[ Page 7527 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

B.C. Packers Ltd. Mr. Lea –– 7527

Groundfish industry. Mr. Lea –– 7527

Mr. Howard

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 7528

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 20). Second reading.

Mr. Cocke –– 7529

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7529

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 21). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7529

Mrs. Wallace –– 7530

Mr. Stupich –– 7531

Mr. Howard –– 7532

Mr. Lockstead –– 7533

Mr. Passarell –– 7533

Mr. Brummet –– 7533

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7534

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

On section 9 –– 7535

Mr. Macdonald

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Lea

Appendix

Written Answers to Questions –– 7551

WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are this year's summer tour guides, who are currently undergoing their training and introduction to the history of this Legislature. Among them they speak a total of ten languages, an important asset considering that British Columbia's parliament buildings host almost 100,000 visitors during the summer months. I would like to introduce from Victoria, Terry Barnett, Sonya Taft, Rex Fyles, Janice Butkard, Dariol Rees, Shelley Pettapiece, Patrick Antiphon and Rose del Rosario; from Ladysmith, Shannon Wyndlow and Patrice Bryan; from Chilliwack, Gail Walter; and from Westbank, Wanda Saunby. For the information of the members, these guides will join the permanent tour guide staff on the May 24 long weekend and will be conducting tours right through until Labour Day. I would ask the House to make them very welcome as they complete their training and begin their jobs as legislative tour guides.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the House to welcome a large number of United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union members who are here meeting with legislators and lobbying in the democratic process. It is to be hoped that their pleas for gainful, honest employment will be listened to by all MLAs, and we hope that they can go to work rather than go on welfare. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have got the great pleasure to welcome to the assembly a most charming and efficient lady, one who served as campaign chairman in Vancouver–Point Grey and is also president of that constituency. She is a great worker for the Social Credit Party: Mrs. Rosemary Dolman.

MR. RITCHIE: I am very pleased today to introduce to the assembly a group of students from the Mennonite Educational Institute of the Central Fraser Valley. Here with their teacher, Mr. Peters, we have Tim Taves of Central Fraser Valley, Norman Quai of Surrey, Michelle Dueck of Chilliwack, Lois Dyck of Chilliwack, Norman Butther of Central Fraser Valley and Pearl Schellenberg of Central Fraser Valley.

Also in the gallery are guests from the Okanagan. We have Mr. Lawrence Wilkes, who is president of the Okanagan Bible Institute, Mr. David Pihl of the law firm Wilkinson and Pihl, and Mr. Pihl's son, Sean. Would the House please welcome these guests.

MR. LORIMER: In the precincts and to be in the House a little later in the afternoon are students from Royal Oak secondary school in Burnaby. I might say that this is the last trip for these people, as this school is closing in June. I would like the assembly to join me in welcoming them when they come in.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of our caucus, I would like all members to join with me in extending best wishes and many happy returns to the member for Omineca, Wolfman Jack, who is today celebrating a birthday.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm 29 again today.

It's my great pleasure to introduce Mr. Ben Van Rhyan from Houston to the House. Mr. Van Rhyan has served that community for many years in the capacity of alderman, and he's still serving it on its hospital society. With him today is his granddaughter Marsha. I would ask the House to make both of them very welcome.

Oral Questions

B.C. PACKERS LTD.

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. This may surprise Mr. Speaker and members of the House, but the Minister of Environment is also responsible for marine resources. During the past six months, more than 500 shoreworkers — including skilled filleters, cold-storage crews and general cannery workers — from the province of British Columbia have lost their jobs in plant closures. That's 10 percent of British Columbia's entire workforce when it comes to shoreworkers in the fishing industry.

These aren't jobs that are going to return when the economy revives; these are jobs that are gone forever. Specifically, 301 lost jobs are due to a plant closure in Prince Rupert at the Seal Cove plant of B.C. Packers.

Last week the minister stated that officials were going to meet with the involved parties. Have they met? Did they discuss the possibility of provincial involvement in saving these jobs?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer is no. The meeting hasn't taken place, but it's due to take place on Friday of this week. However, there are officials here today from the UFAWU and a number of other delegations. They have requested a meeting with the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, and I would advise the member that that meeting has been scheduled for 8:30 tomorrow morning at which time we would hope that the economic development committee could discuss these matters with the officials who are here representing many of these workers.

GROUNDFISH INDUSTRY

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister whether he has received word from Ottawa asking for this province and its government to involve themselves financially with a study into the groundfish industry.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I would like to take that question on notice to find out if that specific request has been received from Ottawa. There is a substantial amount of correspondence that goes on between federal Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of the Environment. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I'd like to make sure I get the correct answer for the member.

MR. LEA: Last week the minister said that the province had taken no action whatsoever in getting a study into the groundfish industry underway. Am I to understand that this week it's the same, that the province has taken no action whatsoever except for the meeting with the fishermen tomorrow that they've been forced into?

[ Page 7528 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't believe that anyone is being forced into a meeting. I think that the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development has met with virtually everyone who has ever requested a meeting. The UFAWU requested a meeting, and we acquiesced to that request. In fact, because of the urgency involved we put them on at the very first available occasion, which is less than a week after having received that request. I believe it is the first meeting of the committee that has taken place since that request came in.

As for your question on groundfish, I think you're trying to twist it just a little bit between what you're asking today and what was said last week.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, there is no twisting whatsoever. Last week I asked whether the province had taken any action to have a study into the groundfish industry, and whether they've taken any action to make sure that the plant at Seal Cove would remain open or be reopened and keep open until the study is completed. This week the answer is the same: no action. So I don't think there is anything twisted.

I'm asking the minister: has the province done anything whatsoever within the last week to look into the loss of jobs and keeping that plant open in Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, yes. Last week the member asked the question about this particular plant and, in fact, had a suggestion about B.C. Packers' operation. I did make some inquiries which led to some rather interesting results. At present we don't limit people getting in or out of the processing industry in this province, provided it meets the approval of the federal agency; and at no time in their licence is there a criterion to handle all types of fish species.

To paraphrase the question the member asked last week: would we be requesting or forcing a company that is "creaming" the fishing stocks to take groundfish as well as processing herring roe and salmon? We don't have that policy at present; it would be very difficult to enforce a policy or it would not be beneficial for the majority of the fish-processing plants in this province which don't have capacity to process groundfish.,

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Environment whether he or his government has decided to take any initiatives to save the groundfish industry from complete collapse — brought about by the high-grading practices of groups such as B.C. Packers. If he has decided to take any initiatives, could he share those initiatives with the House, and could he tell us whether he intends to present them to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer to your first question is no. But we asked for suggestions from the UFAWU and others, and we will be meeting with them tomorrow. Following our meeting with them and after discussions with staff people from my ministry, who will be there to answer questions from other ministers involved in this business, there may be some change, and at that time we will make a statement.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. The Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry has just revised downward by 6 percent, or five million tonnes, the forecast of the amount of coal required by the Japanese steel industry. Can the minister advise the House whether he has recalculated his own forecasts to put them in line with Japanese forecasts of coal needs in the Japanese steel industry?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I read the same article that he read this morning. There are some statements contained in that article which are not backed up by naming the people who made those statements. However, I would like to inform him and the House that I have watched the Japanese steel forecasts for the last seven years. They have usually been on the increase; some years they're bigger than others. If he's concerned about northeast coal, I'd like to tell him that the Japanese steel industry did their long-range forecast two years ago. They based that decision mainly on the decline in the use of petroleum products in their blast furnaces. The Japanese steel industry, the Japanese government and everybody involved are well aware of their commitment to British Columbia and to Canada in taking the coal for which they've contracted. I'd further like to inform the member and the House that we are still selling only approximately 22 percent of the coking-coal requirements of the Japanese steel industry. There is still room for additional contracts with the Japanese steel industry unless, of course, the Japanese steel industry fails entirely. As I've said before, I think the Japanese steel industry is a pretty good barometer of world economics because they happen to be, along with Canada, the most efficient steel industry in the world, and if the Japanese steel industry fails, there won't be much hope for the world economy. But I'm not a pessimist. The world is not coming to an end and we will be bringing on new coal-mines. This government will always plan for the future, because that's where the opportunities are. If we'd had a little more faith a few years ago, and if you'd had faith, we wouldn't be spending the billions of dollars that it's cost us to put northeast coal together today. It would have been done before inflation and people would be employed.

MR. SPEAKER: Please keep the answer within the scope established by the question. I recognize that the question was broad.

MR. LEGGATT: My second question — the scope is quite narrow and I hope the minister will think about it: is the minister still standing by his predictions that we have to sell another 11 million tons a year so that the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia will break even? Yes or no?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I have never made that statement.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Can you hear the oohs and aahs, Mr. Speaker, as that iffy group over there wobbles around the floor? I said that the Anzac spur line needs more tonnage, but the overall project will return to the taxpayers of British Columbia, and the taxpayers of Canada, billions of dollars

[ Page 7529 ]

over the life of the first two contracts. The Anzac spur line itself needs more tonnage, the whole project will get more tonnage, and that's the benefit, because we're building for the future. You have never heard me say that the total project would not be beneficial to the taxpayers of British Columbia and Canada, and don't you ooh and aah over there. The overall project certainly will return billions of dollars, and the infrastructure will remain. We'll have the port, the upgraded CNR line, the Anzac spur line, the roads, the powerlines and the townsites all paid for on the backs of the first two contracts.

MR. LEGGATT: If the minister is so confident about his analysis of this coal deal, when is he going to table in this House the cost-benefit analysis on the whole deal so that the rest of the taxpayers can have a look at it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In due course.

MR. LEGGATT: Today the minister is quoted as saying: "No way will the Japanese want to slow down the project. By giving us the contracts they made the decision for northeast to go ahead. We didn't. If it doesn't go ahead on time the Japanese will lose face." I am quoting what the minister has to say about the Japanese. Considering the amount of money the province is now putting into this project, will the minister confirm that while the Japanese are losing face the taxpayers of British Columbia are losing their shirts?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know when I can convince that member of the opposition, who is part of a party that's waffled all over the place on northeast coal. They are against it, they want to close it down — and that's the truth. But I want to tell you that there are signed contracts for northeast coal.

MR. BARRETT: Table them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you table yourself once in a while? You know that those contracts are between the coal companies and the steel industry of Japan. I want to tell you that for a man who wants to be Premier of this province, the way he has insulted our second-best customer…. He knows he'll never be Premier of this province, or he wouldn't go around insulting our second-best customer, the Japanese.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will come to order.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(Continued)

MR. COCKE: This is a housekeeping bill. There isn't too much to it other than putting things in line, but I would think, Mr. Speaker, since the agreement that was made in 1976 with the federal government included tax points, among other things for the federal participation in the delivery of health care in this province, that one of the things I would like to see — and I think we can discuss it here momentarily — is an accurate accounting of not only what those tax points mean to B.C. but also what the additional grants are. The tax points are significant, because I saw a great controversy arise recently. I saw the Minister of Health for Canada say that British Columbia gleans $969 million from the federal government for their participation in our health-care plan. I saw, on the other hand, a contrary statement from the first minister of this province indicating that it was $300 million less. It strikes me that one way or another we should be getting some truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You should talk.

MR. COCKE: Put on your skates, little minister.

While the first minister is considering that, I would also ask him if he would be sure to have all of the accounts paid and all of the vouchers ready for delivery before he rushes off to Government House this afternoon.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The designated speaker for the official opposition responded briefly yesterday with respect to Bill 20. One hesitates to use the overworked word "housekeeping, " but I did indicate in my opening remarks that this is essentially to bring our activity into line with the Federal Income Tax Act. I think all members recognize that it is simply that. I move second reading of Bill 20.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1982 read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

TAXATION (RURAL AREA) AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(Continued)

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm going to take all the time necessary at this particular moment to ensure that everything is in order with respect to the second reading of this bill. I would like to again indicate to the House that yesterday afternoon — after a fairly busy day — I was not as properly prepared as I should have been.

MR. HOWARD: Just like your budget.

[ Page 7530 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Actually, compared to some other budgets we could talk about, Mr. Member, ours is holding firm and fine.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is fourfold. I will not ask members to simply pass over second reading debate in order that we can discuss it in committee. Clearly there are varying thrusts within the ambit of Bill 21. One of the first activities of the bill is to amend a section of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act to broaden the exemption to include improvements such as fixtures and machinery included in the second definition of improvements under the Assessment Act.

In certain Assessment Appeal Board hearings recently, it was found that a property such as a ski-hill, when operated as a non-profit organization, was of admitted and demonstrable benefit to all members of a given community. But the wording of the section, which is actually 13(q), only allowed the land and the buildings to be exempted. As a result, ski-tows or ski-lifts or other placements remained taxable. The amendment, therefore, would make it possible for the total assessed value of such properties, if they otherwise qualified, to be exempt from property taxation.

The second thrust, Mr. Speaker, is one alluded to in the budget speech of early April. It would implement the increase in the rate of taxation of rural land from 1 percent of assessed value to 1.2 percent, effective this taxation year. I point out — not in defence but for the purpose of perspective — that this is the first increase in this tax since 1917. This tax is the provincial property tax, as members know, imposed on land that is not subject to municipal or city property tax.

I recognize that property owners in rural or unincorporated areas receive fewer services than do municipal property owners and should, therefore, properly pay a correspondingly lower rate of tax. But I think there is little justification today for the extremely low rate which is now in effect. In 1981 provincially supplied services to rural areas cost all provincial taxpayers, through the government, something in the order of $90 million to $100 million. A municipality with similar costs would have had to finance about 65 percent of those costs through local taxation. If a similar percentage had been applied to unincorporated areas, the rural property tax rate in 1981 would have been in the order of 25 mills. With a 10 mill rate, the general taxpayer of the province, therefore, can be seen to have subsidized property taxpayers in nonmunicipal or unincorporated areas by $25 million to $35 million last year.

It seems to the government to be fair to the taxpayers in rural areas to be asked to bear a slightly higher burden of taxation. Could I point out, however, Mr. Speaker, that the increased rate of tax will require an additional annual payment of only about $19 for the average rural taxpayer. About 243,000 properties are to be affected by this change. The majority of these properties — not the, vast majority but most of them — are residential. But on the other hand they account for only 53 percent of the total tax paid through this particular measure.

There is an amendment to another section to remove from the act the dollar amount of the fee to be charged for obtaining a search and written statement indicating the status of tax on a property, and to allow the fees to be prescribed by regulation. The present fee, frankly, is not adequate to cover the cost of conducting the search. Rather than amend the act each time a change in the fee is required — upward or downward — over the course of coming years, the fee can be set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and in accordance with government policy on fees.

In another section the requirement that the ministry issue a receipt of payment through the collector or surveyor of taxes is removed. It is proposed that receipts only be issued where payment is made in cash or upon the specific request of the taxpayer. This certainly conforms to the practice in larger municipalities, and is consistent with the provisions of the Financial Administration Act and policies regarding control of public money. If some of this sounds familiar, then it was the point I was making yesterday afternoon. About 320,000 receipts are now issued under the act each year. This aspect of the bill before us would remove the requirement regarding receipt issuance, and about 210,000 fewer receipts would likely be issued in the future. There are cost savings to all of us as taxpayers as a result. A cost saving from less postage, handling and data-processing would, as I said yesterday, result in annual savings to the people of British Columbia of about $83,000.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the latitude in discussing several non-related aspects of this amending act. I move second reading of Bill 21.

MRS. WALLACE: I am certainly pleased to find that the minister has now got his act together and presented us with all the information, as he sees it, regarding this bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Now you agree with it?

MRS. WALLACE: No, I'm afraid that I don't. He has his act together as he sees it, but I certainly don't agree with all the arguments he has put forward. He talked about the ski sites and so on, but I have some concerns about the first section of this bill. It is difficult to talk about this bill without talking about the sections as the minister has done. He has done it by section because it deals with a lot of different things.

I am concerned about the wording of this bill which says: "owned or occupied and used exclusively" by a non-profit organization. I am thinking about some of the small halls, for example, that are owned by Girl Guides or 4-H Clubs, Farmers Institutes and those kinds of things where there are rentals involved. They don't use the hall exclusively. They rent it. I am concerned that the wording of this section may exclude them from being allowed to fall under this particular section of the act. I would like the minister's assurance that that is not the case, that if a small community group has such an institution, the fact that they rent it out for dollars to other organizations which may not be non-profit will not exclude them from falling under that section.

The greatest degree of difference between me and the minister concerns his comments about the increase in rural taxation. He has spoken about there being no increase in the 10 mill rate of taxation since 1917 or something, when it was first brought in. The thing that he neglects to say is that rural assessments have gone up exceedingly and that 10 mills on those assessments is creating a much greater revenue every year.

I did mention the total amount for the Cowichan Valley Regional District in another area of debate. For the nine rural areas in the Cowichan Valley Regional District I have the value of a 10 mill assessment — what it would raise in each area in 1981 and then in 1982 — and also what 12 mills would

[ Page 7531 ]

raise. This is based on the new revised assessment. The total assessment for the rural areas in 1981 was $138 million, and it is now being revised to something over $150.6 million. We see that in area A, for example, 10 mills would raise $142,075 in 1981; in 1982 it will raise $148,575. Now that we're going to 12 mills, that assessment will raise $178,290, an increase of 25 percent in that one area.

In area B the increase is over $50,000, a 27 percent increase on an additional 2 mills. Again this is an increase in the value of the 1982 assessment over 1981 by something in excess of $10,000.

In area C — which happens to be the area that I live in — in 1981, 10 mills would raise $68,893; in 1982, because of the rapid development in that area, we now find that 10 mills would have raised $99,121, an increase of almost 50 percent. When we go to 12 mills in area C we find that we're returning $118,946 to provincial coffers, an increase of 73 percent over what we would have paid had the assessment remained at 10 mills. That's a pretty big chunk to ask one small regional area to deliver. It's a pretty big increase, particularly when we're talking about restraint in government. Restraint has to come everywhere, not just restraint on one section. If you're going to have restraint, it has to be fair. You can't ask the people who live in area C to restrain their wages. A lot of the people who live in that area are public servants who work in Victoria. The minister is talking about 8 percent to 14 percent; the Premier is talking about zero to nothing. You can't restrain their wages yet ask them to have a 73 percent increase in their taxes.

In area D, another one in the south end, we have an increase of $58,642, a 68 percent increase, based on 12 mills instead of 10.

In area E there is a 51 percent increase, $55,870.

Those are the kinds of increases being faced in the regional district as a result of this particular bill. The minister has forgotten that those taxes have been going up and the return has been going up year after year. We have been paying our share. Every year those moneys have been higher and higher at the 10 mill rate because our assessments have been going up. I have a list of total assessments in the rural areas over the last ten years. Of course, the value of the 10 mills is calculated by simply taking one one-hundredth of that assessed value. Ten years ago, in 1972, 10 mills raised $694,274; in 1973 it went a bit higher — $757,186; in 1974 we were up to $1, 047,541. The growth continued until 1981, when the value of 10 mills was $1,380,297; this year 10 mills would return to $1,807,508 to the provincial coffers. I'm suggesting that that is an adequate increase without increasing it another 2 mills, which this act is doing. To say that we haven't been paying our fair share…. I disagree with that. I think the rural areas have been paying a fair share. The return is the assessment times the mill rate. It's true that the mill rate hasn't changed, but certainly the assessments in those rural areas have increased and the return has increased as a result.

Leaving that and going on to the next section, I have some concern about the fact that again we're into this open kind of legislation where the fees can be set by order-in-Council. It's a continuing trend of this government, Mr. Speaker, to put more and more of those things into regulation and out of legislation. This is another example of that kind of closed cabinet government, where there is nothing in here to say what those fees can be. With a government that is prepared to make a 20 percent increase in the mill rate in an act like this, how do we know what's going to happen to the fees? There is no assurance that those fees will be reasonable and fair. They may well be anything. I just don't like that direction of taking those things out of legislation and putting them in orders-in-Council. It’s not the first time you've heard me say this, Mr. Speaker; I've been consistent at least on that particular point of saying that I believe things should be enshrined in legislation and not left to regulation and cabinet order. This is just one more example.

I have some concern about not mailing out receipts, and I'm wondering just what assurance people are going to have that everything is in order and that they're not going to find themselves in trouble somewhere down the line because they have not received a receipt. I recognize the point of trying to save some money on postage, but perhaps there are other places where we could save money on postage much better. One of the things I'd like to suggest is that if you didn't mail out B.C. Government News you might be able to mail out receipts to taxpayers, and that might be one way of reducing your postage bill and a much fairer way of doing it. I think that people could find themselves in a vulnerable position as a result of not having receipts.

With those remarks, I would ask the minister to bear them in mind when he responds, and I would like to hear his comments.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I must say I was genuinely puzzled yesterday. It wasn't an attempt to do anything other than to wonder whether there was some mistake. I don't agree with what the minister has said today, but at least we're talking about the same subject now.

I would certainly concur in many of the concerns raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). The minister has pointed out that it's the first time since 1917 that the rate of tax has increased. I don't know the story on assessments; I would expect that assessments have changed almost every year since then, but at nowhere near the rate at which they have increased in the last year or in the last decade. That of 1981 would be far and above the greatest rate of increase in assessments ever experienced in the history of the province. So while we're saying that the rate hasn't increased each year, the government presumably has been getting more money — perhaps not every year since 1917, but in recent years the government has been collecting more money — although perhaps in almost every year there has actually been a decrease in the area of land covered by this particular tax, since more and more area has been incorporated into municipalities. So although, as I say, the total acreage is going down, the total assessment has gone up at a very rapid rate in recent years, and to say that the increase in tax rate is the first in 65 years is telling only a very small part of the story.

The minister gave us some figures in his introductory remarks, and I would like an opportunity to review these in Hansard and would ask him to be prepared to give us more detail when we get to committee stage. For example, he has said that the cost of services provided to the properties, if you like, in the areas covered by this legislation runs from $90 million to $100 million. I believe he was comparing it with what this could cost in municipalities. Of course, the service supplied even by the provincial government in municipalities is quite different from the service provided in rural areas. When he talks about the services' supplied to rural areas, I don't know whether he is talking about the cost of highways

[ Page 7532 ]

in those areas, for example. Certainly they don't get very much in the way of water service or sewage assistance, but they do get highways. And if that's the case, I would argue that the highways are not there to serve the rural areas nearly so much as they are there to serve the municipalities on either end of rural areas. So I don't think it's a fair comparison to use those figures without a bit more explanation.

To say that the tax rate in the rural areas would have to be 25 percent to equal what is being charged in municipalities — again there isn't enough detail there to say whether or not the minister is telling us as much as we would have to know to intelligently discuss this particular legislation…. We're opposed to this increase in taxes at this time. We've argued all along, and the minister stated in his budget speech, supporting what we have said and what he himself has said, that this is not the time in the economic history of the community to increase taxes and to increase them at a rate of 20 percent. It's not the time to carry on with further increases in charges for government services. We've argued during the budget debate, and figures were presented by outsiders to show, that increases in user rates for government services will net the government an extra $300 million to $500 million in 1982, over and above the figures for 1981. This is one more increase — at least, although it's not detailed in the legislation, I suspect it's an increase. Taking it out of the legislation and leaving it up to cabinet to set this fee, it may be set as often as cabinet meets, if they so decide. The charge for any of these government services can be changed every time the cabinet meets. As it is, it takes it out of the public-discussion area as well. If the minister is obliged to bring in an amendment to the legislation, then he knows that the bill is going to be printed and is going to be presented in the House. It's something that the press look at, because there isn't much else to look at when bills are being presented, and it's something about which we can speak in the House. So there is public attention to every move by the government to extract more revenue from the pockets of taxpayers in the province.

Taking it out of the legislation and putting it into cabinet means that it's done relatively secretly. Certainly orders-in-Council are made public after the fact, but they aren't seen to the same extent as are bills presented in this House. And beyond any doubt, they are not discussed in the same way that legislation can be discussed in the House. It's a tax grab. It's the wrong time for a tax grab, and it's taking away from the Legislature the authority to set the fees for services. On those grounds, the opposition is opposed to this legislation.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, f have just a few brief remarks with respect to the bill. The preliminary comments last evening, and the references made again today, about the minister having been in error in his introductory remarks…. I don't think anyone should make a big deal about that, Mr. Speaker. It happens so often that it's almost commonplace in this chamber.

I want to add my voice to those who have objected so far, as I will and I do, to the concept which is becoming more and more prevalent with this government, Mr. Speaker, and that is removing from statutes authorities that were vested in the Legislature and placing those authorities in the hands of cabinet. It's a part of the centralizing of authority and power and the removing of a variety of subject matters from the arena of public debate. Included therein now will be the subject matter relating to searches and fees and that sort of thing. Part of that which we have inherited in a democracy, along with the concept of freedom of speech, is the opportunity to exercise that freedom of speech and to publicly discuss matters affecting the public. The more that government seeks to take the decision-making process unto itself and away from the elected body, the more it runs counter to the historic essence of freedom of speech and the right to exercise it, and that is true in this bill, as it is in a number of other bills that have been dealt with in previous sessions and those that are before this session at the moment. I object to the bill on that ground.

I wonder — and I'm not that familiar with just how this functions — about the provision in the bill that removes the requirement for the issuance of a receipt to a taxpayer. I'm thinking in terms of rural landowners and property owners who may rent their premises and require a tax receipt for income tax purposes. In filing an income tax return, I understand, it's not necessary to actually provide Revenue Canada with a copy of a receipt for taxes in a situation where a rental or lease of property takes place, but it is necessary to have it in one's possession in case the tax man comes calling and wants to have an examination made of that particular claim on a person's income tax return. I'd appreciate some explanations from the minister as to the effect of removing the requirement that a receipt be issued for taxes paid.

Apart from the general question of a requirement for tax purposes, there is the age-old custom that many families, especially people in rural areas, follow, that of keeping receipts for everything for which they pay. It is standard practice, normal budgetary housekeeping, a practice inherited by a great many people and still followed. If you are going to deny them the opportunity to have the receipt for the taxes that they've paid on their property, you are running contrary to that feeling that people have about keeping receipts for money they have put out.

I also want to raise an objection not necessarily about this bill, but about the practice of government with respect to unpaid taxes. As we know, in the Municipal Act unpaid taxes carry with them an interest demand limited to 12 percent per year. In other words, if a person doesn't pay taxes to a municipality the maximum that that municipality can impose by way of interest on unpaid taxes is 12 percent. That maximum is set out precisely in the Municipal Act. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a week or so ago we had not a debate but an examination of this matter during question period when, in my own home town of Terrace, it was discovered that a certain business person with connections in the cabinet had failed to pay taxes to the municipality of Terrace and thereby denied the municipality of Terrace the benefit of those funds. Terrace municipality could only impose a 12 percent interest payment on those unpaid taxes, a situation which the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) applauded. He thought it was okay for taxpayers and especially business people with connections in the cabinet not to pay their taxes, sock the money away in an interest-bearing account or use it for some other business purposes, and only be required to pay 12 percent on it.

In this particular act which this bill seeks to amend there is a provision for interest payments on unpaid taxes, but the provision in the act is subject to a decision by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In other words, if a person or business in a rural area does not pay taxes as required by this act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can establish an interest rate high enough so that there is no incentive not to pay taxes. In a municipality there is an incentive not to pay taxes and

[ Page 7533 ]

that incentive is the statutory limit of 12 percent. In a rural area that is not the case. What we basically have is a discrimination in the Municipal Act against business people in rural areas. We know that most businesses — retail, manufacturing, processing, service — are located in municipal areas. There are very few businesses, relatively speaking, that are not within a municipality. So business gets a break in a municipality, the break being that they get an advantage by s not paying their taxes to the municipality. The municipality loses because it doesn't have the income, and it has to go to the bank and borrow to run its affairs at 16, 17, 18 percent or whatever the going rate is at any given time. All they are able to impose on the delinquent taxpayer is 12 percent. I am not arguing anything else except that if it is possible to bring in a piece of legislation to make a few changes in the Taxation (Rural Area) Act — the bill before us right now — then it is equally easy for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to bring in an alteration to the Municipal Act to make sure that municipalities get their taxes paid. I say that it is deliberately discriminatory on the part of the government to favour the non-payment of taxes to municipal areas by making the interest rate low enough that it's more attractive to not pay the taxes than it is to pay them.

Those are the major reasons I would like to put forward with respect to this. Let me sum up my objections, as others I have done. First, it is removing funds from the hands of rural taxpayers at a time, economically, when we should be allowing people to have every last possible cent they can have in their pockets in order to keep going. The removal of money by way of increased taxes, regardless of the rationale about time or percentage increase or anything else, during a time when the economy is down is the worst possible thing to do.

It just adds to the decline in the economy.

Secondly, the power grab that's in this legislation is an other reason for my opposition to the bill. The government is seeking once more to pull away from the Legislature the opportunity to debate publicly and to have an influence on public policy, which is an anti-democratic stance.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I take my place briefly in this debate. In order not to be repetitive, I won't give the figures for all the rural areas in my riding that are affected. I'm surprised that some of the rural members on the government side haven't taken their place in this debate, because their constituents are just as affected as the constituents of rural members on this side of the House.

I want to point out to the minister that assessments in rural areas have gone up significantly this year, which obviously increases the tax base and amount of tax payable quite significantly. This is taxes in every field as well: in recreation areas, land areas, leased lands. I have a list of about 200 people who contacted me personally about their increased assessments over last year, or their assessed values. Assessments tripled in a few cases in some areas. I know this is not the place to discuss assessments, but I want to point out to the minister that when assessments increase for people in rural areas, and I'm sure the minister is very much aware of this, so does their tax payable. The other point I want to make is that the basic residential tax payable in rural areas is increasing from $75 to $125. That's an increase of almost 50 percent, a minimum of 40 percent.

We have before this House a bill that tells a certain sector of the economy to practise restraint, yet the government itself is not practising restraint. It is imposing this type of taxation on the backs of the people living in rural areas, in this case, and on all the people in this province. User fees are increasing all the time, yet this government has no hesitation whatsoever in increasing taxes in one fell swoop by 40-plus percent in this one area. I want to be on record as opposing his bill, and hopefully the minister will review this bill and possibly withdraw it when he has an opportunity to do so shortly.

MR. PASSARELL: Like my colleague, the member for Mackenzie, I too am concerned that very few members are in his House to listen to this important bill which affects the residents of the north.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The Minister of Finance, in his initial statement, said this was an excellent bill. He said further that it was high time for rural residents to have an increase in their rural taxes, since hey hadn't been increased since 1917. I find that total nonsense. It might be worth while for the Minister of Finance to some up to the far north some time and see the conditions; see what services the government returns on the taxes that we pay to the south through our resources. There are very few services available in the north in health and social services, and roads are poor.

More importantly, this is a further taxation increase upon the residents of the far north. Instead of presenting a bill that increases taxes in the far north, in the rural areas of this province, this minister should be presenting a bill to lower taxes in the far north. We've seen rural land assessment taxes dramatically increase this year and last year. With Bill 21 we see taxes increased by 20 percent for residents who live in the far north; the ones who make this province a great province are finding that their taxes are once again going up by 20 percent.

I'll be voting against this bill, as will the official opposition. This bill has no benefit whatsoever to the rural residents of the far north. Since we in the north pay more and more in taxes and see our taxes go to the south to build football stadiums, I am totally opposed to this bill. During this time of restraint that the Premier often speaks about, it is ludicrous to ring in a bill that increases rural property taxes in the far north by 20 percent to subsidize the residents in the south even further. Residents in the far north should be receiving lower taxes by this government and not higher taxes. I'd like the Minister of Finance to think before he brings in a bill of his nature to increase residents' taxes and penalize them for living in rural areas of this province and the far north. They re already overburdened by high gasoline taxes and high food costs, and they have few social services brought to the north. I would expect this Minister of Finance to bring in some type of a referendum and see how the people of the far north would accept his bill. Mr. Speaker, the official opposition, and myself as a resident of the far north, are totally opposed to this bill, and we will be voting against it.

MR. BRUMMET: I would just like speak briefly on the rural taxation increase. It would appear that the member preceding me, the member for Atlin, was attributing the increases to the far north only. As I understand this bill, it's rural taxation throughout the province. I think it is necessary, if not popular, to get rural residents to pay a proportionately greater share of the revenue, because the cost of servicing the

[ Page 7534 ]

rural communities has increased. The demands are much greater for roads, sewerage and for a variety of services that are funded largely from government revenue. We need to recognize that in the taxation. It is not a major increase, and it certainly does not affect just the people of the north. The lower taxation tends to encourage people more and more to move farther away from the services and then to demand those services at a much greater cost, so I think the minimal increase in the mill rate for rural properties can be justified. For that reason I support the bill.

If there is a way to deal with the more isolated areas, I would suggest that it is in holding down the assessments. The assessments have grown far too much for the value received and the value of the property. I think increasing the mill rate slightly to pay for the extra services and extra costs is a reasonable move.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I made notes of the comments offered by the members who've spoken in this brief debate on second reading of Bill 21 — the members for Cowichan-Malahat, Nanaimo, Skeena, Atlin and North Peace River. I think there may be some misunderstanding on the part of two members who alluded to one of the first moves taken by the amending bill when I spoke of a ski-hill as an example. I would refer members to section 13(2)(q), which I referred to in the opening remarks. We're not changing that, Mr. Speaker, in terms of those non-profit buildings which are now considered to be exempt from taxation — that is, land and buildings owned exclusively by a non-profit organization for activities which are of demonstrable benefit to all members of the community where the land is located. Rather we are expanding it. I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) expressed concern with regard to what this would do to a community hall, a hall owned by Girl Guides or some other similar youth organization. It does nothing to that, Mr. Speaker, but rather clarifies the problem with the kind of activity, such as a ski-hill, where the building now — the lodge, as it might be termed — owned and operated by a non-profit society is exempt, but the accoutrement — not a bad word for a Wednesday afternoon — the ancillary facilities, the lifts, the tows, are not exempt, and we think that they should be in a non-profit setting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I never accused the member of that; I would never do that, sir. Mr. Speaker, to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), I don't think that I identified this as an excellent bill. No minister enjoys raising taxes. I pointed out that this was an appropriate bill for a modest increase in the tax rate in rural areas of the province of British Columbia, the first change since 1917. We, frankly, examined a variety of options within the ministry and opted for the lowest possible lift in a tax rate which has remained unchanged over those good number of years. So I don't take pleasure in this particular measure, but nonetheless, as I tried to identify at the outset, I think there is a necessity to have a slightly better balance between the tax rate levied in municipalities and the tax rate levied in non-municipal areas.

To the member for Atlin: I think the north-south argument was appropriately answered by the last speaker in the debate, the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet).

Concern was also expressed regarding the issuance of a receipt. I attempted to explain, Mr. Speaker — and I think it's correct — that in most large municipalities now, if not in the majority of municipalities, the property-tax payer does not automatically receive a receipt for the payment or payments that may be made on that particular property. Members will know, of course, that there is the cancelled cheque, which obviously is of some use. But in the case of the home property owned by my wife and myself in Saanich municipality, we do not receive a receipt on the tax notice unless we ask for it for some particular reason, if only for confirmation that it has been received and that everything is in order. That is precisely what is proposed here: if the taxpayer wishes a receipt, then the taxpayer is entitled, and will be entitled, to request a receipt. But the receipts will not be blindly sent out to a number of people simply because that has been the practice over a good number of years. So I don't think, Mr. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that it is in any way running a danger with respect to the taxpayer finally having confirmation that that has been received on time and is in good order.

Mr. Speaker, obviously there are those opposite who are opposed to the increase. I suppose I would simply refer to the budget where very few taxes imposed in the province of British Columbia last year were altered this year. That was the thrust of the budget speech. I don't want to revisit the budget, but since it was mentioned by members opposite, we determined within the Ministry of Finance — I determined as minister — to hold the number of tax increases to the absolute minimum. Members will know and will admit, I'm sure, that there were very few. In fact, it was called a "good-news budget." This is one of those areas, nonetheless, where it was felt that an increase was not only appropriate but, in fact, necessary. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 21.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 21, Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

[ Page 7535 ]

House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. MACDONALD: Last Tuesday the minister announced that he had his guidelines, and he wondered what the opposition's guidelines were. What did he say at that time? Second reading; in committee; in the corridor, statements to the press: "Where are your numbers?" At the beginning of the debate he said his numbers were 10, 12, 14, and then he asked: "Where are the opposition's numbers?" Where are the minister's numbers now? The Premier is going around the country charging us with conspiracy. Does the Minister of Finance speak to the Premier? The Premier has totally undermined what the Minister of Finance was saying in second reading debate on this bill. These figures are totally meaningless today.

Obviously you have a government in which the Minister of Finance is not kept informed about what's in the Premier's mind. Maybe nobody knows what's in the Premier's mind, not even the Premier. My gosh, have we ever seen such blind staggers as we're seeing under this government! What are these guidelines, Mr. Minister of Finance? We don't agree with them, but what are they today? They've been shattered by the Premier, who is sitting beside you.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the government, the Premier and other members of the executive council have indicated the range of figures that will apply. We still ask the members opposite if they have any numbers in mind. What percentages do they think are appropriate in these conditions? The member was on his feet asking about our figures. We have spelled out a great deal, not only in the debate that commenced on February 18 but also in comments made elsewhere. I think the Premier and I have emphasized that there are upper limits to increases in compensation. The basic upper limit is 10 percent. It alone is subject to a 2 percent decrease or increase, depending on the previous compensation experience. The guideline has not changed. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear what figures the member opposite has. Since he's so concerned about this, I would like to hear his views. Tell us.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, they sure have changed in the last couple of days. Now the Premier's saying something to this effect: there's nothing there whatsoever if any person is laid off in the public service in British Columbia, or services are cut. Did the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) not hear these statements that the Premier was making when he was speaking beside him and then out in the corridor?

We've been engaged in a total waste of time in bringing in this legislation. The whole thing has been changed in mid-game by the Premier. There's no planning or understanding of the economy, no government program that makes any sense or holds together for more than a few weeks. They're just staggering along.

The Legislature was called to deal with inflation — if that's the problem, and it is a problem throughout British Columbia and North America. We were called back so late, after the TV announcement of this program. Now the program is totally in shreds and we're just wasting our time debating this bill.

I think that the Premier is not consulting the Minister of Finance. He's purely playing politics with this legislation, and taking polls to see how his various statements are reacted to by the public out there. It's been a political charade — nothing to do with restraint, nothing to do with public service and services. It's politics. And the Premier is not talking to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is not in his confidence, What the Minister of Finance said in terms of these guidelines is totally inoperative today as a result of the speeches and statements of the Premier, as to which it is obvious that he did not consult his own Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, when the New Democratic Party was government in British Columbia there was a spendthrift philosophy that has not been duplicated — and, hopefully, never will be again — in British Columbia. The member opposite has come forward, once again, to suggest that the maximum limits brought in by legislation, announced by the Premier on public television, are minimum limits. How could anybody have listened to that public statement, followed by all of the debate which has since taken place in this House, and still believe that what was explicitly stated as a maximum that the taxpayers of British Columbia could afford…? I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the member who has managed once more to misunderstand has left the House. This is what lies at the heart of economic difficulty and economic mismanagement: the belief that somehow government purses are bottomless, the taxpayers' resources infinite, the right of the public sector and their union leaders to hold the public to ransom, even in times of economic difficulty…. All of that floods forth when you have people who can listen and watch statements repeatedly made and still come up believing the precise opposite of what was stated — namely, that maximum means minimum.

Of course, it's consistent, because when they were government there was no maximum for anything until the awful time of accounting came. As the Premier's father used to say, when they were in opposition before….

MR. BARRETT: You used to attack them, you phony!

HON. MR. McGEER: You bet I attacked the government. But one thing, Mr. Chairman, I warned the public of British Columbia again and again: believe in what the New Democratic Party say; don't, as the media said at that time, say they don't mean it. They were fools then, they were fools in government and they're fools now. It's not theory any longer It's proof. And the proof is that no insight at all has come from that period of wastrel spending when they were government, and the period in which they have had time to reconsider all of the things that they did in error. No, that hasn't come. Instead, they still appear on the floor of the

[ Page 7536 ]

House this very afternoon, arguing that maximum is minimum. What irresponsibility, Mr. Chairman! Read the legislation and begin to understand for the first time that there is some requirement of responsibility, not only when you're in government but when you're in opposition. You're not here to climb into bed with your union friends, even though they support you politically. You're here to be responsible to all of the citizens of British Columbia.

The only thing that I could hope for us to find this afternoon in this debate is, for the first time in 22 years in this Legislature, for the first and the second members for Vancouver East to discover a minimum of economic responsibility. We're not asking for a maximum from them, only a minimum.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to engage in debate on this Section in committee stage and discuss some of the words used by that hon. member, the second member for Vancouver Point–Grey, when he talks about responsibility to the voters and taxpayers. I don't mind sanctimonious lectures from an absolutely phony position. I never ran as a Liberal. I never crossed the floor and lacked the responsibility of going back to my own electors and saying to my electors: "I've now changed my mind and I'd like you to decide on it." Oh, no, Mr. Chairman. What a political chameleon we have defending the University Hospital from cuts because it's his favorite baby, while every other hospital in this province is being cut. There is not a murmur, whimper or cry from him for the ordinary taxpayers of this province who expect health care on the same basis — not from the spoiled children of that minister who will be affected by this.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague was not quoting his confusion about this section. Far be it from him to do that. He was quoting the confusion of a supporter of Social Credit, namely the editorial page of the Vancouver Province. And we have that minister lecturing the editorial page of the Province today, saying to them that they have their nerve, their cheek, their gall — that right-wing free enterprise newspaper — to question the Premier's schizophrenic figures around this bill. I quote from the editorial, so the minister will know exactly where these questions come from — not from my colleague in the New Democratic Party, not from the great body of the unwashed out there to whom the minister deigns to talk about restraint, when they buy bottles of wine at $37.50. Pouilly Fuisse is showing restraint. It'd be cheaper to buy it by the case instead of four bottles at a time for six people to slosh down when they're talking about how the peons watch themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe they do buy it by the case.

MR. BARRETT: Maybe they buy it by the case. Who am I but your humble servant, Mr. Chairman? Who am I but just a spokesperson for the ordinary people who buy $3 Calona Red for a cheap high to try to escape the reality of this government?

I'm just quoting this right-wing free enterprise newspaper that asks the question my colleague asked. Will you lecture Paddy Sherman? Oh, please, sir, will the minister get on the phone and slap Paddy Sherman's wrist for confusing maximum with minimum and twisting the Premier's words? We would not want trouble in that wide bed against the NDP that embraces renegade Liberals and runaway Tories. There's one — the Minister of Finance.

This is the question asked by the Vancouver Province and I ask that minister who speaks so eloquently from the university-welfare field…. He's been on welfare as a public employee all his working life, and he's never once asked for any cutback in his wages or restraint for his goals at the university. Oh, that we could all live in the luxury of the faculty club and tip our little wineglasses and talk about the cutbacks for the peons out there. Oh, that we could all be university graduates and just put it right there in the trough and say: "Let it slop a little bit on us and maybe some will drop to the janitor." Oh, it's so nice to be lectured by those common people with common touch and common interest. He's never driven out of Point Grey in his life, but he comes in and talks about my colleague. This is in theVancouver Province, and I'd ask the minister to address himself to it: "Premier Bill Bennett's threat to bring in tougher legislation to keep the public-sector labour contracts in line is confusing his entire restraint program."

Incidentally, before I forget, Mr. Chairman, the Premier also said that if they don't pay attention to him, he's going to call the House together. I would ask the minister to inform the Premier that the House is already sitting. He called it for April 5, and we're still here. Who does Bill Bennett talk to? The Premier or himself? We're talking of two people. Bill Bennett doesn't know the House is sitting, but the Premier does. Are they one and the same or not? He's going to threaten to call the House together. You're not here, Mr. Chairman. The Clerk is not there. Those attendants are not here. I know that minister is not all there. But somebody had better tell the Premier that the House has been called and we're here and the Socred Whip showed up.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Maybe Kinsella doesn't know it.

Anyway, back to the editorial by this right-wing newspaper.

Oh, they're going to get their heads together. A quarter and a quarter makes a half wit, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: A Liberal and a Tory makes a Socred. There it is in the making. How long is the gestation period? That depends on how the polls are going. If they show a rise in their support, it takes over within hours.

Don't leave now! I'm waiting for…. Mr. Chairman, there's the same minister who complains when my friend goes out to respond to a call from nature taking off because the call of logic is frightening him out of the House.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm glad I've got the audience of the back bench on this committee debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, possibly somewhere along the line we could get back to the compensation guideline section 9 of the act.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I intend to keep my remarks under the same confined, strict limits of debate

[ Page 7537 ]

shown by the former Liberal, the now minister in the reconverted Social Credit government, which is wide, unlimited, unbound nonsense.

This is the editorial related to this section:

"Premier Bill Bennett's threat to bring in tougher legislation to keep public-sector labour contracts in line is confusing his entire restraint program. It apparently amounts to changing the rules in the middle of the game, and that may lead to the kind of confrontation that B.C. can well do without in its currently unstable economic situation."

I charge this government with deliberately seeking a confrontation with labour for political purposes. I believe that. I believe that this government under Bill Bennett, the Premier of this province, is determined to seek a confrontation with the ordinary working people of British Columbia for electoral purposes and is willing to undermine this legislation to seek that confrontation.

The next question the editorial asks is:

"If the restraint program is to work at all, those involved should have confidence in the ground rules to be followed." — I quote from the Vancouver Province, not from the member for Vancouver East — "Mr. Bennett himself has said public-service contracts could provide increases between 10 and 14 percent and that the program will help bring parity among the employees in the various sectors.

"Mr. Bennett must have known what he was doing" — I'm not sure if that's a question or a statement — "when he brought in the restraint legislation setting up a compensation commission to supervise public-sector bargaining and giving commissioner Ed Peck the authority."

In the same edition of the Vancouver Province a question is raised by my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), a distinguished member of the bar, a Queen's Counsel, an hon. member of this House, and a lot more besides that, all of which I need not recite here. When he says in the Vancouver Province that "Bill Bennett says it's 5 percent or less," he's proving the point that the Premier doesn't talk to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Finance is not listening. All you're doing is confusing the Vancouver Province, and they want to support you. They want to embrace you. You won't call the motion on the order paper that's criticizing them. But that's another issue that I don't want to bring up here because it would be out of order. If it was in order, Mr. Chairman, I would bring up the fact that the motion chastising the Province hasn't been called yet, but I won't bring it up, because it's not in order to bring it up.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, I won't even bring up one word about that motion.

I go on to read from this, related to this section: "The program has been widely supported — except in the labour movement, naturally." The Vancouver Province supports it. I'm not surprised and you're not surprised that labour doesn't support it, but that the Vancouver Province does.

"The public generally accepts the need to keep government spending within its ability to pay. And its ability to pay is very much restricted this year by the recession. But those conditions were very much in evidence when Mr. Bennett drew up his restraint program. He insisted the program was not intended to destroy the collective bargaining process."

In a pig's eye! "You can bargain collectively in a free society all you want, but if you don't do what I do," says old dictator Bill, "then I'll ram down your throats what my decision is going to be." So what are you going through this charade for? Who knows what the Premier's statement will be by tomorrow? Will it be 3 percent tomorrow? Why are we debating this? Will it be 2 percent, I percent? The minister has been made to look silly by the Premier.

Now I ask the minister in committee: what did the Premier mean by this statement that public servants are facing 5 percent or less? Would you tell us, Mr. Minister, were you consulted by the Premier? And will you tell us what 5 percent or less means? You tell us. And what does that statement have to do with this section in the bill?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the Leader of the Opposition was in the House or not when I answered the earlier question.

MR. BARRETT: I was right here.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was quiet when the member was speaking.

MR. BARRETT: I was right here.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Don't push, Mr. Member. You tried that before — push, push, push — and we go through this same thing.

I answered the question, and I think I indicated precisely what was intended. I'm pleased to see that the NDP research office is working well. At least it was able to put his hands on this morning's Province.

MR. BARRETT: I want to acknowledge this brilliant answer by the minister, who feels personally threatened by the nasty opposition asking questions. I have no personal threats against you, sir — through you, Mr. Chairman. I promise not to insult you; I promise not to hurt your feelings. Sir — through you, Mr. Chairman — I humbly submit that because some people switch parties like hopping out of one political bed into another…. That's not a history that I will bring up at this time. I just ask you simply: does your word mean a fig to anybody when in this section you talk 10 percent to 14 percent, and the Premier goes out into the world and says 5 percent or less? He's made a fool of you, not me. I would never do that, no, sir. I humbly withdraw any offensive words I've said to you.

Why do you allow the Premier to make a fool of you? Here it is in today's Province — I don't need a whole research staff — delivered free. Did he talk to you about this 5 percent? Are you going to write a letter to the Province and explain it to them and take them out of their confusion? What would your letter be, if you were to write a letter to the Province and say to them that 5 percent is really no different than 10 percent? Could you tell us that? Could you tell us exactly what the Premier meant by this statement, "5 percent or less"? Would you tell us that, please, in a few words?

Mr. Chairman, what's happened here is that the Minister of Finance is being used. He didn't know the content of the February 18 speech, but after the speech was over a poll was

[ Page 7538 ]

taken to discover whether or not the people were in favour of the word "restraint." That does not include cabinet ministers and their expense accounts, my friend; that's the people who pay the bills. Now $400-a-night hotel bills for cabinet ministers are okay. Four hundred bucks a night to lay their precious bodies down to comfort while they toil for the people is worth it — in those down beds in the luxurious settings; then they go out for the dinners with the $37.50 bottles of wine. But we've got to tell the working people that they must restrain themselves from trying to pay their mortgages — not a word about inflation, not a word about mortgage rates at 18 percent. Would I see a headline that the Premier orders interest rates to go down to 10 percent? No, we get a bill. The minister does his I'm-above-all-this-politics number — and he does it well. Oh, you'd love to be above politics, you'd love to be the super-administrator, the one man in that government who has a handle on logic and reason — and you've got skewered, Now, when you've got a chance to explain the skewering, you sit there in silence.

The Vancouver Province wants to know when 10 percent means 5 percent. Were you told that the Premier was going to make the statement that they're going to take 5 percent or less? Are you embarrassed? You can't kid us that none of this is going to get out of here, because we're not going to tell stories out of this chamber.

MR. MACDONALD: Who's running the government? Is it Kinsella?

MR. BARRETT: That' right, tell us in the confines of this little quiet chamber. Were you told about the 5 percent? What does it mean? How do you feel about people in the bargaining process being threatened? While they're told to bargain collectively in a free atmosphere, how do you feel about them being threatened in the middle of labour negotiations that they had better take this settlement? Have you discussed that aspect with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)? Is there a law against an employer threatening employees in the middle of the bargaining process? Is there such a law, Mr. Lawyer Member? Yes, there is. Has the Premier been a law-breaker? Tell me, through you, Mr. Chairman, just between us. I promise not to tell anyone else. How do you explain the Premier and the Province understanding that the legislation originally was 10 to 14 percent and then the statement was made that it's 5 percent? Would you please tell me how you explain that? You can't explain it, can you? You've been embarrassed, haven't you? Oh, yes, you have. Just like when you had to answer that question about the advertisement.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I quote from the editorial:

"The Premier said that if all public-sector contracts came in at 14 percent there would be 'layoffs and a reduction of programs.' Obviously he and the unions should be careful that nothing they do leads, for instance, to further cutbacks in health services.

"But either the restraint process and the legislation backing it up is sufficient unto the need or it was badly designed in the first place."

But why this change? That's the question. That question is not from the editorial; it is mine. Could you tell me why the figures were originally 10 percent and 14 percent and now they are being threatened with 5 percent? Could you tell me the reason for that change?

MR. HOWARD: Fascists don't have to answer.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the member for Skeena used a term in an interjection which I think we've all found to be offensive. I didn't rise to answer the questions, which I'm not compelled to answer as I understand the rules of debate and committee, but I would ask the member for Skeena to withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has asked for the withdrawal of a term which has been determined to be on our list of inadvisably used words in debate. I would ask the member for a withdrawal.

MR. HOWARD: Pursuant to the standing orders, I can explain what occurred. I said while sitting in my seat: "Fascists don't have to answer." The minister somehow or other thinks that I was referring to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member, the Chair would have to come the same conclusion.

MR. HOWARD: Would you come to the same conclusion? I think it would apply to him as well, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the member for a straight withdrawal of a word that I'm sure the member wishes to withdraw in the interests of parliamentary tradition.

MR. HOWARD: If it's an offensive word to you, Mr. Chairman, to the rules and to the decorum in this House, I certainly will withdraw it. But the minister obviously felt that it applied to him.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to explain to this House the discrepancy in this section. The minister brings it in and clearly says that 10 and 14 percent is the target; the Premier makes a statement that it is 5 percent or less. The Vancouver Province is confused and says: "But either the restraint process and the legislation backing it up is sufficient unto the need or it was badly designed in the first place." We all know that if the government wants this bill to be supported, it should be understood. We're opposed to the bill, and we have been all along. I'm not changing my position on that, but wouldn't it be reasonable to accept that if the government was to be believed, if the government was going to get support for this legislation and if the government is going to campaign on it, it would like the media to support them on this? Would the minister like the media to support the idea and concept of this bill? Of course he would. But how can the Vancouver Province support this bill if you leave them confused? You can excuse my confusion, based on the fact that I'm opposed to the legislation. But what about Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer out there who are waiting for government leadership?

[ Page 7539 ]

MR. LEA: How about Paddy Sherman?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer and Paddy Sherman — the average taxpayer, publisher of the Vancouver Province, an average salary, average tax.

I go on to read from this editorial: "He should be prepared to show his confidence in Mr. Peck's ability to do the job, to meet the restraint objectives he himself outlined, by letting Mr. Peck get on with the job." Do you feel that the Premier is undermining Mr. Peck by announcing decisions ahead of time, before Mr. Peck even sees them?

While you're at it, Mr. Speaker, here's another well-known free-enterprise newspaper.

AN HON. MEMBER: More research.

MR. BARRETT: More research? Only the place, Mr. Member, where the average citizen depends on the government to explain in the day-to-day news what its policy is. What else is the citizen of British Columbia expected to believe, other than the Premier's statement, which I'm questioning? If you don't like that kind of research, then tell the Premier to shut up. He's the one who went to the newspapers. It was the Premier who went and blabbed this out all over. It was the Premier who caused this headline to be written. And you're trying to blame me for my research, while some ordinary taxpayer's only research is to pick up the paper and see what the Premier said. Are you suggesting that the taxpayers shouldn't read what the Premier said, and should ignore the front page of the Province? What the Premier said doesn't count? Throw it away! Don't be silly.

The fact is that this jerk government has been playing politics and inciting flames of hate and distress in ordinary people in this province for cheap political purposes, and you've been caught at it. If you want to play that kind of divisive politics, go to some other place. British Columbia should be a peaceful, thoughtful province. It's no place for this kind of scandalous, inflammatory, cheap politics on the backs of ordinary people who work in this province and pay the taxes. All you've done is sleazy, dirty-trick gimmickry around this legislation to try to scare people about their hospital beds, about salaries and everything else. It's the phoniest bill I've ever seen. And the guy who has criticized it most is the Premier of the province.

MR. RICHMOND: Nonsense!

MR. BARRETT: You're darned right it's nonsense. I'm glad you agree. You've been here a year. and you've finally figured it out: it's nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote how the Vancouver Sun explains to its readers how the same legislation is to work. Where else do the people of British Columbia get their information? Do they have to wait for B.C. Government News to explain the difference between 10 to 14 or 5? Are you going to blacklist these newspapers for printing their opinions? Are you going to manage the news around statements" The whole bill is a phony bill. The whole thing has been exposed by corridor statements, designed purely for political purposes to incite flames of distrust and hate out there so this government can exploit it for cheap political purposes.

MR. HOWARD: Just like it was done in the 1930s.

MR. BARRETT: It's the same thing.

Here's the Vancouver Sun, page A4, Wednesday, May 12. There's a caricature of Margaret Thatcher — that's not Bill, it's Margaret; same policies. "The public-sector employers and employees affected by the provincial government's restraint program deserve something better than Premier Bill Bennett's outbursts on the subject." That's in the Vancouver Sun; it's an editorial advising the people out there, who must make a judgment on this legislation as to the government's intentions. In response to the Premier's statement, the two major newspapers in Vancouver both had editorials on the same day. When the Minister of Finance is asked about the editorials, he sits there in dumb insolence and refuses to answer.

"Maybe the Premier was suffering from a bad case of electionitis." What is electionitis? I have never once suggested that the Premier suffered from a case of electionitis. I don't even know what it is. I don't know if it's good or bad. Is this a subject for a lawsuit? Is the Vancouver Sun exposing itself to a naughty-naughty from the Premier? "…he would have done himself a favour by restraining himself…" The Vancouver Sun is advocating that when Premier Bennett goes into the corridor he should wear a white jacket in reverse before he opens his mouth. I don't disagree with that "…instead of hurling threats at the very people whose cooperation he needs to make the program any kind of a success."

That was a serious statement by the Vancouver Sun. They are accusing the Premier of this province of inflaming labour management relations instead of seeking their cooperation. Why would the Sun feel that way? I don't know. Maybe we should interview them. "Rather than blame them for the program's unpleasant side effects he should ask himself whether his own government's tardiness and failure to communicate aren't at fault." Listen to this and relate it to your answer to my colleague, Mr. Minister.

"Almost three months after Mr. Bennett announced the restraint program, the enabling legislation still hasn't been enacted, and the regulations spelling out the details haven't even been disclosed. Without any firm guidelines to go by, labour and management alike have had to play a guessing game.

"Mr. Bennett is understandably upset — who isn't? — by heavy layoffs and cancelled services, particularly in the fields of education and health care. The surprising thing is that he apparently didn't see them coming.

"The hospitals, faced on one side with orders to hold spending increases below 8 percent, and on the other with vague wage guidelines allowing for increases of 8 to 14 percent, had little choice but to close beds and lay off staff. The school boards, bound by legal agreements to pay teachers an extra 17 percent but obliged also to live within 12 percent budget limits. have had little choice but to cancel courses and lay off teachers.

"Mr. Bennett maintains that if the sacrifice of restraint is shared around, there is no need for a single job or program to be lost. If he'd been saying that sort of thing; three months ago, and had shown he meant business by calling the House into session immediately to process the legislation, it might not now be too late to prevent the loss of jobs and services."

[ Page 7540 ]

What the Sun doesn't understand — or they didn't get the quote, probably — is that Bill Bennett is still going around saying that he may call the House together. That is a real threat.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're here.

MR. BARRETT: Some of us are here, but I want you to know that there is not a single cabinet minister here to support the minister. He is carrying the can for this program, not the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who's got to deal with collective bargaining; not the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who's got to have the cutbacks to kids; not the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) ; not the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

Listen to this. This is what a leading Vancouver paper is saying on its editorial page. I ask the minister to get up and deny that this is what's happening, or make a statement so that the Vancouver Sun can broadcast the message contrary to what they are saying. I will read this to the minister. Tonight this is going into every home that subscribes to the Vancouver Sun. This is the interpretation given by its research of this legislation, and this is what they are saying; not Dave Barrett; not the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond), who makes a one-word speech. This is what the Vancouver Sun is saying:

"The restraint program is starting to become unravelled, not because of union greed or administrative mismanagement but because of the government's own dilly-dallying and inability to articulate it. It's idle for the Premier to threaten to use a big stick on the public employees when the government still isn't able to brandish a little one."

You and I know, Mr. Chairman, that the whole thing has been a phony setup from day one when we saw the three flags west performance on television. There was the Canadian flag, there was the British Columbia flag and there was another flag — I forget which. Maybe it was the dogwood.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Japanese.

MR. BARRETT: No, it was not the Japanese one.

MR. LEA: The Socred seagull sitting in front.

MR. BARRETT: The Socred seagull over them.

The three-flag performance came out on the 18th and said it was going to be 10, 12 or 14 percent. We had this moderate toned, hair-combed, Ontario-like performance coached by Dougie Heal, stickhandled by Patrick Kinsella, on provincewide television, a written-by-Bill-Davis performance of "We want restraint." Hic! That came after when we discovered what was in the expense accounts. Who was to carry the can but the Minister of Finance? He came in here and articulated what the bill was going to be and said here in this section 1t was going to be 10 and 14 percent. Guess what? The day before we are going to go into committee the Premier goes in the hallway and says: "Psst. I've got a statement to make. I'm not going to make it in the House, in the debate, because I haven't called the House back yet. I might call it back, but since I'm here in the corridor and since I might call the House back this is what I might say: Public servants are facing 5 percent or less."

Mr. Speaker, every citizen out there in British Columbia is laughing at the Minister of Finance today because he's a delayed April Fool's joke. He's been used by the Premier. Now that his use is no longer necessary, the Premier has decided to play a cheap political game by doing some people-bashing. Those prison guards in there who keep dangerous offenders locked up in prison so that we can all sleep safely at night, those policemen who walk the streets to save us and protect us, those firemen who are ready on call, those hospital workers — all of them are being threatened because they're being greedy and the Premier says 5 percent or less. Come on, who are you kidding? You can't explain it. I know how you feel. You feel terrible. I don't blame you for feeling terrible, but there is a traditional role when you feel terrible and you've been snookered by the Premier, and that is to resign.

Mr. Chairman, anybody else that brought in a piece of legislation that was to be the showpiece of the session….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're losing your own members.

MR. BARRETT: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven there's not even a quorum. This is the most important bill of the session and there's not even a quorum! I call a quorum, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ring the bells, hon. member, and see if we can summon members.

MR. BARRETT: Could we have a recess, Mr. Chairman? There's no quorum. How can you ring the bell if there's no quorum?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing orders ask that I write down the names of the members who are….

MR. BARRETT: What standing order says you ring the bells?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll just read you the standing order.

MR. BARRETT: You read me the standing orders after you rang the bell.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Don't lecture the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Lecture the Chair when I ask for a standing order? Don't you know the rules of this place? Why, Mr. Member, you can ask for the standing order anytime you want.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 6 says: "It is common practice, in the absence of a quorum, to ring the division bells and take the names of the members."

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have we got a quorum now?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You'll have one for a while, but not if you keep talking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It appears that we have a quorum. The hon. Leader of the Opposition continues on section 9.

[ Page 7541 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there's another Liberal who's come back for a little while. Hi, Lib, what do you hear from Pierre? You don't see him anymore, do you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Section 9.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to bring to your attention that we called out a word earlier that was not permissible, and now the other side…. It's just terrible!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is very well taken. I ask the hon. House Leader to withdraw.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that if I used any terminology which would offend the hon. leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I totally and completely, sir, withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition continues on section 9.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, it was not me who asked the former Liberal to withdraw. How could I accept the withdrawal from that member when he might be a Tory tomorrow? No one knows where it's coming from.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the accusation that that member is a Tory. The Tories won't have you.

The question I'm addressing to the minister is: would he please explain the confusion in the Vancouver Province editorial and the Vancouver Sun editorial over the fact that this section says 10 to 14 percent and the Premier says 5 percent? Will he please explain that confusion?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Aye!

MS. SANFORD: Is he ever arrogant! He's so embarrassed about this bill he won't even answer the question.

MR. BARRETT: I ask this question on behalf of Paddy Sherman.

MR. MACDONALD: Does he talk to the Premier?

MR. BARRETT: Does he talk to the Premier? Who is laying the ground rules? Does the Minister of Finance agree with the Premier's statement that the public servants are facing 5 percent or less? Do you agree with that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, obviously, under the rules of this House, the debate on a particular section or clause could go for quite some time. The first time the tiring and aged Leader of the Official Opposition….

MR. LEA: That's a pretty bald remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. There have been many personal allusions today, and the Chair does find them upsetting. We should not make personal allusions, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the first time this tactic in committee was attempted by the Leader of the Opposition — and that was four or five years ago — I must confess that I found it distressing. But bully tactics don't work. The question with respect to the section before us was posed first by the other member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and I answered it at that time. That was some 45 minutes ago — something in that order. I simply point that out for the Chair's information and for the information of those members who may not have been in the House or in committee at that time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, may I have your guidance? Have I been a bully to you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Speak to the section, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to know. If I've been a bully, I apologize to the minister. I promise not to be a bully to Hugh again. I will not bully the minister; I promise not to bully the minister; I apologize for bullying the minister. I will never treat him as the Premier does by bullying him and making these statements outside the House while he's got to carry the can in here.

MR. BRUMMET: How silly can you get?

MR. BARRETT: That's a good question to ask the Premier. How silly can you get when you bring in a bill, make a speech and say it's 10 to 14, then go out in the hallway and say it's 5? I ask the minister to tell us if he was told by the Premier that it was going to be 5, and does he agree with it? Do you agree with this statement that they're facing 5 percent or less? Yes or no? That's all. My colleague didn't ask that in question period. I'm asking you this brand new question, without bullying: do you agree with the Premier's statement that the public servants are facing 5 percent or less? Do you agree with that statement? That's all. That isn't the question he asked; that's my question in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: He isn't going to answer. He's going to hide behind the rules.

MR. BARRETT: The House is debating this section, and a statement has been made about this section by the Premier of British Columbia that the public servants are facing 5 percent or less. Do you agree with this statement by the Premier? That's all I ask. Do you agree with it? Do you have digititis? You've been on the phone too long.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Under section 9, this House is asked to pass whether or not 10 or 14 should be the guideline. The Premier made a statement that it's 5 percent or less. I again ask the Minister of Finance, the person responsible for this bill, if he agrees with the Premier's statement that it could be 5 percent or less. Have I asked the question in a bullying manner? Have I hurt your feelings? Have I insulted the Chair? Please, sir, through you, Mr. Chairman, I humbly submit the following question: could the minister please tell the hon. members of this chamber, who are supplicants waiting for his words, whether or not he agrees that the public servants are facing 5 percent or less?

What we have here is proof positive that all the statements around this bill have been calculated to inflame and incite sectors of the public to respond angrily to the government, for

[ Page 7542 ]

political purposes. There is no principle in this bill. It is a bill designed purely for politics based on polls taken by the government. The minister has been embarrassed by the Premier's making conflicting statements. The minister has been left here hung out to dry because of the conflicting statements that exist, and can't even find it within himself to state whether or not he agrees with the Premier's statement that it could be 5 percent or less. You can't find it in you, through you, Mr. Chairman; you're confused, puzzled and left carrying the can.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Wrong.

MR. BARRETT: Then get up and say whether or not you agree with this statement. Will you answer the question? I ask the Minister of Finance whether or not he agrees with the Premier's statement; that's all. Perhaps I'll rephrase the question: do you think the Premier's statement in any way impedes the possibilities of success of this bill?

Mr. Chairman, for the edification of the House, could you tell me what section of this bill we're dealing with?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Nine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 9, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the Minister of Finance for drawing to the Chair's attention that we're both talking about the same section: the guidelines. The minister was able to answer the question quickly: "Nine, " he said, before he was even asked.

On section 9, I ask the minister, whose attention I now have, if he agrees with the Premier's statement. That is one question he has refused to answer. The second question is: does he think the Premier's statements will impede the hopes of success for this bill? He refuses to answer that. Number three: did the Premier consult him before the statement was made about the 5 percent or less?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Is that in the bill? Stick to this section, Mr. Member; you shouldn't be out of order. There is no wife-beating section in this one. You don't even know what's in this bill. You're just mouthing things. Shame on you! The member comes in, in the middle of an intense exchange between myself and the minister — a one-sided intense exchange.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's trying to protect the minister.

MR. BARRETT: Is he trying to protect the minister? I don't think the Premier was trying to protect the minister; I think the Premier put the minister out to dry.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[Mt. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS 28

Mr. King requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. KING: The Premier is going out the escape hatch once again. The Premier manufactures the bullet, then he escapes from the bunker out his little hatch. I have some questions for the minister carrying this bill. I don't want to be deterred by the incomprehensible action of the Premier.

I want to ask the minister whether or not he and-or the commissioner under this act has consulted with the Government Employee Relations Bureau and advised them with respect to the guidelines and any regulations which may subsequently issue under the authority of this act. Could the minister tell me that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the member's question regarding section 9, no, I have not consulted with the Government Employee Relations Bureau. I cannot speak for the commissioner. I simply do not know if he has or has not consulted or had contact with respect to GERB, but I have not.

MR. KING: Could the minister tell the House who is working on designing the regulations under the act which presumably are going to spell out the specific guidelines which now seem to be in some disarray? Can the minister tell me whether the commissioner is working on those regulations or whether his ministerial staff are?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In answering, I do not necessarily associate myself with the use of the words "in disarray," but I will answer the question. Officials who are assisting me in this matter are in the drafting function. They are not within the Ministry of Finance — I do not want to leave the member in doubt — but officials have been working with me since the announcement of the program on February 18.

MR. KING: Would the minister be kind enough to share with the House precisely who those officials are? Are they

[ Page 7543 ]

seconded from another ministry? Are they representatives of GERB, or what is their status?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Those who are principally involved in the preparation of a variety of material — in the issuance and the drafting of the compensation bulletins which have been released and other related material — through the entire program since February 18 are essentially Mr. Matkin, who is known to members on both sides of this House, and Mr. Plecas, who is also, I am sure, known to most members of this House. If the question suggests that officials of GERB have been seconded to me for this purpose, then that is not correct.

MR. KING: It is always difficult to deal with a bill which has received a good deal of publicity prior to its presentation in the House, and which was touted to accomplish certain things, and then subsequently to find the bill, once it's introduced, lacking that detail. Members of the Legislature — and, I'm sure, the public at large — are very weary; they are very reluctant to see blank-cheque legislation passed, simply extending powers without the specifics contained in the legislation. We don't know what the regulations are going to be. If and when the bill is passed, the executive council is empowered to set regulations. The history of this particular approach, this particular initiative by the government, is such that the minister and his staff and the bill seem to be saying one thing, and the Premier, who originally announced this government initiative, is now saying something else. That puts the members of the Legislature in a most awkward position, to say nothing of the minister himself. I'm sure he must be extremely embarrassed.

Mr. Chairman, were I sponsoring a bill, as a minister of the Crown, and one of my colleagues presumed to intervene in the process and place another interpretation on the objective of that bill, I would be extremely upset. I think any self-respecting minister of the Crown would act very decisively to clear up that kind of confusion — that kind of interference — because not only does it put members of the opposition in a very untenable position in terms of not knowing what we are being asked to authorize here, but I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that it places those people who will be regulated by the authority of this statute in a more untenable and indeed completely unacceptable position.

What is the government's intention here? Is it the government's intention to set an arbitrary 5 percent maximum increase now on all public-sector employees falling within the jurisdiction of this statute? That's the latest interpretation we have from the Premier. Or does his previous announcement hold true? It's a conundrum, Mr. Chairman. We have the Minister of Finance sponsoring a bill that is labor-relations oriented; we have the Premier intervening in the process; we have various ministerial employees seconded from other ministries to design the bill. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) sits mute while the intent, certainly, of the Labour Code of British Columbia is mutilated, and then we have GERB, the government's arm that is the authority for collective bargaining — the agency which put out this document, the fourth-draft "Strike Contingency Manual, Government Employee Relations Bureau, Confidential," the document which seems to anticipate some incredible conduct by the employees of this government….

It is a document that anticipates various breaches of the Criminal Codes, both federal and provincial, and it is a document which appends to it sections of the Criminal Code dealing with unlawful assembly, riot, punishment of a rioter, punishment for unlawful assembly, possession of weapons, intimidation, carrying concealed weapons, disobeying an order of the court, offences relating to a public or peace officer, causing a disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, common assault, assault with intent, intimidation and mischief.

Mr. Chairman, I think the members of the Legislature and the public are entitled to a very, very careful and detailed explanation by this minister as to where the government is going with its industrial relations in this province. I think we are entitled to a very sober, very careful, exacting explanation of what the government's intentions are in terms of proceeding under the authority of the bill now under debate. I want to ask the minister whether or not this strike-contingency manual that was authored by GERB was developed in consultation with him and his staff, who are responsible for the draftsmanship and the introduction of the bill that's before the House now. Did the minister know anything about this strike contingency fund?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fund?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KING: Well, it is a fund too. There is a fund there. The strike-contingency plan, in any event. There is a fund also, Mr. Minister, for your information. I want to know, because it can tell us something about what the government anticipates as a result of this bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty relating the member's comments, which were made at length in second reading and outlined and identified by other members on the opposite side, to section 9 in committee.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I'm doing my utmost to follow the thread of debate, and I wonder how the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke who has just spoken relates this to section 9. Being the astute parliamentarian he is, perhaps there is some way. When he gets up again I would like him to explain to me how he can bring up civil insurrection and other matters dealing with labour in connection with section 9. I see nothing about that in this section. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that it is your duty to see that the rules are strictly adhered to; otherwise the debate could go on forever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you're making a point of order, your point is well taken. Do you wish to speak to section 9?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, I am, indeed I am. But I'm wondering if I'm missing something in section 9, and I'm hoping that somewhere along the line we'll be told how the debate can continue.

I rise in my place to take exception to the tenor of debate, as I see nothing in the debate that in any way stipulates what we're debating in section 9. I know the Leader of the Opposition is at his best when dealing with personalities — and his major speech dealt with personalities — but I do not intend to deal with personalities. I intend to confine myself to section 9. I hope the Chairman will not be too critical if I have to

[ Page 7544 ]

make a few remarks surrounding my efforts to explain the points I intend to make.

I will bring to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition the misleading words he said in this House….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. The statement that an hon. member has misled this House is unparliamentary.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The impression that was given by the Leader of the Opposition when he said that he would tell the working people out there who have to pay their mortgages…. Well, this bill does not in any way deal with the mortgages of the people out there; it deals with the public service. And I say to the House on section 9 that there is no problem in the public service. We have a situation here where the public is under strict restraint — forced restraint — and the union bosses are saying to their members: "Fight that government." But their members do not want to fight that government — it's the union bosses who do — because the members out there realize that 12 percent is quite sufficient. And 12 percent is a great deal more than the general public will receive in the next two years. One of the great and important features in this section of the bill is its time limit of 24 months. I'm telling you that that is a prime motive force here, and the debate should rest on that force.

We should not be dealing in personalities. We should confine ourselves to this section, and the section clearly says that the bill shall be for 24 months. The section further says: "The executive council shall issue compensation stabilization guidelines to stabilize the compensation plans of the public-sector employers and public-sector employees." That is clear, and that's what we're debating — a period of time not to exceed 24 consecutive months. These are the things I should bring up to this House.

I'd like to say that when I speak of the Leader of the Opposition, I'm reminded of the thirteenth chapter of Corinthians, which says: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things." I wonder about the opposition. We're waiting for this opposition to put away childish things and debate the issue of this bill.

The public sector out there realize they've got a good deal. When we talk about closing hospitals, there need be no closing of hospitals. There need be no closing of beds. There can be an adjustment. The hospital in Mission — a fine hospital — was able to adjust their time…. I understand one of the large hospitals in Victoria — the Royal Jubilee, I believe — will not be closing beds. These things can be done. But if certain areas of the public sector want to punish the public, that's the way they go about it.

I charge those people out there in the hospitals and the public sector to use some understanding. The people in the private sector are suffering hard — some with no jobs at all — while the public sector is entirely secure. I'm telling you that they know that, and it's time the union bosses realized they have to give up a little for the future of this province and this country. Nowhere can we say: "Business as usual." It is impossible and cannot be done. This section attempts to say that we shall have regulation on the public service — and it's high time.

We've heard a great deal in debate today about what the Premier said about some receiving a compensation of only 5 percent. There is nothing in this section about 5 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: There can be no 5 percent unless it's in the bill, and the bill does not call for 5 percent. There will be no 5 percent — it's a paper report. Many paper reports have not been correct. I know the Premier knew what he was talking about. But these people did not listen.

The bill is clear. The bill is final. The beautiful part of the bill is that it perceives a duration of 24 months and then we'll be out of this depression. We're debating reason and common sense in the public sector — and the public-sector employees want to do it. I wonder why this opposition does not understand that. The private sector suffers today, and some are suffering very deeply. Businesses are suffering immensely. Some that shouldn't be are in liquidation because of high interest rates and inflation we're suffering today.

If this House were to give the public service all that it demanded, it would be 20 and 25 percent. This cannot be — and they are not demanding it. These are reasonable people. I appeal to the opposition to use some common sense. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things." It's high time they put away childish things.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Defence down at the end is obviously having some difficulty understanding my concern. I'm going to go over it very slowly, because I'd like to satisfy that member.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm being sniped at by the gentleman across the way who used to be a Liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you used to be?

MR. KING: Never a Liberal, never a Socred, never a Tory. I always cared for people, my friend. I always represented people, and I shall continue to.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) wonders how I related my remarks to the bill. The bill doesn't say anything about what the percentage will be. The Premier did. The Premier first of all said it will be between 12 and 14 percent if cases for high productivity and historic relationships can be proven — very loose, very flexible. The bill says less. The bill simply gives carte-blanche power to the cabinet to establish guidelines. We're not sure that those guidelines will be the same as the Premier initially announced. But if we had been sure — if we had taken him at his word — we would have been very much surprised and very much confused by the headline in the papers today, where the Premier says that the guidelines have changed: it will now be 5 percent or less.

It's recorded in Hansard that the Premier did previously say that free collective bargaining would go on between the status quo and the previous guideline he'd set of a maximum of 14 percent. He said: "Free collective bargaining will take place." Well, where's free collective bargaining going to take place now? Is it going to take place between the status quo —

[ Page 7545 ]

that is, the existing contract — and 14 percent? Or is it going to take place between the status quo of the existing contract and 5 percent?

The Legislature certainly has a right to know this. Certainly that esteemed elder statesman of the Social Credit Party down at the far end would not expect members of this House to pass blank-cheque legislation. That's what we're getting at. Before we pass section 9 we are entitled to hear the minister charged with this bill clear up that confusion. What are the guidelines? When was the Premier telling the truth — when he said 12 to 14 percent or when he said 5 percent? On which occasion do we believe him? We have to have something to go by before we can vote on this bill. It's only reasonable; it's only logical.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) made some other comment. He said: "You don't have to worry about the public servants. They support us. It's only those labour bosses who are the problem." If all the public servants support you and agree that there should be restraint limited to 5 percent, as the Premier is now suggesting, why bring in the bill? If they support you, you could surely obtain that at the collective bargaining table. That's only common sense. What kind of Social Credit logic is it that tries to turn natural equations around and reach obvious opposite conclusions. They are very adept at that, but the public is not so blind that they are going to accept that kind of claptrap.

Mr. Chairman, don't come in here and ask us to sign blank-cheque legislation. What are the guidelines? Are we now going to have free collective bargaining from the existing contract up to a 5 percent increase, or is it going to be according to the Premier's earlier announcement of between 12 and 14 percent? We want to know. I think that's fair, despite my feelings about this bill, its philosophy, its drafters and its supporters. We've talked about that in second reading, but certainly in the section-by-section scrutiny of it we are entitled to some reasonable explanation by the minister.

If he's being interfered with politically by his boss, at least have the courage to get up and say that. If he lacks the technical understanding of how it's going to work, he has someone here who can explain it to him. Surely out of courtesy and respect for the Legislature, the minister has an obligation to clear the matter up. It's a pretty simple thing we're asking for. That minister has always prided himself, Mr. Chairman, on being one who was responsive to the niceties and the rules of the Legislature. Certainly he wouldn't want to see this kind of blank-cheque legislation passed that simply gives all-embracing power to a cabinet to write regulations in the secrecy of the cabinet room which never come back to the Legislature for debate and scrutiny. We're entitled to more than that. If that minister cares for his reputation, I think he'll answer the question in good conscience.

MR. LEGGATT: I want to talk a little bit about section 9.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Northeast coal.

MR. LEGGATT: No, no. Northeast coal is something else.

I would like to ask a somewhat specific question to the minister. Is it the minister's intention that the guidelines will be established before or after a settlement is achieved with the public service?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is intended that the guidelines will be prepared quite soon.

MR. LEGGATT: Can the minister give the House a date for the establishment of the guidelines so that those who are engaged in the bargaining process have some understanding of whether there will be guidelines before completion of negotiations?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think, Mr. Chairman, that that really was the question asked in the first instance by the hon. member. I answered: "quite soon."

MR. LEGGATT: I take it, therefore, that the minister is telling us that the intention is that there will be guidelines established under this section before a settlement is achieved in the public service. Is that right?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman. The guidelines are out in substance now but have not been formally issued. They will certainly be issued formally very soon. It is a matter of several working days, I would think.

MR. LEGGATT: I would like to thank the minister for being forthright on this. I take it from his answer that it is fairly certain that the guidelines will be established prior to the completion of bargaining. Why is it necessary for the guidelines to be established prior to bargaining when the minister may find a negotiated settlement under the proposed guidelines come down?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wonder if the member would indicate precisely which bargaining he has in mind in his question. I think I know, but the question infers that there is only one settlement to be concluded this year.

MR. LEGGATT: I am aware that there are a number presently in the process. It is clear that the minister's intention is to establish guidelines prior to settlements being achieved. My question remains the same. Why is it that you want to have guidelines before a settlement is achieved when you may receive settlements underneath the guidelines without the necessity of the legislation? Surely from a timing point of view, if the minister is really concerned with restraint, the time for restraint isn't when you interfere with the collective bargaining process. The time is when you find out if you've been hurt by the collective bargaining process. In fact, at this point the minister doesn't know whether his government will be hurt by the collective bargaining process or not. It is a premature bill, and I would like the minister to respond to that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On that point the member and the government disagree. Perhaps he would care to explain the purpose of issuing guidelines after the fact. In fact, the guidelines were first outlined on February 18, then spelled out in general form in a bulletin. As I indicated in answering an earlier question, they will be more fully developed and clarified within a very short time.

Perhaps I could ask the member a question that would assist me in attempting to answer him on this section. There is nothing to compel that a settlement go to the percentages spelled out in the guidelines, so I, on the contrary, don't think that this is a premature bill or section.

[ Page 7546 ]

MR. LEGGATT: It is obvious that the minister has never been engaged in the collective bargaining process at any time in his career. If you sit down at the table and attempt to negotiate a contract and one side says, "We can't pay you more than 14 percent," that is where you begin in the bargaining process. The minister should know this. These guidelines, in fact, are creating more problems than they are solving. What happens, clearly, is that if you happen to wear your union hat and you're across a bargaining table and somebody tells you that the other guys are not going to pay you more than 14 percent, that is where you start. That is part of the process.

This bill demonstrates a fantastic naivety about the bargaining process itself. The minister seems to feel — in fact, that's the way it's expressed — that he doesn't have any power, that somehow anything the BCGEU wants the BCGEU gets. That isn't the case. There is a very legitimate bargaining process that goes on. There is an argument that is made from time to time that somehow public-sector bargaining is different from private-sector bargaining. In private sector bargaining you have two groups in society, each looking at their economic position and seeing down the line that there is only so much hurt that each can do the other and therefore they will come up with some accommodation.

In public-sector bargaining the government has a tremendous whip hand if it wants to use it. The whip hand is simply this: any time there is a strike in the public service there is terrible inconvenience to the public, but the public has tended to blame the individuals who have withdrawn their services rather than the government. Secondly, there is tremendous savings to the government as a result of any strike in the public service. Public servants are aware of this. The idea that somehow public servants are greedy, irresponsible or somehow pushing the minister around too much to the point where he says, "We can't handle these demands, " is just plain nonsense. The nonsense is demonstrated clearly in this piece of legislation which is premature. The minister hasn't yet been hurt as the result of any settlements this year in the public service. If he wants to bring in a bill or guidelines following what look like excessive settlements, that is an appropriate time for the Legislature to look at it.

It's completely inappropriate for the Legislature to look at this section, to buy a pig in a poke. There are no guidelines set. I realize there has been an announcement, but how do we know whether they are going to be the guidelines that were previously announced by the Premier? We don't know that.

If there were some seriousness about the question of restraint, this section wouldn't appear in this Legislature until after a settlement, not before. It very clearly demonstrates the reason for this bill: it's not to save money; it's not to attempt to curtail the actual settlement. In fact, a very good argument can be made that section 9 doesn't restrain the public sector; it encourages the public sector to go to the top of the guidelines and then try to get more.

If the minister were serious about restraint, he would wait until he finds out what the position is. He would then come to the House and deal with the question of negotiated settlements, which may or may not be above what he thinks is a reasonable and fair settlement. That is the logical way to deal with this question — not the way they have done it. They have produced a political bill and a political section. This section is not intended to restrain wage demands. The section is clearly intended to take a cheap shot at the public service, to earn them what they think are political Brownie points. It will not have any impact at all upon the question of restraint.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond within the limits of section 9, but I must ask for the same latitude which was given at the commencement of the last remarks made by the member who has just taken his seat.

I don't pretend to be an expert. There are some members on the other side, of course, who cannot conceive that any of us have been involved in the bargaining process in the public sector. I have. While I cannot claim the years of experience that some would claim, I have been involved at the municipal level in successful negotiations with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, with the firefighters' association and with a local of the British Columbia police association. Please don't dismiss my involvement as simply zero, as was done last week, in terms of negotiating in good faith with employee groups.

The member who has been participating most recently has had experience in Ottawa. I'm surprised that before the member made the statement that formed the bulk of his comment on this particular section he didn't research what occurred during the AIB period. The fact is that the average settlements through that period were below the guideline levels.

For the life of me, I cannot see the fairness of our asking public-sector employees in British Columbia to negotiate in the dark. That is precisely the point that the member expounded. He shakes his head. I hope he reads the Blues tomorrow morning. He will see the fallacy of the point he has advanced, which says to the public-sector employees in British Columbia — and he focuses exclusively on BCGEU…. I would like to respond in a broader sense with regard to section 9. I cannot believe that I heard what he said. To paraphrase, he said: "You negotiate. See what we can work out, and then — surprise! — we're going to give you the guidelines." I apologize for the member, because he's confused. Surely that isn't what the member really intended, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEGGATT: Everybody's apologizing today. I'm going to apologize, because I didn't know the minister had had extensive experience in negotiating.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Not extensive — some.

MR. LEGGATT: But I'm really delighted that he raised the AIB question. If you want to talk about a controls program which starts with prices, then we will look seriously at that. These people in the public service who are being controlled are being asked to pay for products that are uncontrolled, that continue to rise at a rate of 10, 12 and 15 percent a year. Therefore they have been picked on and singled out.

The question of guidelines coming before or after a settlement is a very significant one. The fact is that the minister doesn't want to wait until there's a settlement, because he's afraid the settlement will be at a rate that's reasonable and just and in accordance with the economy. He's afraid that he won't make any political Brownie points if he doesn't move these guidelines in right now and lay the hammer down. It's obvious from the minister's perspective that it's politically shrewd to do it. But it's not shrewd from the sheer nonpolitical economics of the question. By using guidelines he has, in fact, put a bottom on those negotiations. There's no

[ Page 7547 ]

question, Mr. Chairman, that if you're doing anything with regard to labour relations, you'll start with the top of that guideline and try to adjust the government upward. As far as the public service is concerned, they are dealing with the government; the government is their employer. The government has said to them: "We aren't going to pay you more than 14 percent." Well, you know what you're faced with then. You're faced with a minimum of 14 percent over the two-year period in the bill.

I don't know whether that's thin or rich, but I do know that the collective bargaining process will sort that out if it's left alone. Since it's not left alone, we can draw no other conclusion than that it's a bill strictly and cynically prepared to pick up some cheap votes on the backs of public servants. The idea that it doesn't make any sense to hold your bill until your settlement…. If they came in with a 40-percent settlement over one year, I don't know. Maybe someone would look at the bill. I'm not sure. Maybe it's reasonable; maybe it's not. I do know that the salaries paid in the public service are not excessive vis-à-vis their position in society and vis-à-vis other public servants in this country. They're not out of line. That being the case, the minister's government has lacked the courage to raise the taxes to provide decent services in the health field. He is attempting to ride his government on the backs of those public servants rather than, for example, just picking up an additional few points on the income tax, on the capital-gains side. It would have been fair and reasonable to try and balance his books that way, possibly with the sales tax. He could very easily have done it on the revenue side, on the income tax side. Instead, he has singled out public servants to be punished when everybody else in society has been living the life of Riley, particularly those in the upper income levels, for the last three years. That is where the judgment is flawed in this bill and in section 9. He really should chuck the bill until he finds out whether or not he's been burned.

MR. LEA: Yesterday when the minister was making his closing remarks on this bill in second reading, he said he wanted to quote the Premier. He said he didn't have to, he wasn't required to, but he was proud to, and wanted to quote the Premier, and he did. Today he's not quite so anxious to quote the Premier. In fact, he won't even acknowledge that the Premier has made the statement. But we have had the guidelines explained to us by the Premier: a ceiling of 14 percent and, on the low side, an undefined percentage of cut. That is the Premier's announcement. He is saying that the guidelines will be somewhere between a 14 percent ceiling and a percentage of cut in wages. That is the Premier's statement, not ours, not mine.

On the one hand, the government is asking us to pass section 9 without any definitive percentage guidelines; on the other hand, we have the Premier saying that as far as the government is concerned, and I would imagine the Premier speaks for government, it will be a ceiling of 14 percent and a cut — not a low of 8 or 10 but an actual cut — for some employees. Five percent or less to a cut. So we have had two conflicting guidelines announced by the Premier.

Yesterday the minister also said: "We're giving you our figures. Give us yours." He made an impassioned plea. The Premier must have heard it on the speaker, thought he was talking to him, and he came back and announced his further figures. We now have the government figures: there will be a ceiling of 14 percent possible and a possible actual cut of wages of an undefined percentage. That is what they are asking us to vote for here.

Rumour has it that when they were first discussing this bill, the government and the Premier wanted to set it lower than the guidelines anyway, but a wise counsellor — and I think he's within ear distance — said: "No, if you do that, you'll just absolutely incite them and you'll lose your argument. Let's keep it up around 8 to 14, and you might get away with it without too much trouble." As I understand it, that was the advice back to the government from senior staff.

The government said to themselves, "We might even get a lot of trouble if we follow that advice," and don't forget that they're looking for trouble. I don't think there's anybody in this Legislature or anybody knowledgeable and observant about the bargaining process that doesn't know the government is actually looking for trouble with its employees. It's looking for trouble with the labour movement. They want trouble very, very much because they think they can win that fight. They are fond of telling us that it's only the labour bosses in the public sector who actually want a raise for their rank and filers. Their rank and filers don't want a raise. They understand the problems in the economy; they understand the problem with the government in meeting their balanced budget. According to the government spokesmen, the employees, the rank and filers, even though their mortgages may have doubled and they're paying an extra $400 or $500 a month, don't want a raise. They'd be absolutely happy to go home with no raise even though their mortgages have doubled in the last five years and they're signing new contracts with the banks. They don't want a raise. They're satisfied with what they're getting, even though their last three raises have been below the inflation rate in the province.

The minister says: "Give us your figures. We've given you ours." Then the Premier gave us some new ones to ponder. The Premier has announced a possible ceiling of 14 percent for some, and a pay cut by some undefined percentage for others. Would the minister confirm that the Premier has put forward those guidelines to the public — a ceiling of 14 percent and a percentage of cut, as yet undefined, for some? Is the minister confirming that that's what the Premier has announced? Let me put it another way, Mr. Chairman. Does the minister deny that the Premier has set these guidelines — a ceiling of 14 percent and a minimum of an undefined percentage of actual cut in wages for some? Will the minister deny that the Premier has made those guideline statements?

Isn't it strange, Mr. Chairman, that one day he's so glad to quote the Premier, he just can't wait to get to his feet. I used two words that the minister took exception to. Those two words meant sycophant. He was only too happy to get up and be a sycophant yesterday when the Premier was here, but he's only too happy to sit there in dumb insolence today and not admit…. You do understand the word, don't you, Mr. Chairman? Are you asking me to withdraw it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. LEA: So you agree with it then.

The thing is, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has made that announcement as to the guidelines. Now they're all sitting over there, and they've probably gone back to their original adviser and asked: "What does this do to us?" He probably, if he were in a position to, would say: "You've been fools. You've just blown it." But the Premier and the

[ Page 7548 ]

government know better. They weren't getting the immediate fight from labour that they wanted. That's what they wanted. On February 18 they wanted a fight the next day, and they wanted it over the ensuing weeks. But they didn't get the fight that they wanted, so the Premier panicked. That's what happened. He said: "God, if I can't get a fight with a low of 8, I'll get it with a cut. At least I'll get a fight, and that's what I want with the labour movement. I need it politically."

Mr. Chairman, we wouldn't be in this pickle in the province if this government had any economic policy. Do yo know what their policy is, Mr. Chairman? Ask them what it is. Say: "What's the economic policy for the province of British Columbia?" They say: "A balanced budget and a real good climate for industry." That's it. There's no more economic policy. That's it. Balance the government's books and have a good climate for industry. Then, if we did that — and did it successfully — we wouldn't need section 9 today, would we, Mr. Chairman? Or, from their point of view, the government wouldn't need it.

So what has happened? They haven't balanced the budget, and obviously the climate that they tried to set up to have a good economic base in this province hasn't worked either. So what are they doing now, in their failure to create either good economics or a balanced budget? They've gone to the old Socred last-ditch defence: "Let's get a fight with labour. Let's talk about the union bosses. Let's talk about how the union bosses have a direct line into the Leader of the Opposition's office. Let's talk about those rotten union leaders and how good the rank and file are." Are they trying to tell us that there isn't pressure from the rank-and-filers to get a decent living wage when the cost of living is skyrocketing? Mortgages, food, education costs, health costs, hydro costs — all of the costs are going up and up and up. We are talking basically about a trade union which for the past three years has had 8, 8 and 8 percent, which is behind the inflation rate.

It's not that the rank-and-filers want a raise; they need a raise in order to survive. Is there supposed to be some difference between someone working in the private sector paying his mortgage and someone working in the public sector paying his mortgage? Is there some magic formula that the banks come to you if you're in the public sector and say: "Oh, about that mortgage payment: it's not going up. You're in the public sector"? Does someone go to the public-sector employee and his family and say: "Oh, those last hydro rates don't apply to you. You're in the public sector"? When you go to Safeway to buy your groceries, does the manager come out and say: "Oh, no, you work for the public sector. You get your groceries at the old rate"? No, they don't do that, do they? The public-sector employee has the same bills to meet. It costs them the same to feed their family.

Another thing they are fond of saying is that the reason they need the guidelines is that it's not like the private sector. In the private sector, when the economy is down they get laid off. There is a restraint program built right into the economy. But in the public sector that same sort of restraint isn't built into the economy.

So what does the government do? This is the amazing part. As we have a downturn in our economy in the province of British Columbia…. This province, speaking through their spokespersons to the federal government, talks about the need for an economic recovery program. As this government talks about the need for an economic recovery program in the province of British Columbia, they've taken steps to drive us further into recession. Is it somehow supposed to help the inflation rate or help us into economic recovery by getting more people laid off, by having fewer wages in the economy to buy in the commercial section of our economy? Is that somehow supposed to lift us out of the recession? Hardly.

Having failed in economic recovery, having failed in balancing their budget and having everyone know they've failed, they've taken the last-ditch stand: "Let's get a fight with the unions." I would like to hear the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) get up on this section and talk about the Premier's announced guidelines. Is the Minister of Labour happy with a ceiling of 14 percent and a minimum of a wage cut?

Every day we come to work down here and there are people working with us who are taking home $1,000 a month and less. I am being generous. Some of them are down as far as $850, $800. Now the Premier is saying that those people stand a chance of having their wages cut by an undefined percentage — 5 percent or less, I suppose, for the ones who are taking home $1,500 a month. Then the minister comes in here, stands in his place in the House, and responds to this question: "Does he agree that the Premier made a statement that they could come back and give the civil servants 5 percent or less — even a cut?" And what does he say? I think I am quoting the minister accurately: "I don't believe the rules of the House require me to answer that question or any other question." He's right: the rules don't require him to answer the question, but surely his sense of responsibility would require him to answer the question. Surely he feels some sense of responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I would suspect that there are very few ministers of the Crown who, piloting a bill through the Legislature and having their feet cut out from under them by the leader and the Premier, wouldn't resign. I doubt that very much. Is there a minister of the Crown who wouldn't feel some sort of pride in being a minister, some sense of pride in their honour, or a sense of pride that they're doing a good job for the people of this province?

It surprises me, because I've known that minister since the days he was a Conservative on this side of the House, where he criticized the Social Credit ministers — they were out of office at the time, but that didn't stop him. He criticized Social Credit for what they did when they were in government, and he criticized us as ministers. I'd like to hear what that minister would say today if he were back on this side of the House and the Minister of Finance wasn't him but another Socred, and we were asking that question.

I'd like to ask the minister this: when the Premier made his statement yesterday that the guidelines would be 5 percent or less, including possible cuts, was the Premier lying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're impugning the motives of another hon. member of this House.

MR. LEA: In what way?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It cannot be allowed. You referred to a member of this House who may have been lying, and that is unparliamentary. I would ask if you withdraw this.

MR. LEA: I do withdraw. I'd like to ask the minister: when was the Premier telling the truth?

[ Page 7549 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That still qualifies, please. We cannot question the motives or honour of another member. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the Premier has made two conflicting statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That statement is acceptable, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Which one was true?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's again….

MR. LEA: I know you're in a problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. LEA: You have to try and have the rules of the House apply, but it's very difficult when the Premier makes two conflicting statements. Both can't be true. One is obviously true and the other one is untrue. I guess I was being unfair. Maybe the Premier didn't lie. Maybe he's just incompetent. He is one or the other, though. He is either incompetent or a liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that will have to be withdrawn, please. I am sure the hon. member knows that you cannot attack….

MR. LEA: As you know, I cannot call the Premier a liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is right.

MR. LEA: So he is an absolute incompetent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the member please withdraw?

MR. LEA: I do. He is an incompetent, and we have a minister who hasn't got the jam to stand up and call the Premier an incompetent, because if he did he'd have to resign, and he's worked all his life to get a little status.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the section.

MR. LEA: Fine. What are the guidelines? The Premier has announced two different sets of guidelines. All we know is that the Premier announced at one point, on February 18, a ceiling of 14. Now he has announced a pay cut. What we are asking….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and the Minister of Finance please come to order. The member for Prince Rupert has taken his place in the debate and is debating.

MR. LEA: Now we're getting somewhere with an aside across the floor. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke said to the Minister of Finance: "What are the guidelines, Hughie?" He shouldn't have said that. He shouldn't actually have spoken out of turn either, but he did. The minister shouldn't have answered out of turn, but he did, and he said he didn't know what the guidelines were.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That wasn't what I said.

MR. LEA: You didn't say that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I answered "Billy."

MR. LEA: You told Billy that you didn't know what the guidelines were.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I shouldn't have called him Billy.

MR. LEA: Oh, you know what the guidelines are. Does the minister know what the guidelines are? Let's start there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the Minister of Finance not to interrupt and I'll ask the member speaking to address the Chair.

MR. LEA: I wonder, to save a little time, if the minister could just nod his head. Do you know what the guidelines are? Would you care to answer that" The minister won't answer, He doesn't know what the guidelines are; he doesn't know what the Premier said. Yesterday he was so proud to quote the Premier, his little vest was bursting. He could stand up there and say: "I'm going to quote my Premier." Where is he going to go from there? He is already Minister of Finance. Where does he go but down? That's what he's afraid of.

MR. KING: You're unfrocked, Hughie.

MR. LEA: Well, he's unmasked. Did you ever think you'd see the day when the member for Saanich and the Islands would just sit there looking at us instead of answering a simple question? "Gee, I don't know." He's just looking at us, Mr. Chairman, because he is afraid to answer. If he says he knows what the guidelines are, he knows that the next question would be: "What are they?" If he answered that question, he would either have to contradict the Premier or agree with the Premier. He's afraid to do either. Does he agree with the Premier? He won't tell us what the guidelines are or even whether he knows. Does the minister agree with the statements that the Premier made yesterday? Those statements were that the wage settlement under the guidelines could be below 5 percent, and in some cases there could be cuts. Does the minister agree that the Premier made this statement? Is the Vancouver Sun lying? Is that parliamentary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not offending a member.

MR. LEA: Okay. Is the Province lying? Is the Sun lying? Is the Times-Colonist lying? Is everybody lying except Mr. Premier?

MR. KING: Clark Davey doesn't lie.

MR. LEA: Oh, I don't know about that. That's another conflicting statement. The Premier has made two statements, one conflicting with the other around the guidelines under section 9 in this piece of legislation.

Interjections.

[ Page 7550 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the member for Prince Rupert has taken his place in debate on section 9. We'll ask the member to be relevant, and we'll ask other members not to interrupt.

MR. LEA: The government has made a statement through its leader, through our Premier — not just their Premier, but the people's Premier. The Premier of the people of this province made a statement on behalf of our government on February 18 putting forward the guidelines that we would be discussing under section 9 of this act. Yesterday he made another statement pertaining to these guidelines which conflicted with his February 18 statement. All we're asking is: at which time was the Premier giving us the facts?

MR. KING: Is he uncoordinated?

MR. LEA: Is he an incompetent?

MR. KING: Is he discombobulated?

MR. LEA: If that means liar, you have to take that back. I was in no way insinuating that the Premier would ever lie. He might be forgetful. He may be very political and he may bend the truth a little, but he'd never lie. He'd never outright lie. Not that we'd ever catch him, I suppose.

You know, the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province are wondering what the Premier is up to. They've asked what the rules are. "You can't change the rules," they say. We're asking the minister if the rules have been changed. Are there any rules?

Mr. Chairman, do you know what they've done? They've got themselves in a real bind. I'll bet you that the backbenchers wish they were anywhere but here today. I'll bet you that even some of those Social Credit backbenchers are confused today. I'll bet they are wondering just exactly what the Premier did say. Where and when and why? Maybe they know why. Maybe the whole thing was not planned in the cabinet room but in the caucus. Maybe they're all in on it. Maybe they're all in this master plan to try to get a fight with the trade-union movement for political purposes. Oh, they wouldn't do that, these honourable members. But as long as the minister will not answer any questions around these guidelines…. He just wants us to pass it — just pass it. "We'll tell you about the guidelines later." We now have some pretty broad guidelines suggested by the Premier. Even if we were foolish enough to support this legislation, and even if we were foolish enough to vote for section 9, we wouldn't know what we were voting for. We'd have no idea.

They've also put some senior government people in a very bad light. What if they want to go on to another job, and they are asked: "What have you done in the past?" They would say: "Well, we wrote the guidelines for section 9. We wrote the guidelines for the government of British Columbia." They'd ask what they were, and they'd say, "Well, we never actually discussed that. We applied them honourably and with vigour; we just don't know what they are." As a matter of fact, we didn't even know there were going to be any guidelines before February 18. He announced his comprehensive, intricate plan on February 18, and two days later we found out there was no plan at all. Jump or be pushed!

Now that they've worked out their intricate details and announced them to the world in bulletins 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, we find that bulletins 1 to 5 are inoperative. I want to make it absolutely clear that these guidelines are inoperative, and if a hippie comes around, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will throw himself on the floor and kick his feet. Hippie paintings! I think they got a hippie to write these guidelines. The guy had been on a trip for five years. They brought him in from outer orbit to write the guidelines. They don't even have senior bureaucrats. It's going to be hard to get a job for those senior people once they leave here. They'll have to send in their resumes and a copy of Bill 28. They'll say: "But it's blank!" They'll answer: "But that's the job we were asked to do by the provincial government in British Columbia. Blank legislation." It probably wouldn't work in any other province.

Has the minister changed his mind? Will the minister answer any question at all about the guidelines?

MR. BARRETT: Do not bully the minister.

MR. LEA: I wouldn't bully the minister. I'm not going to continue asking this question. Someone else will, though. I don't know for sure, but probably someone else will ask the minister about this blank section 9, and then maybe the minister can get up and quote. But before then, I move that this committee rise, report very little progress — actually no progress at all — and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

MR. HOWARD: I think we should not adjourn until 10 tomorrow morning. I think it would be more appropriate if we were to set aside some time this evening and come back at 8 to discuss a matter which is set down on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). It is a motion that's been on the order paper for some 23 days, and that seeks to condemn an editor and a newspaper in this province for writing an editorial on April 15, which said as follows: "Speaker Harvey Schroeder's weak-kneed and clearly dangerous ruling in the Pat Jordan affair…." They referred to it in that fashion and pointed out that "Mr. Schroeder rejected a parliamentary inquiry on the spurious grounds that the affair was a dispute over facts rather than a breach of privilege." It then went on to make other references in there.

The heading of the article was "The Speaker Speaks Weakly," and as a consequence of that editorial, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, in all his wrath at the moment, is seeking to lay the wood on the Province for having the temerity to question a questionable ruling. He's set to put down a….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, in the stating of the reasons for not adjourning at the time proposed, it is in order not to then embark upon a debate on the merits of

[ Page 7551 ]

that but simply to state the reasons why a different hour should be more desirable.

MR. HOWARD: The reasons relate to the editorial and to the motion set down in the order paper under the name of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, and to a statement that he made at the time, quoted in at least two newspapers, saying that he intended to call the motion, not leave it there as a threat.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: We know the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations not given much authority in this House by the Premier. Maybe he only wanted to set down the motion so that his name would appear on the order paper and he could say: "Yes, I did something when I was the minister." But he did set down the motion, he did say publicly that it was intended to be called, and I think the only thing deterring him from calling it is that he doesn't want to interfere with other business of the House. I am suggesting that if the motion he just moved were read "8 o'clock this evening," we would be able to spend the evening dealing with this threat against the Vancouver Province, and we would not be cutting into the time of the House otherwise available for other public business.

He is going to check with the Premier to see whether it's okay for us to meet this evening.

I would suggest that if there were any vestige of intestinal fortitude or courage on the part of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations or the Premier or anybody else over there, they'd say: "Let's come back this evening and deal with this question once and for all." Don't stand and level an accusing finger at the free press of this province and then hide behind the skirts of the Premier and refuse to call your motion. Come back at 8 this evening. Be a man for a change.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

11 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

For each year from 1971 to 1981 —

1. How many pollution control permits were applied for in each permit category?

2. How many applications were objected to by letter or other representations from the public?

3. How many permits were issued (a) unchanged, (b) modified and (c) refused?

4. How many hearings were held and for which permit applications?

5. After hearings were held, how many permits were (a) issued unchanged in form, (b) issued in modified form and (c) withdrawn?

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

"1.

"2. Except by a complete perusal of the excess of the 4,155 permit files, which would require in excess of 2,000 man-hours of staff time, this information is not available.

[ Page 7552 ]

"3. It is not clear what is meant by 'unchanged.' Applications received are checked for administrative content before directions on publication are given. Some types of permits do not require publication under the Act. See clauses 2.05, 2.08 and 2.09 of the Regulations. The numbers of permits shown in these figures are permits that were issued after considering comments and input from the various involved agencies, the public and Waste Management staff investigations and analyses. Again a complete perusal of files is required to obtain this information.

"In addition to the above categories of applications and permits a number of applications are being processed by staff both in Victoria and in our eight regional offices. On January 1, 1982, there were 302 of these applications being processed. Some applications do not reach a decision making stage by being withdrawn and in other cases becoming dormant due to abandonment. Record keeping particularly prior to 1975 does not cover such detail.

"4. Again the answer to this question can only be found from a complete review of individual files. However, I am informed that hearings by the Director are infrequent and have seldom exceeded five or six per year and indeed in recent years such hearings were replaced by public information meetings held by other staff members who were directly involved in the assessments and evaluations.

"5. Hearings by the Director or his staff are held prior to final decisions on permits being made and therefore No. 5 is not applicable. Modifications may then have been made to an application and an appropriate permit issued."