[ Page 7429 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Computer services to hospitals. Mr. Cocke –– 7429

Possible conflict of interest of VGH board member. Mr. Cocke –– 7429

Directive on Site C project. Mrs. Wallace –– 7429

Gloucester property. Mrs. Wallace –– 7430

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 7430

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading

Mrs. Wallace –– 7431

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 7433

Mr. Nicolson –– 7435

Mr. Richmond –– 7439

Mr. Leggatt –– 7441

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7445

Mr. Mitchell –– 7448

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House a former alderman and dear friend from Surrey, Mr. Hugh Buckley.

MR. KING: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, we have Mr. and Mrs. Don MacLeod visiting from the village of Anglemont on beautiful Shuswap Lake, along with their friends, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Gerlitz of the city of Calgary. I would ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to them.

MR. STRACHAN: Today our caucus met with some very interesting people, and we had a productive and edifying session. Would the House please welcome, from the Pacific region of the Canadian Federation of Students, Miss Donna Morgan, Mr. Mike Miller and Mr. Tim Winkelman.

On a personal note, would the House please welcome, from the great riding of Prince George South, Mrs. Leslie Bircham and her daughter Sarah.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd ask all members of the House to extend a very cordial and warm welcome to Dr. and Mrs. Leo Friesen, from the great riding of Vancouver–Point Grey. I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that they're the parents of Miss Jane Friesen, one of our Legislative interns.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, students from Sutherland Junior Secondary High School in North Vancouver are in our galleries today, and I would like hon. members to make them welcome.

MR. RICHMOND: It gives me great pleasure and pride to introduce to this House my eldest son, Craig, who is sitting in Mr. Speaker's gallery with his mother. I would ask the House to make them both welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: It's indeed my pleasure to introduce to the House today three very good friends from the central Fraser Valley who are true free-enterprisers. Mr. Larry Ned is president of the employee-owned company known as Sumas Clay Products, and former chief of the Upper Sumas Indian band. Hugh Kelly is councillor with the Upper Sumas Indian Band and the extruder operator with Sumas Clay Products — a key position. We also have the production foreman of Sumas Clay Products, Mr. Ray Silver. Ray is also a director of that board. This is an employee-owned company that was started up by the Upper Sumas Indian Band — true, hard-working free-enterprisers. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two gentlemen from the B.C. Central Credit Union, Mr. Richard McAlary and Mr. Thomas. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

COMPUTER SERVICES TO HOSPITALS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The principal director of Computech Consulting Canada Ltd. and a director of information systems for the Ministry of Health recently made a presentation to senior hospital officials for the creation of an integrated computer system or hospital system centre. Does the creation of a new bureaucratic entity to provide computer services to hospitals reflect the minister's policy?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in taking the question on notice to permit me the opportunity of asking senior staff to interpret the question.

POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
OF VGH BOARD MEMBER

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the minister who understands very few questions. Maybe he will understand this question. In view of the fact that the first target of the program I described is the Vancouver General Hospital, did the minister take into consideration the possible conflict of interest of appointing Mr. Hawkins to the Vancouver General Hospital Board on February 5, 1982?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in that the member has reached conclusions I don't necessarily agree with, I really don't think I can respond to that unless I wish to accept his attitude of what the facts of the case may be.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is becoming more interesting all the time. Mr. Hawkins's firm, Computech Consulting (Canada) Ltd., was only registered in British Columbia five days prior to his appointment to the VGH board. Can the minister tell the House how much Mr. Hawkins and his company will benefit from the creation of the new hospital system centre?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I can't advise the member of any figures, but I'd be pleased to look into it. If there are such figures or information available, I'll be pleased to bring them back.

MR. COCKE: I have one final question. This is a significant sum that I'm going to be talking about. Who authorized Mr. Hawkins to offer $5.5 million over the next three years towards this project at a meeting on April 19, 1982, to 16 major hospitals in this province?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd be pleased to find out if that information is correct.

DIRECTIVE ON SITE C PROJECT

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Has the minister or any responsible official in his ministry ordered that his staff be instructed not to express in public any opinion or comment concerning B.C. Hydro's Site C project?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a very interesting question. The answer is: no instructions have been issued by the minister. I'm not aware of whether any instructions have been

[ Page 7430 ]

issued by senior personnel in the ministry. However, that doesn't fully answer your question. For me to be able to determine whether instructions have been issued by senior officials of the ministry, I will have to take that portion of your question on notice and bring the answer back as quickly as I possibly can.

MRS. WALLACE: Inasmuch as I have in my hand a copy of a directive signed by Mr. D.T. Ross, whom I'm sure the minister has heard of.... In view of the fact that the directive says that no employee shall negate government policy and that the persons concerned spoke against the Site C project, can the minister tell me whether or not the government has already decided to proceed with Site C development in spite of the fact that public hearings are being held by the Public Utilities Commission? Are, in fact, those hearings simply a façade?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MRS. WALLACE: A final question to that minister. Does this gag order mean that all civil servants, regardless of which department they are in, are now prohibited from expressing their personal views on matters of public interest in British Columbia?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not familiar with the document which the member for Cowichan-Malahat is speaking from, and if she'd like to send me a copy I'd like to look at it and respond in full measure, once I've had an opportunity of digesting the full contents and the significance of what's contained therein.

MRS. WALLACE: The document is on the way to the minister.

GLOUCESTER PROPERTY

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In order to clear your name, and as a result of the statements made by the president of the Fraser Valley branch of the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, has the minister decided to table the transcript of the ELUC hearing relative to the Gloucester property, together with all the related documentation?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker, the matter before ELUC doesn't come within the purview of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It's under the chairmanship of the Minister of Environment.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. In order to clear his colleague's name, is he prepared to file the document?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly glad I wasn't asked to clear my own on this particular issue, but the answer is no.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Quintette Coal has decided to award a $45 million contract to a French company — which I have difficulty pronouncing — called Fives Cail Babcock for the conveyor belt to transport coal from the minesite to the railhead on that project. Can the minister advise the House why the Canadian bidder was refused and turned down in that very major part of the mine development?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: To answer the member's question, I would have to say that he is aware of information that I'm not aware of.

The development of the mines in the northeast is in the hands of the private sector. The government is not building the mines. The private sector is putting $1.5 billion of their own money and the banks' money into the development of the mines.

Sometimes I have to think that these socialists are all over the map, like their friends in Ottawa. One time they're against major projects, but when the major projects are cancelled, they want them built and they want to tax the taxpayers of Canada and British Columbia to put the money into the mines. I don't know where they're at. They're all over the place. They don't know whether they're for the project or against the project. They don't know who they want to finance the project. One day they're against it, and the next day they're doubly against it.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister doesn't mind being reminded that the public are subsidizing this project with a billion and a half dollars. I know the minister wants to look after the public's interest — I'm sure he does — so we ought to know what is going on with the private sector and what contracts are being awarded.

My question is this, Mr. Speaker: in view of the fact that more than $300 million of contracts have now been awarded to foreign companies in the northeast coal project, can the minister advise why he failed to insert a clause in the comprehensive agreement between the province and the companies which will require those companies to let contracts to B.C. or Canadian firms?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I'd like to state emphatically that the taxpayers of British Columbia are not subsidizing the construction of northeast. As a matter of fact, an independent report put out by one of the most reputable accounting firms in North America says that taxpayers of British Columbia — over the terms of that contract — will not only receive all of the infrastructure money back, but will have a surplus of $5.5 billion that they can use for services in this province.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have from time to time said that this mine was not going to be profitable and that it was a poor venture. The mining companies, Quintette particularly, are putting up $800 million to provide jobs for British Columbians — that's not taxpayers' money.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if this government starts telling the private sector how to run their business, and if it is unprofitable, the private sector can go back to the government and say: "You told us to do it this way. It's unprofitable, and you've got to buy us out at great subsidy from the taxpayers of British Columbia." That's what they want us to do — interfere with the private sector.

However, I do want to say that of the $400 million worth of contracts that have been let by the government, over 85 percent of those jobs and those contracts have been let here in the province of British Columbia. It's not like the Leader of the Opposition has said that British Columbians aren't getting any benefits out of this project. All those contracts going outside the country are because we don't have the expertise. I want to tell you that with northeast coal coming on and southeast coal booming, my department is working with the

[ Page 7431 ]

private sector to develop those products and that expertise so that we will have those industries in British Columbia, because we are truly projecting British Columbia into the coal markets of the world. In a century from now, with those great projects progressing, we will have that expertise here in the province of British Columbia and Canada so that we can indeed develop those projects.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam-Moody on a point of order.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I am being recognized for a further question, but I know I was on my feet prior to the bell. I ask your consideration in view of the fact that I was here and ready to ask the minister whether he has guaranteed any of those companies the loans, whether the minister is going to guarantee....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is out of order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

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)

MRS. WALLACE: Before lunch I dealt briefly with some of the local problems that have resulted in Cowichan-Malahat. I think the one that is most startling is the way the restraint bill is affecting money-making projects undertaken by local government. I cited the case in point of our regional community centre, where we are being limited in the amount we can spend in promoting various functions in that centre without any regard for the amount of revenue that those functions generate in the community as a result of those expenditures. That seems to me to be a very unfair way to apply this piece of legislation. I note that at the time I was discussing this, the Premier was in his place — he is no longer with us — and was shaking his head, as if I were making some incorrect statements. I would like to reiterate — and I have checked this out over the lunch hour — that these instructions have been received by the people responsible at the local level. They have been received through Mr. Woodward, who is a very responsible civil servant in a high place in this government's ministry. Certainly we have to accept that as the way it's going to be interpreted: we cannot include revenues when we are making our calculations. This is certainly very unfair, because it's putting a direct damper on the economy by saying: "No, you cannot go ahead and bring in good acts or good stars. You cannot put up the Plexiglas so the Canucks can come here and practise. You cannot do these things because they're too expensive. They're going to exceed the 8, 10 or 12 percent" — or whatever it is that this government finally decides to set down.

With that kind of approach, it's really making it very difficult for us, because, as you know, we're a forest-based industry and, as we all know, the forest industry is not particularly lucrative at this time. So we have a lot of unemployment, a lot of bankruptcies. I picked up my local paper the other day, and a whole page was devoted to local bankruptcies. This is the kind of thing that is happening. Here we have an opportunity to generate some revenue and put a bit of impetus into the economy. Because of this restraint program, we can't do it, because all they're considering is the expenses.

I'm not going to repeat anything more about that, but I did want to make that very clear and get that firmly on the record, that that's what this is doing. It's not just affecting Cowichan; it's affecting areas like Victoria and Vancouver as well. So it does have a great deal of general importance around the province.

We've mentioned many times on this side of the House that what is really disturbing about this bill that we're discussing is the fact that it has such a small amount of information in it. I was interested in the editorial that was published in the Times-Colonist on April 19, just after the bill was dropped. It's headed: "The Cabinet is Cheating."

I think part of it should be read into the record. It says:

"The idea down there at the Legislature is that the government writes its policy plans into the bills, and then defends them publicly against opposition criticism in the process of converting them from proposals to laws."

Now that's what we're here for, Mr. Speaker, but it's very difficult to debate a bill that is so vague.

This article goes on to say:

"The debate portion of the process is intended to allow the rest of us to make a judgment, with the help of the opposition, on the merits of the government's plan. But it's also a painful part of the process for government, because the members across the floor tend to be rather shrill on discovering flaws — real or imagined — and debate frustrates the government. As a result, politicians in power frequently try to duck their obligation to explain and defend their decisions publicly.

"The Bennett government provided a clearcut example of such a cop-out the other day. It introduced Bill 28 — the Compensation Stabilization Act — but with a singular gap in it: that gap will be filled by cabinet order later. And thereby hangs the cop-out." I mentioned this morning, when I was speaking, that in the background papers — or the bulletins or whatever you call them — that have been issued in relation to this bill, there was an assurance that regulations would be filed by March 31, and we still haven't seen them, Mr. Speaker. That's another cop-out.

I'll continue to read from the editorial:

"This is the draft legislation that will give force to Premier Bennett's restraint program. The Premier was quite specific when he legislated the program, with some fanfare, on television. Civil servants would be limited to an 8 to 14 percent pay increase this year. Bill 28 makes no mention of these or other limits. The Minister of Finance defends this omission by arguing that the government needs flexibility if circumstances change."

And then the editorial writer says:

[ Page 7432 ]

"Don't you believe it. The government can always introduce changes in the Legislature, and its majority assures these changes will be approved. The gap in Bill 28 assures only one thing: cabinet, which includes two-thirds of the government members, will be able to change the numbers in the restraint program at any time in the future, without public debate."

This is closet government, Mr. Speaker; secrecy, no freedom of information. And that's a major objection to this particular bill — the secrecy. It talks about restraint. It talks about restraining municipalities, hospitals and school districts. We've heard a lot of talk about those in various other areas of debate in this Legislature. A schedule at the back lists a great number of companies that it's going to restrain — the British Columbia Building Corporation, for example. The people who work for that company.... The janitors who clean our building, the people who do the rather thankless, but very important, tasks for our welfare — the people who have now turned up the heat; thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; it's much more comfortable here — are all involved with the B.C. Buildings Corporation. They are going to be told — told, not asked — that they must take a certain wage settlement. They are going to be told by a commissioner who can decide whether their wages are too much or too little, whether there should be more in benefits or less in benefits, in spite of anything that may be reached through the collective bargaining process. They are going to be told that, and they are going to be limited, and that limit is going to be 8 or 10 percent. That's for B.C. Buildings Corporation. At the same time as the B.C. Buildings Corporation is being told that the people who work for it — the little people, the people who do the jobs that keep us all comfortable and happy — are going to be restrained, this government is paying out to B.C. Buildings Corporation 20 percent more this year than last year. That's the kind of restraint that the government is exercising as far as B.C. Buildings Corporation is concerned. Yet the people who work there are being asked to stay at 8 or 10 percent. But the government is quite happy, through the various ministries that sit across the floor, to pay out to the B.C. Buildings Corporation 20 percent more than last year. Is that fair? Is it fair to give them 20 percent more, but then tell them that they can only give 8 or 10 percent more to their employees? What kind of justice is that? It's Social Credit justice, apparently, Mr. Speaker.

The B.C. Ferry Corporation is another one. The people who work for B.C. Ferries are going to be asked to keep their wage demands down. They have the right to free collective bargaining, they tell us. That's fine; they can go ahead and bargain; they can do anything they like; they can come to a decision. But whatever they decide doesn't really matter, because Mr. Peck is going to look at it, and Mr. Peck is going to decide. I know Mr. Peck from way back. I remember the days when we both worked for the B.C. Power Commission — that's a long time ago. You know, I have great respect for Mr. Peck. He's being asked to make that decision. It has nothing to do with collective bargaining. Those people who work for B.C. Ferries are going to be asked to hold their wages down. Yet we have the example of the Ministry of Tourism — I notice that the Minister of Tourism is here increasing her budget for professional and special services this year by a whopping 76 percent at the same time as employees of B.C. Ferries — which is such an important part of the tourist industry — are being asked to hold their wages down to 8 or 10 percent. That's not fair, and that's not just. That's why I oppose this bill.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Are you against the tourist industry, and the revenues and the jobs?

MRS. WALLACE: I'm against 76 percent increases in special professional services — probably obtained from outside this province. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of the tourist industry here. That minister has very little to do with the success of the tourist industry in this province either.

The people who work in the British Columbia Housing Management Commission are going to be asked to restrain their wages, according to schedule 13. School boards and teachers are asked to cut back, along with the custodial workers, secretaries and teachers' aides. We've heard evidence that those lower-paid groups are receiving less than a single parent on welfare. Their take-home pay is something less than $850 a month. Yet they're being asked to restrain themselves. They say: "It's not a cutback." Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that it is a cutback. If inflation is running at 11 percent or 12 percent, and your salary is increasing only at 8 percent or 9 percent, that's a cutback, no matter how you cut it.

We have this kind of treatment for those low-paid workers that do the secretarial work in the public-school system — I know many of them and the important role they play in the education of our children — yet we have a minister who has increased his travel costs by 168 percent for his office and for his ministry by 25 percent. These are the things that make it so hard to swallow this kind of bill. It makes it impossible to swallow, because obviously the people who have drafted this bill have no intention whatsoever of curtailing their own expenditures.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), for example, has increased his travel expenses by 69 percent. That's in a budget that's been practically cut in half. That's at a time when the employees who work for him — indirectly, on the Workers' Compensation Board and the Labour Relations Board — are being asked, around this province, to hold the line and practise restraint. Yet that same minister has the gall to come before this Legislature and ask for an increase of 69 percent in his travel expenses. That's not just, and that's not fair.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is asking for a 20 percent increase in advertising and publications. That's a long way off 8 percent or 10 percent. It doesn't indicate to me that there's any real intent for the government to tighten their belt. The Attorney-General, as I said, is asking for a 20 percent increase in his travel, but in his professional and special services he's asking for a 33 percent increase. These are the kinds of increases, one after the other, that the government is prepared to present in its budget and estimates that will be coming before this House very shortly. Yet in this bill we're being asked to tell the workers in the public sector that they must restrain themselves to something — presumably 8 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent or 14 percent. We don't know. It could be — as was mentioned across the way — a zero increase. I'm wondering if the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is speaking for the government.

MR. KEMPF: Sit down. I'll talk some more.

MRS. WALLACE: Is that what they're really intending to do with this bill?

[ Page 7433 ]

MR. KEMPF: I'll talk some more.

MRS. WALLACE: Get in your own place.

Is that what the government is really intending to do with this bill — to reduce it to no increase? I'm maintaining that if you reduce it to 8 percent or 10 percent, you're still cutting back because you're getting less than inflation. But that member would have it held at no increase, which is in effect — he's clapping and applauding — an 11 percent cut, Mr. Member, as long as you have 11 percent inflation.

It might be said that these increases are because there weren't enough funds voted last year for those particular items. Certainly we saw a lot of special warrants for those same items where ministers had overexpended. But I think you have to compare the totals. If you look, for example, at the public accounts for 1980-81, we find that the ministers' travel for 1980-81 amounted to $410, 443. According to public accounts, the ministers' travel for the preceding year, 1979-80, was $219, 986. Do you know what that represents, Mr. Speaker? I took time to calculate it. That's a 96 percent increase in travel expenses between 1979-80 and 1980-81. On top of that, we're getting the kind of expenses that came along in 1981-82, which were much, much higher than those. If you will recall, we on this side of the House identified $85 million of excessive increases last year over the previous years in the areas of travel, professional services, publicity and those kinds of things. Now we have the kind of increases that I've been talking about: percentage increases in various areas involving ministers. Yet those same ministers are prepared to ask the public service that works for the municipalities, the tourist industry, Highways, Mines, Energy, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Provincial Secretary or the Ministry of Finance to hold to 8 percent.

I've saved the best for the last, Mr. Speaker, because I want to tell you what this Minister of Finance is proposing to do for himself at the same time he's proposing to cut or hold public employees to some undesignated limits, which certainly will be no more than 8 percent, 10 percent or 12 percent. In the budget of the Ministry of Finance — the ministry responsible for this bill — his advertising accounts for this year in the estimates he has presented have increased by 24 percent. That's double the maximum amount he's prepared to allow to the workers of this province. The travel budget for his own office is up 25 percent, and that's more than double. His ministry's travel budget is up 34 percent.

Those are the increases he's prepared to bring into this House and ask us to support and vote money for during his estimates, while at the same time he's sponsoring this bill, which is going to limit the workers of this province to an 8 percent or 10 percent increase or worse. His professional service budget.... Would anyone care to guess how much of an increase he's asking for professional services in the Ministry of Finance this year? It's not 24 percent: it's more than that. That was advertising. It's not 25 percent; it's more than that. That was travel in his own office. It's not 34 percent; it's more than that. Professional services in the Ministry of Finance are up by 71 percent in this year's budget. That's restraint? That minister is sponsoring this bill; that minister is asking the workers of this province to curtail and cut back. Is it any wonder that we object to this bill? Is it any wonder that the workers object to this bill?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The bill appoints a commissioner, as I've said. It doesn't say what the guidelines are; we have no regulations. We know that there's going to be restraint, but it's left entirely in the hands of the commissioner. Well, no, not entirely, Mr. Speaker, because there's a little clause in that bill which says that when the cards are down, in the final decision, anything that Mr. Peck does is subject to the approval of the cabinet, and that's who's going to really make the decisions. The payments to the public employees of this province are going to be set at the whim of the members of the cabinet. They can say to Mr. Peck: "Well, we think that particular union is pretty militant. Maybe if we cut them back a little more we might get them to strike, and then we could have an election." You know it would cause a lot fury if they did that.

That's what this bill allows, Mr. Speaker. It allows political decisions in cabinet. It has nothing to do with fairness, correctness or rightness. It's just like the land: all done behind closed doors; decisions made by cabinet for political purpose. That's what the bill really does. It puts Mr. Peck up as the front man, there theoretically to make the decisions, but every one of those decisions can be changed, adjusted or ordered by cabinet. That is how it is really going to work. They are going to be political decisions. The wages of the workers in this province are going to be decided behind the closed doors of cabinet, and for political purposes. If they want to cause friction between various unions or various groups of workers, it can be done by a political decision behind closed doors. That's the kind of program this is; that's the kind of bill this is. That is why I am so entirely opposed to it.

The principle of restraint — and certainly that is what we are talking about — was well covered in an editorial in the Cowichan paper. It is entitled: "Somebody Please Save Us From Those Restraints." I would like to read it:

"The provincial government calls it a restraint program, and the way it is being applied in the Cowichan Valley leaves no doubt at all that's exactly what it is. Yes, it is a restraint program. It is going to restrain every program that generates money, rather than just spends taxpayers' money, in all our recreational facilities. It is going to restrain the quality of entertainment that will be coming to our valley, and it will restrain our children from receiving as good an education as they have been receiving in recent years. But there is one thing that this government has not been able to restrain. And that is bound to be an overwhelming desire — at least from this constituency — to bounce them out of office at the first opportunity."

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to rise on Bill 28 and say, in case I forget, that I am speaking in favour of it. It is a fine piece of legislation, and long overdue. For the benefit of Hansard and other people I want to read off the explanatory notes of what we are talking about; they are very short. My research isn't newspaper clippings.

Bill 28 is called the Compensation Stabilization Act, and the explanatory notes in our material state this:

"This act establishes the office of the Compensation Stabilization Commissioner to administer the program of guidelines issued by the executive council and the compensation regulations prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This program is designed to provide: (a) voluntary and self-administering

[ Page 7434 ]

limitations on increases in compensation of public-sector employees; and (b) the enforcement of limitations prescribing limitations on increases in compensation of public-sector employees for compensation plans which are outside the voluntary guidelines."

That is what we are talking about. As I said, I am very much in favour of this bill. While I feel that the public employees have to be and will be dealt with fairly and justly, the people who pay the bills, the taxpayers — all the citizens of British Columbia — have to be considered as well. Our Premier announced on television, on February 18, that this program was going into effect in our province. This bill legalizes what he said at that time and puts it into law.

The Leader of the Opposition is the master of twist in this province. I got quite a kick out of him the other day when he said that this government was carrying out orders from Ottawa. Let's face the facts of life: what has Ottawa done about restraint? Absolutely nothing. What other province in Canada has done anything about restraint? Absolutely none. This bill provides the leadership that is lacking in the rest of this country, and the Premier started it. All Canadians are fed up with governments, at all levels, ripping off the taxpayer. This is one way we'll have some controls.

MR. NICOLSON: And cabinet ministers.

AN HON. MEMBER: And MLAs.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'll come to that, Mr. Nuke, just wait; MLAs too, yes.

But the master of twist, the Leader of the Opposition, says that we in this government were directed by Ottawa. I want to tell you that they never made a decision in their life in Ottawa, let alone one like this. They haven't even passed the budget that they brought in in the House of Commons last November — and they never will. They just misinform Canadians all the time. It's all talk, no action. And it applies here. This government has taken action with the leadership of our Premier starting on February 18.

Another thing is that the opposition over there get a great kick out of calling a lot of my good friends and colleagues Liberals. They've been in opposition for so many years that they lose track of time. I've got a lot of good friends in public life, but in the executive council, yes, we've got people here who used to be Liberals; I'm proud of them. They have been Social Crediters since 1974 — eight years — and I know a lot of people who've been in ten parties in eight years. I want to tell you why these outstanding citizens in our province saw the light in 1974. In their duty as public people they changed their political stripes solely to get rid of the ravages of socialism because people in this province were upset. I want to thank them publicly for the help they still give for getting rid of socialism in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you remember when the NDP were responsible? They were called CCFers then.

HON. MR. FRASER: Right, those were the good old days when they were CCFers.

But anyway, these fine outstanding people still serve this province as Social Crediters, and, you know, they helped kick out the NDP government we had from 1972 to 1975. The province of British Columbia owes these people a lot for that alone. They left us $260 million in debt. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, if they were still in power? God forbid; the deficit would be $2,600,000.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to comment on that: the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is talking about the indirect debt we have through Crown corporations. I just say to him: I never saw the NDP government do anything about decreasing the debt of B.C. Hydro or anything else; they were all for that; they didn't do anything about it when they had an opportunity. That's what they're talking about: they don't want any powerlines or any more lights; they want us to go back to candles.

I don't want to go too far back in history, but I have a couple more comments. When they were the government they ran the mining industry out of this country. The Minister of Mines they had — we still have one of them here as an MLA — was the best Minister of Mines the Yukon ever had. Investment stopped in this province. It's since been really stepped up under this government, and the investment climate is changed.

Now I want to deal again with the master of twist, the Leader of the Opposition, making a grandiose speech about — of all things — our government and our party being tied in with the federal Liberals, the government of Canada. What a switcheroo that one is! It's unreal. I think we should actually look at some facts. Mr. Speaker, the facts of life are that in the great nation of Canada we've had a Liberal government for a long time, except for 10 or 11 months of the Conservatives. I want to deal with the period of 1972 to 1974 in Canada, when we had a minority Liberal government, and that was the biggest period in the history of this country for giveaway of public funds. I also want to tell you that that's where the idea of nationalization of the oil industry came from, and I want to tell you that the NDP federally supported that minority government right through that time. Now what have we got in Canada? The biggest debt of any citizen in the world, and we can't even pay the interest on it, thanks to the NDP keeping them going from '72 to '74 with their votes. They voted with them consistently.

The national energy policy was also an idea of the socialists to nationalize energy. What has that done in our country, Mr. Speaker? It hasn't created one gallon of oil, but it has sure taken over a lot of service stations. That's socialism at its very worst. Now we've got service stations all across the nation that you and I and all the taxpayers paid for because of socialism fed to the federal Liberals by the NDP. Just another example, I repeat, of who is in bed with whom. When the NDP were the government of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, for your information, the Premier of this province went back to Ottawa and offered to the national government our oil and gas resources if they'd nationalize the oil and gas industry. That happened, and they say that we're in bed with the federal Liberals. That actually happened and is a matter of public record.

I think we'll get a little closer to home now. I want to zero in on who was in the parliament of Canada during the period 1972-74. Well, we happen to have two of those members here in this Legislature. They're not here, of course, but I want to deal with them. The present member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was an MP through this time and also the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). They were federal NDP

[ Page 7435 ]

Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, and if you want a little of their past I'll give it to you. They're now provincial MLAs, but I wonder how they voted in the minority government of 1972-74, when we had the biggest giveaway ever of public funds and nationalization.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Tell us.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, these two members voted with the minority Liberal government, and they're here today as provincial MLAs. The member for Coquitlam-Moody was elected a federal MP in 1972, was re-elected in 1974, and he copped out and didn't run in 1979. He was a federal NDP member from British Columbia. You know, Mr. Speaker, why he didn't run federally in 1979? Because he knew he couldn't get re-elected. We have these outstanding Canadians right here across the floor from us, and I just want everybody to know where they stood when we were getting socialism pushed down our throats by a minority Liberal government.

The other one is a really interesting case. He's the present member for Skeena. For your information, Mr. Speaker, as well as the House, the member for Skeena was first elected to the House of Commons in Ottawa from the riding of Skeena in 1957 — '57, '58, '62, '63, '65, '68, '72 — and then the voters caught up with him, and he was defeated in '74.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did he vote in Ottawa?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll tell you how he voted. He supported Trudeau and the minority Liberal government that kept them in power to continue on with socialization, as the federal NDP thought it should go. So we're now living with how they voted in this period of minority Liberal government.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are they ashamed of that record, do you think?

HON. MR. FRASER: No. I don't think they're ashamed of it.

The other thing is that I guess these MPs got a pretty nice pension out of serving as MPs. I don't know what it would be. But you know, for the member for Skeena.... When we took over the government of British Columbia on December 22, 1975, we found out that he was the Indian adviser to the Minister of Human Resources for the provincial government. We went to find out what he was doing and we found out he was doing this job for the natives of British Columbia out of Hull, Quebec. He wasn't even in the province, and he was on the government of B.C. payroll.

Back to their records. I feel sorry for the member for Coquitlam-Moody because he's been sitting here since 1979 and he still thinks he's in Ottawa. He still hasn't lost that Ottawa syndrome. I'm very sorry to see that happen.

I got carried away a little regarding the stabilization bill — Bill 28 — and I want to re-emphasize to you, Mr. Speaker, that this shows leadership, and when the time comes, that will show up. Our citizens know they have responsible government in place and that we will watch out for their interests as well as our good employees'. We'll be fair and just, I can assure you of that.

The last member who spoke — the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) — said that these decisions will be made behind closed doors by the executive council. I would tell her that she knows full well that that's a responsibility of the elected government. What is she making an issue about that for? We aren't going to cop out of our responsibilities — whether or not she thinks that we shouldn't be doing that. I don't know how they would do it. We certainly have it all on record here what we will do about it — and everybody knows.

I think she mentioned something about B.C. Ferries. I didn't catch it, but I just want to inform her, as a member for Vancouver Island, that those people have a contract in place — the first ever — for 27 months. I don't know just how she was trying to get that into her discussion, but their contract is in place, and it's a legal contract.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that probably should have come.... The only criticism I've heard about it is that it isn't restraining enough. That's what I've heard.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Who have I heard that from? I've heard that from citizens in British Columbia — and lots of them.

In any case, I fully intend to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for listening. I want you — like all the rest of the members of this House — to root for the Vancouver Canucks tonight.

MR. RICHMOND: We have a very special group of students visiting us in the gallery today. They have just come into the House. They are a group from McArthur Park Junior Secondary School in Kamloops — a school that two of my children attended — and I'm very pleased to welcome them and their teacher, Miss Kennan. They are a special group in that they are from a challenge program — or an enriched class — and I would like the House not only to welcome them, but to congratulate this fine group of people.

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to introduce a guest in the gallery, Mr. Peter Demeo from Nelson. Also, I notice Marcia Braundy in the audience. She is a very distinguished person in our area as she is on apprenticeship training and pioneering in the area of non-traditional employment for women, and I'm very pleased to see her here today.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to have heard the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) debating 1972 to 1974. The minister always had that very strong, forceful voice and was really best suited, I think, to opposition. I hope that when the Premier finally does get the courage to call an election, that that minister's skills will once again reach their full potential.

I took careful note of some of the things the minister said during his speech on the bill. He said: "During those years the NDP never did anything about Hydro debt." I would disagree with him on that. We reduced parity bonds by $150 million. That was instant debt, callable at any time. A run on those bonds could have placed the government in a very serious predicament, and our government reduced those bonds by about $150 million.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, we spent a lot on assets. We spent a lot on buying and paying for ferries — a pay-as-you-go government. We built government buildings — pay as you

[ Page 7436 ]

go. You took those very same buildings and put them in hock. You mortgaged them, you mortgaged the ferries, and now we're having to pay high interest rates. We are under the oppressive burden of a government that follows a Social Credit philosophy of state centralism.

The bill before us follows the pattern of Social Credit state centralism, a form of government that is going to place power in the hands of one person. I don't care how good that person is; any person will be sorely tempted by the kind of powers, the almost God-like power, being placed in his hands to determine what is and what is not a public service. He can define what is or is not an employer or employee under this particular act. He could look at some company that supplies a lot of government services by contract, or at a consultant like Arthur Erickson, who does a lot of government work, and decide it is a public service.

Perhaps the minister will decide that Downs-Archambault, another architect that has done a great amount of government work, is essentially a public service. With the sweeping powers in this act they could determine, because there would be nothing to stop them if this bill passes the House, that these firms are indeed subject to this particular act. It is so wide, and there is nothing really spelled out in detail. All this act says is: "Let us do anything we want, covering anybody that we please, and let us do it in secret. Then we will determine the dimensions of this act."

This act also enables the commissioner, who will be Mr. Peck, to investigate any compensation plan. If we look at the definition of a compensation plan, we see it's not restricted to this particular act. I hope his zeal does get carried away in some places. I hope he starts looking at compensation plans for certain high executives, the type of compensation plans that allow for the giving of options to purchase shares given at some future date at very nominal amounts. I hope some of those things are perhaps looked into.

Quite seriously, this is a very dangerous, wide-sweeping bill, and no one in British Columbia, no employer or employee, is safe from the grasp of this act. I don't think I have ever seen anything quite so loosely worded. As a substitute for careful draftsmanship they have simply thrown in everything from soup to nuts, including the kitchen sink; every cliché one could bring to mind is appropriate to this particular piece of legislation. There can't be much that is missed out. They can decide it all after the fact.

This, supposedly, is the long-awaited piece of legislation. Many of my colleagues have said there's nothing in this particular piece of legislation that sets any limits, either minimums or maximums, as to the types of compensation that can be awarded. There is nothing in this particular piece of legislation to prevent a general rollback of 10 percent, 50 percent or 100 percent. There is nothing here to prevent people from being forced to work for nothing. There is not a single assurance in this act that we will not put people into slavery. This particular act, so help me, Mr. Speaker, legalizes slavery. This is the disemancipation of the people of British Columbia. It isn't limited only to public servants; it is anyone we may define as being public servants. If I am wrong, let the ministers tell me that this prevents an arbitrary cutback in wages. Let them point that out. I say that this act, if passed.... The regulations to be passed under this act amount to nothing less than an act in this House to legalize slavery in British Columbia. I am not saying that we are going to have slavery in the province of British Columbia, but an act with such sweeping powers should never be passed by members in this House, regardless of whether we are on the left or the right. No democratic institution should ever bring in such dangerous legislation or create the precedent of such wide and sweeping powers. I am surprised if some of the members opposite have not read this distasteful piece of legislation.

When I was a young student I used to wonder how democracy was very gradually eroded in Germany. It happened for a lot of very good historical reasons, but how did it happen so gradually? There was no overnight change. It all happened very slowly over the matter of a few very short years. Yet that is what we are doing in this House. We are bringing in a piece of legislation that can set any rate of increase. A rate of increase can be a negative rate of increase. If it can be negative and if there are no limitations set, it means we can reduce people's level of compensation to zero if the cabinet so orders Peck and his commission. That is the scope and the principle of this bill. The principle of this bill is whether we should be free and liberated, enjoying all the democratic privileges that have been fought for, for probably 800 years in the British parliamentary system, or whether we are to turn our back on that and bring in a piece of potentially dangerous legislation.

There will be a lot of things to stop the government from taking this particular piece of legislation that far. I suppose they will probably institute wage increases of 8 to 14 percent. I'll tell you that anybody in this Legislature who votes for this bill couldn't have read it or couldn't care about this institution in which we stand today.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

I think it's ironic that this government should have the audacity to get up and pretend to be the champions of restraint in this country when it looks to me like they are the champions of overspending and lining their own expense pockets to the extent that might be matched by some of their colleagues and friends in the Liberal government in Ottawa.

I do, remember that when I was Minister of Housing I too went to that conference centre — the converted railway station in Ottawa — and was housed. All arrangements were looked after by the federal Liberal government. For cabinet ministers they would order these big, lavish suites with big, lavish prices. I recall the reactions of myself, Mr. Don Cody, the Minister of Cooperation and Cooperatives Development from Saskatchewan, Mr. Walter Fitzgerald, the Minister of Labour and Housing for the Nova Scotia Liberal government under Mr. Regan, and Brian Peckford, who was then the Minister of Housing for Newfoundland. I remember the four of us getting together and saying: "Never again are we going to let this high-living Liberal bunch reserve accommodation for us." When we got together after our meetings, as the four of us often did, we got together in our little single rooms without....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, it was a very interesting group of people of diverse political philosophies. But, Mr. Speaker, we did not try to line our pockets, and we did not try to live in a style in which we had no right to become accustomed. When I was tired and wanted better accommodation on the airline home from those meetings, I billed my department for economy class and I paid what was then a $70 differental one-way from Toronto to Vancouver for first class. I did not ask the

[ Page 7437 ]

people of British Columbia; I did not ask the workers, I did not ask the school teachers, I did not ask the CUPE workers, and I did not ask the B.C. government public servants to pay for my first-class transportation back. If I wanted to have the first-class accommodation with canapés or a little bit of Grand Marnier or something like that, that was something that I should pay out of my own pocket. Economy class gets me to and from Victoria and Ottawa, and that is all that is needed. If a person wants something a little bit better, they should darned well pay for it out of their own pockets.

Mr. Speaker, I can recall buying gifts when I was a minister. I've never mentioned this before, but I recall buying a representative gift of British Columbia, an argillite carving, and presenting it to the wife of the then Minister of Housing. I did not bill my department for that; my wife and I paid for that, because that was an expression of genuine friendship. I was not out to buy favour. But it appears that this government has to bill everything. A 60-cent carton of milk is put on an invoice, and how much does it cost to process an invoice? Fifteen dollars. Does that sound like restraint? And you're going to vote for this bill, my friends on the opposite benches?

I must say that every time I've been elected to serve in this House, I've said: "Yes, I'm glad to serve." I didn't get in a snit when we lost the election in 1975 and I found myself in opposition, but I recall the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in 1972. The election results turned out not to be in his favour, and he said: "I don't think I'll even go to Victoria." That's the kind of dedication.... Of course, now that member is very pleased to be a part of this House. He gets all of those free trips to Japan, and he has one of the biggest expense accounts. In fact I wonder how high that is. He has an extremely high expense account — I think he's the record holder; yes, he is. Now he likes serving in this House.

Have you noticed that every time the Premier goes to Ottawa with his Liberal friends or whenever there is a conference in Ottawa...? Does he come back to British Columbia? No, he goes down to Palm Springs. Almost every time there is a major conference in Canada — a first ministers' conference — I have noticed this absolutely incredible pattern: he then embarks on a holiday, as if the job is too much for him. Well, he only spent $35,000, according to the 1980-81 Public Accounts. Of course that's two years ago, but that's the latest we have. But the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, that member for Peace River South, he loves to stay here now, Mr. Speaker, because he spends $39,000 more — a great part of it on travelling back and forth to Japan. Very nice.

We say in this House that the price of this has to be borne unilaterally by public servants. I'd like to talk about some of those public servants. In the ten years I've been in public office I've met and come to know and respect a great number of public servants. I'm sad to say I've had to go to a few funerals of public servants. I think of one electrical inspector who was always understaffed and who always tried to do his job and would travel innumerable miles and keep himself going with cigarettes and coffee so that he could do his job, when he was underfunded, undersupported and quite obviously unappreciated by this government. This stress finally got to him, and he had a heart attack and died.

I think of another of my friends in the public service who worked for the Ministry of Highways. He got called out in the middle of night during snowstorms. He worked and put his life on the line to try to keep the roads safe for those of us who travel those highways. One day he went out on that truck and his heart gave out. The truck went off the road — fortunately, no one else was hurt — and he, too, literally gave up his life serving the people of British Columbia.

I think about a wildlife conservation officer. If you saw lights in the mountains in the middle of the night, or if you heard shots out of season or at a time of day or in a place where there shouldn't have been shots fired, that conservation officer would come out seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and would look into that incident thoroughly, competently and professionally. He too died of stress and a heart attack, because he was doing the job of more than one person; he was doing a job that five people over there, chosen at random, couldn't do.

Mr. Speaker, these are the people I think about when I hear the words of the government saying: "Improve productivity." That's their opening shot with the B.C. Government Employees Union. And those are but a few of the people who I've come to know and I've come to miss very, very much.

When I look at the way that this particular government conducts itself, and when I look at the expenses that were applied for, for a trip to Scottsdale.... I too have the same taste: I like to go to Scottsdale. I think it's a nice place. I've been there about three times, but I've never submitted any vouchers for it. The last time I was in Scottsdale, I met a banker, a judge and a lawyer. I didn't meet any legislators, but we did talk about the Vancouver stock market. And boy, Mr. Speaker, they had some things to tell me about the Vancouver stock market. I met a couple of people very active in the banking business down in New Mexico and Arizona. But I didn't put in a voucher for that, Mr. Speaker. I felt that my wife and I should pay for it, because we really enjoyed ourselves. And I think that it was well worth it, and the people of British Columbia shouldn't pay for that.

On another occasion not too long ago I went to Mexico. I went to attend a wedding. While I was there I met a senator — a real, live senator of the government of the state of Mexico. On other occasions at personal expense I have met with senators from Italy and a Member of Parliament from Britain. I've had meetings with the Speaker and with ten members of the National Assembly of the province of Quebec, but I did not say that because I had done such things I should put in a voucher and ask the people of British Columbia to pay for that particular trip.

What is different about any member in this House, that any of us are not equal to the others? Why do some people get paid more in this House than others? There are certain positions — there is the Speaker's position, a special stipend over and above the allowances of a Member of the Legislative Assembly, because the Speaker is responsible for travelling around the country and visiting other jurisdictions and finding out how they work. The Speaker does have the authority to initiate these trips or to send one of us on such a trip. But to go out and travel and look at other parliaments and then come back and claim expenses of over $1,500 would not be proper for any one of us — not even for members of the executive council. One might even argue that the Provincial Secretary might because, to some extent, the business of the Legislature seems to come under the Provincial Secretary, although I don't think it should. What is there in the terms of reference of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that allows him to go and talk to a few legislators and then say that they have a legitimate claim for expenses on a week-long

[ Page 7438 ]

holiday in a luxurious...? I could certainly not afford to stay at the Registry. What allows people like that to even make such a claim? What allows people like that to say then that we have to have unilateral restraint in this province, restraint of the people who work so hard and put their lives on the line?

We have had a lot of wasteful spending by this government. My colleagues have enumerated the huge increases in advertising spending. Why don't we restrain publication of the B.C. Government News? Why don't we make the B.C. Government News go on user-pay basis? If people want to receive the B.C. Government News — if it is such a good publication — why don't we have subscriptions to it? People could subscribe for $5 or $25 a year — whatever it costs to pay the cost of that publication. Let's have user-pay with the B.C. Government News. Let's have that kind of restraint.

What about that pamphlet about B.C. Place that went out to everybody's home?

MR. LEA: That was only half a million dollars.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, well, half a million.

MR. LEGGATT: They spend more than that on wine.

MR. NICOLSON: That is right. Why not have some restraint on that kind of wasteful government advertising?

I can think of so many ways. Should we have restraint? Let me count the ways. We could be here long beyond the limitations of parliamentary debate on second reading. I will tell you what bothers me even more than this kind of spending, this kind of wasteful spending by the cabinet.... It was $39,000 back in 1980; it would probably be $80,000 this year for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I don't know. I guess the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) only got to spend $2,244 that first year because he was appointed partway through that year, but now that he is hitting his stride I think there is kind of a steeplechase going on. One minute the Premier is in the lead, the next minute it is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, and now we have a new up-and-coming competitor in that race — the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am betting my money on him. Anybody who is dedicated enough to fill out a voucher for a sixty-cent carton of milk at a cost of $15 to the Ministry of Finance for processing it....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a good consumer.

MR. NICOLSON: He is setting a splendid example, but that is why I am putting my money on that horse as opposed to some of the others who have also been doing their part.

I want to draw some analogies between this piece of legislation and the past Anti-Inflation Board and the earlier attempts at restraint. This kind of thing won't work, for a lot of reasons. I think of how the Nelson city municipal police force — a police force with about 13 people on staff at that time — just happened to have their collective agreement fall on a day that was not concurrent with the other collective agreements of municipal police forces in the rest of the province of British Columbia. Back in 1976 they were caught, put under restraint, and we had two vacancies on that very small force. That reduced them to about 80 or 85 percent of force strength, because they could not attract people at that current collective agreement that they had at that time. That is part of the kind of thing that is going to happen under this piece of legislation.

How big a bureaucracy are we going to have to create under this bill if we are going to cast a wide enough net that we are going to be able to do everybody else's business — the business of the city of Nelson, of the Vancouver General Hospital, of the Port Alberni fire department or municipality? How wide a net, how big a bureaucracy and what cost are we going to have to come up with in order to do this?

While I'm on this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, I look at some of the exemptions. The employees of this commission are going to be exempt from the Labour Code of British Columbia. The Public Service Labour Relations Act will not apply. Yet when it comes to the nice stuff, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — the cabinet — may, by order, direct that our public service pension act applies. So the public-service pensions are good enough for the employees of this organization, but they cannot be part of a collective agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this particular act is a dreadful thing. Coming back to restraint, I think of ways in which we could have restrained ourselves over the past several years. Remember when the Premier hired an office assistant and we finally found out what the duties of the office assistant were? He was a full-time chauffeur. I think the wage was something like $19,000 or $26,000 a year, if my memory serves me. You could buy a lot of cab fares for that kind of money. The Premier has never shown restraint. Remember when Mr. Dave Brown was hired by the Premier? Remember how he was living in Victoria and his expenses at the Empress Hotel were being paid, and then whenever he went back to Vancouver — which is where he really lived — he was collecting per diems, because he was away from his base of operations? His home was in Vancouver. There were vouchers not dissimilar to some that appear to have been tendered recently — vouchers for days in which he was in two different places at once, where nobody could be unless they've come up with some kind of teleportation device, Mr. Speaker.

That's where restraint could have been shown. I look at this government and I look at the way they make deals with their Liberal friends in Ottawa. There's a subsidy agreement for the northern ferries — you and I know that, Mr. Speaker, because we're both on the Crown corporations committee — and I think it has expired. For some reason there seem to be no negotiations going on. The Ferry Corporation was told to butt out — get out of it. This agreement started out at $5 million a couple of years ago. It brought in $10 million last year. It's up for renegotiation, and the pot should be a lot sweeter, but the government seems to be showing no interest in it. Why? Because it's part of the deal for the Liberals to come in and take over the entire financing of Pier B-C. Of course, this government has made some kind of a deal with their Liberal friends and they've said: "Well, this allows us to save face, makes you look good and makes us look good. Looks like we've finally got the Liberals to spend all of this money here in British Columbia. We'll let you off the hook. We'll make some kind of a deal" — probably at the expense of northern transportation.

Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things that are happening. Who does this group run to hire? People like Ron Basford, former Liberal cabinet minister. He heads northeast coal. Who's sitting across the table from him? Ron Andras, former Liberal cabinet minister. There's no doubt that this is

[ Page 7439 ]

the voice of the Liberal Party in the west. Yes, there's no more Liberal Party here in the west. There's poor Shirley McLoughlin, and she tries her best, but that's the vestigial remnants of a few true Grits like Gordon Gibson. This is the voice of the Liberal Party in the west. This is where all the Liberal power brokers are. This is where advice on who to appoint to the bench.... Who do they appoint to the bench? They're always appointing old Liberals. They've taken over the Attorney-General's department. It's all run by Liberals — former presidents of the Liberal Party of British Columbia, former Liberal candidates, and so on. This place is a nest of Liberals. They've learned how to spend extravagantly. They've learned well from their Liberal friends.

On restraint, a few things could have avoided the situation that we're in today.

This government is finding new ways of imposing debt. The debt which is being carried as short-term debt by hospitals in this province is part of the deliberate policy of this government to sort of hide the truth. In fact, there are millions and millions of dollars in direct debt out there that this government — some government — will have to face up to some day. This government is going to be creating new forms of debt under an act which we've just passed.

This government has been responsible for wasting $21 million on the refit of the Queen of the North. Let's not forget that, and the refit of the Victoria Princess, the dock alterations, and the jetfoil service. Why was that brought about? Simply out of spite, and let's not forget it. Simply because the NDP started the Marguerite. They don't like anything that the NDP had anything to do with. They never build from strength. They'd sooner run something into the ground, create a position of weakness and try and pick up the pieces from there. They had to go back; they were forced in spite of everything to eat crow and go back and do what had to be done with the Princess Marguerite — and she does what she does best.

Mr. Speaker, they wasted $14 million on a heroin treatment program in lavish surroundings. It was the Heroin Hilton. Then they spent more tax dollars trying to advertise and defend this program, which was illegal in the first instance and opposed by all three opposition parties that were then in the House.

They created a Ministry of Deregulation, and it cost $1.5 million for that little escapade. All they succeeded in doing was wiping out Seaboard Insurance and causing a special session of the Legislature that cost $100 million.

Mr. Speaker, that government spent $2 million on the Bates commission on uranium mining in British Columbia, and they terminated the inquiry before the findings could be finalized and made public.

Their sloppy accounting and financial management have also cost the people of this province. In March 1979, the government had $118 million outstanding in royalties on timber and today that figure probably stands at about S400 million. The cabinet ministers in the Social Credit government are the big spenders. In 1980-81 we know that they spent an enormous amount of money, according to Public Accounts, and we know that next year they went on to just about double that. We have every reason to believe that they will be spending over $400,000 on these things.

I thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker, and those are the reasons that I will certainly be voting against this bill and urge a few members of the opposite side to join with us.

MR. RICHMOND: It is a pleasure for me to rise in this debate and support this bill. Contrary to what the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) says, I do not have any trouble defending the philosophy behind this bill and voting for it. I think that perhaps some of the members opposite do because they don't understand the reasons for it. I think that a lot of the time they don't really talk to the people out there who pay the bills, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, who at this very time, not only in this province, in this country, but throughout most of the world. are having a very difficult time paying their own bills, without paying the bills of a totally unrestrained bureaucracy or public service. So the reasoning behind this bill is very clear, and that is to stop some of the blank-cheque budgeting and mentality that has been prevalent in our system for far too long. When I talk to the people who pay the bills, they don't have any difficulty in supporting this philosophy — not one bit.

MR. HANSON: How about the $37.50 wine? Do they support that?

MR. KEMPF: You're probably too young to drink, anyway.

MR. RICHMOND: We seem to have some people who are hung up on....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We also seem to have some unparliamentary and quite out-of-order discussion. I'll ask the member for Omineca, the second member for Victoria and all other members who are interrupting to not interrupt and to allow the member who has taken his place in debate to proceed uninterrupted.

MR. RICHMOND: It seems very difficult for them to get off the one track over there of the unpronounceable words that they seem to be having problems with. The last speaker went all the way from that into slavery. We are now going to introduce the people of British Columbia to slavery. Maybe being a supporter of this bill should make me feel a little bit like Abraham Lincoln, because I intend to free the taxpayers from the slavery they have been subjected to all these years.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got the beard.

MR. RICHMOND: I think the looks are fairly similar. Maybe if I stand a little more erect in my place....

Interjections.

MR. RICHMOND: Other than that, how do you like it so far?

I think we know what would happen if this bill were not introduced. I think we are very sure of it, because all we have to do is look eastward to Quebec where they have a socialist government — let me remind everyone — that over the last few years has gone on a spending spree that is probably unparalleled in this country and most others. I feel fairly safe in saying that if we were ever to return this socialist government to power we would end up in the following circumstance. Quebec now has a debt that exceeds $16 billion — not only a $16 billion debt but one that is increasing yearly, and they have no more sources of revenue to tap. That is exactly what would happen if we were ever to return you people to

[ Page 7440 ]

power in this province. We would be $16 billion in debt in a very short time. They would have tapped by now every source of available revenue, and the debt would still be increasing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In fact, the one place where Quebec cannot turn for any more sources of revenue is taxes, which they would have us do. No restraint; let's just increase taxes. Let's see what's happened in Quebec, where taxes are now among the highest in the world. Of 150 countries in the world, only Norway and the Netherlands place a higher tax burden on the taxpayers than Quebec. Under the socialist government of René Lévesque this is what has happened. In fact, those poor people in that great province are now paying 24 percent more tax than all other Canadians on average. That is what socialism has done for that once-great province. Only a few short years ago Montreal was the largest city and one of the most prosperous in Canada. It isn't any more. Toronto is now the largest, most thriving city in the country — not Montreal under the socialism of René Levesque.

If we were to continue without any form of restraint in this province, as they have suggested we should in every ministry, we would soon be closing hospitals as they are in Quebec. We wouldn't be asking people to restrain to an increase of 12 percent. We would be closing institutions. In fact, René Lévesque's latest solution to his problem would happen here under that government. His latest solution is the suggestion that they lay off 17,430 civil servants — not ask them to take an increase of 12 percent, 10 percent or somewhere in there, but lay off 17,430 of them. That is what would be happening in this province if we didn't show some restraint — as is suggested across.

They are always ready to cite the extremes of any case, as they have done yesterday and today. They want to cite the extremes: those who are at the very lowest end of the wage scale, possibly the bottom 10 percent, and those who are at the very highest — giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe another 10 percent. But do they ever talk to the 80 percent in the middle that make up most of the workforce and most of the taxpayers? Somehow I doubt it. I talk to those at the low end and the high end of the scale, but I also talk to the 80 percent in the middle, and I suggest that they do the same thing.

They talk about closing down megaprojects. They love the word "megaprojects." Okay, we'll talk about megaprojects. They don't have to talk about closing them down, because we know what would happen were they in power and they took over the so-called megaprojects. A perfect example happened last week under the socialist government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his cohorts in Ottawa. When Alsands — his great shining light that was going to get them out of debt and produce all this revenue....

Interjection.

MR. RICHMOND: Because of greed. They wanted a bigger slice of the pie, Mr. Member, exactly as you want a bigger slice of the pie. All you would do is consume the pie, and it would be shut down like Alsands. If you took over northeast coal next week it would be shut down the week after. So we don't have to hear your philosophy on what you'd do with northeast coal. It's spelled out in black and white — what has happened to megaprojects.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member please address the Chair.

MR. RICHMOND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

They never talk about megajobs. They talk about megaprojects all the time, but they forget to mention the megajobs that these projects are going to produce, and where the megaprojects and megajobs are alive and well. They're alive and well and living in British Columbia. Forty thousand jobs will be created by these projects over the next few years, but they would rather shut them down.

The people I talk to in my constituency, and in others, don't mind some restraint. Many of them feel we're not going far enough, but none of them mind our showing some restraint in these times when they're trying desperately to hang onto their businesses, mortgages and few personal possessions. They're very thankful that they've got a government in Victoria that recognizes that and is going to put an end to some of this blank-cheque financing.

The only ones who do mind a little restraint are the same vocal few we hear from ad nauseam in the headlines all the time: the John Fryers and Jim Kinnairds. Those are the few you hear from. But they don't speak for their membership. They don't speak for the 80 percent majority I was talking about who live where the rest of us live: in a great middle ground. We hardly hear from that 80 percent. They are the great silent majority. If I do nothing else in this House, it's a pleasure for me to stand here as part of that 80 percent and give them a voice in this province.

The opposition on the other side of this House pay close attention to that vocal minority. Whenever the vocal minority speaks, you jump — right now. It's quite evident that they speak for the minority. Give them anything they want, at all costs. No matter the consequences, give them what they ask. If that party were back in power this province would soon be known as Quebec West, in very short order. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of this House that that will never happen in this province as long as this Social Credit government is in power.

We will not promise everything and anything to these vocal minorities just to gain their vote, ever. We have created in this province, over the last few years, a very healthy climate for business and industry, and we intend to keep it that way.

Interjection.

MR. RICHMOND: I'm not talking about one passing storm, Mr. Member. We can all survive a passing squall, as I'm going to try to survive yours. It's the entire climate we're talking about, not just one passing squall which we happen to be in right now.

All the thinking people in this province are in favour of Bill 28.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Except that few.

MR. RICHMOND: I said all the thinking people, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I listened to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) talk about what was causing inflation. I beg your leave to digress for a moment to set the record straight. As that member strayed from the intent of the bill, I would like your permission to do so for about one

[ Page 7441 ]

minute. She said one of the largest causes of inflation in this country is our massive defence spending. I want to give a couple of comparisons so we aren't under any misapprehensions.

The percentage of the gross national product spent by the United States on defence is roughly 6 percent. The percentage of gross national product spent in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on defence is roughly 12 percent. The percentage of the gross national product spent on defence in Canada — the cause of inflation, she says — is 2 percent, and falling rapidly. In case she's wondering what the cause of inflation is, it is certainly not the commitment of the socialist government in Ottawa to national defence. If anything, the socialist government in Ottawa has made a joke of our armed forces, and they have reneged drastically on our commitments to NATO. That's exactly what would happen if this party was in power.

We've seen it happen with Trudeau — a government that they are desperately trying to get out of bed with. They've been in bed with the Ottawa Liberals for years, and now they're trying desperately to get out of that bed. In the same gesture they're trying to put us into that bed. We don't want any part of it. We never have had any part of it, and we never will have any part of it.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) come to order.

MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I just want to reassure this House that we don't want any part of a socialist government, whether it's in British Columbia or in Ottawa.

The Leader of the Opposition is trying very hard to link us up with the Ottawa Liberals, but it isn't working. It isn't washing. His little scheme isn't working — even though you stand up, one by one, and mouth the same speech that he made the other day. It's not working. The people out there aren't that gullible, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: Go build another hospital, Dennis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Central Fraser Valley is being disruptive.

MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, on Bill 28, this province will come out of this recession that we're in — this economic downturn — in good shape, because we will not come out with a burden of debt that the members opposite would saddle us with were they in power. Because of showing a modicum of restraint, we will come out of this downturn in good shape and ready to reassume the prosperity that is rightfully ours when it ends.

If the government in Ottawa were lucky enough to be made up of the members on this side of the House, we wouldn't have the problems in Canada that we have today. The people of Canada should be so fortunate as to have a government like the government of British Columbia. One day the people in the rest of the country will have a government that is equal to the government of British Columbia. When that happens, our problems will be over in this country. The taxpayers of Canada won't be spending $16 billion or $17 billion, or whatever, to pay interest on the national debt. I shudder to think what would happen today, Mr. Speaker, if we had a socialist government in power in British Columbia. We would be worse off than the people of Quebec. We would be so far in debt that your children and my children would never climb out of it.

In supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the government of this province will not let the kind of tragedy happen here that has happened in Quebec — or rather, that would happen here if you guys were back over on this side of the House.

We have created a healthy climate for business in this province and for industry in this province, and we're going to keep it that way. The climate is right. Oh, yes, the climate is still right for the forest industry, Madam Member. They're toughing it through a storm right now and they're in rough shape, and that is exactly why we're bringing in this kind of bill — to help them through this tough time. They and other industries in this province need a little help right now, and that's exactly what we're trying to give them. We're not trying to bury them.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) come to order.

MR. RICHMOND: Our individual taxes in this province are next to the lowest in the country — not the highest — and we intend to keep it that way.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Bring back Phil.

MR. RICHMOND: That's pretty good. You've been around for a long time — but not too much longer. We've got a guy all lined up in your riding who's going to take care of that.

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to run this province into debt — run up huge debts that we will never be able to repay. We are going to keep this province healthy, and keep the climate right for business and industry. We are not going to promise vocal minorities anything and everything they want for the sake of gaining their vote or their support, because that is being less than honest with them. In the long run they cannot afford to pay for those promises, as has happened in other administrations.

In closing, Mr. Speaker — in case there is any doubt in anyone's mind over there about which way I'm voting on this bill — common sense alone would tell anyone who is using that God-given common sense to vote in favour of this bill.

MR. LEGGATT: The bill we're now debating is called the Compensation Stabilization Act. I've always wondered where they get these names. Compensation Stabilization Act. What does all that really mean? The explanatory note inside says: "This act establishes the office of the compensation stabilization commissioner to administer the program of guidelines issued by the executive council and the compensation regulations prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council," etc.

Compensation stabilization simply means wage controls for the province. If you examine how much this government anticipates it will save this year or next year in terms of its compensation program, we don't know; we have to speculate.

[ Page 7442 ]

I'm very glad to see the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in his seat. I would like him to tell us sometime whether his officials have done any studies on the extent to which they will save as a result of this bill; how many millions of dollars do you anticipate saving in terms of the payout with regard to the bill? Last year the NDP cut $82 million out of that budget, and I'm willing to wager right now that this Compensation Stabilization Act will save far less than $82 million.

If we're going to save less than this as a result of the bill, what is the price of the bill? What is this bill costing the province of British Columbia? This bill is poisoning labour relations in the province of British Columbia for the next 20 years; that's what's happening with regard to this bill. This bill has been produced by a government and a minister appallingly ignorant on the subject of labour relations. We have in this province one of the most volatile labour relations systems. We've had a very tough history in labour relations in British Columbia, a record number of man-days lost, and here comes the arsonist with a bucket of gas to throw on the fire — that's what this bill is. There will be more days lost as a result of this bill.

You would think, Mr. Speaker, that this government would have been wise enough to learn something from their Liberal friends in Ottawa when they brought in the AIB and wage controls. They should have learned something about that. You don't take one section of the society and grind them down at the expense of everybody else. You don't tell civil servants: "You sacrifice; you limit your salary; you don't take holidays; but the real estate flippers and directors on boards of corporations and rip-off artists on Howe Street can do anything they want." That's why this legislation can't work. Thinking people on the government side should examine this bill and stop following along on this dumb leadership thing that whatever happens, they're not going to took at the reality of the bill.

I'm looking at the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heinrich), and I know he's a reasonable man. I know the Minister of Labour has some sensitivity with regard to these questions. I want to know what happened; how it was that the Minister of Finance was able to ram this wage control bill down the throat of the Minister of Labour. That's what we've got to know in this House. Surely the Minister of Labour's credibility is in very serious doubt as a result of this legislation. He must maintain some credibility with the labour movement to maintain his office as Minister of Labour — and I don't wish him any bad luck. We have to have some kind of equity around our labour relations in British Columbia, or we will have disaster in the province. What this government is doing is poisoning that atmosphere — poisoning it for years and years to come.

I plead with the government benches to think about the consequences of this bill. What we should have learned from the AIB legislation.... We're not opposed to some rationalism in planning the economy, and we're not opposed to some rationalism in dealing with inflation. But the lesson of the AIB was totally and completely clear: you can't freeze the wages of working people and let them clip dividends. You can't let the real-estate flippers and the Howe Street boys make fortunes and fly around the world and then tell working people: "You're going to be controlled. Everybody else gets what they want." That is the nature of this bill and why this bill is the worst piece of legislation that I have had the opportunity of examining since I came to this House. I haven't been here a long time, but I do know the impact of this kind of legislation out there among that 80 percent.... My friend from Kamloops was talking about how widely they support wage control legislation. Everybody supports controls, as long as the controls are on somebody else. They are always very happy to control a civil servant. "But don't control me. I can't be controlled. I'm the kind of guy that's responsible. Don't control my salary or my expenses. My gosh, I'm responsible. It's those wild-spending civil servants out there who are irresponsible." You know those quiet people who walk around trying to do a decent job for us. They're the villains in the whole thing.

MR. BARBER: There are big spenders in the Douglas cafeteria.

MR. LEGGATT: That is right. All those big spenders in the Douglas cafeteria over there have got to be controlled. They're terrible. Get them under control. What are we going to do with those guys? I hear they actually go to beer parlours every once in a while and spend at least 80 cents or 90 cents a glass. That is ridiculous. We've got to get those guys down. They're ruining the economy. They've got inflation right out of control.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you buy beer for 80 cents a glass?

MR. LEGGATT: It's $1 a glass now, isn't it?

To make the point about the ridiculousness of this legislation, that is not being very facetious. You are controlling the civil service of this province at a cost that will poison labour relations. It's a saving to the government that is insignificant, and I predict it will be far less than what the NDP cut out of your waste last year.

I'm not surprised that the Minister of Finance would rather mark his paper with that yellow pen than look up, because he is embarrassed about this. He knows that this bill will erode labour relations in this province for a long time to come. He is too intelligent not to know that. At the price of eroding labour relations in British Columbia, this government has tried to make a few cheap political Brownie points, and we're all going to pay for it. All the people of British Columbia are going to pay for this through time loss, strikes and an inefficient economy.

It is awfully popular to kick around government employees. I am really getting a little tired of the conventional wisdom that civil servants are always fair game. A lot of us travel around the world and know that there is no better group of civil servants in the whole world than those who work right here in British Columbia. I will tell you something else: there is no group of civil servants more honest than those who work here in British Columbia. The only trouble is that they are so honest and so hard-working that this government isn't worthy of the people they have working for them.

You go into a place like Mexico and you deal with the civil service, and you find that there is a thing called "mordida." You've got to have a little grease to get anywhere in Mexico, Argentina, Costa Rica, Honduras and a lot of these countries. Why do you have to have grease? Because they've got the Socreds' philosophy: "Don't pay them a salary; force them to cheat to make a living." The kind of philosophy that they have will erode and corrupt the civil service in the whole western world. That is what wage controls on civil servants really do.

[ Page 7443 ]

We've always been proud when we travel, particularly to democratic socialist countries, of the honesty, the integrity and the hard-working ability in all of the modern industrial countries of the west. But now they're under attack. Government is under attack generally. The big villain is allegedly big government. We've forgotten about big corporations like Exxon — the giants of the world who really control things. We're not for big government, but we are for a government that provides some equity and fairness in the community. You can't have equity and fairness if you decide that one group of people — largely not particularly well paid — are going to be controlled.

When the AIB came in they tried not to call it wage control; they called it something else. The Anti-Inflation Board was to work on controlling inflation by freezing wages. If you had started in this province with controls on excess profits, for example, as a way to fight inflation — we've given that a serious look, and I think most objective people would.... And if you had taken the billions — I don't mean millions — from unearned profit from the flipping of real estate around this province for the last two years and tried to get some revenue from that.... I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if they had the guts to do that, they wouldn't be grinding down the civil servants today; they wouldn't have to.

They have no sense of fairness, no sense of justice and no sense of equity. My colleague for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) tells me that they have created what he called "a favourable climate in the province of British Columbia." If we are now in a favourable climate, I'd hate to think what's going to happen when we get in a bad climate. But we're in a favourable climate. He says: "Wait, there's a little squall coming — there's a little, momentary storm. We're going to get out of a storm — it's just a momentary storm." I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there's a storm, and that government has been seeding the clouds for the last two years. That's what's been happening. It's their storm. They want to tell you: "This has nothing to do with us, folks. This is just international finance. This is nothing to do with us; it's the world price, it's terrible world inflation. Don't blame me — I'm a Socred. I've got nothing to do with it."

I want to tell you that the responsibility for the economy lies with the government, as it always does, and it's about time this government quit trying to blame others for its lack of administrative judgment and good planning for the province of British Columbia.

Oh, let's look at this little squall that the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) tells me about. I just got the brand new UIC claimant statistics for April. Let's see what's happening in Kamloops, in that squall country that's beautiful for business, wonderful for people — everything's onward and upward in Kamloops. My golly, do you know what's happening in Kamloops? There's a 91 percent increase in unemployment insurance applications in the city of Kamloops. No kidding! That's nearly twice as many people on the dole, trying to get their unemployment insurance. Is that the kind of climate this government is creating that they're so proud of?

MR. BARRETT: There they go, knocking growth again.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, there's growth — 91 percent.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) of standing order 17.

MR. LEGGATT: Kamloops is not the worst hit — it's only 91 percent. Let's go to some of the other folks that are not doing so well. Port Alberni has a 223 percent increase in unemployment insurance claimants in one year over a year, Omineca has got to be in here someplace. Let's see how Jack's riding is doing. By golly, I think they're so bad that they don't even have them in here. They haven't got it. Let's find someplace close to Omineca. Smithers is the headquarters. Smithers is just 167.7 percent year over year. It's almost triple this year, Jack. We've got to do something with the climate. The winds are blowing. The rain's coming down. It's snowing. Come on, fellas — at least give us a raincoat. Give us something. Climate. "The climate of the province is favourable." Talk about being out of touch with reality. Mr. Speaker, we are in a 100 percent, full-fledged depression everywhere in the province of British Columbia, and they haven't seen it, they haven't recognized it, and they haven't done a thing about it. The only thing they're producing is a little bill to grind civil servants.

MRS. WALLACE: To make it worse.

MR. LEGGATT: Why does it make it worse? All these business-lovers, all these people who are so favourable to small business, are going to make sure civil servants can't go out and buy those products that those little businessmen around this province are trying to sell. That's what's going to happen. They've decided that the economy isn't depressed enough. They're going to come along and depress it some more. Some logic!

MR. HANSON: Tell us about Prince George.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, Prince George. The climate has got to be good in Prince George. It's always good in Prince George. In numbers this April, Prince George had 6,789 UIC claimants. The increase is 92.1 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not 100!

MR. LEGGATT: It's not 100 percent — not bad. He's beaten the guy from Kamloops. They're having quite a race to see which riding can produce the most UIC claimants this year. That's got to be the contest.

MR. SPEAKER: Back to the bill, hon. member.

MR. LEGGATT: Back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I certainly appreciate being directed to the bill, because this bill — it's been pointed out by others — is the right hand of that Machiavellian Prime Minister we have. You've got to give it to Trudeau. He's smart. He's pretty bright. He knows what's happening. He knows what would happen to labour relations and this country if he brought in a bill like this. So he lets his stooge do it in the little Liberal Trudeau pilot project in British Columbia. Prime Minister Trudeau has nothing to lose in British Columbia. He couldn't get elected here, and he couldn't get anybody elected here, so he says: "Who cares about it? These guys in the Socreds — they're so dumb. They'll wreck the province for me, and I'll run a trial run on a bill." Brilliant.

MR. HANSON: They let Trudeau Bill do it.

[ Page 7444 ]

MR. LEGGATT: This is the Trudeau Bill bill.

I'm wondering where the Minister of Finance and the Premier got the advice. I know they went back to Ottawa, had their little confab and talked to Pierre. Pierre put his arm around Bill and said: "Bill, you're not such a bad guy. You know, you were giving me a little bit of trouble there, but now we're going to kiss and make up. We all love the constitution, Bill. You've done a wonderful job on the constitution." Remember? He must have said that. He said: "Bill, we've done a great job on the constitution. We didn't put anything you wanted in it, but we still did a pretty good job on it. You're happy, aren't you? You were in the kitchen. Oh, you weren't in the kitchen, Bill? You mean you were in bed, Bill. No, no. I thought you were there. You and Roy Romanow look so much alike. You guys look like twins, right?"

What do we do? Good old Pierre puts his arm around Bill and says: "Look, we're getting along real good now, and things are going well. We've got the constitution. I've got this problem with civil servants. They're really out of whack. I'll bring my bill in pretty soon. I've just got to get my act together here in Ottawa, but you go put one in in B.C., and we'll see how it goes." It's the Trudeau Bill bill, and here it is. The Trudeau Bill bill is here.

MR. HOWARD: A testing ground for chaos.

MR. LEGGATT: A testing ground for chaos is right, my friend — a bill that will poison labour relations in this province for the next 10 to 20 years, and Trudeau is laughing all the way to the bank.

MR. BARRETT: Look how it's aged Curtis! [Laughter.]

MR. LEGGATT: That's not fair. I think that was an unkind and unfair remark. I've been looking right at that chair throughout my entire address, and I was sure that was Hugh Curtis. Only the glasses were missing.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we will refer to hon. members by their designation.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will. The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is occupying the Minister of Finance's chair, and I must say....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong again.

MR. LEGGATT: Oh, then it must be the chair of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I really wish that the venerable member for Dewdney, who's becoming one of the senior citizens of the House, would occupy that seat for real, because then we might get a little action out of Industry and Small Business Development.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knows what the pressure's like.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, he's been through it.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to redirect myself to the bill, because I was interested in knowing how the advice came down with respect to the final decision to bring in restraint. There are, of course, so many areas in which the Minister of Finance can seek for advice. We've already looked at the Trudeau Bill bill end. Now we have to look at what happened with regard to the Ontario Mafia. You know, there is this question. It's a serious one, Mr. Speaker, and we do have to deal with it. Is this a pilot project also for the Tories? Is the message coming from Mr. Kinsella about restraint in British Columbia? That's a good question.

MR. BARRETT: "Let him test it. If it doesn't work, Davis won't do it."

MR. LEGGATT: Well, this is where I think the east — the wonderful, mystical east — has finally gained total control over the west. There's where our independence has gone. We know we're going to have an election one of these days. We're just waiting for Premier Davis and Kinsella to call the election in the province of British Columbia. But, then, the Premier might have run out of advisers. He's gone to Kinsella, he's talked to Trudeau, he's gone to Pitfield and all those high Liberal muck-a-mucks, so he had to come home and look for advice. And where did he go? He had to go, first of all, to Paul Manning, one of the Liberal giants in the province of British Columbia. He had to talk to Paul Manning. Then he had to talk to Ron Basford. I mean, after all, Ron Basford is running the coal deal; Ron Basford is managing the coal deal; Ron Basford is making all the decisions on the coal deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he paid?

MR. LEGGATT: He receives $600 a day. I think that's very modest. I don't object to anyone receiving $600. It's the wine he drinks that bugs me.

After consulting Manning and Mr. Basford, he then had to go into the inner circles of Social Credit where the real hard-core Social Crediters who understand restraint and who understand this kind of bill live, and they sat down one night and had dinner over at Rattenbury's. Do you know who was there?

MR. BARRETT: Who?

MR. LEGGATT: Who was there? Let's see. I'll bet you McGeer, that dyed-in-the-wool Socred, was there. I'll bet you Williams, that dyed-in-the-wool Socred, was probably there. I'll bet you Garde Gardom, that dyed-in-the-wool Socred, was there. Are there any other dyed- in-the-wool Socreds over there that advised on the restraint legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The Minister of Finance.

MR. LEGGATT: The Minister of Finance, another dyed-in-the-wool Socred who was in at that meeting, said: "We've got to restrain our civil servants." Why? "Because Trudeau told us to." That's why, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Withdraw! You can't call him a dyed-in-the-wool Socred.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. That's the third asking.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm not going to spend a lot more time on the bill. [Applause.] I knew that would make you happy. I want to be serious for a moment, because I've been somewhat facetious. I have been facetious, yes, but I don't retract for

[ Page 7445 ]

one minute, nor do I retract any statement which would lead a logical person to the conclusion that this is the most dangerous piece of labour legislation that's every been foisted on the province of British Columbia. It is a piece of legislation which will erode labour relations for the next 20 years. It will not save the taxpayers any money. The way you can save taxpayers money is to stop the proliferation of waste on that side of the House.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me I heard the Leader of the Opposition ask a moment ago when I'd been back in my riding. I'll bet he could cast his mind back to 1975. I wonder how many times he went back. They remembered, and they remembered well. I don't apologize at all for my attendance in my riding.

I picked out an editorial from the Prince George Citizen of April 30. About six weeks to two months prior to that editorial's being written, there was the devil to pay because of restraint. Being one of the MLAs for the riding, I received a number of calls from the school board about cutbacks. There was a school board meeting the night before the editorial appeared, which reads like this:

"It is difficult not to marvel at the ease with which the administration of School District 57 was able to knock $1.5 million off the board's '82 budget. It was only a couple of months ago, after all, that the public was being persuaded by the board to believe no stone had been left unturned in its efforts to trim a budget which, at $83.5 million, represented a 19.4 percent increase over the previous year.... The administration recommended cutbacks involving two school programs and the elimination of 27.5 teaching positions, and that reduced the budget by $1.5 million."

It was that easy, or so it seemed. "Casualties of the proposed cutbacks are a summer school program designed for students who failed to achieve a passing grade — a pretty difficult thing for a kid to do nowadays," the paper goes on to say. "The other program cancelled is a course in water survival, a course in which the school district's involvement would be altruistic at best."

They talked about 27.5 teachers leaving, but the fact of the matter is — and as time goes by — we find out that maybe that's not a real figure after all: "Last year 100 teachers left this district for greener pastures, and while the same number may not depart this year, it is easy to see where 27.5 positions will not constitute actual layoffs. On the face of it, and protestations to the contrary, it looks like this was a padded budget from the outset." All of this has stemmed out of the idea of restraint.

MR. LEA: Do you agree with that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Certainly I agree with that. What does the program really mean? It means equal treatment for all, special treatment for none.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It seems as though we're going to have a little fun in this one.

This particular bill, despite views to the contrary, really preserves collective bargaining in many ways. In the private sector there is a grim reaper, and we know who the grim reaper is. He's working, and he's working well.

What happens with the restraint program? We know about the guidelines; we know about the regulations; we know about the voluntary side.

There is a new industry in Vancouver now. We don't have the Vancouver Stock Exchange, we've got the Vancouver seat exchange: that's how we get our seats, as the first member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition, well knows. There may be very good reasons for the economic sacrifice. Their ultimate well-being is dependent on the health of the private sector; we know that. Those who wish can travel around and visit the mills and the mine sites, and then be aware that roughly 50 percent of the economy is export. Where are the export markets now? Have you got a place for them?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: And how are we going to pay for them?

I don't quote the governor of the Bank of Canada too often, I can assure you, but there was one which I thought we ought to have a look at.

"One hears much these days about the need of various groups for catchup. The hard fact of the matter is that Canada is not currently producing enough in real terms to play the catchup game in either profits or income. To assume everyone is entitled to at least the increase in the consumer price index, and more if some group somewhere in Canada is thought to be paid better, is to assume that the world owes us our notion of a suitable living no matter how we perform in terms of real output. This assumption cannot be taken seriously."

The other day the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) made reference to the Quebec problem. We know the debt they are facing: in excess of $3 billion. An editorial in the Globe and Mail says:

"Quebec now faces the crux of its problem. It attempted in a number of areas to reduce expenditure, but when it really came in there was one specific area. It was trimming the wages of its employees."

They are talking about trimming wages. The program before the House right now involves some degree of flexibility.

"The salaries and benefits of public and parapublic workers make up 52 percent of the government's budget. The employees have a far greater range of benefits — including job security and indexation — than the private sector, and their salaries are between 11 percent and 16 percent higher. 'If they were paid at the same rate as private workers,' says the Treasury Board president for Quebec, 'the government and its people would save roughly $1 billion.'"

One thing I am particularly sensitive about in the portfolio is not to make comments about those who are in the process of negotiations. I have no intention whatsoever of making reference to the WCB or the BCGEU or their management counterparts. But I would like to make reference to a couple of items which I've picked up from the past, when the opposition was in government.

I quote the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich): "The needs of organized labour aren't always the same as the desires of their spokesmen." I wonder when he said that.

[ Page 7446 ]

MR. LEA: Don't you know?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I thought you'd respond. He said that when the Labour Code was introduced. You know, he was right. I think there is an analogy today.

I think one of the most interesting comments of all, though, was made when we had a piece of legislation which was really popular at the time. It was called the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, the famous Bill 146. Frankly, I think what happened then was their style and the way they went. I am not going to question their style or the route that they travelled, because I think that from where they were standing it may very well have had merit. But then we saw what happened. Interestingly, though, one of the comments made is that it was popular with rank-and-file unionists and with the public at large and was even welcomed, privately, by many union leaders who recognized that the government had got them out of either unwanted strikes or impossible situations. I think that also applies today, because there are some difficult choices to be made.

Sure, it is a popular bill among a lot of people. Yes, it may very well be unpopular among some of the rank and file. I accept it. As a matter of fact the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), I thought, although I disagree with some of what he said, was consistent. He was consistent in 1975 and he was consistent in the House this week.

The choice we face is simple. The Premier said it and said it well: "Pull in your belt one notch, or we ask some of our people to tighten theirs four or five." I think it was the preference of a lot of people, including those who are employed, to have as many people work as possible, even if it means taking a bit less. The particular bill is not asking people to take a bit less. It is not asking them to cut back. It is asking them to stay within what we can afford to pay, with some spread depending on how they comply and fit in with the regulations. Is that really asking too much?

A fair share of society's benefits also means a fair share of society's constraints.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think maybe we ought to I listen and not holler, and perhaps there might be a word or two in here that the members of the opposition might like to listen to. Their point of view on the compensation stabilization program reminds one of a satirical comment of Professor Shoyama at the University of Victoria: "All that is needed to exorcise the problem is a good dose of simple, old-fashioned virtue on somebody else's part." That is the heart of the opposition's problem: it's always somebody else, but there is never anybody to pay the piper.

One thing that the opposition did not learn when it was in office was the short-term and long-term value of a government living within its means. Much of the present North American dilemma can be attributed to this circumstance, a notable exception being successive Socred administrations in this province. Conversely, it's an equally dangerous policy to expect to live off the avails of inflation forever. When it comes to balanced budgets — the restraint program is part of this.... It's the opposite of Mr. Micawber's immortal words in Dickens' David Copperfield. I'm just wondering if some of you might read it: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen, nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery." The taxpayers of British Columbia can be thankful. Because of the foresight of the government, they do not have to bear Mr. Micawber's miserable burden.

We talk about restraint programs. I'd like to make some comparisons with some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition on his own two-month anti-inflation program. "Bold action plan implemented to allow Ottawa's wage-and-price control program to take effect. Prices of essentials to be frozen. Real incomes are to be protected. But increases in salaries in the public sector are not to exceed the rate of inflation." His announcement in the Vancouver Sun for October 25, 1975, indicates the kind of leadership his government believes necessary. Another time in a speech to his alma mater he personally favoured control of wages, prices, profits and interest rates in Canada. He's reported in Hansard as qualifying that but not denying the statement on controls. One more time, in the Victoria Daily Colonist for October 15, 1975, he responded to the federal wage and price controls by saying he had personally advised the provincial cabinet to support the Trudeau move in principle, because "it is my belief that they are steps in the right direction, that the general thrust is correct." He suggested that there were some inequities in the federal program, but that those problems could all be overcome.

Do you remember everything that came across to us about "this should be debated in the House"? The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) will remember. He's not specific on the Premier's speech, because he had not seen the actual legislation. He said the place to announce this was in the throne speech, not on prime-time television, that the place to debate this is in the Legislature.

Let's have a look and see what he did when he was Premier.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think it is fair. He'd implemented his anti-inflation policy by using a series of orders-in-council, which were passed earlier that day at a special 90-minute cabinet session, where you were. You remember that, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. The policy was announced to the public at a 5 p.m. news conference. The Legislature had not been sitting since June 26, except for a one-day special sitting on October 7, that fateful day of the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act.

Around here I note the way you abandon your colleagues in Saskatchewan. I can't believe what I've heard. Saskatchewan — brothers across this land. I'll tell you, they get beaten, and you know why they did. Why didn't they win enough votes? That's the issue. How do you ever abandon your brothers in Saskatchewan? You're accusing them of everything they've done. I remember last December when we were talking about the constitution. One after another, each of you said something about Saskatchewan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah, how wrong they were.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, you didn't say how wrong they were. You supported them right down the line. And when the polls came up, what happened?

Interjections.

[ Page 7447 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The minister will relate this to the bill shortly.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's rather interesting, the analysis of the restraint program now and the program in 1975, when the Leader of the Opposition was Premier. "The anti-inflation announcement," according to the observations of one financial analyst with the Vancouver Sun, "has the sole objective of improving the Barrett government's sagging political fortunes." Similarly, another columnist from the Sun said he entered the program "to hitch his political future to the coattails of the federal Liberal party." And now they're running scared and trying to turn the tune.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Victoria will return to his seat.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There has been a great deal said, Mr. Speaker, about this government driving the mining industry out of the province. When we talk about world markets, that's where most of our product goes. In a moment, perhaps, some percentages might be of interest to the House. But I'll tell you one thing that this government never had by exercising a restraint program. It never received headlines like this: "Mining Our Has-Been Industry." It never had that at all.

The legislation provides a framework for recovery, and not one that imposes a burden.

I mentioned in here once before — long before I was involved in labour relations — that someone once observed that collective agreements do not buy groceries. Paycheques buy groceries, and dividends buy groceries, and profits create investment and jobs.

Perhaps it's time we looked to B.C. first and not ourselves. That is the ground on which we, as a society, must stand. And while they're all commendable things in themselves, they require enlightened self-mutual interest, and not the blind pursuit of selfish interest, We also know that to look at a successful economy is to see it. We have only to look at unsuccessful economies to know that.

Yes, we've embarked on a period of restraint in the public sector which includes compensation. What is unique is the overwhelming support this program has received from the public at large. Sure, there's been criticism, but it's muted. I think it really reflects the sober reality of the eighties. It has impressed all of our citizens in all interest groups.

In a perfect world, there would be no need to monitor or constrain various aspects of our social and economic life. While life in B.C. Is of a very high quality, it is not yet ready to submit to perfection. Therefore, with rights and freedoms, there must be responsibility and accountability.

In the private sector there has always been the bottom line on the financial statement. In the public sector there is only the resolve of governments to say no when common sense dictates that it must be said.

It's hard to say no in these areas, for the abrogation of that responsibility by governments, by increasing the burden on their citizens who are at the same time their customers.... If the overriding constraint of ability to pay is not an issue in the public sector, as it is in the private sector, then other measures of accountability must be brought into play.

Let's make no mistake about it: there must be a bottom line. We cannot have two classes of citizens in this province — one which is always vulnerable to the business cycle and one which is not. Until we can distribute our revenues without limitation, then as government we have an obligation to ensure that the burdens of restraint are not borne by the private sector alone. That is the active principle enunciated in the restraint program, and it is one that no responsible government can ignore — and. Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible government.

You know, the members of the opposition had a very similar experience, only it came in spades. It came with a piece of legislation in the form of the anti-inflation guidelines, and it came in the form of the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act. The difference between what I believe the opposition did and what we did was that we acknowledged the flexibility and we allowed them to preserve their bargaining. Yes, there's a limitation, and I'm not going to stand in this House and say there's not; certainly there is. I frankly feel that to be candid with people is probably the best route to go. If there isn't going to be money in the till to satisfy all of the employees in the public sector, then we all take in one notch.

One of the things that's really bothered me since I've been Minister of Labour is to note the tremendous losses which many employees have incurred when there is an extended work stoppage. If you don't believe it, analyze what happened to the employees at ICBC, or in the BCR, and in CUPE. If we analyze those situations and find out the impact of the lost income on the majority of that rank and file, you begin to wonder how they're ever going to make it when they're not working. That's why I go back to a statement made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), when he said that the interests of the trade union leaders — I'm paraphrasing — are not necessarily equated to the interests of the rank and file. Now, I'll tell you that's exactly the feeling I'm getting in my travels around the community; I'm finding that they're really pleased that we did something so their jobs are pretty well guaranteed.

I tell you that the hammer is not there, and I remember the hammer under the original piece of legislation. But then, of course. It’s great to have hindsight, and I suspect we're guilty of it on both sides of the House. I suppose if your had your reservations, your doubts, or a chance to do it over again, that piece of legislation, the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, would never have got in. I well remember that the IWA would have appreciated that.

We talk about the restraint program and what services we're able to deliver. What about hospitals? Yes, they're tightening up a little bit right now. But, you know, when you look at what health care is and what it costs our people and the social services that we are prepared to deliver, I think we've got a duty to deliver them. I don't think that because of the ravages of inflation and high interest rates we cannot find some middle ground to accommodate our duty to the public and our duty to the employees who are quite prepared to work,

Yes, we hear comments again and again about megaprojects, and the fact is that when we have a restraint program there seems to be money available for a number of these. I came across a very short quote the other day: "No nation was

[ Page 7448 ]

ever ruined by trade." Well, I wonder how isolated we're going to be. Everyone is proud about being able to export some products, always proud. Mr. Speaker, in the area of exports British Columbia is suffering somewhat now. Lumber is not moving, newsprint is softening, the metal markets have collapsed, and there are layoffs around the world. We wonder. Surely northeast coal....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think you are entitled to some degree of latitude in view of what you have to listen to in here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If I have to stop laughing and poking a little fun at myself, this job isn't going to be very much fun. I'd just like to remind everybody about that. We'll see you in opposition next time around.

We talk about exports. Have you ever analyzed the Pacific Rim markets? The number of products that are going.... Some 85 percent of our copper, 33 percent of our fish, 42 percent of our asbestos, and all the way down the line.... When those markets collapse, I would like to know where the markets will come from.

We talk about your opposition to development. There is a new line in British Columbia now. It is not a strike or a lockout; it is a political Lauk-out. We are talking about the mining industry. The Leader of the Opposition has reminded us often that they would stop northeast coal tomorrow. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would say: "We'd tax the bleep out of the companies." They can't withstand that sort of stuff.

MR. SPEAKER: To the bill, please, hon. member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I dissociate myself from that remark, Emery.

We support this particular bill. I will tell you in a nutshell what it has done: it has helped many of those who are concerned about extended layoffs by levelling with them in advance so that they know there is a restraint program in place. It is having the desirable effect.

I opened my comments with a statement from a Prince George Citizen. What did the Citizen say? Yes, there was some fat in the budget, and maybe it can be handled. Maybe it would be easier to have a little more productivity. That is not an unusual request. I support the bill without reservation.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm going to attempt to discuss some of the ramifications of this bill to what we call free collective bargaining out in the labour force. Before I get into that, I have to make slight mention of what some of the previous speakers mentioned. I was quite shocked to see the thin-skinnedness of the government when this bill was rightfully compared to the wage control bill brought in by the Liberals. And I was quite shocked by that thin-skinnedness when they all jumped up and said: "No, this is not a Liberal bill; it is not Trudeau's bill." The Prime Minister of Canada came out two days after this bill hit the floor and said he was all for wage restraint for public servants. He knew who was pushing this piece of legislation through. He was a typical Liberal, and this is Liberal legislation.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) says he learns fast. If this is what he learns, I don't know who's copying who. The Liberals brought in wage control, and the wage control did nothing for the working people of this province. As one of the previous speakers stated, if this government is prepared to bring in some type of legislation that will look seriously at the economic problems of this province, we could look at it. But what have they done? They have taken one section of the community and said that that group — be they civil servants, hospital workers, municipal workers or anyone else who comes under the public sector — is going to be under control.

Does this piece of legislation identify the problems that we are faced with in this province? Does it in any way affect the high cost of rents, the high cost of foods, the taxes or the ridiculous assessments that have been levied on the homeowners of this province? Has that been considered? Does it in any way restrict the lawyers, accountants, doctors or any of the other professionals in raising their fees? No, it doesn't. It picks out one group of public employees. When you look at what is happening to prices....

Even today, one monopoly which happens to have control of the fish-packing industry in Victoria has now raised, because there is no competition, the price of ice from $22 a tonne to $30 a tonne. Does this bill help the fishermen? No, it doesn't help the fishermen, because it does not hit the real facts. It tries to make a scapegoat out of one group.

Last year this same government made a scapegoat out of those who are unfortunate enough to be on welfare, those who were suffering from industrial accidents and had a small compensation pension, those who were partially subsidized by welfare and GAIN. What did this government do? It picked them as the scapegoats last year and took $55 per month off their wages. This is the sort of legislation that we are embarking on.

I remember very well having similar legislation prior to the wage control of the Liberal government that this is emulating. I remember the mediation board that the previous Social Credit government brought into the province of British Columbia in 1971. That mediation board was going to solve all the problems of free collective negotiations, and the government could sit back — just as they can under this piece of legislation — and designate essential workers in this province. I remember that the trade union movement was very skeptical of that piece of legislation.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

At that time I was a member of the police forces of B.C. Prior to that we were under a form of collective bargaining where we had to take binding arbitration, and we were put under the mediation board. Like many of the other trade union movements we fought it; we disagreed with it. But who came to its great defence? One of the leading trade unionists of this province who was a great supporter of the Social Credit and Liberal parties of this country: his name was Ed Lawson. I remember him meeting with some of the negotiating team of that police department of those days, and he assured us — being a good Social Crediter and a good

[ Page 7449 ]

Liberal, very much like the government today — that the working people of this province under the mediation board would get a fair shake in negotiations. In fact he was so confident that he was prepared to give his expertise, both as a Social Crediter and a Liberal and as a negotiator for the teamsters' union in the province. I remember the brief he prepared that dealt with the cost of living, the gross national product and the comparable wages of tradesmen within the community that the majority of the policemen worked and lived in. It brought out the fact that policemen at that time did not even qualify for a loan under Central Mortgage and Housing.

He was so confident that he prepared the brief and he made the presentation. I'll tell you what happened to that presentation. The police of this province got absolutely nothing. And we, who had gone to the boards in the past, who had a very dim view of the previous Social Credit government, were not as shocked as that Liberal Social Crediter who became a senator — a good Social Crediter, a good Liberal, very much like the previous government.

This is what has happened. When you force any type of legislation on any group of people who are sitting down and are freely negotiating, then they have no faith in the people they are negotiating with, because they know that the vote is going to be loaded before they have completed their negotiations. It's not that anyone is saying that there should not be a limit on what the economy can stand, but, when you look at it, this bill does not help those who are on the lower end of the wage scale. It freezes them into the low wages that people working for this government have. Seventy-three percent of the women are getting less than what the government is paying the labourers; 20 percent of the men are getting less than the average wages of the men. This is the inequity — that it is not bringing any attempt to raise the wages of those who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at those on the low-income area, people who are working for this government or for other public bodies are getting less than they would on welfare, and the government makes no attempt to raise those up. What happens when there are cutbacks in hospitals and in schools? They don't cut out the administrators. They don't cut out the principals. They cut out the nurses who are working on the floor. They cut out the teachers who are giving help to those who are slow learners. This is the problem with this type of legislation: it does not make any attempt to raise those who need the increases. It allows this government to run unchecked in spending for megaprograms.

This government sits there and is shocked when we compare them with the Liberals. Who runs their megaprojects? I don't see any Social Crediters; I see the Liberals running it. We see Mr. Basford running your coal and Mr. Manning running your Bennett memorial sports centre in Vancouver. This is the sort of uncontrol that this government has. Last year when we were trying to cut $82 million of fat out of this budget, what did the government do? It turned it down vote after vote. When we were trying to get this government to take some leadership in providing housing and creating jobs, what did this government do? They voted to go home and do nothing all winter. Then they sit back and bring in this bill.

They are going to make an example of one section of the working community. I say that if they are successful in making an example of one section, it will develop into the same policy that developed in the mediation board. The mediation board could go to construction workers and forest workers and say: "You are essential workers, and you will come under this board. Your wages must be negotiated and set by this particular piece of legislation." Again, they put the squeeze on those who are working, but they do not put the squeeze on those who are making excess profits or making high money on rents. These people are not brought to the attention of this particular board. The government does not face it, because their friends have one thing in common: make an example of the working people.

I find it very interesting when I go through some of the notes I have here. We talk about the waste of this government. As I say, I have gone over various documents in the last three or four months, but I also read papers. I couldn't help but remember my honourable friend the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who brought to the attention of this House the waste this government has on....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I realize that there is a major development happening in British Columbia and that it is really important that we move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:32 p.m.