[ Page 7467 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government advertising. Mr. Barrett –– 7467

Mr. Cocke

Possible conflict of interest of VGH board member. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies 7468

Government advertising. Ms. Brown –– 7468

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Hall

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 7470

Mr. Skelly –– 7472

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 7476

Mr. Ree –– 7479

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 7480

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 7482

Mr. King –– 7485

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7489

Tabling Documents

Columbia River Treaty permanent engineering board annual report.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 7489

MONDAY, MAY 10, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I am very pleased to have the honour to introduce to the House today Mr. Graham Bell, who has just taken up his duties as the new managing director of the Southwestern B.C. Tourist Association.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Bell actually wasn't associated with the telephone company, hon. member, but he was the managing director of the Vancouver Youth Hostel.

Accompanying Mr. Bell is Mr. Rick Antonson who is the former manager of the region and who will now be employed as general manager of the Vancouver-based publisher, Douglas & McIntyre.

It is also a great privilege for me to introduce to the House Miss Irene Rouse. Miss Rouse is visiting us from Toronto and is no stranger to British Columbia, but it will interest the House to know that Miss Rouse and her family were missionaries for many years in China. I am sure this will interest you, Mr. Speaker. They were there before the war and some of their family were interned along with some of our family during the war under the Japanese occupation. I would ask the House to warmly welcome all three people.

MR. BARRETT: In the gallery today is a former member of this Legislature for Kamloops, Mr. Gerry Anderson. He is accompanied by his wife and two friends from California. I would ask the House to welcome the member and ask that his short absence will be ended shortly.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Last weekend Canada lost one of its finest athletes and ambassadors, a citizen of the province of Quebec. When he was overseas he spoke very highly of Canada and always considered himself a citizen and spoke as a citizen of this country. He was a gentleman who within his own speciality was extremely highly regarded and put the name of this country on the map. In moments like this it is often the case where you, Mr. Speaker, request of the members that we send the appropriate message. I would ask that that message be sent to the Villeneuve family on behalf of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that the wish of the House? So ordered.

MR. GABELMANN: I would like the House to welcome two delegations from North Island who are here today. The first is a group of IWA members: Cliff Lovestrom and Willie Fleming from Zeballos and Nick Bos from Local 185 of the IWA in Alberni. Also with us are: the mayor of Port Hardy, John Davis; his administrator, John Spanier; and Alderman Eddie Forsch from Port Alice.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mr. Malcolm Mitchell, a longtime supporter of the British Columbia Social Credit Party and an active worker at the appropriate times. Would the House make him welcome.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery this afternoon is a very good friend and supporter of mine, Mr. Gene Jack, and I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce today an outstanding high school from Maple Ridge School District 42. Garibaldi Secondary School has 50 students here, and the teachers are Mrs. Sue Wagner, Mr. Dale Hewitt and Mr. John Misurelli. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. BARRETT: I have a question for the Minister Of Finance. Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the minister's attention an advertisement which appeared in the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province this weekend at a cost of $12,751. I wish to ask the minister first if he authorized the expenditure of these funds for this full-page ad.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition would know full well, having served as Minister of Finance, individual ministries undertake a number of activities within a block vote.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary to the minister. Does he approve or disapprove of the expenditure of public funds in this blatant political manner, endorsing a political party slogan out of taxpayers' money?

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a further question?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in light of restraint asked for by this government, is it the minister's opinion that it is a valid expenditure of behalf of this government to exploit for political purposes another person's successes in the depths of their own defeat politically? Does the minister approve of this ?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is out of order directed to the Minister of Finance.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the minister is in charge of the restraint bill. In light of the request for restraint in every government department, does the minister approve of this type of expenditure?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. In view of the number of hospital bed closures, when we're looking at an expenditure of $12,751, which could have provided ten people with five days each of hospital care, I ask the minister whether he condones the highly political use of money to endorse a Socred campaign slogan.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one can relate any expenditure to any other expenditure. You could bring into question any government expenditure, if you wish to relate it to health, education or some other specific need for funds. I don't see how the ad relates to hospital beds, and I

[ Page 7468 ]

disagree with the member that it's blatantly political. But he can reach his own conclusions, as he often does.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm standing, perhaps I could respond to questions raised by the same member, I believe it was last Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: Taken on notice?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, taken on notice.

POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
OF VGH BOARD MEMBER

He asked a question about the director of Computech Consulting Canada Ltd., a director of information systems for the Ministry of Health. According to the member for New Westminster, he recently made a presentation to senior hospital officials for the creation of an integrated computer system or hospital system centre. The member asked: "Does the creation of a new bureaucratic entity to provide computer services to hospitals reflect the minister's policy?" Mr. Speaker, the person in question, Mr. Bob Hawkins, is a vice president of Computech Consulting Canada Ltd. I don't know whether that would make him principal director, but none of the principals apparently owns a controlling share. Mr. Hawkins assisted in the presentation. The presentation, had it been accepted by the hospitals, would not have created a new bureaucratic entity, but possibly an improved management information system. So the answer would be no, the creation of a new bureaucratic entity is not the policy.

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a new question. He said: "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?" Mr. Speaker, there was no first target. The computer proposal was placed before administrators representing 16 hospitals — not to the hospital boards. I don't believe there is necessarily any consideration of conflict of interest in Mr. Hawkins serving on the Vancouver General Hospital board, which did not receive the presentation. Should the proposal have been presented to the VGH board for consideration at any time, Mr. Hawkins would have abstained from voting on the matter had it gone that far.

The member said: "This is becoming more interesting all the time. Mr. Hawkins' firm, Computech Consulting Canada Ltd., was only registered in British Columbia five days prior to Mr. Hawkins' 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?" I am advised that Computech Consulting Canada Ltd. was registered in B.C. on October 1, 1966 — not five days before Mr. Hawkins' appointment, but approximately 5,600 days before Mr. Hawkins' appointment in February 1982. I am also advised that Computech Consulting Canada is a wholly-owned B.C. company with headquarters in Vancouver.

As to whether he would receive any benefit, the answer is apparently not much at all. The proposal was not accepted by the administrators of the hospitals. Should any such proposal be approved or reconsidered in the future, it would be subject to the usual tender proposals. Mr. Hawkins would have no role to play in the decision concerning the awarding of such contracts or series of contracts.

Finally, the member for New Westminster said: "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 toward this project at a meeting of April 19, 1982?" The information I've received from senior staff is that "offer" would be an incorrect word. The proposal which was put forward stated that it could be activated as funds became available. Mr. Hawkins was authorized to present his proposal by senior ministry officials in the Ministry of Health.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I ask Your Honour to consider this between now and when question period ends. The minister has just taken up one-third of the time available, and, I submit, the answer should have been provided at the end of question period or question period should be extended to make up the requisite time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. As the Chair understood it, a series of questions was answered, none of which by itself was long enough to call for the intervention of the Chair, although I was on the verge of intervening.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MS. BROWN: That was a clear abuse, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. In view of the fact that children involved in child abuse, custody and access cases are going to have legal counsel curtailed, I'd like to ask the Minister of Human Resources whether she protested the spending of $12,751 — which, incidentally, would have supplied 300 hours of legal counsel to these children — in this pathetic attempt by that government to try to improve its tarnished image by associating itself with the outstanding achievements of the Vancouver Canucks.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The assumption on which the question has been asked is entirely incorrect. The suggestion that there is a curtailment of services to families and children involved in child abuse is completely incorrect. Also, I want to address myself to the remark made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds relating to a $12,000 expenditure. I would just like to say that this ministry is very pleased to know that the government of British Columbia did spend $12,000 on advertising. I think it's very nice that in a time when there are very many problems — not the least of which was the one highlighted in the member's question — we are able to have an expression from the people of British Columbia to a group that exemplifies the spirit of this province and its people.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, time is fleeting.

MS. SANFORD: Can the Minister of Labour tell this House how many jobs under the youth employment program could have been provided with the money spent on that full-page ad?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised the Minister of Labour will not answer that question.

[ Page 7469 ]

I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the minister responsible to this Legislature for the B.C. Ferry Corporation tell us whether the $12,751 to pay for this ad we've been discussing — this blatantly political Social Credit ad that they've taken for their own political purposes at the expense of the Vancouver Canucks — is being raised from the nearly 15 percent increase in the cost of food on B.C. Ferries that went into effect this weekend?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, there is no connection whatsoever, and I'm amazed that the opposition is opposed to the success of the Vancouver Canucks.

MR. HALL: I have a very simple question to the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Speaker. Did the $12,751 to finance this government's political piggybacking on the hard work of the Vancouver Canucks come out of your budget?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. But I would like to advise the hon. member that before the Canucks won the Smythe Trophy they were all presented with Good Show pins for their outstanding contribution to tourism in British Columbia, and that the owner of their team was presented with a framed Good Show award, and they were recommended for this award by Mr. Earl Bradford on behalf of and with the support of thousands of British Columbians. We're very proud of them.

I'd also like to tell the hon. member, Mr. Speaker — and I know you'd like to know that the Vancouver Canucks, through their sportsmanship — notwithstanding the odd little hassle that they had last Saturday night; generally their conduct is excellent — are incredible and very lucrative ambassadors for British Columbia. We have to remember that because the Vancouver Canucks are playing in the United States, first Chicago and then New York, literally millions of people are having their attention drawn to British Columbia as an area of sport activity and strong positive citizenship, and most certainly as an excellent place to spend their vacation in this coming year. We fully support the Canucks. On behalf of our government and the people of British Columbia, I'm sure I can thank them for what they are doing for tourism, job creation and capital investment right here in British Columbia this year.

MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you rule on whether or not the last speaker was abusing the rules of the question period, and if so, may I have my question?

MR. SPEAKER: We do have another question period tomorrow. The Chair will do everything in its power to try to keep both the questions and answers in order. It is difficult, I have to tell you.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in order to correct a statement. The minister puts words in my mouth. I gather he's talking about federal registration Of....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: The minister attributed words to me....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I do not know of any vehicle that we can use to make this kind of correction, hon. member.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, standing order 42 provides me with an opportunity to correct the statement. Thank you, I'll correct it in the hall.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps debate will in due course offer an opportunity.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek leave for the adjournment of the House to debate a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly

MS. BROWN: The rights of children in this province have been violated by this government. As of May 1, 1982, lawyers will not be appointed to act for children 12 years and older who are involved in custody, maintenance or protection disputes. The family advocate, as defined by the Family Relations Act, has been effectively eliminated by a memorandum from the Ministry of Attorney-General. The family advocate acts as a mediator and counsellor as well as a lawyer to those involved in family disputes. Their work as conciliators in these highly charged emotional battles is well recognized. This government is now denying children from the age of 12 and over this service. Children are being denied their basic rights.

Secondly, the new policy discriminates against those children who are abused and neglected and who are the wards of the Minister of Human Resources. Lawyers representing these children are having a time limit placed on them. Children's lives and futures are being measured by minutes of legal service by this government. These guidelines, arbitrarily set, deny children proper representation; these guidelines deny children proper protection.

The motion, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The motion will be forwarded if the matter is found to qualify. If we would bring both the statement on the matter and the motion itself to the table, I will consider the matter and return a decision to the House.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

[ Page 7470 ]

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Before I start my speech in favour of this bill, I would like to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know whether he is against the Vancouver Canucks or whether he is against the Vancouver Sun, but he and his little band of socialists over there are not sure where they stand on many issues. Of course, this is just another one of those issues. I have to recall that when the Leader of the Opposition was Premier of this province — thank heavens it was for a very short period of time — he travelled to Japan at the taxpayers' expense, not to play hockey but to play rugby ball. That might have been fine if he'd just travelled to Japan to play rugby ball, but not only did he play rugby ball but, indeed, he did the province a great disservice by preaching socialism while he was there. It has taken numerous other trips by the Premier and my other cabinet colleagues to rectify the situation with our second largest trading partner and to point out that, indeed, British Columbia is interested in doing business and interested in exporting our products to them so that we can create jobs, so that there will be taxes and so that we can pay for our social services.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the trip to China and the Great Wall?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. I wasn't even going to mention the trip to China at taxpayers' expense, where he took one of the members for Vancouver Centre. He didn't go to China to play rugby ball. He went to China to plant trees. Did he come back with any orders? Was there any followup? Because he was supposedly over there doing business for the great province of British Columbia. No, not at all. He went over there to plant trees. He went to Japan to play rugby ball at the taxpayers' expense and to China to plant trees at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief today, but what I am going to say will be very positive and very meaningful, unlike the opposition have been during debate on this bill. Their debate has really been based on — I really hate to use this word in this Legislature — short-term political garbage.

This measure was introduced on a Thursday. Friday night I was in my riding — the great Peace River country. Two civil servants whom I didn't know met me on the street. They recognized me and they said: "You are Mr. Phillips, aren't you?" I said yes. "I want to tell you, Mr. Phillips, that we like what your government said yesterday. We realize that if we're going to have long-term employment in this government, if we're going to have long-term employment in the province of British Columbia, and if we're going to have economic stability in the province of British Columbia, somebody has to stop somewhere. Somebody has to say: 'Look, we're living too high off the hog.'" They went on to further say that they recognize that if we don't live within our means now, it won't be long before we are out of a job altogether. That, Mr. Speaker, happens to be the nuts and bolts of the bill.

Through this bill, we are allowing those who have the permanency of a job in the civil service to be able to look forward to continued employment. If we don't chop somewhere, it will mean chopping programs and cutting civil servants out of their jobs. That's what will happen. Every responsible government has a duty to all of the people of this great province. It's a responsibility to look beyond the immediate, to look into the future, and to plan for tomorrow. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this legislation is all about.

We want to keep the civil servants that we have today gainfully employed. We want them to have the security of working for the government. Unfortunately, those who are working in the private sector don't have that security at the present time, because they are being curtailed by the economics of the marketplace. We could have chopped programs, Mr. Speaker, and we could have experienced a large number of layoffs in the civil service, but this government chose the responsible route.

After listening to the negative, carping criticism of the socialist opposition opposite last week, I got to thinking: my gracious, British Columbia must be a terrible place in which to live. So I did a little research. Do you know what I came up with? Over the past three years, British Columbia's population has increased more rapidly than that of any other province in Canada, save and except, possibly, the province of Alberta. In 1979, British Columbia's population increased by 1.62 percent while Canada's population increased only by 0.88 percent. The same holds true in 1980. British Columbia's population increased by 2.68 percent while Canada's population increased only by 1.08 percent. In 1981, British Columbia's population increased by 2.6 percent while Canada's population increased by only 1.06 percent. To me, that means that people would rather be living here in beautiful British Columbia, under the policies of this government, than elsewhere in Canada,

There must be a reason, Mr. Speaker. The reason is that this government has been doing things right during the last six years. This province happens to be the best place to live in Canada. It's not only the best place in Canada but, indeed, the best place in all of North America.

From 1977 onward, British Columbians have enjoyed the highest per capita personal disposable income of anywhere in Canada. I want to repeat that so that everybody grasps what I'm saying. From 1977 onward, British Columbians have enjoyed the highest per capita personal disposable income of any place or anybody in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of this government to see that our policies are such that we are able to look forward to prosperity well into the future, and such that British Columbians will continue to enjoy a very high per capita personal disposable income.

That is what we are proposing in this bill. We want to keep things the way they are, because we think British Columbians are entitled to the way of life that they enjoy today. Almost 5 percent more people were working in this province in 1981 than in the year before, which means an increase in our labour force. That compares with a national average of only 3 percent.

As I listen to the socialist opposition, I have to keep asking myself this question: where in the world has socialism ever worked to the benefit of the people that it supposedly serves? Can you name me one jurisdiction in the world where socialism has been good for the workingman? Can you name me one place in the world where socialism has been good for the businessman? Can you name me one place in the world where socialism has been good for the civil servant? You can't name one place in the world where socialism has been good for the population at large.

The free-enterprise system has given British Columbians the best social services to be found anywhere in the world.

[ Page 7471 ]

Again, that's what this bill is all about. We want to ensure that future British Columbians will also enjoy these social services that indeed are the highest standard of those found in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world. We want to ensure that those social services continue well into the decades ahead. and if we keep on spending money the way we have been doing, with no lid on it, it will not be true. It's happened in socialist jurisdictions, where they think money can buy security and can solve all the problems. Pretty soon they run out of money and the programs have to be cut, and the people who enjoyed those programs have to be chopped. That is not what this government wants. Sure, we have to tighten our belts for a little while, but it's far better to tighten the belt a little now and have the security of those social programs in the next decade. That's what this bill is all about and that's why I have no hesitation in supporting it.

It also happens that the free-enterprise system has brought about, for British Columbia workers, the highest wages paid in any jurisdiction in North America. A socialist is a socialist, no matter where he is, and unfortunately, one of the ills we have in this country is the socialist who heads it in Pierre Elliott Trudeau. That's the root of the problem. A socialist is a socialist, whether he's in Ottawa or Victoria, and no matter what government he's in. A socialist is a socialist, and socialism has never worked for the benefit of all the people in any jurisdiction. Who started a lot of the social programs that we enjoy today? They were started under this government. And it is this government, through our policies, that will ensure they stay. But along with the social programs that we brought to the people of British Columbia, we also brought a good economy. This government has worked day and night for the last six years to ensure there would be prosperity in British Columbia.

While we're working to ensure that we have a strong economic base, factors in other jurisdictions have been working against us, and I refer to the type of socialism that Trudeau is trying to force on Canada.

We talk about cutbacks. Who started the cutbacks? It was the Trudeau government that started them. As I said, a socialist is a socialist is a socialist; I don't care whether he's in Victoria or whether he heads the government in Ottawa.

We talk about policies. The policies this government has brought in are policies that would ensure there is a climate for investment here: a climate in which people could work, a climate in which our industries could function, a climate that would allow us to be competitive in the international marketplace. If we're not competitive in the international marketplace, and without exports, our economy will fail.

Other jurisdictions in Canada, because of their policy of bringing instability to government, because of their policy of wanting to tear Canada apart, have failing economies, and I refer to Quebec. Quebec is today the economic slum of North America, the economic ghetto of Canada, because of their policy of instability in government and their separatist policies in wanting to break away from Canada. That's why Quebec is the economic ghetto of Canada today.

Let's not break Canada apart; let's get rid of the man at the top, because that's where the real root of the problem is. You will not help the economy of Canada by trying to divide this country, but you will help this country by getting rid of the socialist who for the last X number of years — far too long — has led this country into.... What he is trying to do to bring about his own new society hasn't worked in Canada in the past and won't work in the future, because Canada, like the province of British Columbia, has to be an exporting nation. Political instability has driven capital to more secure bases. That's happened in the past. That happened in British Columbia between 1972 and 1975. We all know what happened when the socialists were in British Columbia; our country ground to an economic halt. It became the economic ghetto of Canada during those three years.

It's very difficult for me to determine what policies the NDP stand for today. I've listened and listened, and not one solid policy has come across the floor from the socialist side of the House. One minute they are against a project; the next minute they want to change it. They remind me of their cohorts down in Ottawa — Ed Broadbent and his gang of socialists who are in bed with the Trudeau government. A year ago when Ottawa was talking about the megaprojects they said that they shouldn't go ahead. Now that the projects are cancelled they say that they should go ahead even if the taxpayer has to foot the bill. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter whether you're a socialist in Victoria or Ottawa — you don't have a sound policy. You just try to find something to criticize, being negative and harping all the time. The gloom and doom boys from across the way. The reason they're so weak in their negative criticism is that they don't have a policy. The reason they are against this bill, even though I think deep in their hearts they realize it's the only way to go, is that the socialists are in bed with the labour bosses.

I was quite astounded some time ago to listen to the leader of the IWA on "Jack Webster" say: "Yes, I'm a socialist. I'm the greatest socialist of all." He's not interested in working for the workers in the IWA. No, he's interested in politics. He's more interested in politics than he is in the well-being of the lumber industry. The well-being of the lumber industry is very necessary in this province if those who are working in that industry are going to have their jobs. Now we hear a great deal of criticism about the layoffs in the lumber industry. Jack Munro wasn't too interested in the workers in the lumber industry last August when he took his workers out on strike when we were in a tough spot in the economic markets and the marketplace. Was he interested in security of supply to the places we export? Not at all. The only thing the big labour bosses and the NDP are interested in is politics. They're certainly not interested in the well-being of the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) come to order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask myself why it has been such a boring debate. It's because the opposition members find it very difficult to really and truly criticize this bill. I hope they realize, as I give them credit for having enough common sense to realize, that this province must be competitive if we are to keep our standard of living and the lifestyle we have worked to achieve. The NDP, as I said, would like to support this bill because even they realize that it's based on common sense, but they have to attack it because of their political ties with organized labour and labour bosses in this province.

Can you imagine a meeting between the Leader of the Opposition and the big labour bosses, including Jack Munro? The Leader of the Opposition is sitting in the meeting saying:

[ Page 7472 ]

"Look, we really have to support this bill, because in the long run it's best for the workers and civil servants of this province." The labour bosses are saying: "If you're going to be in bed with us, you've got to stand up and you've got to appear to fight for labour." So that's why the NDP are against this bill.

As I said before, they're negative, they're carping and they're destructive. They talk about creating jobs, yet they want to close down every job-creating project in this province. They want to increase government efficiency, yet they attack the government's restraint bill, which is designed to ensure that the taxpayer gets the very best value for every dollar spent. They want to hold down taxes, yet they support the government employees' union's demands for a pay hike of over 30 percent. They want to turn business and profit into dirty words. Who do they think is going to pay the bill? They don't realize that without business there would be no jobs for their socialist supporters, except for those employed caring for the unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, I said I was going to be brief, but I have to bring up one last point, and it's been made during the weeks of debate that we've had since this Legislature opened. It appears to me that the socialists think the solution to every problem is to shovel taxpayers' money out the back of a truck. They think that more money is going to give us a better standard of health care. More money is not necessarily going to give us a better standard of health care. They try to tell us that more money is going to improve the education system. I want to tell you, you could dump a billion dollars into the education system and not be guaranteed that the system itself would produce a better student. But that seems to be their philosophy.

I want to say again, Mr. Speaker, that this is indeed very fair legislation, and it's a little bit hypocritical for me to listen to the opposition talk about excesses. My heavens, all I have to do is remind myself of the years 1972-75 when they were government. You talk about living high off the hog! You talk about excesses in spending! I want to tell you about desks that could sleep ten and twelve, and three and four to a drawer. They had to bring it in through the roof; they couldn't get it in through the doors. Either that or maybe they built it in the room. You talk about travelling and travel expenses! I wouldn't have minded spending the money as a taxpayer on them travelling if they had done some good for British Columbia. But we had to travel throughout the world to rectify the bad publicity they gave us. We had to tell them: "Hey, we're interested in doing business." What they wanted to do was put a picket fence around British Columbia and have their own little socialist kingdom here — the little fiefdom that the hired member for Vancouver East.... What's his name? The guy they paid $80,000 to get....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, the guy who paid $80,000 to Bob Williams to find him a seat. He wanted to put a picket fence around British Columbia and create his own little fiefdom. We had to travel around the world and say: "Hey, British Columbia is still a free enterprise state. We're interested in doing business with you. This isn't the Chile of the north." I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, although I speak of this in jest, I want to refer it to the bill. As I'm trying to point out, without exports we will not have any money to pay any civil servant in the decades to come. So I had to go around.... As I say, I spoke of this jest, but it's a very serious matter, because there are still people in the world who haven't got the message that the socialists are no longer in government. So we've had to go around and repair the damage.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to leave this thought with you: we have to export our products into world markets or this economy of British Columbia cannot be maintained. We live on exports, and the reason we live on exports is that we haven't a sufficient market at home to maintain the standard of living we have today. If we cannot export and be competitive in price, we will not export and we will not have those dollars to maintain our standard of living. We cannot be competitive if we do not maintain our costs. If government takes more out of the manufacturer's Pocket, takes more from those who produce goods and services than is normal and logical, takes more than our competitors take, then we will not be competitive. That is why it is so very important that government not take more than is absolutely necessary from what the taxpayers earn in this province. That is why we must ensure that the taxpayers of this province get value for their dollars. At the present time we are into some tough economic times, but I am not pessimistic. As a matter of fact, I am optimistic. I'm optimistic that the world is not coming to an end. British Columbia is poised and ready to go back to work when the economy takes off again. We can be competitive, but only if everybody tightens their belts during this period of restraint.

This bill has a time limit. We didn't say "forever and ever." We have given hope. We have given light at the end of the tunnel. The government doesn't necessarily want to do this, but for the long-term benefit of the taxpayers and the civil servants of the province of British Columbia, this period of belt-tightening is absolutely necessary. We live by trade. Exports are our lifeblood, and unless we can remain competitive in the international marketplace.... We think we've got problems now; you haven't seen anything, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is very necessary to maintain in British Columbia and Canada an atmosphere and climate where people can invest, can go into business and be competitive. Mr. Speaker, that is why I support this bill wholeheartedly. I think it's a good bill. It's very timely, but it may be that only history will prove the total benefits of this bill. History will pass, and as it passes people will look back at this legislation and at this short period in history, and they will say: thank God that the government of the day had the guts to do what was necessary, in spite of what the political repercussions might be. This government is here to serve the people, not just today but for decades to come.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciated the minister's brevity, at least. Unfortunately, he didn't bring too much of his speech to the principle of the bill. I think the one thing that we should be discussing today in this Legislature is the bill before us, which has to do with restrictions on bargaining rights of civil servants and public-sector employees in B.C.

The minister said that history is going to show us the benefits of what we're doing here today. Of course, he's making the same error as have many politicians over the years: asking history to vindicate them. Generally, it ended up exactly the other way round, as I'm sure it will in this case.

The minister talked about excesses.

Interjection.

[ Page 7473 ]

MR. SKELLY: This is the member who speaks from his seat in debate but can't answer a question in the Legislature. I'm surprised the minister has the guts to pass comments across the floor from his seat in the back row, when he can't even answer a simple question in the Legislature concerning serious problems of unemployment in this province. What kind of Minister of Labour do we have? He can't answer a single question in the Legislature, yet from the anonymity of his seat in the back row he's always willing to holler across the floor at speakers who are adhering strictly to the principle of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the prayer we received today at the opening of the Legislature, especially one line. I've written it down, and I will pass a copy to you, given your close contact with divine authority. It says: "May our ministers receive divine guidance as they face the problems of unemployment." There are a few ministers across the floor who in the near future, Mr. Speaker, are going to require that divine guidance, and I hope you're there to assist when that event takes place. I'm sure one will be the Minister of Labour, and one will be the minister who has just spoken. The people of this province aren't going to tolerate that kind of nonsense much longer, the kind of nonsense that's represented in this bill and in the speeches that have been made relative to this bill by government ministers and government representatives across the floor.

In some of the relevant sections of his speech, the previous speaker talked about policies and lack of policies. The New Democratic Party does have a compensation policy, but it's an all-encompassing compensation policy; it doesn't direct itself at one sector of the economy and punish that one sector. Anyone who believes in economic planning for the betterment of any society will have to believe in a compensation policy that encompasses not only wages, but prices and profits as well. The NDP has never backed down from that policy. It has always enunciated that policy when legislation such as this has come before the federal House of Commons or before this Legislature. Anyone motivated by the desire for better economic planning and a better standard of living in this country and in this province would have to have such a compensation policy.

But this policy is not motivated by a desire to better this society that we live in, or to better the economic conditions and the economic situation for all British Columbians. That is not the desire of this policy; that's not the motivation of this policy. This policy, which is motivated in quite a different way, was announced by the Premier on television some months ago, and it was announced as the resulting of polling, as the result of a political sampling taken across the province, not as the result of policy developed by his economic advisers. If that were the case, we would have seen that policy in printed form and it would have been distributed to back up the proposals that the Premier is making in this bill. There was no economic position paper. There was no justification tabled for this Compensation Stabilization Act. The Premier simply polled the province and found out there was a possibility of dividing two sectors of the workforce in British Columbia; of dividing the resource industry workers in the forest and mining industry, who are out of work right now as a result of the economic depression and the policies of this government, against people who work in the public sector providing essential services. It's interesting that when these people go out on strike, or when there are labour problems in the public sector, the government opposite tries to declare them all as essential. Now we're faced with legislation to try to declare them not essential enough to be willing to pay the wages they are demanding.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

It was suggested last Friday by a speaker that the NDP supports the wage demands of some particular group bargaining in the public sector. I would like to say that this is not the truth at all. Our announced policy is that the government should bargain as toughly and strongly as it can on behalf of the taxpayers of this province, to get the best and fairest possible wage settlement for the taxpayers, who have to pay the bills ultimately, and for the people who work for this government in the public sector and in other areas. What we are asking is that the government not stack the deck against those who are bargaining, or not change the circumstances and the rules in the middle of the game. That bargaining should be done on a fair and open basis.

The government should be tough with taxpayers' money; you can expect the government's employees to be tough in the way they bargain, but the system should be fair, and should be seen to be fair. What the government is doing today with this policy is making the system inherently unfair. It is impossible to bargain properly in a climate that will be dominated by this act — absolutely impossible. We are going to create more and more social unrest in the public service of this province as a result of legislation like this which continues to come from this government.

It's difficult to get a reaction at any time from the backbenchers in that government. It's interesting to see in the galleries today the former member for Kamloops, who used to be in the Legislature when Kamloops was actually represented in this Legislature by its MLA, who is now out of his seat. Under the circumstances of unemployment in Kamloops now, the circumstances of unemployment in the mining and forest industries, and the serious problems that are faced by the residents and citizens of Kamloops, the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) should be up on his feet day after day in this House demanding changes in government policy which will distribute the wealth of this province a little more fairly so that the citizens and the workers of his riding can be put back to work. What does he do? We never hear from him. It wasn't like that between 1972 and 1975, and it won't be like that in the future. Between 1972 and 1975, Kamloops had good and strong representation in this Legislative Assembly. It certainly hasn't had that since then.

One of the things that these people are so concerned about is when they're tied in with the Trudeau Liberals. It was funny. The Leader of the Opposition threw out the suggestion that they are the only government in Canada that has taken up Trudeau's suggestion to limit the compensation of public servants and public-sector employees. They are the only government in Canada that is willing to do that. On that basis, it ties them in with the federal Liberal Party. I couldn't believe the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) last Friday. He got so agitated when he got up to make his speech. He very seldom makes a speech in this House. He very seldom ever gets agitated. But he spoke on Friday with such enthusiasm and agitation, it was hard for us on this side to believe. He denied any connection whatsoever with the federal Liberal government. He tried to turn the tables and say: "No, it's the NDP that's tied in with Trudeau. Remember

[ Page 7474 ]

when the NDP sided with the Liberals to toss out the Conservative government back in 1979?"

The member has been a little selective in his recall of the facts. I have a brother who was fortunate enough to be elected a representative in the House of Commons for Comox–Powell River. He was back there at the time, and I received a first-hand report of the situation. The way it was told to me was like this: it was an NDP motion that defeated the Conservative government, as I recall. It was the Liberals who supported the NDP in that case. But that, in itself, wasn't enough to defeat the Conservatives. The Quebec arm of the Social Credit Party had been alienated by the Conservatives to the extent that they refused to support the government. Otherwise it wouldn't have fallen and we would still be in the same Conservative morass today as we were in 1979. It was the Quebec arm of the Social Credit Party that defeated the Conservative government back in 1979. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) laughs at that. Of course, he's always been a Liberal.

It was a selection of the facts that the member for Central Fraser Valley chose to present to us in the House on Friday. Let's look at the facts about this government. I believe this Social Credit government has fallen into the same trap that the Liberal-dominated coalition of 1949 and 1950 fell into. What they've done is they've become a puppet of the Liberal Party, dominated by the Liberals. When you look at who is spending money in this government, who is getting all the money and whose priorities are being met in this government.... Mr. Speaker, who is in charge of northeast coalfield? Who is the coordinator of that massive resource giveaway plan? It's Ron Basford.

MR. LEA: Who is he?

MR. SKELLY: A former Liberal cabinet minister, who represented a Vancouver constituency. He didn't have the confidence of the electors down there, but he had the confidence of the Socreds, and they hired him as the coordinator for the northeast coal development.

Mr. Speaker, the people who spend the big money in this government aren't the Social Credit members, aren't the Conservative members who jumped ship back in 1975. They're the Liberals — and the Liberals that they've hired.

Who is Paul Manning? You remember Paul Manning and who he worked for before he came to British Columbia to work on B.C. Place. Billions of dollars of provincial mon are being invested in B.C. Place so that we can watch American football players and baseball players chase back and forth on the astroturf. Who's in charge of that project? Why, it's Paul Manning, former executive assistant in the Liberal government. He worked for Ron Basford, as I recall. He worked for Pierre Trudeau. The people who spend the big money in this government are the federal Liberals, who have this government under their thumb.

It is like back in the 1949-51 era before the Socreds came in and did away with the coalition dominated by the Liberal and we had a W.A.C. Bennett rule for 20 years. How did h come into this province? He saw that the Liberals were ( putting all their money in the urban constituencies in Vancouver, Victoria and the wealthy ridings like Point Grey and Oak Bay. All the money was going into a very small area of the province and the rural areas were being robbed blind. They people who produced the resource wealth of this province were being robbed in order to have that money invested for the rich in a few small urban areas of the province.

That is what brought Cyril Shelford into this Legislature many years ago. He saw that they were creating huge megaprojects in his riding up in northern British Columbia, and he came down here to complain about what Alcan was doing in Omineca. He decided that he would best serve the residents of Omineca by joining Social Credit and fighting for his area down here in Victoria. What has happened since then? Cyril Shelford has seen that organization taken over piece by piece, step by step, by the Trudeau Liberals to the point where, if you are a northern representative, you get absolutely nothing for your riding. In fact, your riding is being drained to support a few megaprojects that are being handled by Liberals in the province of B.C. It is a serious problem.

We looked at the ad placed in the paper by the Premier's office over the weekend, trying to get on the Canucks bandwagon. When I first saw the ad it looked like the Premier was throwing in the towel and announcing the election, but underneath it said: "Get the B.C. Spirit." It was just a case of trying to tie his star to the Vancouver Canucks because nothing else has worked in his favour in the last little while and he will tie himself on any bandwagon that looks like it's going to be successful. Unfortunately the public is absolutely outraged at the government's attempts to do that and at the government's priorities in spending money.

My riding has a little arts centre called the Rollin Art Centre. They have been working for years on a volunteer basis. The building is supplied by the city. Most of the work is done by volunteer labour. A lot of the artwork is contributed by local artists and donated by citizens who have acquired their own collections over the years. Last year they got $3,300 from the provincial government as a partial operating grant. This year they applied for $5,000, hoping to get the same, and they got nothing. How do they feel when they see an ad in the paper that cost $12,000, enough to have funded three arts centres like that? They feel pretty disgusted, because all of their efforts have been volunteer efforts on behalf of the citizens of Port Alberni and on behalf of the arts here in British Columbia. Every bit of the effort was volunteer effort. To watch the government blow $12,000 on a newspaper ad to try to attach itself to the successes of a hockey team disgusts the people in Port Alberni.

We see five schools closing down in Port Alberni, with 30 people losing their jobs as a result of those school closures. It is another government attack on the private sector. They see ads in the paper like that. They see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) taking trips to Arizona and buying wine that costs $37 a bottle, and they cannot believe the screwed-up priorities of this government.They cannot believe the extravagance that the Social Credit ministers indulge in. They cannot believe the way that these people spend money and, at the same time, turn around and tell us in the rural areas that we have to tighten our belts and show a little restraint. At the same time money is being shovelled out the back of a truck for the benefit of a few cabinet ministers and megaprojects in a few areas of the e province. It is no wonder that that kind of B.C. spirit isn't catching on.

This bill represents another attack on the public sector by a government dominated by a fundamentalist right-wing ideology, an ideology that says that the prime motivator of the economy is individual greed and that anything done by people for people through the government is evil, is wrong, has

[ Page 7475 ]

to be of low quality, has to be slipshod. They are attacking their own operations, but it is a fundamental tenet of rightwing politics that you support individual greed and you oppose anything that is done by people for people through the government, You have to challenge every other motivation that exists. This is one of the reasons that this government hopes to capitalize on this type of bill. They did their polling prior to the announcement of this policy. They found out that many of the people in the resource industries, such as the forest industry and the mining industry, were out of work as a result of worldwide economic circumstances as well as this government's policy right here in B.C. They sought to exploit what they perceived to be a division in the workforce of British Columbia between those who work in the public service and those who work in what they call the private sector and in the resource industries. I should say that there is a bit of a basis for that division.

People in the private sector and in the resource industries are out of work. They are suffering hardship, and the increased taxes and the increased service charges and user fees that are being imposed on them by this government and the increased financial burden that's being pressed on them by this government are increasing the burden that these people feel. They do see those public services that are carrying on and they do envy workers who are able to continue working and apply for increased labour rates in order to keep up with the cost of living. So there is that bit of envy there, but that's where it ends. It's not something that these people are capable of exploiting, and that's what they found out in the polling since the decision to implement this policy was announced by the Premier a few months ago.

Take a look at my constituency at Port Alberni. Most of the people there are employed in the secondary manufacturing aspect of the forest industry, the manufacture of lumber and pulp and paper. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was just telling us that this province has to be competitive. Well, it's impossible to be competitive at a time when the economy is so depressed that no one is buying anything. But he's still talking about competition as if he was operating back in 1977, 1978 and 1979. What he's doing is attempting to exploit the depression and the envy that those people in the forest industry and the mining industry feel and try to take that out politically on the public service of this province. It's a way of attacking the public sector in this province by using the workforce that's out of work.

Let's look at what the public sector does, because the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) implied last Friday that they were not productive workers, that they were parasites on the economy and that they were not contributing anything to the economic well-being of British Columbians. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you believe the people on that side, you would believe that anything that's done in the public sector could be done better in the private sector, and they like to point first and foremost to private schools. They all believe that private schools are much better than public schools but, of course, private schools can be more selective than public schools. They can charge more money than public schools. They can do things that public schools cannot do, because they don't come under the strict scrutiny of the parents, of locally elected officials and of this Legislature. They don't have that kind of scrutiny, and they have more freedom of action, but these people like to point out what the private schools can do. They wouldn't be able to do half of what they are claimed to be capable of doing if they didn't have the public schools there to support all of the people that they refuse to accept. It's nice when you can skim the cream, but if you have to accept everyone the job becomes more difficult. Thank God the public schools system is there doing a difficult job and doing it well.

What about those other jobs in the public sector that have to be done? The very fact that they are being done contributes to the economic well-being and the health and safety of all of us and contributes to the productivity of our workforce. Take a look at the jails in this province, Mr. Speaker. You may have had an opportunity to take a look through some of the jails in your area as MLA. Who would provide that service if it wasn't provided by the public? Who would protect the public from criminals if it wasn't done by the public? What would society be like? Can you imagine private jails? They do have them in Alabama. If you own a farm or a highway contracting outfit, I understand that you can hire a few criminals, put chains on them and rent them from the government. That's putting private enterprise to work using slave labour. But here it's a job that's done by people compensated by the government, and the job is done fairly well.

I used to work at Oakalla prison farm in Burnaby. When I started working there in 1965....

MR. LORIMER: Is it still there?

MR. SKELLY: It's still there.... I was paid $325 a month, I could get more money now investing in Carolin Mines shares. There were very low wage rates, no union — doing an essential job and producing for the people of this province. What is implied in legislation like this, when the member for Central Fraser Valley speaks, is that these people are parasites on the public purse; that they are unproductive citizens; that they don't contribute anything to the economy of the province and therefore their wage increases should be limited by legislation, whereas the private sector should go uncontrolled. That's what he's saying, that those people who are providing an essential service are unproductive parasites. It simply isn't true. Over the years they've been paid very poor wages, have been expected to sacrifice a number of the fringe benefits that people in the private sector have enjoyed, and have willingly contributed to the productivity, economic well-being, health and safety of this province, and now this government turns around and slams limits on their rights to bargain collectively for wages and benefits in order to keep up with inflation. It's simply unacceptable.

I would like to say that our party has always believed in compensation policy. It's an inseparable part of economic planning. If you believe in economic planning to benefit all the citizens of this country and province, then you must have compensation policy as part and parcel of the overall economic planning system, but you cannot plan one sector of the society and leave the rest to go unplanned. This act came down not as a part of a whole compensation policy which is a part of a Social Credit economic plan; it came down in order to exploit a division in the workforce and to try to range the citizens who work in the private sector against those who work in the public sector. There's absolutely no way that we can support this type of bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was suggested a little while ago, when the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was speaking, that some people have been living high off the hog. He talked about the labour bosses,

[ Page 7476 ]

public servants and everyone in this province but the people who have actually been living high off the hog at the expense of the rest of us — people like the cabinet ministers in this government, travelling around the country and world, spending millions of dollars in public money. Talk about desks that sleep 12 and two and three in the drawers, according to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Every one of these cabinet ministers has thousands of dollars in his budget each year for new furnishings. Every one of these cabinet ministers has thousands of dollars in travel, most of which doesn't go to any productive benefit for the citizens of this province. Every cabinet minister in this government has thousands of dollars in grants that are handed out to personal and political friends.

This cabinet is living high off the hog at the expense of the citizens of this province, Mr. Speaker, and they're blaming everybody but themselves. They're blaming the federal government, yet they're part and parcel tied in with the federal government. They're blaming the United States' interest-rate policy, yet their economic policy is identical to the policy being enunciated by Ronald Reagan and the United States authorities. The reason for this bill is that they blame the civil servants and the public-sector employees of the province of British Columbia who have contributed so well to the productivity, health and safety of the citizens of this province over the years, and to the education of the students of this province over the years. These are the people being blamed by the Socreds for their financial incompetence. We cannot support this bill, and I'll be voting against it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate on this bill, and I've been wondering just how low debate can get. I found that out with the previous speaker, the member for Alberni, when he took the lovely prayer that was delivered to us by Brigadier Underhill this afternoon and dragged that prayer into partisan debate in this House. I think that is as low as any debate can go.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to try to relate Bill 28 to the jails in Alabama, as was done by the previous member. How he managed to distort the debate to such an extent I will never understand. I will say that, yes, I do support the Vancouver Canucks, and I support the ad that was put in the paper which will encourage them and help other people in British Columbia — those who perhaps don't pay too much attention to hockey — to recognize what the Canucks have done. I think the Canucks have done a great thing; I'm proud to be a part of a government which will pay for an ad that will acknowledge the things that they have done so far. I, along with my colleagues and most people in British Columbia, will urge them on to success and to finally win the Stanley Cup.

Bill 28, the Compensation Stabilization Act, is a bill which I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting. It is a bill that places some constraint on the amounts of money that can be bargained for by all public-sector employees. I think that any of us who look at what is happening in the world economy today must recognize the fact that we are in a very serious international economic recession. We in British Columbia know that we depend upon the world marketplace and the world economy to sell those goods which we produce in this province — produce from the resources which we develop in British Columbia. We depend upon those markets, and those markets — or the lack thereof — place very serious constraints on the ability of our industries in this province to pay the wages which may be demanded by private-sector employees. There are definite constraints on the private sector, and this government has seen fit to put some constraint on the purse-strings of the taxpayers of British Columbia, so that there will be a recognition of the fact that revenues to the government drop as our international markets fall off, as they have done now.

We've been criticized by the last speaker, the member for Alberni, who suggested that we in the government should not be travelling to other countries in the world for the purpose of developing markets and opening up those areas which we can sell into. Last fall I was in China, and I was amazed when I came back to see a report in a newspaper quoting the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) as saying that the government members should be out trying to develop new markets in the world for our products — and I guess he was thinking of forest products, which I was in China trying to promote with that country. The next day I read in the papers that other members of the opposition were decrying the fact that we in government were out travelling and trying to promote British Columbia products in world markets. On the one hand they say: "Don't do it." On the other hand they say: "Go out and do it because we need the markets." I really have a difficult time following their logic.

Mr. Speaker, there are tremendous constraints on the private sector in British Columbia. These constraints right now are brought forward in the form of layoffs and reduced work weeks, plant closures and bankruptcies. People in the private sector are having a difficult time because of the international economic situation, and they indeed have very cruel constraints placed upon them. Ask the members of the IWA or the steelworkers, who are perhaps laid off at this time, if they think there are not constraints on the private sector. Ask the responsible civil servants — and most civil servants are indeed responsible. They recognize the fact that this is a serious economic time and that there is not a bottomless well of taxpayers' money to pay unreasonable demands for wage catch ups. The realities of the world are known only too well to those in the private sector, and the realities of the world are fully recognized by our responsible civil servants, who, I'm sure, appreciate very much the fact that they have continuing and ongoing jobs and are not subjected to the same type of cruel constraint as is the private sector.

Every time any item appears in any of our media that can be at all distorted to point out the fact that this cruel government is laying off employees and causing problems, it's brought to this House. Never does a member from the socialist side look at what is really happening. For example, last week the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) brought up the fact — what he called a fact, or it's a made-up fact — that the Ministry of Forests is laying off dozens of nursery workers in the province at a time when we should be growing more seedlings. Well, Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia this year our nurseries will produce 97 million seedlings, which is an all-time record. Each year for the last several years there have been dramatic increases in the seedlings produced to reforest our forest lands in British Columbia.

The facts of the matter on the case brought up by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) are that we in the ministry use casual labour in the spring and fall to lift, grade and bundle seedlings which have been grown and produced in our nurseries for outplanting in the province. It is a fact that the agreement with the B.C. Government Employees Union — a collective agreement freely bargained with the government — states that once a person, a casual employee, has not

[ Page 7477 ]

been on the government payroll for more than six months, he loses his seniority and then must be rehired, but not necessarily on the basis of seniority. All the people who weren't employed this spring were laid off last fall, and their six months had expired. We could not rehire them at the present time because of the weather and snow conditions at our nurseries; therefore their seniority expired. But at the present time, all of these workers have been rehired. Any remaining layoffs are people who had no seniority and were not brought back because the jobs were filled by others. So it's a simple matter of people in the opposition taking a partial fact, distorting it to suit their own political advantage, and then trying to present it as a fact to the people of British Columbia.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) went on at great length about the plight of the poor, underpaid women employees who work for the government. She said that these people are making less money than they could on welfare. Mr. Speaker, people who work for the government get a comparable or better wage than most similar occupations in the private sector. Not only do they get a comparable or better wage, but they also have a much better package of fringe benefits. The fringe benefits available to government employees are far better than any of those in the private sector. And their job security, of course, is the ultimate that can be achieved in any sector of our society.

The three-year contract which is currently nearing expiry and which was freely negotiated by the B.C. Government Employees Union and the Government Employee Relations Bureau was negotiated three years ago during much more buoyant times than we have now. It is a contract that provided 8 percent in each of those three years; it was freely negotiated during buoyant times. Now, during very difficult economic times, those same union leaders, perhaps because they are embarrassed that they did not do better for their members in the last set of negotiations, are saying: "We want up to 30 percent in a year. We must catch up and keep up during these very difficult economic times." Those leaders do not speak for the true feeling of most government employees. Most responsible government employees — and most of them are responsible — recognize the facts of the economic conditions that we live in today and will support a reasonable settlement that will assure that there's not a great drain on the taxpayers of British Columbia. The more you have to pay all sectors of the public service in British Columbia, the more difficult it is to balance a budget. The only alternative for the excessive wage settlements, of course, is to increase taxes and to throw a greater burden on those people in the private sector already suffering from this economic downturn, and on those people who are least capable of paying it: people on fixed incomes.

They talk about closing hospital beds, Mr. Speaker. There is a constraint on the amount of increase in growth of hospital spending this year, just as there is in every other ministry of the government. Those people who are administering the hospitals, of course, will say yes, we must close beds, because they know that that will be a difficult thing for the government to live with politically. But you tell me that in an operation such as our health-care system that expends $2.2 billion of our tax money every year, there is not a way of constraining costs and introducing efficiencies to save whatever they perceive their shortfall to be without closing beds. I think that once they get over this pressure tactic they're using right now to try to get the government to back down on constraint in spending, the responsible hospital administrators will go back to the drawing boards and will find ways of introducing efficiencies so we can indeed continue to have the extremely high level of health care that we have in British Columbia without closing hospital beds.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was talking about the closure of schools in his constituency. I read a little item about the closure of a school near Alberni a month or so ago. The item went something like this. The school trustees had said: "Because of reduced enrolments in our schools, we may have to close some of our smaller schools where we don't have enough students to justify it."

The article went on to quote someone as having said: "I guess we're going to have to try to run an efficient school system." Well, I hope so. I hope that every part of the public sector that spends public moneys will try to run as efficient a system as they possibly can, because there is indeed a limit to the number of tax dollars available for public spending.

We must have constraint in the growth of government spending now. I hope we will continue to have constraint on the growth of government spending for every year on into the future. I hope that we will demand that we get the most efficient expenditure of government dollars not only during difficult economic times but during buoyant times as well.

The engine that drives our economy is the private sector, in spite of the fact that the member for Alberni calls the private sector a sector that is motivated by greed. The private sector is the only real area of production of wealth that we have, and we must not discourage that. They may call it greed, Mr. Speaker, but I call it initiative; I call it drive; I call it the engine that has developed our economy, our way of life, to what it is today. The members opposite feel, I guess, that every private businessman — everyone who invests in our economy, everyone who goes into business, who tries to do things for himself and by doing things for himself improve our total lot in British Columbia — is motivated simply and solely by greed. He talks about this Social Credit Party which is right-wing in its philosophy. Anyone who says that the private sector is motivated solely by greed must certainly be as far left-wing as you can possibly be.

MR. LAUK: Are you calling us socio-communists again?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, even worse.

Restraint now and in the future is absolutely essential if we are to continue to enjoy the way of life that we do in British Columbia. The members opposite continue to say that there is no free collective bargaining this year because of the lid put on amounts that can be paid by government. They say that collective bargaining will not work if there is an upper limit put on the amount of wages that can be agreed to.

Well, there certainly are constraints on the private sector. The member suggested that the private sector is wide open — no constraints are put on them. Indeed there are. At times these constraints are ignored, as they were last summer when the IWA and the pulp unions settled for an amount that I'm sure is going to be very difficult for the forest industry to pay. However, that was a freely negotiated collective agreement, and I'm sure that it will be adhered to by both parties as long as they can possibly afford to do so.

Whenever we think that there are no limits on the amount of money that can be paid for wages — either in the public sector or in the private sector — we have to look very closely to what the end result will be if we exceed the amounts that truly can be afforded.

[ Page 7478 ]

The NDP believe that there should be no lid, no maximum amount that should be available for wages in the public sector. They think that we should completely untie the purse strings of the taxpayer and just let it go. Of course a government can always increase taxes to meet whatever wage demands are agreed upon. There is really no limit, except that the taxpayer in British Columbia says that there is a limit to the amount of money that they expect to be called upon to send to governments to pay the bills for the services provided. We must have constraint. We must have a limit to the amount of money which we take from the taxpayer to pay to governments for all the services delivered. We will accept that responsibility even though it may, in some sectors, have its political downside. It's very easy to be a government when things are going extremely well and revenues are coming in and programs can be expanded. It's a little tougher when things are tough, when the economy is on the downside.

We were elected to serve as government, and we will assume our responsibilities even in difficult times. We won't do as was done in 1975 when things got a bit tough. Rather than facing the facts with the taxpayers of British Columbia, the government called an election so that they could get re-elected before they had to 'fess up to the people just what dire financial straits they had placed the province of British Columbia in. Well, that didn't work. We are facing it day by day. We are telling the people just where we are. The Minister of Finance presents a quarterly financial statement each year, so the people of B.C. are aware just how much money is available, so the taxpayers know how much they should have to send to government.

The members opposite say they believe in completely free collective bargaining — when they're in the opposition, of course. They don't believe in it when they're in government. In 1974 the government of the day sent the nurses back to work, in 1974 they sent the firefighters back to work, and in 1975 they sent all striking workers back to work, although they profess to believe in a free collective bargaining system. When they're in opposition it's okay to shout that, but not when they're in government.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing the facts now. We are telling the people of British Columbia that there must be constraint. The private sector already has constraints, and the public sector must bargain within the limits of the ability of the public to pay the bills. Our judgment as a government is that the taxpayers are willing to see government expenditures grow this year by no more than the increase in the cost of living, and that's what we're constraining our expenditures to. The taxpaper is sick to death of seeing government expenditures mushroom year by year with no constraints whatsoever.

The responsible public servants in British Columbia know that they are well paid for the jobs they do, and they know they have generous fringe benefits. The responsible public servants in British Columbia know that they have job security and good working conditions. The responsible public servants in British Columbia know that the taxpayer is hurting, and our industries are hurting. The responsible public servants know that production in the private sector is the only source of wealth that produces the taxes that pays their wages, and they know what the world economy is doing right now. They know that we must not kill the only source of wealth we have by unreasonable demands on their part and unreasonable increases in taxes in order to pay for those demands. They know that we are living in difficult times and most public servants, responsible ones, know and support a restraint program.

The NDP say that they believe in constraint, but they don't believe in constraint on health-spending increases. They don't believe in constraint in Education, Human Resources, Forests, Highways, Mines or in Agriculture. They don't want to see constraint in any of these areas, and yet they somehow believe in constraint. They say that they want to have constraint and they criticize this bill because the actual percentages are not in the bill. I would ask those members to suggest some numbers that could be used as guidelines for increases in government spending and increases in public service remuneration. I would suggest that if they don't like the fact that the bill does not have numbers in it, they should suggest some numbers. Do they believe in 10 percent, 0 percent, 15 percent or perhaps 30 percent? They are strangely quiet when it comes to being specific. We know they are for constraint, but we also know they're not for any reduction or constraint on the spending in any individual area of government or public-sector spending.

Mr. Speaker, the members in the opposition say that we in British Columbia should be providing more secondary manufacturing. They say we should have smelters, refineries and manufacturing plants in the province to further manufacture the goods that we produce so we can create more employment. That's a very good objective, one that we as a government are working on right now and having great success with. At the same time that these socialists say we should have more manufacturing in British Columbia, they say that we should not build Site C dam, we should not develop Hat Creek thermal power and we should not develop the Iskut-Stikine. They were against Revelstoke, they're against the two-river policy and they're against all sources of power needed by industry in British Columbia to manufacture the products they're suggesting we manufacture. Again, they are for secondary manufacturing and expanding our economy, but they're against the only source of energy that could be used to do just that. They're against it, but they're for it, depending upon where they sit and who they're speaking to.

Mr. Speaker, like their federal counterparts, both the left-wing Liberals and the slightly right of left-wing Liberals New Democratic Party in Ottawa, they say they're against the megaprojects. Their federal friends in the NDP and the Liberal Party were against the megaprojects related to energy in Canada. As soon as the megaprojects were cancelled, all of a sudden they're for the megaprojects and they're giving the left-wing Liberal government in Ottawa blazes because they were cancelled. A few months ago they were against them. In British Columbia, of course, they're against northeast coal because it'll produce jobs and employment opportunities for British Columbians. They're against the Prince Rupert port development because it too will produce jobs and opportunities for people in B.C. They're against the stadium, and it's obvious they're against the Vancouver Canucks, the Lions and the Whitecaps. They must be if they're against the stadium. But they're for the jobs that would be created by the development of the stadium. They're against light rapid transit, but they're for the jobs that are being created by light rapid transit. They're against everything that will provide opportunities for the people of B.C., and yet they say we should do something about the employment problem in this country. They're against raising taxes and they're against constraint in government spending. They're against this bill. They say it should have limited spending spelled out. Well, I

[ Page 7479 ]

say to them again: "If you think it should be spelled out, suggest a number. At what level do you think the constraint should be? Should it be set at zero, 100 percent or 30 percent?" All I get is silence.

I have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting this bill. I think it's a bill that is needed at a time like this and it will set the pattern for the time when our economy gets back on its feet. We should always be conscious of the amount of money the government spends. We should always demand the utmost and ultimate in efficiency and services delivered for those moneys. We cannot simply equate dollars spent to services rendered, because there are a great many areas in the education system, in'the hospital and health-care system and in every area of public spending that can be made more efficient to assure the taxpayer of British Columbia that he is getting a bargain for the money that he sends in taxes. Mr. Speaker, I fully support this bill, and I congratulate the Minister of Finance for having brought it forward.

MR. REE: It is my pleasure to stand here and support this bill that was brought in by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. To me it is a bill of responsibility, particularly in these hard economic times that we're going through today. There is a great loss of jobs in the private sector and a great loss to the government's source of incoming funds through taxation to provide the services that the people in the province want. There are not enough dollars in the private sector, and not enough dollars from the wage-earners in this province for the increase in taxation that would be necessary if we were to satisfy all of the demands being made at this time by the various sectors of the public service.

I don't think it has come out, particularly in this debate, roughly what the total dollar demands being made by the various sectors of the public sector are. If you add up the demands that are being made by the municipalities throughout the province, in excess of that set out by the restraint program, there is an excess of approximately $71.5 million. This is a large sum. In addition, the wages in education — and I'm not talking about post-secondary education; this is just in the school system — total approximately $38 million. With respect to health services, the operating costs for all the hospitals within this province — the amount on their wish list that they say they require in excess of that provided by the province — is close to $100 million.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Then we are told that the public servants of the province are seeking a 34 percent or 35 percent increase in their salaries in their present negotiations. The present budget for wages for the public sector today is over $1 billion. An increase of 34 percent to 35 percent will add an extra $350 million to the demands on the taxpayers. If there is a settlement of around $100 million, or 10 percent, the government employees' demands at the moment would leave a surplus demand of $250 million. The total for these demands in the public sector is over $450 million. This is what the taxpayers of this province would have to pay if we were not to implement this restraint program. Mr. Speaker, $450 million equates to 2.5 points on the sales tax that would be required to satisfy this total demand. This does not include, as I said, post-secondary and university education. To satisfy this demand would mean possibly increasing the sales tax from 6 percent to 8.5 percent. Likewise, it would equate to ten points on the income tax.

We have a large number of people in this province at this moment who haven't got the advantages of security that the public sector has. They are unemployed and suffering, and in no way can I see levying this additional tax burden upon that segment in the private sector. That would be too onerous for those people who are not working and who are facing hardships — to have to have this additional heavy-handed taxation laid upon them.

Mr. Speaker, there is the alternative, certainly, of debt financing, which has been advocated many times by the people in the opposition — buy now, pay later; buy now, use it, pay for it later when it's gone. I can't support a proposition like that at all, because I don't wish to leave any debt to my sons and to their sons for benefits that I receive today. I think I should pay for what I get today, and I cannot support this debt-financing alternative which is common and usual to the left-wing segment of society, the people who want the free ride — take a free ride now, as long as I don't have to pay for it. That is the philosophy set out publicly by their leader, and I can't go for free rides.

Interjection.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, we get an awful lot of whining from the people about the wining and dining. They're doing more whining than anyone else.

There have been suggestions that possibly this party has been in bed, is in bed or some sort of thing with the Ottawa Liberals, the Trudeau government. I think this is more by the opposition to divorce themselves from some social disease they feel they may have caught by actually sleeping with the Trudeau government. We know only too well how many times they have spent in bed with the federal government. We know that the leader of the opposition party, a national party — we're a provincial party interested in the citizens of this province — has agreed that they would quite readily turn over all the natural resources of this province to the federal jurisdiction in order to obtain nationalization of our natural resources. That is their ultimate goal — nationalization of the resources of productivity within the province.

We know how their federal party supported the Liberal Party in '72, '74 and '75. We know how they supported the Liberals in defeating the Conservative government in Ottawa. We know how they supported the Trudeau government in its constitutional plans during the last two or three years. I think it's from really great disappointment, because had the desires of the NDP been successful, the federal government would have had unilateral control over the constitution of this country; and if, by the greatest disaster, the NDP became a federal government, we would certainly have nationalization of all resources. And I think that is why they're trying to divorce themselves at this time from that social disease and that social relationship and shift it onto this government. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no way that this government has been in bed with the federal Liberals or the Trudeau party, and in no way do they propose to get into bed with them, because the disease between the NDP and the Liberals passes both ways.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the NDP support nationalization. They supported the PetroCan nationalization. It was a tremendous deal, Mr. Speaker. I've yet to see anything else where competitors pay for PetroCan's acquisition, in a sense, by the

[ Page 7480 ]

government. If I drive into a gas station — shall I say Chevron or Esso — I have to pay the money to the government so that the competition can be acquired.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm expecting the hon member soon to relate nationalization to the principle of the bill.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, nationalization is expensive. It is the reverse of restraint, because the money for nationalization has to come from the taxpayers. We know the policy of the opposition: to spend money, whether it be for debt or anything else like that. They do not support restraint, they never have and they never will, and that is where the nationalization aspect comes into it. As far as they are concerned, it is the complete antipathy to restraint — nationalization.

We have the ultimate of what we would obtain through nationalization being proposed in Sweden, the dear heart of all socialists, next to Russia. We get Sweden thrown at us at all times as to the ultimate socialist state.

I quote from the Vancouver Sun of May 6, 1982:

"The Social Democrats" — that's the socialist party in Sweden — "want to set up 24 regional funds financed by a combined payroll tax and a tax on companies' profits. At first the funds would be run by boards nominated by the trade unions, later by boards directly elected by all employees. The funds would buy up shares on the open market and with billions a year to spend, they could theoretically obtain control of all Sweden's major industrial companies within ten years."

That is the type of restraint we would obtain from the opposition: increased taxes at this time on those unfortunate souls who don't have the same tenure of opportunity as those people in the public sector. They can't afford that kind of nationalization, nor can we afford to levy a heavier debt on them at this time to provide all the moneys asked for by the various public sectors.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill. I support the actions of this government and of the Minister of Finance, who I think is to be complimented.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I see that the opposition doesn't want to get into the debate at this time. I'm really pleased today to stand in support of this bill of restraint, this bill which gives direction to people in British Columbia. When you talk to people from other areas of this country that are, to varying degrees, in the same economic state, it's interesting to note that they look with envy on British Columbia. It alone has taken a direction of responsibility, one which other jurisdictions have either not wanted to take or have not had the courage to take, or because it is just too far down the line for them to even attempt to taking. So I'm proud to be here today to speak in support of this bill.

I mentioned that other jurisdictions are, to varying degrees, in a the same state. All the statements of doom and gloom, the negative thinking from the socialist side of the House, the socialist protestations since we started this debate — and also on the budget debate, which was the forerunner of these bills — can't erase the fact that this is the best place in the whole world to live right now at this time, in this place in our history. It won't matter how many socialists say things are bad. Let me tell you that our fellow British Columbians support the restraint program because they know how fortunate we are to be in this place at this time in our history.

I was very interested to hear about the discussions that have been going on in the marketplace, in households, in kaffeeklatsches and, yes, here in this Legislature, in which public employees are supposedly concerned with whether or not they are going to get an increase, and with just how much that increase will be. The socialists try to tell them that they need to catch up, that they are going to have a very difficult time and they must ask for more. As one of my colleagues said earlier today, it's interesting that the people in the public service are not themselves making those kinds of statements. Do you know what the people in the public service feel? They feel they are very fortunate to be in this province at this time in our history, to have job security, and to have a government that is going to be able to provide security in the future, not the airy-fairy plans of the socialists which create insecurity and disaster, as in the time of the NDP administration.

As we talk about restraint, we can relate to those people outside these walls: people with mortgages, people who are concerned about the economy. Even in the private sector some very imaginative things have been done in terms of restraint. For example, there are people who have decided to share the work between them, to share the hours and, yes, to share the available resources and available dollars. In some organizations people are a little selfish and perhaps forget. They don't have the same concerns as some of the younger people with larger mortgages at longer terms; they have forgotten that those people need to be helped. The selfishness we have seen expressed many times over not just in this province, but across this country in these past few months, shows that those people who are prepared to share will go through these tough times in a much easier way, and will make sure their brothers and sisters in the workplace have a job, have security and a future. That's the kind of sharing we see expressed in a restraint program that's responsible. In other words, we can restrain our spending, we can restrain the kinds of things we are doing in terms of job payments, so that we can keep everybody working. Surely that must be our motivation. Surely our motivation should be that all people be kept on the job if at all possible, with perhaps everybody taking a little less for this short time. This bill, as one of our colleagues has pointed out today, is not a long-term commitment. It is for two years so as to give us a breathing space during this time of an economy that is lower than British Columbians are accustomed to. Surely we're able to do that.

About two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of addressing about 750 senior citizens gathered from the lower mainland of British Columbia, around the Vancouver area. In addressing them, I pointed out some of the things that have been said of late. There's talk of recession. In fact, a few headlines have said recession is even turning into depression. As I looked around the room at them, I said: "You must be laughing at all these people, the doom-and-gloomers. You must get a real kick out of these people who are talking about the negative times. You must really get a laugh out of the people who talk depression, because you people know what a depression is all about."

A depression is not what we have today. These people lived through the Depression and the two wars. Those senior citizens are the people who contributed greatly to our province, and they know what a depression is all about. I can say to you that they certainly don't believe they're anywhere near a depression today. We talk about restraint, and it isn't

[ Page 7481 ]

anywhere near the hardship those people lived through in the depression era.

In just the last six months, one company in our province that is experiencing the problems of a bad economy has decided to share their jobs all around so that all their people have an opportunity to work. Only one person in that entire industry decided not to take advantage of the opportunity to give everybody a job. One person decided not to work; if he weren't going to make the pay he was accustomed to for the past two, three or four years, why then, that person would rather be unemployed. But the rest of those employees decided to work together to build the business up. They achieved the kind of productivity that is expected of us in this system under which'we live, and which pays in the system under which we live and provides in the system under which we live, and in six months time those employees all went back to their original amount of pay. It took a couple of hundred of them to get back to that.

That one person is now taking advantage of that pay, is probably still in pay. During that six months, really the only publicity was during the time that person made a big fuss about not getting regular pay. Just a few weeks ago when that firm went back to full pay, with full employment for all of its people at the level they had been accustomed to, funnily enough it was hardly given any notice at all. Certainly we didn't see the people on the other side of the House standing up and cheering because there was full pay for a group of people. We didn't hear those kinds of things. We never hear anything positive from that side of the House, only the doom and gloom and the fact that these people are not going to be able to draw what they've been able to draw over the past few years.

These people who are against the restraint program say that the public servants in our province.... These public servants are probably the best there are. I can't think of a better group of people in all of British Columbia, who have a better record of public service, than those we have in the province of British Columbia.

The other day we had one of our members saying — in fact, it was the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who is in the House at the present time.... It was interesting that she made the comparison that a clerk in the public service gets very little more than somebody on income assistance. That's an interesting comparison. It is one that was also made by Mr. Fryer of the BCGEU. That's fascinating, because the same member, who happens to have responsibility for the opposition in terms of social services and is the critic for the Ministry of Human Resources, doesn't get up on the floor of this House and say how good the policies on income assistance are. They're so good that they're equivalent to a clerk who is working in the public service in this province. We didn't hear that comparison. What we did hear was that the wages for the public service clerk are so low that they should be raised.

This restraint bill does not keep them low. This restraint program gives opportunities to bring lower-paid people higher. Those people who are higher paid can take less money. It's all a matter of adjustment. It's all a matter of the opportunity that is given to the organization under our Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for the restraint program. It gives an opportunity to give a better amount of money to some. They failed to mention that. They want to have that concern expressed throughout the width and breadth of this province, just as they always have over the years. They have put fear in the hearts and minds of the people who can least protect themselves, and they continue to do it today with the restraint program. To always tell a different story. The, simplest way is this: if you tell it often enough, that which is untrue becomes a fact of life in people's minds. They feel they can win that way.

As I have viewed the results of the restraint program since it was announced by our Premier in February, I can tell you that the restraint program has been very well accepted by the people in this province. I think that's been a conundrum for the NDP, quite frankly. I don't think they know how to handle it. I don't think they know how to handle anything positive. But that has been accepted by the people. I'll tell you who have accepted it: the people in small business who are having a difficult time; people who have to lay people off....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

MR. LEA: Pay your taxes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I pay mine. In fact, I provide more than you or anybody in your family have probably ever done.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, this is an indication of the kind of interruptions that have a tendency to create disorder in the House. Let's allow the minister to make her own speech.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I was saying that I think the people of British Columbia are extremely supportive of the program which we are discussing here today. I do believe that people who have to go out and pay their taxes, hire people and fire people — and that's had to be done.... They've had to lay people off in the province. We all know that. That's no secret. That's happened in spades in the last two years in eastern Canada. It's happened right across this country. It's just coming to roost here in British Columbia. We've been very fortunate that we've been able to put that kind of bad economic picture aside for a while. We've had some pretty good years here in British Columbia these past five years.

What we have now, though, is an opportunity to take the downturn in the economy and to make that downturn work for us, and to make sure that all the people become involved in the productivity of our province. I think that too is no secret, just as it is no secret that there are people being laid off. It's no secret either that our productivity in this province — in fact, in this nation — has diminished in recent years. We have to do something about that. I think that the kinds of things that are happening in the province do, at this point in time, make a great difference, and will make a great difference in the future.

I would just like to say a word or two, too, about the kind of psychology that goes with the kind of defeatist attitude that we have. If you keep telling people over and over again, as the NDP intend to do, that things are bad and they've never been worse, then, of course, in their psychology, things will

[ Page 7482 ]

get worse. This will continue and continue and continue. Although the members opposite can chatter away about how they're not responsible for negativism, I can tell you that I don't know of any group of people in this province which has exuded more negativism than the New Democratic Party of this province. They are absolute masters at it. We have never won anything in this province — not any kind of an economic thrust that we were making in dealing with international customers, and nothing in terms of dealing with domestic customers — with negativism; only with the kind of positive thrust and positive programs that can be done by positive people.

I would just like to venture to say that if we were to set about to put our house a little bit in order in terms of our psychological outlook in this province and stop listening to these negative doom-and-gloomers, these negative, doubting people.... It would seem to me that if everybody got a different attitude in this province we could create, just on that alone, many jobs — which would result in many jobs in this province, because people would have a sense of confidence which they always had in this province until the NDP was in power. That is when it was lost. More than anything we find a sense of insecurity in this province today in people who listen to those who are on — the other side of this House.

But it is rather exciting, I think, to know that there are things that are happening in the province that create jobs and a sense of confidence, and that will bridge this time, with its low economy, to the time that our colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was speaking of earlier this afternoon. It is exciting to see the programs that that minister has put into place. It is exciting to know the kinds of development that are taking place in that area of our province where only 2 percent of the population live but where 25 percent of our land base is — the northeast coal project. That is very exciting. You can talk about all sorts of negativism and doom and gloom, and you can try to make that northeast coal project.... In their minds they can do their best. They are the same party who said, not too many months ago, that they would stop the northeast coal project. Let me say this: the people of the province don't want that project stopped. They don't want the positive programs stopped that we have launched in the province. Thank goodness we have a diversity in our economy, or we would not have been able to have withstood the world problems and economic picture that has descended upon us.

I am rather interested, as a matter of fact, to see that those same people who have, in this debate, been so very concerned for the public service of our province.... We are all concerned. We are concerned because they are people we work with and appreciate every day. We are concerned because we know that they are having a difficult time too. But we also think that because of the generosity of our past agreements.... This government has done a good job of giving a fair wage to the people in our public service. Let's not forget that. That is a point that has never even been mentioned on the other side of this House by the New Democratic Party. They never talk about the kinds of arrangements that have been made in the past. In fact, if you were to go out today to some of the people who pay those bills — those people in the general public who are not in the public service — let's be honest: in some cases they'd say that they were a little bit too rich. Sometimes they would say that they are a little too generous. But because we have a public service of which we are proud, and because the people of British Columbia depend a lot upon that public service, we say that we will be fair with them.

I think that "fair" has been very well explained in this bill. I think there is a great deal of fairness in that, and I would like to just say that there are many people in this province who don't have a job today. They have been laid off. They might be in the forest industry, or it may be as the result of a business that has been dependent upon a buoyant economy and now has had to lay people off. But those people certainly understand that we have to keep the public sector just as restrained as the economic reality restrains the private sector. There isn't anybody in the private sector who wouldn't be very pleased to get the kind of arrangement or negotiated settlement that this bill portrays for the public service.

Mr. Speaker, we have a bill before us which, as I said in the beginning, is a responsible bill. There are people across this country — in fact, the national government itself — who, although they have talked about restraint, responsibility and the kinds of things which are embodied in this bill.... That is exactly all they have done: talk, talk, talk. In this government we are doing that which is responsible, that which is fair, and we are doing that through this bill, which not only will lead us through the economic downturn that we have but, more importantly, will lead the way out of that downturn into the most promising decade that we have ahead of us. It's an exciting time, and we're lucky to be here. We're lucky to have this kind of legislation at the right time — not delayed, not too late, but at the right time — and I certainly support this bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am going to surprise my colleagues and the House by saying that I reluctantly support this bill. I do so because this bill, contrary to the criticism that has been levelled at it by the opposition, who say that it does not allow for collective bargaining, was our one flexible way of allowing those who work in the public service of this province, whether they're provincial government employees or municipal employees, whether they're hospital or school board employees, to be part of a program that would give some guidelines to all of them. It put forward guidelines that do not have a floor and a ceiling — that's where the opposition and the public perhaps misunderstood the compensation stabilization program. They have thought, because we said, "10 percent is a ceiling; plus or minus 2 percent is a ceiling," that perhaps there was a floor and a ceiling between 8 percent and 12 percent. They are incorrect; there is no floor. We have a flexible ceiling — yes, we have a flexible series of levels of ceilings — but we have left the floor for the hospitals, the schools, the municipal governments and our government as low as will suit the circumstance for that particular category, so that they can negotiate a settlement that will not cause layoffs in hospitals, in schools, in the municipalities or in the provincial government.

What we've done is challenge school boards, hospital boards, college boards, municipal councils and the negotiators for our own government to analyze what services we have to provide; to recognize that in many of those areas such as education and health care, wages or compensation could be 80 percent to 85 percent of the costs; to recognize that those costs have been escalating beyond the ability of the taxpayer to pay; to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that in an international situation such as we have now, there has been a discipline — the cruellest discipline of all — imposed on the

[ Page 7483 ]

private sector: it's called layoff, it's called unemployment, it's called no work today, it's called bankruptcy, it's called seeing your assets destroyed after a lifetime of building a business. These are the businesses, large and small, that have been the target of the New Democratic Party, who for years have tried to make the word "profit" a dirty word. Today we know that when there was no profit, or expectation of profit, jobs have suffered. The ability to send money to government threatens government programs. What is the answer? The answer, in our case, was to provide a program of adjustable ceilings for those negotiating both for union members and for the boards that run public bodies in this province, to negotiate within the limits of the money available.

Let's be frank. Our public servants in this province are on average — and in most cases — the highest paid in all of Canada, and in many instances the highest paid in North America. In the past inequities have developed among our public servants. That is the point of this program. Some have received arbitration awards of 40 percent, and some have been negotiated down to 20 percent, so that historic relationships have been destroyed among the 200,000 people who work in the various public services of this province. That's why we need that flexible and adjustable ceiling to allow them to restore the historic balance. Those numbers are not a floor.

For the first time in a time which everyone agrees is a time of economic difficulty, internationally and nationally, people will be put on their mettle to see if they mean what they say. When I see a few labour leaders in some of the public service unions not attacking the compensation program, but saying the guidelines will destroy services....

Let me say this. In some of those social areas, where the cost is 85 percent labour, the competition, then, for enough teaching jobs and for maintaining or increasing teaching programs is that a few want to make a lot and they're willing to let the rest suffer. I don't believe that's the attitude of the rank-and-file teacher or the rank-and-file hospital worker or the rank-and-file government worker. I believe they want to play a part, and that's what this program allows. They get a chance to show just how great their social commitment is. They get a chance to show that it's not their hand at the bargaining table in this difficult economic time that's going to cause the layoff of some of their colleagues who are teachers or nurses or hospital workers. They're not going to be the ones responsible for the deletion of programs or hospital beds or some health facilities. I want to say that some of them aren't being given the opportunity — or perhaps we have not yet come to the point in this collective bargaining process that will allow them to do that.

When I meet with my school board in School District 23, who have received an arbitration award before the compensation program of 17.5 percent, and who are crying that 80 Of their colleagues will have to be laid off under the 12 percent spending guideline, and I ask the school board what it would take to keep those 80 employed, the board says a I percent reduction in the 17.5 percent increase. And when I say, "What about maintaining, or even increasing, educational programs?" they say another 1 percent. Then I have to question the people who negotiate on behalf of those teachers and our school board who haven't arrived at the obvious solution, when the taxpayers of this province do not have the money to pay. When you're unemployed in Alberni or when you're laid off at Brenda Mines, because of the international economic situation, you perhaps don't have the money to give someone a 17.5 percent increase. It's pretty dam tough on you to hear those people say: "Well, we'll fire some of our colleagues and we'll restrict the education of your children, because we're not willing to lower our increase from 17.5 to 15.5 percent."

I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that this program allows collective bargaining and allows the people who negotiate on behalf of the largest cost of public service — and that is wages — to show that they do care. They are the competitors for the hospital beds. They are the competitors for the school-teaching positions that would be laid off. They are the competitors for the books and the education. They are the competitors for the health-care programs. It's not me. It's not this government. The alternative is to give them all they want and let them, when everyone else is hurting and the economy's tough, say: "We want all we can get because these services are essential and people are emotional about them. We'll take all we can get. Send the bill to the taxpayers, who can't afford to pay any more, and run up a debt to the province." The NDP have suggested that they haven't been allowed to collectively bargain. This is the one chance they've got. It isn't like the chance they were given in Saskatchewan, where it's "pick 'em off one at a time," and the government can't successfully put in a program and put responsibility on employees and employers alike. What do they do? They legislate them back.

It reminds me of the days when I first came to this Legislature in opposition, Mr. Speaker. I'd heard a lot about free collective bargaining and allowing the system to work out there. There was more legislation putting workers back to work in this province under the three years of the NDP than under any other government. Now even if I agreed with that, that isn't fair. There is more than a single union, there is more than a single assembly of workers and there's more than a single public service, and that's why this program had that flexible lid to allow some of the employees — say in the B.C. Government Employees Union, who say they gave a responsible contract three years ago and need to catch up, and say, as in the words of John Fryer, who, two years ago when he saw that 40 percent arbitration award — and there were headlines in the paper — that irresponsible settlements like this for one component in the public sector will lead to wage controls.... Certainly he knew that there had to be some balance between the different groups to argue against what I say is a single chance. I want to make this very clear. This is a single chance for the public-sector unions and the public sector employers to show that they care. It is a chance — one chance, and one chance only, Mr. Speaker — for them to bring in settlements not at the ceiling, but responsibly relating to the amount of dollars that are available, and it is their responsibility to see that their demands on one side, or what they negotiate away on the other, do not create the loss of a single job or a single program in this province. That is where the responsibility lies, and that is why we've given them this opportunity.

For years we've heard that those that care most about education are not the parents or the students but the teachers — those that work in the system. For years we've heard that it's not those of us that may get ill or others that care the most and have the greatest social conscience for health care, it's the people that work in the system, and that anything that goes wrong is always our fault — collectively, everyone else — and they're always right. Well, we're giving them a chance to show that they do care, that they won't make a demand that

[ Page 7484 ]

will cost a single job, and that the hospital boards or the school boards won't negotiate a settlement so high under those guidelines that it will cost a single job or program. I tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, this is the fairest program in the country, and it's the greatest opportunity for the public service collectively to show that they do have a social conscience, that they do care and that they're willing to share the burden of fighting the economic war against recession, which is international in nature, along with those in the private sector who have had much more severe penalties placed on them and face more severe ones in the future.

Mr. Speaker, that's all this program is. It isn't the selective NDP solution, from either their years in B.C. or their record in Saskatchewan recently, of picking on one group and using the Legislature. It really has been providing an opportunity for them to show the flexibility, the concern and the caring for their province and their country, for students, the sick and the elderly, and to show that they aren't going to be the ones to make such excessive demands that they cost a colleague a job or cost someone a hospital bed. The only alternative is to write a bigger bill in the way of tax increases for the taxpayers of this province, and that wouldn't be keeping the cost of government within affordable means of either the people or the economy under today's situation. That wouldn't be providing responsible government, but we haven't provided a responsible opportunity.

I say very clearly right now — because when I stood up I said I reluctantly supported this bill...because of the attitude that has been displayed by those who stand to show the greatest opportunity for responsibility, those on both sides who would bargain within the system, who have chosen to attack this opportunity. It is maybe because they don't like the responsibility of having to be tough as a public-sector employer or as a negotiator for employees and come to grips with the situation that it is their activities and their grab that take the money away from the hospital bed or the child's education or put their colleagues out of work. Because that's the money there is. In this time of layoff and unemployment and a sick economy in which companies are hurting, many going under, it is not unreasonable to limit the amount you would ask.

As we sail through this stormy economic period, like sailing a ship through a storm towards calmer waters, it may be that we'll have to show a little discipline; it may be that the ride will be rough; but if the crew pitches in the ship can arrive at safe harbour with prosperity at the end. But if the crew all become singly self-serving and say, "Give me I mine," or, "I'll take this liferaft, to heck with the others," then there is no safe harbour for any one of us. Surely they can destroy not only the social services but the very economy and integrity of government financing at all levels in this province.

I said that I reluctantly support the bill because it is a bold adventure in testing the responsibility of public-sector employer and employee. I happen to believe that those few who claim to speak for the employee in the public sector, who have been making very excessive demands and extravagant statements, and those public-sector employers who claim to speak for the taxpayers and who say they can't live within the guidelines, don't represent the majority opinion of either the workers or the taxpayers in this province. We are giving them an opportunity, but I am going to say that if they don't meet that responsibility, if we see the type of confrontation, excessive demand, irresponsibly settled contracts, trying to use the ceilings as a floor, destroying the economy, taking away jobs when work-sharing is the essence of our program — sharing work whether you are a nurse or a teacher, keeping a colleague employed, keeping a service alive.... If they don't take advantage of this opportunity I will tell you right now that I will quickly call this Legislature back and bring in legislation to legislate the responsibility that they may refuse to show. I am hoping that that won't be necessary.

MR. HANSON: The big stick.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The second member for Victoria says: "The big stick." That isn't for me. That's for the people and for those in this province who are ill.

They are cynical hypocrites, up every day talking about the ill and those who are being hurt in hospitals, somehow trying to get political advantage and blame it on the government. The only thing the NDP knows is: don't propose, oppose; hope that misfortune and hard times will hurt whoever is government, because it is the only way they think they can get back into power.

You have sadly misjudged the people of B.C. If you think that they can't concentrate on the larger picture, that they don't know what is going on. If your lack of an alternative to this program is so woefully lacking that all you can concentrate on, because you believe that the public isn't smart enough.... It is the old NDP thought, to think in terms of great principle in a way of everybody pulling together, so you think that they're going to be more concerned about the price of a bottle of wine, the price of government. You may talk and think they can only think in terms of $10,000 or $5,000 or an ad, but I'll tell you that the people know that this restraint program will save them in the second year, on education alone — given responsible settlements — $120 million. That's the type of dollars we are talking for the taxpayers of this province.

In this debate, Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for the NDP — who claim to have an answer and who legitimately wants to be government, as the other party sitting in this Legislature — to say: "All right, we don't agree with the adjustable guidelines, we don't agree with the compensation stabilization program, we don't agree with your figures." If you don't agree with my figures, what are your figures?

You there, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi): if 12 percent spending is not enough, would you advocate a 20 percent limit? Will you give me your figures? Is it 20 percent, is it 30 percent? Do I hear 40? Obviously, like your colleagues you're afraid to speak, because I've been waiting. What about wage guideline ceilings? Is it 10 percent? Do you have a figure? Is it 12 percent? Is it 8 percent? Are you willing to share with the taxpayers of this province what sort of figures you think are appropriate as guidelines for negotiation? Are you, the members over there, prepared o give us your figures today? Are you prepared to be a part of he solution? I'll listen. There's an opportunity if you think hat the opposition to this flexible program is real and genuine and not just a political game played by those with whom you have a political coalition.

There has been a lot said about political coalitions, but here is only one in Canada. In every party that I know, members join as individuals, except in the NDP where you have an alliance with some of the labour unions who willingly or unwillingly draw in everyone that wants to work in that trade, who must buy a membership, who must unwillingly

[ Page 7485 ]

contribute then as part of a coalition. But is it just a few leaders? I think it is.

I will wait; just tell me your figures. Tell me the responsible way that as a legislature, on both sides of this House, recognizing that there is a problem that goes beyond the B.C. borders, that's bigger than whether the member from Vancouver Centre goes back to law or continues to doze in this chamber.... There is something before us, a real challenge before us that goes beyond partisan politics, and beyond the petty criticism and the games that have been played since this program was announced on February 18.

I read — because I wasn't here — the most ridiculous statement from the Leader of the Opposition. It vies with anything he said earlier, when six months ago he said we were fed-bashers. Now he says we're in bed with the Trudeau government. I've got to tell you, he sways. Every time he thinks it's popular to be with the feds or attack us and call us fed-bashers, he does that. When he thinks that Trudeau is unpopular he says the Socreds are in bed with Trudeau. The only thing that doesn't make any sense is the inconsistency of his statements. He'd do better going to New Zealand, even if it's only to speak to six people, rather than stay at home and be so inconsistent in his approach to public life.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, what I've said is that to all intents and purposes, we have the best-paid public servants in all of Canada. They have not been asked to suffer. They've been given a chance to collectively bargain within the ability of the taxpayers to pay. They've been asked to take a responsibility along with the negotiators who negotiate on behalf of the taxpayers, to make sure that their demands don't close a hospital bed, lay off a colleague, or remove a service from this province. We've given them an opportunity to do that, unique in Canada and available in no other province. We haven't chosen the NDP weapon of selectively legislating them back as in Saskatchewan or when I came and watched them in government when the firefighters and others were legislated back.

We haven't chosen that weapon of isolating one particular component. We've tried to provide an opportunity to deal fairly with the total public sector, knowing that the security of employment that they have at this time is something not available in the private sector. In fact, it is only themselves demanding too much, willing to let those with less time on the job lose their employment, that threatens the jobs of others. They have an opportunity to do that.

I reluctantly support the legislation because it may be that, by their own statements on both sides, these people have doomed it to failure. This challenge they've been tossed is too great for them. The challenge of public responsibility is too much for them to comprehend. It may be that they're getting bad political advice. It may be that their political alliances are so strong they care little for those they serve or those they serve with. It may be that their commitment to the province and the country is less than membership in a party which offers them I know not what, because I can think of nothing greater than the chance to serve people and the chance to live in this province in this country with the type of freedom we have. It may be that because of that they're unable to do it.

If they're unable to recognize that the guidelines are an adjustable ceiling — not a floor and a ceiling, but an adjustable ceiling — if they can't bring in responsible settlements that keep everyone employed and every service available, then as the Premier of this government I will call our members back to deal decisively on behalf of their colleagues they would unemploy, the people they would serve and the taxpayers they would charge, to make sure that no one suffers in this province. Mr. Speaker, they have an opportunity that is unique and rare. But let them not be unaware of the consequences of the actions they might decide to take or not undertake. All British Columbians should be watching. It is a time when our people and our economy need the discipline and commitment of everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly support this legislation, because it may be that those it is meant to serve, those to whom it was meant to give an opportunity to show that they care, those that it meant to bring back to the historic relationships among the different groups in the public service, have fallen out of line. It may be that they will not allow it to work. Then we'll have to resort to whatever action is necessary to protect the people of this province.

MR. KING: Before I address my comments to the bill directly, I would like to make a couple of comments about the last few speeches that were made, particularly that offered by the Premier of this province. What we appear to have is a very thinly disguised attempt by this government to generate a conflict in general terms between their own bargaining agency and the B.C. government employees, which will justify calling the Legislature back, as the Premier threatened, to impose on the public-sector workers in this province yet more heavy-handed legislation. What we appear to have, because of the Premier's threat before bargaining has even been undertaken, is an attempt to intervene in the bargaining process, to inflame the climate and to justify a political war which the Premier is trying to manipulate and develop. All politicians know — and certainly the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) knows — that it is like waving a red flag at a bull to make inflammatory statements in public during the course of collective bargaining. The Premier's comments were a threat. They were a volatile escalation of a warfare which the government themselves are trying to develop between them and their employees. It's crass and it's political and it's repugnant to any decent person in this province.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier asked a number of questions, and I intend to answer those questions in terms of what a fair restraint program should be and what it entails. I would like to observe first, though, that the last few speakers, including the Premier, attempted to justify this wage-restraint bill by saying: "Look, it's not the rank-and-file members; it's those terrible union leaders who are the scapegoats and the culprit here. They are going to make unrealistic demands at the bargaining table, but the rank-and-file workers support the government. They support wage restraint." What a self-defeating argument. If the government is sincere and really believes that argument, why is it necessary to impose restraint? If the majority of British Columbia government employees and public-sector employees support restraint at this particular time, they are going to tell their leaders the level of salary increases that they wish to have. If it comes to a dispute, which would precipitate a strike vote, then their support for that restraint program would be reflected in the strike vote. The government knows that. They are taking a double standard. On the one hand they're saying: "Yes, they support us, but we have to bring in the hammer of legislation." But they don't quite believe it themselves. That is hypocrisy.

[ Page 7486 ]

I was amazed and a little bit saddened by the quisling-like performance of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) when he got up the other day. He is the one man in the province of British Columbia who has a mandate in law — not only moral law but statutory law — to protect and defend free and collective bargaining, and he attempted in the most inarticulate, clumsy fashion to rationalize this intervention in the collective-bargaining system before the demands of the parties have even been put forward. It was perhaps the most pathetic performance I have ever seen in this Legislature by any politician.

Is the bill fair? That is the first test. The Premier pointed the finger at the opposition and he said: "They are very negative. They don't like this bill. The opposition is going around trying to poison people's minds on the intent of this bill." What do other people say about the bill? The Union of British Columbia Municipalities says that the government's restraint program for local governments is politically fraudulent. That is not the opposition; that is the Union of B.C. Municipalities, duly elected throughout the towns and cities of British Columbia. Is the Premier going to try to besmirch their reputation by saying: "Well, they don't speak for the majority of taxpayers"? Is he going to try to destroy their credibility in the same fashion that he tries to destroy the credibility of trade union leaders by saying: "They are undemocratic. They don't represent their members"? It is an irony and a bit of a revelation that the government that passes laws under which trade unions and municipalities function says to them when they don't like the expression of those institutions: "They are a dictatorship. They are run by some labour boss or municipal boss who does not reflect the true wishes of those he represents." If that is the case, what about this moth-eaten gang of coalitionists who were elected to this Legislature with less of a mandate than the municipal politicians or the trade union leaders who, under law, must have a mandate in excess of 50 percent, unlike this government. What absolute hypocrisy!

What does the BCSTA have to say about the ramifications of restraint? They have this to say: "The BCSTA emphasized the fact that the restraint program interfered with the rights of local communities to determine the direction of education." "Behold the Bosses Blushing," said a headline in the Province on March 1. I quote briefly from it: "The Hydro executives were just lucky. But they are also embarrassed. Their relatively well-paid positions have been comfortably cushioned in these days of recession and inflation by that 13 percent raise." The program is not equally applicable to everyone. The brass, the hacks and the Social Credit appointments to the senior positions apparently escaped the ravages of this restraint bill. Talk about equity. The Premier has more gall than a brass monkey to even use the term "hypocrisy." If ever there was a manifestation of hypocrisy in the political life of this province, it is the Social Credit government of the province of British Columbia.

In the Vancouver Sun, Saturday, March 13, 1982, is a report about the pending legislation to restrain wages in municipalities and in hospitals. The headline reads: "Ministry is Less Than Candide."

MR. HOWARD: What's that pronunciation?

MR. KING: I don't know what that means, but I think there are those in this institution who know what it means.

An editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, of all places, says: "Mr. Bennett is playing political games. It's easy to see, as they might say in British Columbia, where Premier Bill Bennett is coming from. He's scared stiff that the NDP will win the next provincial election, so he has contrived a provincial economic-recovery program that is clearly designed to fool most of the people some of the time. A cleverly and clearly contrived program." I say that's true.

An editorial in the Salmon Arm Observer, April 7, 1982, again points out the excessive spending of the government, on the one hand, and the hypocrisy of asking one small section of the workforce to carry the can for the inflationary spiral in this province, while the profligate, luxurious habits of ministers in this government go unabashedly forward in the most scandalous fashion.

The Premier says, "Yes, we support the Canucks," in an expenditure of $12,000....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: The Premier says that the ads in the Vancouver Sun and in the Province, wherein the Socreds, in their desperation as a political party, used public funds to try to get on the bandwagon of the Vancouver Canucks...which practice is a moral abomination. What is more abominable is the fact that this is symbolic of the insensitivity and hypocrisy of a government which is closing down hundreds and hundreds of hospital beds, one which sees increasing thousands of unemployed workers in the province of British Columbia, one which sees increasing numbers of small businesses, and indeed large businesses, going down the tube because of the weird, ridiculous and ill-advised economic policies of this government. It's symbolic, Mr. Speaker. I don't think the people of the province of British Columbia would begrudge $12,000 to wish the Canucks good luck, if it were a genuine gesture. But when you're imposing restraints on a small, scapegoated group, when health care is suffering, when education is suffering, when the business community is facing its most difficult time since the Great Depression, your priorities are crazy. The public is telling you that. We are telling you that. If the Premier of this province ever musters the courage to ask the people by way of an election writ, the people of the province will tell him loud and clear that his priorities are awry, that his priorities are askew. Each and every one of you backbenchers knows in your heart of hearts that this is morally wrong and financially wrong at a time when hundreds and thousands of our fellow citizens are paying the price for your punitive taxes in increases in costs to fritter away their money on a patently transparent political ploy like this. Then you say: "Well, are you against the Canucks?" How juvenile! How stupid! How irresponsible! Just last week this Legislature, by unanimous consent, with a mover from that side of the House. and a seconder from this side of the House, directed a telegram of congratulations and encouragement to the Vancouver Canucks. We're all proud of them. Why do you have to be so sleazy as to try to bask in their glory? Why this sleaziness of basking in their glory to the tune of over $12,000 in taxpayers' money? I don't think even the Socreds are that stupid; it has to be either Mr. Heal or Mr. Kinsella, whom the taxpayers are paying a price for as well. Talking about the hardships of firing people, the best thing that could happen is for that government to fire Mr. Heal and Mr.

[ Page 7487 ]

Kinsella and get their heads straightened around again. The best thing that could happen is for the people to fire this government and get the province straightened around again, Mr. Speaker.

I ask this question: is the bill fair? Well, look: how is it fair? In the province of British Columbia we have about 42 percent of the total workforce organized into trade unions — just 42 percent. That means what? It means that 58 percent is unorganized; they're operating under the minimum wage, in terms of statutory protection. Now this government is telling us that not just that minority of workers in the province of British Columbia, that 42 percent, is responsible for the spiral of inflation; no, just a tiny percentage of that organized workforce — just the public-sector employees, between 9 percent and 15 percent of the organized workers — are being obliged by this government to carry the can for all of the economic ills which, in large measure, you, with your profligate spending, have assisted in generating.

Mr. Speaker, I think about 13.6 percent of the workforce is made up of public-sector employees. Now any child in high school or indeed in elementary school can tell you that asking 13 percent of the wage-earners to forgo their right to collective bargaining and to be the only people in the province of British Columbia to exercise restraint is absolutely and totally ludicrous. Even the Socreds, who have great problems with mathematics, can recognize that equation. On any public platform in the province of British Columbia, I defy you to convince the fair-minded taxpayers that this program, affecting this small group of people, is going to have any impact whatsoever on inflation. They know better. You know better. It's a deception. You're trying to transfer the political focus off the government and onto a scapegoat.

Everyone knows that the largest part of our inflation is imported, along with some 70 percent of the products that are used in this province. A former Social Credit cabinet minister, Ralph Loffmark, wrote a letter to the Vancouver Sun on March 19. I'm not going to deal with it very much, but he pointed this out:

"But are wage demands the cause, or the effect, of inflation? Two examples will answer the question. A young couple buys a house for $125, 000: They put $25,000 down, and the balance mortgaged at 18 percent for a period of years. For the sake of simplicity, assume that mortgage payments are made yearly. The principal illustrated is not much altered where payments are made monthly or quarterly. The arithmetic is easily followed."

I want those Social Credit slow-learners to listen. In the first year, the remaining principal is $100,000. The 18 percent mortgage payable is $18,000. The mortgage principal repaid is $2,000. The principal is reduced at the end of the year to $98,000 from $100,000. Eighteen thousand dollars is paid out on interest costs and the principal is reduced by $2,000.

So on it goes over a period of six years. In six years, the remaining principal is $85,691. The interest paid is $15, 424. The mortgage repaid is $4,500. The principal at the end of six years is $81,115. The total mortgage repayment is $101,115. The financial institutions have gouged the consumer so that interest in excess of the original cost of the home is realized. This government sits there and asks us to believe that working people who are on the other end of this kind of cost squeeze have to carry the can for inflation and show restraint. How utterly absurd and hypocritical can you be, to say that 13.6 percent of the workforce must bear the responsibility for the kind of inflation which is exemplified by the mathematics of a former Social Credit cabinet minister and illustrated so well in the paper. Building costs and labour costs are not the factors in home-building that are driving the cost out of sight; it is capital costs.

Do we see any attempt by this government to regulate or control land speculation? Not at all. What about the real estate flippers? What about the person who sells a home four or five times in one year at an accelerating return each time, at a 7 percent realtor's fee each time? What of this government that sits there and preaches increased productivity by workers? What about all of you variously politically striped coalitionists over there who on the one hand demand that this 13 percent of the workforce carry the can and demand increased productivity, when realtors and advertising agencies make no contribution to the gross national product in terms of real goods and rip off the system with steadily accelerating costs? You sit there mutely and ask the opposition and the people of British Columbia to accept your approach to curbing inflation. How utterly ridiculous! How hypocritical!

If the government were serious about curbing inflation and were prepared to bring in some program that represented an income policy for all British Columbians, whether they earn their money from the sawmill, from the mine, in the professional office, in the corporate offices — indeed, throughout the whole economy — the opposition would be very willing to listen and engage in careful scrutiny, careful consideration and careful debate. Sure there are distortions in our system. I've spoken previously in this Legislature on the distortions in our economy. Yet we find the same people on the government side attempting to justify this bill by saying that the villain has been the percentage increases which trade unions have achieved over the years. They say it shouldn't be a percentage across the board but rather we should elevate the bottom end of the scale, and I have some sympathy for that approach. If the government is serious again, how is it that they brought in a bill to minimally cut the salaries of MLAs and cabinet ministers? Did it represent the formula they're advocating to the trade unions, Mr. Speaker? Not at all. It was straight percentage across the board, both in their increase and in their reduction. How hypocritical can one be? The public is not so stupid that it fails to recognize these inconsistencies in the government's policy. They're totally unjustifiable.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other things I want to say about the bill in looking at it and weighing it to see whether it makes any sense. I have here a special supplement of the Institute for Research on Public Policy. It's a commentary on Canada's wage control experience, and I just want to quote this one section:

"Public-sector wage groups were rolled back only slightly more than others. Local government workers suffered the most. What have we learned? The most significant conclusion is that it appears very questionable whether it is possible to design a symmetric wage and price control program. Collective agreements were easier to monitor than price increases. The design of the program did little to help the impact on different labour groups, one factor being the behind the-scenes collusion of employee and employer. The AIB appeared to have discriminated in its treatment of labour groups, depending upon their militancy, political and market power and their effectiveness in arguing cases."

[ Page 7488 ]

Mr. Speaker, if a total wage and price program, like the one the federal government introduced in 1976, appeared to have no equitable impact on inflation, then of course to suggest that this limited public program is going to have an effect is just so much nonsense.

There's an article here from the Prince George Citizen: "Courting Trouble. It hasn't been recorded how Labour minister Jack Heinrich reacted to Bill Bennett's warning to government employees to settle for modest wage increases or face the consequences of massive layoffs. But he would be entitled to a moan and a groan of despair. What his boss said last week was a bald threat, a clear violation of the collective bargaining process which the Labour minister has always been quick to defend." That's true, Mr. Speaker. Yet, as I say, we saw the Labour minister get up in this House and make the most pathetic surrender to a program that he can't morally justify.

I want to read you something very quickly: "My government will proceed with the appointment of a deputy minister responsible for women's opportunities within the Ministry of Labour and Employment. As one of the largest employers in the province, the public service must set an example for others to follow. Hon. members will be pleased to learn of the recent appointment of Jill Bodkin...." That's from last year's throne speech. And here we have a bill that has for its effect and consequence the largest impact on women within the public sector in a very negative and discriminatory way.

The Labour Code of the province of British Columbia states in part 1: "An employer or a person acting on his behalf shall not...(b) impose a condition in a contract of employment that seeks to restrain an employee from exercising his rights under this act." His rights under this Act are to bargain collectively. And the Minister of Labour sits by passively in support of a policy by his government which flies completely in the face of the statute which he has sworn to uphold. I say that's a shameful abdication of duty and responsibility.

I suppose that when you strip all the chaff away, it's apparent to everyone that this is a hypocritical piece of legislation, that it bears no chance of effecting any impact whatsoever on inflation. When it is clear that the government have set out to inflame the political climate with labour so that they might divert attention from their own inadequacies, then we get down to what this bill is all about.

What is the government's attitude toward working people? Their attitude is pretty clear. The workers should work and keep quiet. They should do what the government tells them. They should pay their taxes while some members of cabinet and their families don't. They should pay their taxes so that members of that executive council can buy expensive bottles of wine at $37.50 a crack. They should keep quiet and not ask for more. I thought it was humorous that the Minister of Labour quoted Charles Dickens. That same overbearing attitude comes through from this government. "Workers, do as we tell you while we are free to wheel and deal and live in luxury with your tax dollars." That is what we have.

Some of my colleagues have mentioned the strike-contingency manual that GERB put out. The attitude of the government is clearly reflected in this document. It says: "The Government Employee Relations Bureau, which is a special branch of Treasury Board and which, on behalf of and under the direction of Treasury Board...." It goes on to say that this report is absolutely confidential. I guess so, because all the way through it counsels the various departments of government to expect a conflict with the public service and to expect from them, as a result of that conflict, criminal conduct. This is the most damnable approach to labour relations I have ever witnessed in my life, and I point out to anyone who is interested that contained as an appendix to it are a number of acts which the government is anticipating their own employees to breach and violate. I shall read them off: "Appendix C. Sections of the Criminal Code applicable: section 64, unlawful assembly; section 65, riot; section 66, punishment of a rioter; section 67, punishment for unlawful assembly; section 87, carrying a concealed weapon.... My God, what kind of people do you think you have working in the offices of this government around the province of British Columbia? What kind of a sick attitude have you got toward the people that work for the province? "Carrying a concealed weapon" — the punishment for carrying a concealed weapon in a dispute with this government.... Now we can understand the mentality of the Provincial Secretary, who, a few years ago, accused the NDP of having a secret police force. They seem to be obsessed....

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

MR. KING: I'm sorry, the Minister of Human Resources.

Section 116, disobeying order of court; section 118, offences relating to public or peace officer; section 171, causing a disturbance — listen to this, my colleagues: indecent exhibition, loitering, etc; section 245, common assault; section 246, assault with intent.... Well, look out for those Clerks there. They're government employees. Maybe one of them has got a pistol under his little black robe, Mr. Speaker. How absurd can this government be? What about the legislative staff? This is the admonition to the collective bargaining agency for the Social Credit government. No wonder they wanted it kept secret.

The last two sections are: 381, intimidation, and 387, mischief. The only one they neglected was murder. That's not in there.

Mr. Speaker, what kind of a sick mentality has overcome this government? When you and your hired hacks — and I categorize Mike Davison as a hired hack and an incompetent.... I categorize him as that because no responsible individual, much less anybody involved in industrial relations, would have that kind of sick attitude towards the honest, hard-working public servants of the province. The whole government is sick. The whole government needs treatment. I suggest than an election writ should issue forward now so that the province can be relieved of this unholy coalition, with their sick mentality that is poisoning the labour-relations climate in the province, that is poisoning and destroying the dedication of loyal working people to the service of this great province of ours. It's the most incredible, hypocritical and dangerous approach I have ever witnessed in my life.

So much for the ills of this government. I guess when it comes to manipulation and insensitivity, we can understand a rather sallow youth who has an enormous appetite in that executive council, who takes advantage of the largesse to buy, at public expense, the most expensive and exclusive French wines, while workers are being regulated and while workers, it is anticipated, are capable of committing crimes. While this gang is slavering at the public trough, while this gang has embarked upon a wine-induced orgy of public

[ Page 7489 ]

spending, while this gang of the most incredibly insensitive thick-skinned politicians is assembled in secrecy and splendour, living high off the hog at public expense, they have the unmitigated gall to ask a small percentage of decent, loyal and hard-working public servants to carry the can for them. The people are not going to buy it, Mr. Premier. The Premier travels the length and breadth of this province, staying in $400-a-night luxury at public expense. While he and his executive council are embarked on a bloated banquet of selfgratification at the taxpayers' expense, he would ask us to vote for restraint on honest, hard-working, productive people in this province? I say no.

I know who is pulling the strings: it's the smart Liberals in Ottawa. They took the Premier down there on the constitution and sent him to his room early while they, in the kitchen, cooked up the constitutional stew. They sent him to bed early because he was out of his depth, and thus has Mr. Trudeau manipulated and developed this hypocritical program for our province now.

It is like a game of checkers. First you send out your emissaries — Ron Basford. Social Credit sets him up for $600 a day to be in charge of northeast coal. Guess whom he is negotiating with? Guess who is representing the coal companies in the north? Another Liberal — his former colleague, Bob Andras, a former Minister of Manpower in Trudeau's government. He represents the coal companies, Basford represents the government, but unfortunately nobody represents the people of the province of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia are obliged to pay for the whole conspiratorial mess to the tune of $600 a day from that Premier to his Liberal friends. He comes in here and attempts to pick fights with the Liberals. We know better. The record speaks for itself. He is the one who clutched in his unseemly grasp, to his unseemly bosom, none other than the Prime Minister's former protege, Paul Manning. He is on the British Columbia public payroll, hosing it to the taxpayers, while you drink rich wine, you gang of unthinkable, insufferable hypocrites.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the House, and particularly the member who has just taken his seat, that temperate language is perhaps the hallmark of good debate. I would also like to remind the hon. member that if the word "hypocrites" was attributed to any individual member it would, of course, have to be withdrawn.

MR. KING: I am sorry if I did use intemperate language. I am emotional about this matter and I do withdraw any imputation at all. Indeed, I did not mean anything personal.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I was concerned for the health of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who occasionally works himself into...indulges in hyperbole in this House and must feel compelled to do so. However, it's appropriate that the official opposition has concluded its debate on Bill 28 with that type of response, because it has characterized the entire debate from the other side, starting with the Leader of the Opposition and proceeding through speaker after speaker. With rare exceptions — and there are one or two across the floor of this House — they have not addressed themselves to the principle of this particular bill.

MR. BARRETT: There is no principle.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, that's a predictable and very tired response, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. I heard that on my first day in this House.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We'll hear the speech.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I had hoped, in fact, that we could have had a little more discussion of the need for restraint as embodied in Bill 28, of the absence of such restraint in other jurisdictions — which I would like to speak about later — the problems being faced in other provinces, the problems which have have been addressed here in British Columbia, and of the very severe problems which are to be found in other jurisdictions in the United States and Europe. There are a few comments that I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, in concluding this debate, that will require more time than is available this evening. Therefore I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled the annual report to the governments of Canada and the United States of the Columbia River Treaty permanent engineering board.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.