to take advantage of the improvement in income which is now common in the public service in this country. That, generally, is not true. Most of us could earn much more if we worked at our chosen profession, be it law or engineering or accountancy or teaching, for example. I know that this is true of the majority of our cabinet ministers, perhaps all of them. I know that it is true also of some members of the official opposition, who as hotliners or consultants and with the knowledge of the workings of government could emulate a Rafe Mair or a Les Peterson or even a Bob Williams if they retired from politics and put their talents to work in some other way.

The question at issue in this legislation is restraint restraint in government and especially restraint at the top. Back in 1978 when the Crown, in the right of the province, took me to court because I turned in a few first-class airline tickets and travelled economy, the order- in-council or regulation governing cabinet ministers' expenditures included the word "reasonable." The wording, dating from as far back as 1917. said: "The minister is allowed an actual, reasonable expenditure." Would you focus, Mr. Speaker, on "allowance" and on "reasonable." It made sense to me at the time and it makes sense to me now — allowances that are reasonable.

Shortly after I lost my appeal, the regulation in question — the effective law in this matter — was changed. It was changed by order-in-council in December 1978 to read: "The minister is allowed an actual expenditure." Please note that the word "reasonable" has disappeared altogether, leaving the word "actual" to govern from now on.

If a minister makes an "actual" expenditure, that minister is within the law. It doesn't matter how large the expenditure is or how incongruous the expenditure is; it's legal. It can't be upset in court. It's perfectly proper both from a lawyer's and an accountants point of view.

That bothers me, not just because I lost my case on a technicality by arguing that a "reasonable" expenditure was

[ Page 7420 ]

a "proper" expenditure but because we have blown the lid off expensing in government altogether. All you have to do now is produce receipts. You can stay in the royal suite at the Waldorf-Astoria or hire the Queen Mary for a cruise around the world. As long as your expenditure was an actual expenditure, you're within the law. It might look bad, but it's watertight from a legal point of view. This is the way the bureaucrats want it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hope the hon. member will soon relate this to the principle of the bill.

MR. DAVIS: I think it's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that it has to do with restraint in government.

If you take the lid off restraint and make actual expenditures the rule, actual has no limit when it comes to actual expenditure. I am arguing for reasonable expenditures, reasonable allowances and a limit on expenditure.

I said this is the way the bureaucrats want it. This is the way the system wants it. I'm sorry to see that the senior officials in this administration, who prepared that regulation back in 1978, got their way in this regard. Gone, apparently, are the good old days of allowances with a ceiling on them. Gone is the idea of reasonableness. Common sense, it appears, has gone out the window and detailed accounting of a thousand and one expenses has taken its place.

A blanket allowance for a month or a trip or a day has been replaced by that all-embracing phrase "actual expenses." Ceilings have vanished and adding machines have replaced them in offices inhabited by a host of bureaucrats who shuffle paper instead. I realize that we are now in the age of computers and number-crushers — the more numbers the better. The more invoices the better. The more receipts the better. Use credit cards and you can't go wrong. This is bureaucracy at its best. Unfortunately, it's also a bureaucracy which is out of control from an overall financial point of view hence the need for restraint.

The problem with this switch from tidy allowances to multiple expensing, Mr. Speaker, is twofold. You must now have a large staff tracking along behind you to make sure that every piece of paper, every bill and every receipt finds its way into the right file, reported in the right column in the right way. That's one fault, but the other is even more disturbing. It removes the legal limit on spending. Anything goes as long as the bill is paid and nothing sticks on the fingers of the politician or the civil servant en route. They aren't forced to fit their spending into total amounts which are deemed to be reasonable. All they need is a staff to keep track of their comings and going. Trust, along with reasonableness, has vanished, and we have an army of people, of clerks and accountants and auditors, whose job it is to nail down every transaction in all its detail without having to pay attention to totals, to overall costs and to reasonableness from an expenditure point of view — particularly a government expenditures point of view.

This is why I would hope that after this legislation is passed the government, in its wisdom, will see fit to introduce some guidelines which bear in on this question of reasonableness on amounts which, in total, contain the spending of government.

I touched on three reasons for restraint, Mr. Speaker. One is the continuing tendency of wages paid to public servants to run ahead of the incomes earned by people in the private sector; I talked about expenses in government and about the test of reasonableness, and I should have said, if I haven't said already, that the number of public servants in this country — in departments, in agencies, in Crown corporations and in government institutions — has also been growing relative to the total number of people employed in Canada. I mentioned the decline of industry relative to the totality of employment in this country. Public servants, in all their direct and indirectly related vocations, now add up to more than 20 percent of the workforce in Canada — more than one out of every five employed persons in this nation are public servants. There are more of them, they're well paid, and I think this is one of the reasons, as this trend from time to time also appears in our provincial economy, that this kind of legislation incorporated in Bill 28, the Compensation Stabilization Act, is necessary, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that government is getting bigger; the opposition knows that the expenses of government — salaries, wages, new office buildings, modern equipment, travel, etc. — are running ahead of the taxpayers' willingness, and indeed ability, to pay. This has been happening in spades at the federal level. We've reached the point where Ottawa is spending $5 for every $4 it takes in in taxes. This profligacy can't go on forever. Our federal masters are having to tighten their belts at long last, because their credit rating — our national credit rating — is slipping, and the private sector isn't anything like as healthy as it used to be.

Still, the federal government is spending the equivalent of 22 percent of our national income. The provincial government's outlays are nudging 18 percent; 22 percent and 18 percent make 40 percent. If I add in the spending of our junior level of government — that of our regional districts, municipalities and so on — the grand total, even when one allows for transfers between different levels of government, is of the order of 45 percent. Government spending is getting on towards half of all the spending in British Columbia of one kind or another, direct or indirect. Restrain this expenditure and you restrain what? You give the private sector some room to breathe; you take less from the people out there, and they're having more money left in their pockets to spend as they wish and order their lives in a way closer to their own liking and less to that of government,

I know that there are those in the official opposition who would like us to run a big deficit, to borrow and spend today and let others look after our debts tomorrow. But surely the federal government, our national government in Ottawa, is running a big enough deficit already — it's running a big deficit for all of us. Its deficit spending has become a habit; it's been going on increasingly since the mid-1970s, and that deficit spending, that injection of depreciated dollars, is an injection also into the economy of this province of British Columbia. So we've got deficit spending in this province now; we've got deficit spending on a massive scale if you include the spending of all levels of government — federal as well as provincial and local. So we've got deficit spending writ large in British Columbia, and we don't need more of it.

This leaves the official opposition with only one way out if they face what the people want, which is no further deficit spending: to increase taxes in a big way — increase income taxes and sales taxes, because they're the principal sources of income to the provincial treasury. When they say that a 12 percent budget increase for our hospitals isn't enough in an economy which is flattening out, they're saying in real, practical terms: "Increase taxes." When they say that teachers should get pay increases over and beyond that of the

[ Page 7421 ]

average taxpayer's income, they're saying the same thing. They're saying, in effect: "Increase taxes." When they say, "Give the municipalities and the regional districts more of what they want," they're really saying: "Increase taxes at the provincial level." Of course, they don't use those awesome words, but all their fulminations against restraint, all their opposition to a government spending stabilization act, adds up to this: "Increase taxes, or increase taxes sooner or later." And if my comment about the federal government running a big enough deficit makes sense, then they're saying "sooner" rather than "later." Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I'm against tax increases of any kind at this time. I think they would tend to hurt the economy when it's already struggling. So I'm against the official opposition and their slick packaging of a disastrous policy for us all. I can't vote for more taxes and, therefore, I have to vote for Bill 28, the Compensation Stabilization Act. I hope that every member in this honourable House does likewise.

MRS. DAILLY: I rise in my place to take exactly the opposite approach to this bill — believe it or not — that the member who just took his seat has taken. I usually enjoy the reasoned logical approach of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, but something must have happened to him today, because his speech was really not based on reason and logic but, in my opinion, on mythology, similar to the myths that have been perpetuated by that Social Credit government re the whole area of what causes inflation and how we cut back on the massive increase in public spending. This, of course, really delineates very clearly the difference between our whole approach to this bill and the very ultra-conservative economic approach of the Social Credit government. I'm glad to see that Mr. Speaker agrees. He's nodding.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to bring you into this debate except in the traditional manner, so I will not make any more references to you and your nodding your head in agreement. But I would like to say that this whole bill is based on myths. I want to take a few minutes today, while taking my place in this debate, to dispel some of the myths upon which we find this bill is based.

One of the first ones, and why this bill was brought in, is that the government is pretty sure they can get away with the myth that it's the working people of this province and their obsessive, recurring demands for increased wages which is the basic root of all the evils of our economy. This is the approach, of course, which has been taken by the present administration in the United States. It's interesting to note that, in taking this tack of placing the blame for inflation primarily on the working people of that country, as the Social Credit government intend to do with this bill, the American economy is continuing to deteriorate. Yet this government seems to be bent on following the same conservative approach based on mythology as the government to the south of us.

First of all, this myth that inflation is primarily caused by excessive demands of the working man and woman. I wonder if I could read into the record a few facts which I really think must be put down here to bring a proper perspective to one of the major problems of inflation according to a number of people — in this particular case, Beale's Letter. In a recent letter he states: "You cannot divorce inflation and interest rates from defence spending." We know that the Social Credit government, as a provincial government, has no particular control over the amount of defence spending. Mr. Speaker, I want you to realize that I understand that. But at the same time the Premier announced on provincial television his reasons for bringing forward this bill, he stated that it was his and the Social Credit government's responsibility to assist the federal government in reducing spending. Therefore I wonder why we never hear any concern expressed by the provincial Social Credit government at the amount of money that is spent on defence. I think we should realize that throughout history inflation has followed war. In 1781, 1815, 1865 and 1919, except at the end of the Second World War, when military expenditures stopped, things finally sorted themselves out. But military spending has not stopped since 1945, and more and more is being spent on it. In 1970 the U.S. spent $77 billion on defence; by 1985-86 it is expected to be $378 billion. There is also the U.S. federal deficit, which could be over $100 billion. Naturally we have to bring in the American situation, because it has affected so much what has happened here. In 1970 the Canadian government spent $2 billion on defence and armaments; we're up to $7 billion in 1982 — financed entirely by the taxpayer, of course. I know we're not here to engage in a debate on the need for increased spending on defence, but it's interesting to note that even very conservative people in the United States and Canada are beginning to question the massive defense spending.

The reason I bring this up — and I will now leave that topic, Mr. Speaker — is primarily to say it is a myth to suggest that inflation is entirely the fault of the working man and woman in Canada and British Columbia. We had better remember that if the country continues to spend massive sums on defence, inflation and high interest rates follow. So let's stop using this myth, and let's stop bringing in bills that put the whole blame for the present situation of the deteriorating economy on the working people. When we are presented with a bill like this one, which zeroes in selectively on one group in our province and says that group alone must have selective wage controls imposed upon it, one begins to ask why the government has done this. Why have they picked out one group? It would be all right perhaps, since they have decided to pick on all public servants, municipal employees, teachers, etc., if those teachers, public servants and municipal workers were guaranteed that they would be shielded in the next two or three years, and if they had been shielded in the past, from all tax increases imposed by the Social Credit government. This government is going to impose selective wage controls on one sector of our society, while at the same time that particular sector will have to face the same increase in taxes as others in this society who may not have had their wages frozen or limited. On that point alone, I could never support such a bill, and the members on this side of the House could not. It is unfair and unjust.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Shame on you!

MRS. DAILLY: Shame on those over there who think they are in government to impose unfair, inequitable controls on any group in our society.

Speaking of restraint can become almost ludicrous. Another myth is that the poor private sector is really having a terrible time, while the public servants are doing so well. That may be so in some areas, particularly for small business people, but let's take a look at one of the latest editions of the Financial Times and see just how some of those in the top echelons of private industry are suffering and are imposing restraints on themselves. We really feel quite upset for Edgar

[ Page 7422 ]

Bronfinan, chairman of The Seagram Company Ltd. Last year he was making only $1.042 million, including benefits, but Mr. Bronfman's salary has just gone up to $2.315 million. That is his annual salary. Westcoast Transmission's Edwin Phillips was making $234,000 last year. In this period of great restraint, Mr. Phillips' salary has only gone up to $421,000 — almost double. Yet that government over there likes to keep referring to poor private industry and how it is suffering. Although that may not dribble down to the average worker in the private sector, even the psychological effect of these salaries is bad news.

The same analogy applies when looking at the ministers in the Social Credit government as compared to the public servants. They are bringing in this bill restraining the public servants; yet look at what happened to ministers in this government and the increases they have given themselves. I'm not talking about the basic salary, but remember it was a good salary to begin with. When you look at the increases they have given themselves in the whole area of travel expenses, it all becomes a mockery, Mr. Speaker, when this government and the Premier stand up on public platforms and say everybody must pull in their belts.

I know this has been said before, but I feel it is necessary to repeat it for the public: look at a government that brings in restraints on the public servants of this province, and at the same time we have the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), whose travel budget has increased from $29,000 to $79,000 this year — all taxpayers' money, a 166 percent increase. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is piloting this bill through the House, gets up and sounds off about the need for restraint: those public servants must be restrained, as they're the ones who are causing all the problems. But he gets a 25 percent increase for travel. The Premier, who brought in this bill and brought it to the attention of the public on a very well-prepared PR hyped-up television show, has a travel budget 27 percent above what was originally estimated for his office in the last fiscal year.

They have the nerve to stand up in this House and ask us to support a bill that is out to punish one sector of our society. You know, there is no way. They are basing the success they hope for themselves with this bill on straight myths. They are hoping that they can use the public sector as whipping-boys and — girls for this government. I consider it pretty poor and almost politically immoral for any government to bring in such a bill because they can't handle the economy in this province. They have decided they'll pick some people as their victims, and that is what has happened with this bill.

Let's look now, Mr. Speaker, at some of the myths that have been brought to the attention of the public of B.C. by the Social Credit government. I know when they leave this House and go on platforms back in their constituencies they will be talking about, number one, the need for restraint and the fact that the public sector have it the easiest. Let's look at how easy they have it. Let us also remember that almost every minister and backbencher over there stands up and says: "Ah, but they have job security." Let's look at the job security that the public servants of British Columbia really have — let's look at that myth and dispel it. First of all, the figures show that on January 31, 1982, there were 28,499 regular members of the public service. Do you know how many auxiliary employees — in other words, non-permanent with no job security — there were? There were 10, 290; in other words, 27 percent of the present employees of the public service. I hope those backbenchers are listening to this, as maybe their cabinet ministers haven't told them; maybe the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) hasn't given the figures. Some 27 percent of the public service employees are non-permanent, auxiliary, not regular workers.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Good.

MRS. DAILLY: If you consider it good, then don't talk out of the other side of your mouth and say that all public servants have security. That is a myth that we want to dispel right now, because 27 percent do not have full job security. Now what about layoffs? We hear that over and over again.

The member from North–Vancouver Seymour (Hon. Mr. Davis) just took his seat. He talked about the security .

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: I'll wait for the Minister of Finance to reply on those figures in closing the debate. As far as I'm concerned, at the moment they are 27 percent, and if it's being reduced it is probably because of layoffs.

It really is interesting. Everybody on that side of the House loves to go out and say to the public: "Look at the security those public servants have." Let's look at their security. Let's look at the Forest Service nurseries. These are public-service employees. In Chilliwack there are 60 casual employees, 54 of whom have been on layoff so long that they have lost their seniority. In Surrey there are 240 employees; 140 will be laid off. In the Kamloops area there were 130 employees lost. There are only 57 left. The other 75 have been laid off over six months and have lost seniority. This is all in the Forest Service alone. Of the 57, most of them will be laid off, serving their time during the year.

I would like to hear the Social Credit members stand up again on any platform in B.C. and say that all public servants have security. We will certainly let the people of B.C. know that we have the figures to disprove it. I am really surprised that the last speaker, who usually uses pretty straight statistics, did not refer to these.

MRS. WALLACE: That is this government's commitment to forestry.

MRS. DAILLY: That is right. That is their commitment to forestry, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat just pointed out.

The Provincial Secretary, who is now in his seat, is responsible for the public servants. I wonder if he is going to take his place in this debate and say that his employees have security, in the face of these figures. This is for the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) ; I am sure you are aware of this. There are 100 auxiliary workers in Campbell River in the forest; 25 of them were laid off over six months. The steward there is the most senior auxiliary staff member — 21 years. Can you imagine it? One particular person has worked for the government for 21 years and he is still an auxiliary member.

In Red Rock there were 85 laid off in November; none are at work right now.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I just heard one of the Social Credit backbenchers say: "Tell her to sit down." He's got his mike

[ Page 7423 ]

up. Well, at least we're getting them off their feet to take part in this debate. We have been really concerned. We know the Premier will have to get up and do a big show for us today, but really, somebody over there is going to have to get up and try to defend some of these figures, because obviously what they are intending to do is to go throughout this province and use these myths over and over again because they have no facts to back up the passage of this bill.

In the parks branch, all these layoffs amounted to four to six months. In Goldstream there are 35 people on layoff; nine are working. I could go on and on. In the Okanagan there are 60 laid off in the parks branch; six are working.

Let's look at the liquor distribution branch. The total number of employees is 2,477. There are 1,474 regular employees in the liquor distribution branch. There are 1,033 auxiliary workers in the liquor distribution branch. Since 1978 there have been 342 layoff grievances filed by the union but, because of abuse and the fact that 42 percent of the liquor branch employees are casual, only half of the layoff grievances in the union came out of this branch. That is simply because of the number of casual employees.

I have one more myth to dispel, because I know the other members in the NDP also want to take part in dispelling these myths with some of these figures. I want to mention one more thing about the public servants: pensions. There's another myth. We always hear: " Oh, but they have permanent jobs." Well, we have pointed out to you, hopefully, that that is a myth we have dispelled. What about pensions? We hear: "Oh, they have great pensions." We know who has the great pensions. It certainly isn't the average worker in the public service; it is those in the higher positions.

In 1980, 625 people retired from the public service on the basis of age. There are, as of the end of 1980, 5,412 people on superannuation — pension by virtue of their age. The average government employee retires with between 10 and 14 years of service. That is an interesting fact most people are not aware of. The average government employee pension — this is the important thing — is between $200 and $299 per month, not integrated with the CPR. Let's have some of those figures quoted when you are out using the public servants as scapegoats. Forty-two percent of the pensioners receive a pension between $100 and $399 per month. Compare that with other pensions in the higher echelons of the public service.

But that is not the issue. I am not here to complain about the pensions. I am here to complain about the myths that the Social Credit members use out there talking to the public, and are going to attempt to use to get some credibility for this dreadful bill. It is a bad bill, Mr. Speaker. Not only is it bad because it's based strictly on myth, but it is equally bad because of the points very well enunciated by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), when he pointed out that it is also destroying and taking away the right of free collective bargaining from a sector in our society.

Mr. Speaker, there is also the Big Daddy theme of this bill. This seems to be pervading this government constantly. This is the government that used to talk about the NDP being the ones who have incurred the great debts. Let's just look again at the figures. When the NDP left office, $4.2 billion was the non-operating debt. Do you know what it is now? It's $8.6 billion. Doubled. Those are the facts. And all that myth about the NDP versus the Social Credit, and how very productive and efficient....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll have to ask the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) not to interrupt the House.

MRS. DAILLY: How very productive and efficient they claim they are. Well, if you are that efficient and that clever and competent with money, can you please explain to the people of British Columbia how your debt has doubled since the NDP left office? Let's have an explanation for that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down, and I'll show you how to skate,

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister Housing has also shouted to me to sit down — he'll have an answer. That's good. That's two who say they'll get up on their feet and take part in this debate. Let's not have myths; let's have some basic facts. You can't very well back up a bill like this unless you have facts, and the facts of the matter are that there are none to back it up — just myths.

Mr. Speaker, the Big Daddy that I was starting to talk about.... There's an editorial in the Province for April 19, 1982, which says: "...the Social Credit administration has been giving itself some mighty important discretionary powers.... It's beginning to look insidiously like a Big Daddy government. After all, these are not the actions" — or should not be the actions — "of a decentralizing government." They're referring specifically to this bill. "The more discretionary power" — and this is important, Mr. Speaker — "a government gives itself, the more it wants."

Power has gone to their heads. They don't care about the little people any more. They're caught up in administration. They're caught up in having a rather good time, let's face it, when we look at these travel accounts and their spending habits and the waste and the extravagance of this Social Credit administration, which was outlined very well by the Leader of the Opposition when he opened his speech. I don't think anyone could emphasize it better than he did. Complete waste and extravagance is coming to light. Being in power has gone to their heads. They've lost touch. But when they get in trouble, the government has to look for a scapegoat. They've decided to present one with this bill today that uses the public servants, the teachers and the municipal employees as scapegoats. It's pretty sad when they've reached a state of affairs in which they can't handle their own affairs without using another sector of society as their victims.

The final statement in the Province editorial says: "The Bennett government should stop now before it corrupts itself absolutely." Remember, Mr. Speaker, that is from a well-known, conservative paper. That is not from one of the speakers in the NDP. But naturally we would not argue with that statement.

The hypocrisy of the members of the government in bringing in a bill talking about restraint, when every day it comes to light that they are living and acting in a manner of complete non-restraint! When the Premier opened his speech he said: "We all have to pull in our belts." All I can say is: here is a bill that is unfairly asking only one sector of our society to pull in their belts.

[ Page 7424 ]

Mr. Speaker, it is an unfair bill and it's an unjust bill. It's a bill that's based on no facts. It's based on myths that I have attempted in these last few minutes to dispel. Now I hope that some of the government members will take their part in this debate. If they're going to vote for this bill, they had better, at least, attempt to defend it.

This is a bill that, I regret to say, should never have come before this House, but perhaps I should not be surprised, because it's just a final bill from a government that has taken unto itself powers that no government ever should.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, the member who just took her place dared the members of the government back bench to get on their feet and speak on this bill. Not only will we speak in favour of this bill on the floor of this House, but we'll go all over this province, particularly to our constituencies, and we'll tell the people about this bill, and the sooner the better, members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to very strongly support Bill 28. I do that not because I wish to see any government further direct the lives of its citizens or become involved in the collective bargaining system that up until now, although it's had some faults, has worked fairly well in our province. I rise to speak in favour of this legislation because of a very strong will on my part to see this province and its people not only survive, but come out the victor during these times of economic downturn — not to use the situation to use anything they can as pawns, as I've seen a few on that side of the floor do.... In fact, member after member from the opposition benches have taken their place in this debate and used segments of our society for blatant political purposes. Mr. Speaker, we're an exporting province....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Most of all, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), you should know that we're an exporting province. Because of that and because our resource industries are having very serious economic difficulties, sawmills all over this province are either operating on limited hours or limited days of the week or are shut down altogether. There are many such situations, members opposite. In my constituency they can't sell their lumber. The NDP says: "Put them back to work. Let's get back to work." I've seen the bumper sticker. I suppose they have some crystal ball or some magic formula that would allow them, if they were in government, to find non-existent markets.

The mining industry is not much better off....

MR. LEA: ...under Social Credit.

MR. KEMPF: Well, where would you sell the metals, if you're so smart, Mister Member for Prince Rupert? Where would you find the markets? Where would you sell the product? Get up and tell this House. All we hear are innuendo and garbage from that side of the floor, Mr. Speaker. Let them get up and say where they'd sell that lumber and where they'd sell those minerals. They don't know. They only use people out there as pawns.

MR. COCKE: Build affordable housing.

MR. BARBER: Two-story Jack....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, if members address the Chair and other members allow the member standing to have his opportunity in debate, it makes for a much more orderly debating process, confined much more to the rules of the House.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I've sat here day after day listening to that kind of innuendo from that side of the floor, and it's now my time to have my say.

As I was saying, mines in my constituency are taking extended summer holidays. Some, as in the case....

MR. BARRETT: You never worked a day in your life.

MR. KEMPF: You talk about work! That member over there, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), talks about work. All you have to do is look at him and you know he hasn't done a day's work in his life. They'll tell you that when you go to Fort St. James on the 14th. They'll tell you that, if you can get enough people from what's left of your party to get a meeting together.

MR. BARRETT: How do you know where I'm going?

MR. KEMPF: Oh, I know where you go, particularly in my constituency.

Granisle Copper in my constituency is shutting down altogether.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Where are you going to sell the metal? You go up there and tell them where to sell the product. You go up and tell them how to do it, mister smart member for Victoria.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I will ask the member speaking to address the Chair, and I will also ask other members to allow that member to continue uninterrupted.

MR. KEMPF: Four hundred private-sector workers are out of jobs because the company can't sell its metals, because they can't sell the product produced by those private-sector workers. Times are tough. Unemployment is high. There is a worldwide economic recession. I know the members opposite haven't realized that yet, but maybe one of these days they'll come to their senses. The members opposite have blinders on. They can't see what is happening out there in the real world, that we have a worldwide economic recession on our hands. What do they say in this debate? Member after member is getting up and throwing dirt, talking about a $37.50 bottle of wine. That is their contribution to this debate on a very serious subject: the need for restraint in this province. They have the audacity to stand up in this House after the record is laid down in history of what they did in this province when they were government for three and a half years — the dismal record that those people opposite had when they were government in this province, and after spending the money of the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia like drunken sailors.

MR. LEA: We did it on beer.

[ Page 7425 ]

MR. KEMPF: Oh, that's not true. I remember what happened during those years; I remember the wild parties on the Queen of Prince Rupert; I remember the wild parties in the upper floors of the Harbour Towers. Yes, I remember. I remember the suites of offices rented by the then Premier....

MR. BARRETT: Where?

MR. KEMPF: In the Empress. You spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for them.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, they laugh at restraint when they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money to buy up hippie art all over this province, and if you don't believe that....

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: The members opposite laugh. If you don't believe that, go down into the legislative dining room today and take a look around. You'll see some of what the taxpayers' money bought. It's a disgrace — a legacy of those socialists when they were in office, when the people of this province, for a very short time, made a mistake that they'll never again make. Never again will they be government.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition when he came into this House a couple of days ago and had the gall, after calling the northeast coal project absurd....

MR. BARRETT: A giveaway.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, you said it was a giveaway, and if you were government, you'd do everything in your power to shut it down. We know that, and the people out there know it too. He calls a project that has created 5,800 new jobs in the province of British Columbia "absurd." When other industries are facing layoffs, he calls the northeast coal project "absurd." He has the gall to talk about $210 hotel rooms.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Well, whatever they were.

I just want to dwell on that for a few moments. I want to talk about that hotel room in Ottawa. He complains to this assembly about the government booking him into that kind of room. How hypocritical can you get? When he got his key at the desk of that hotel and went up and saw the room that was allotted for him, why didn't he go back down to the desk? If he were serious in what he said in this chamber, why didn't he go down to the desk and ask for a smaller one and say: "The people of British Columbia can't afford that big room, and I won't sleep in it. I want a smaller one"? Did you do that? No, you slopped at the public trough, didn't you. You didn't go down to the desk and ask for a smaller room.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: He said in this chamber that it was too extravagant. What do you do when you don't like your room at a hotel? You go back down to the desk and ask for another one. That's what I do. Why didn't the Leader of the Opposition do that if he thought the room was too extravagant for the taxpayers of British Columbia? If the Leader of the Opposition was so concerned about spending taxpayers' dollars on hotel rooms or anything else at this particular point in time, why did he go to Ottawa at all? Why didn't he pass up that chance to spend those taxpayers' dollars which he didn't think the people of British Columbia had?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I just want to inform the member that I paid that hotel bill myself. I want the record to show that the government didn't pay the bill, nor did the Premier. If he's making that point, he should clarify it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is most inappropriate for a member to seek the floor on a point of order, when in fact it is to enter into debate. I would caution members about that, particularly interrupting another member who is speaking. All members have an opportunity to gain the floor for the purpose of debate.

MR. KEMPF: You're absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. If that Leader of the Opposition was so concerned about restraint and about spending the taxpayers' money, why did he go to Ottawa at all? Why didn't he say to the people of British Columbia: "I understand you're having tough times. I understand that there's a need for restraint out there." On that basis, why didn't he say, "No, I don't want to go to Ottawa; I don't want to slop at the public trough; I don't want to spend money, because the taxpayers haven't got it"? No, he didn't do that, and he didn't turn in his room either. He didn't go down to the desk and ask for a smaller room either. If you live in glass houses you shouldn't throw rocks. If he really was serious and really meant what he said in this chamber about the taxpayers' money, he'd have done that.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and, in fact, all those socialists opposite don't practise what they preach. "Do as I say, not as I do." You know, that was their philosophy when they were in government, and it hasn't changed since. They haven't changed a bit; they never will. They may have changed their suits. I see that the Leader of the Opposition hasn't got his blue pin-stripe suit on today. They haven't changed their philosophy; they're still socialists. They haven't changed a bit, and the people of this province know it.

The people of this province are crying out for restraint. They are crying out for the government to take that kind of action. They are crying out for this assembly — members opposite as well — to put a stop to this ever-increasing cost of government, the ever-spiralling tax bill in this province and country. Yet the socialists opposite speak against Bill 28. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

I know why they stand in this House and speak against Bill 28, against restraint, against, government spending, against reducing the tax bill in this province. It is to appease their highly political friends in the union organizations, in the BCGEU. But they'd better go out there and listen to what the rank and file members of those associations are saying, because, should they do that, the tune they would sing in this chamber would be completely different. Have you checked with those people lately?

[ Page 7426 ]

MR. KING: Why don't you get a job and do an honest day's work?

MR. KEMPF: Why don't you get a job, Mr. Member? I know why you don't — you couldn't. You've never had one in your life. They speak against the rank-and-file citizen of this province. They speak against the people out there. They listen to their friends in the union executive. But they are giving them the wrong story. They still have that heavy-handed Big Brother attitude. They had it when they were government and they haven't lost it.

I would like to quote now from Hansard of Tuesday, October 7, 1975. We heard the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) a short time ago in this debate. What he said in this debate is on the record as well. I would now, just for the record once more, like to inform the members of this House now what that member thought of the rank and file people of the province of British Columbia way back in 1975: "I don't really care very much, quite frankly, if the public is overwhelmingly in favour of this bill. 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." That's what they think today. The public out there want their tax bill reduced, but they think the public is wrong. Mr. Speaker, they still have that heavy-handed, Big Brother attitude. They had it when they were government and they still have it.

Back to the bill before us. I say again that I fully support Bill 28. I fully support a government measure of restraint. The private sector is facing automatic restraint, Mr. member. Go out there and find out for yourself. Don't just sit around and get a fat fanny in this chamber. Go out and find out for yourself what the people out there are going through. The private sector is going through automatic restraint which has been brought about by world recession.

Mr. Speaker, it follows that all segments of our society must follow suit and assume some responsibility — particularly government. We hear from the opposition, time after time after time, the word "cutback." It's as if it's the only word in their vocabulary now. That's all they can talk about, when they know perfectly well that nothing is further from the truth. There are no cutbacks.

SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: Maybe there should be. If I'm getting anything from my constituents out there, it is that the restraint program is not tough enough. They're telling me we should have gone back to square one, to zero. That's right. Because in these kinds of economic times, that's where government should be — not 10 percent, not 12 percent, but zero. And that's what my constituents are telling me. Cutbacks, they say.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I hear somebody over there saying: "Did you give your money back?" Yes, certainly. There will be a bill before this House. How are you going to vote on it? There will be a bill that will reduce your salary as well as mine, back from 11.9 percent to 8 percent. Eight percent is still too much. I agree with my constituents who say zero. In these kinds of economic times, the public sector cannot expect wage raises when the private sector is laying off and there are people out there in the private sector losing their jobs because the companies they work for can't sell the product they produce.

They talk of cutbacks. Maybe we should have cutbacks. Maybe during these difficult times we should follow the lead set by Proposition 13 in California. That's a cutback. On behalf of the people I represent, I wouldn't mind seeing that happen in the province of British Columbia. You bet I wouldn't. But we haven't cut back, and we're not asking anybody out there to cut back. All we're asking is that they restrain increases. There is a big difference, hon. members. I would hope that one of these days the light will come. Even the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will understand that. I realize that's a very remote possibility, but I wish it would happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the guy who said he built the hospital?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, that's the guy who built the hospital. It was built in 1903 or something. You can't help but worry about an old member like that.

Mr. Speaker, there are restraints on increases, not cutbacks. There is a big difference.

Human nature is a funny thing. I'll tell you a little story.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Listen, Mr. Member for New Westminster, and you might learn something.

I'll tell you a little story — this actually happened about the public sector versus the private sector in this province. Teachers in my constituency very recently — before the restraint program came in — received increases of 16.8 percent, at the same time as their brothers and sisters in the sawmill across town were taking a voluntary 10 percent cut in order to keep that operation rolling. That is a difference of 26.8 percent. I went to the chairman of the school board when there was talk of possibly having to lay off teachers because of the miserable provincial government that was cutting back on the funds available.

You bang your desk. I would listen, Mr. Member.

Possibly there would be some teachers laid off or some programs done away with or whatever. I said to him: "What if the teachers in your school district were to take a 2 percent cut in that 16.8 percent raise they were given? Would that enable this school district to retain all the programs and all the teachers?" He said: "It would more than do it." Remember, I said they got a 16.8 percent raise while, across town, their brothers and sisters took a 10 percent voluntary cut. Are they willing — these great believers in brotherhood and sisterhood — to take that 2 percent cut in a 16.8 percent raise? No, they're not. Those members opposite wouldn't ask them to either, but I would.

I could go on forever, expounding the merits of what this bill will do in this province during these economic times, but I think we should put an end to the delay of the passage of Bill 28. We should get on with the job at hand and pass this legislation for the good of all the people — not just the union leaders, not just those politically oriented pawns of the NDP, but everybody in this province. We should get on with the passage of Bill 28.

[ Page 7427 ]

If the NDP and their friends in the BCGEU want to find out who is really right, how the citizens of British Columbia really feel about this kind of legislation, I too, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, would call upon the Premier of this province to call an election.

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill 28.

MRS. WALLACE: We've had a very interesting performance from two-story Jack from Omineca: one story down here in the Legislature and another story up in his riding.

MR. KEMPF: I'll send you my column.

MRS. WALLACE: I get your column, never fear; I do, Mr. Member. That's the member who has the colossal nerve to collect $4,000 for doing nothing on the Crown corporations committee.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: They told me, and some of the staff have told me, too.

He stands up in this House and asks the teachers of this province to give back money that has been awarded through arbitration by a public arbitrator appointed by this government. That's his kind of logic.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You were talking about restraint. I would like to urge the Minister of Finance and the Premier to try to get that member to use a little restraint. I was really concerned about him: the flashing eyes, the shouting, the screaming. I don't know where his blood pressure was. We don't have a doctor in this House any more. Really, they should try to get that member to show a little more restraint.

When the member started to speak, I wrote his name at the top of a piece of paper to make some notes of his remarks in support of the bill, but the paper is still white. He said nothing in support of the bill. I have nothing to say in support of this bill either, but I have a lot to say in opposition to it. On February 18 the Premier of this province announced on television what appeared to be a fairly detailed program of restraint. Now we have a bill that tells us utterly nothing except that there is going to be restraint.

I want to deal with a couple of local things first. Some people in my constituency are pretty concerned. On February 17, I think it was, the outside workers who belong to CUPE had reached an agreement with the North Cowichan municipality. It was an agreement that, including benefits, would have given them 19 percent. But the official ratification and signing of the contract had not yet taken place on the 18th, so they're somewhere out in limbo. That agreement had been worked out in good faith; there was good cooperative feeling that was echoed by both the shop steward, Mr. Spence, and the mayor of North Cowichan, Mr. Bruce. It was a good, cooperative deal they had worked out.

The key thing is that North Cowichan is a fairly large municipality which practically surrounds the city of Duncan, a much smaller area, and that particular agreement gave the North Cowichan outside workers parity with the workers in the city of Duncan. But because it was not signed the day the Premier went on TV, the whole thing is now in limbo. They're going to be asked to restrain themselves to 8 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent, something or other — nobody know what — which will leave them below the workers in the neighbouring municipality. So that's one of the local concerns relative to this restraint bill that is certainly on our minds in Cowichan-Malahat.

One of the other things that is completely out of hand is what the restraint program is doing to centres that are operated by local government, The case in point is the community centre in Cowichan. That centre is a new and thriving part of our community. It has been bringing in some very good talent and has really become the focal point of our community. It has an income of $700,000 a year. It has been the training centre for the Canucks. Do you know that in calculating their expenses for that centre, they can consider only expenses? They cannot offset it by revenue. They have been bringing a great many good acts into that centre. For the theatre we have had everything from the Royal Winnipeg Ballet to String Band. Now we are going to have to keep the costs of those acts within an 8 or 10 or 12 percent increase, without any regard for the income that those acts would return. We have bought Plexiglas — it is on hand — to install around the ice arena. The reason? If the Canucks are to continue to use that centre as a training camp they have to have Plexiglas. We are now told that we cannot afford to install it. What is going to happen to the Canucks? I think that is a concern of everyone. They apparently did very well with the training camp in Duncan. We would like to have them back, but they won't be able to come back if we can't afford to install that Plexiglas.

The Premier shakes his head, but these instructions have come from his government. They have come in a very firm directive signed by a representative of the government, Mr. Chris Woodward, who has made it very clear that they cannot calculate revenue, that they must keep their expenses within limits.

MR. KEMPF: Let the record read.

MRS. WALLACE: And the member for Omineca pounds his desk.

All that does is reduce the revenue to the community by limiting the activities that can be brought into that centre. That's the kind of strange thing that's happening as a result of this ill-thought-out restraint bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Restraining the economy.

MRS. WALLACE: It's restraining the economy, because when you lay off an employee that person becomes a member of the unemployed with less earning power, less ability to purchase things, less income.

Much has been said about this bill being aimed directly at the public sector, and that's certainly true. But many of the workers of this province who do not work for the public sector also see it as a threat. They see it as a deliberate attempt to divide the workers in this province: to try to force a wedge between the workers in the private sector and those who work in the public sector. Many members of the workforce have stated privately and publicly that they who work for private industry are just as concerned as the public sector, because they see this as a threat against workers generally — a move to divide the workforce, to try to cause friction among the workers in this province. I believe they are right; I think that's one of the intents of this bill.

[ Page 7428 ]

When the minister introduced the bill he sent along a great many stabilization program bulletins. In bulletin No. 2 he talks about draft regulations, and he says they'll be issued by March 31.

MR. NICOLSON: This year?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I assume '82, but maybe it's '83. Now here we are on May 6, and I have not seen any draft regulations. He's talked in other of these bulletins that there will be an opportunity for briefs to be presented, and they are going to consider all these comments and incorporate them, I would assume, into briefs. I certainly know one submission was made from the British Columbia Nurses Union, and it pointed out some very important pieces of information as they saw it. I'm wondering if those regulations, which were supposed to be issued March 31, are going to contain any of the recommendations that the Nurses Union made.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has said that this restraint program is not going to cause any problems in the health care in this province. That is just not so, Mr. Speaker. On every side we are seeing the problem in health care.

I had a call from one of my constituents who was in tears the other day. Her father was a patient in the cancer clinic down here in Victoria. He was taking treatments five days a week; he didn't get the treatments Saturday or Sunday. They had been in the habit of picking him up and taking him home for the weekend. They were told by the admitting office that if they took him out of that bed he wouldn't be able to get back in, because the bed was going to be closed. Only through the efforts of me and the doctor were they able to get that man home and still get him back in on Monday. That's the kind of thing that's happening. You know as well as I do, Mr. Premier and Mr. Minister of Finance, that in the case of cancer, time is of the essence. When you have a person in that situation where those treatments are required, they have to have them now — not 6 months, 12 months or 18 months from now, as this kind of procedure is going to result in as far as getting people into the hospitals is concerned. We've seen it on every side.

Mrs. Wallace moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: On Wednesday, May 6, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose on what he described as a matter of privilege and tendered a motion he proposed to move should a prima facie case of privilege be established. The gist of the matter raised related to question period. Specifically, the member alleged that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) refused to answer questions put to him and thereby impaired the House in the proper pursuit of its duties.

One of the duties of the House and each member thereof is to conform to the rules relating to the proper form of questions during question period. I have examined the questions put to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I repeat my observations made at the time, to the effect that the object of a question is to obtain and not give information. See Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, page 70.

To take the matter one step further, even had the questions conformed to the rules, all hon. members will realize that the minister is not obliged to answer such questions. It seems to the Chair that the member is attempting to base a matter of privilege on the failure of the minister to respond to an out-of-order question, and he would therefore fail on two counts.

The Chair is not making a specific finding in relation to the procedures adopted, but it has often been stated that it is inappropriate to misuse the forms of the House. Please see May's eighteenth edition, page 429. I find that there is no prima facie case of privilege made out by the member for Skeena.

MR. LEA: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no debate on the decision.

MR. LEA: I'm not debating it.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: I rose on a point of order and you said there is no debate. I think that is the problem. With all due respect, I think that the fact that you have to wait until you hear what is happening before you can rule is part of the problem.

My point of order is this: I don't believe that my questions were out of order and I would very much appreciate it if you would take my questions and compare them to all the questions that have been asked during this session of the House and tell me where they differ, because there was a question asked every time. There was a preamble and a question. Before I even got to the question, you were interrupting, telling me, that it was not proper to bring information to the House. I know that you are not trying to do it, but it could appear that you are trying to run interference for the government. That is not good for the House, Your Honour or democracy, and that is what it would appear to be. Justice must not only be done....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has stood on a point of order. He is now debating the decision, and it is out of order.

MR. LEA: I would just like you to bring to me your reasons, because we can't just leave it at what happened yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: You are out of order, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of privilege, on previous occasions you have been good enough to do something about the temperature of these chambers and we are finding it very, very cold on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of privilege is well taken. I must inform the members, though, that I do receive conflicting requests within minutes of each other. Some complain of cold and some complain of heat. Quite frankly, I have to tell you that I am frustrated.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.