[ Page 7565 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Seal Cove plant. Mr. Lea –– 7565

Fish high-grading. Mr. Lea — 7566

Oakland Fisheries plant closure. Mr. Hanson –– 7566

Strike contingency manual. Ms. Sanford –– 7566

Mr. King

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

On section 9 –– 7567

Mr. King

Mr. Barber

Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Howard

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Barrett

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In the buildings today is Mr. Raymond Cox, who, with his executive, has made a very helpful presentation to our caucus. Mr. Cox is the president of the Fraser Valley division of the B.C. Federation of Mobile Home Owners. Would members join me in welcoming Mr. Cox and those members of his executive who are with him.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the members to join me today in welcoming more members of the fishermen's union from Prince Rupert, Victoria and Vancouver, along with a representative of a citizens' group from Prince Rupert that is concerned about the closure of the Seal Cove groundfish plant in Prince Rupert.

MR. DAVIS: In the gallery today we have students from Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver, and their group leader Mr. Jonsson. I'd like the members to make them welcome.

MR. HOWARD: In the buildings and in the precincts is the Kildala Elementary School choir from Kitimat, some fifty-five 10- and 12-year-old students who had the pleasure of singing on the front steps of the parliament buildings around noon and again later on in the rotunda. They enjoyed their visit. I'm sure the House will express its appreciation for their being here.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome a visitor from Vancouver, Mr. George Wisener.

Also, I wonder if the House would pay tribute to a very special week in Canada — Mental Retardation Week. Just this morning I was able to visit Glendale Lodge, one of our outstanding residences for the mentally handicapped. I would like at this moment to pay tribute to the staff, the administrator and all those within our services for the mentally retarded in British Columbia, who do such a great job,

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this afternoon is a couple with a very famous name. They are visiting us from far away. This afternoon I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Lee from Kingsport, Tennessee.

MR. BARBER: I will have a guest in the House later this afternoon. She is a singer; she is a composer; she has written film scores and ballet scores. She is a well-known Canadian recording artist. I've had the chance to join her in rehearsals with the orchestra I conducted for the last couple of weeks. She and I are doing a benefit concert this Sunday evening, 7:30, at the University of Victoria in aid of the Children's International Summer Villages. You are all invited. Tickets are on sale now. Her name is Miss Ann Mortifee, a distinguished Canadian. I ask the House to make her welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The guest is welcome. The commercial, of course, is not.

HON. MR. McGEER: This isn't a commercial. It's a wish for the House to bid welcome to Warren Silvester and his fiancé, recent graduates of the University of British Columbia who have come to look at this house of domestic tranquillity.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like the House to welcome teachers and students from Pearson Road Elementary School in Kelowna who are visiting the precinct today. They have advised me to tell you that they have been very well received and escorted by the tour guides and have enjoyed their visit to the legislative precincts.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I hope this introduction hasn't been done earlier. A former member of my constituency before the boundaries were changed and a former roommate of the Leader of the Opposition is in the gallery, Mr. Jimmy Rhodes, a former MLA. We would like to welcome him.

MR. BARRETT: I urge caution in introducing roommates in this chamber. However, I welcome Mr. Rhodes as well on behalf of his former MLA.

MR. STRACHAN: Of course all members of the Legislative Assembly are always welcome to attend dinners and presentations made by various people who like to see us. You know that such a group is the British Columbia Council of Marketing Boards. One of the members of our caucus was honoured the other night by the marketing board people. I would like to present this diploma: "To all unto whom these presents shall come: Greetings! Their Excellencies, the most honourable British Columbia Council of Marketing Boards, mindful of the gracious service of the honourable Gardie, (C.S.) Gardom, do hereby confer the rank, distinction, predicament and title, namely by all persons hereinafter to be called 'turkey.'" To the House Leader.

Oral Questions

SEAL COVE PLANT

MR. LEA: To the Minister of Environment. This morning the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development met with representatives from Prince Rupert in regard to the Seal Cove closure of the fish plant there, at which time the government decided to look into the closure of that plant. We thank them for that. I have two questions around that, though. When this study is completed, will it be made public? Will it be brought back to the Legislature so that it can be tabled?

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's a decision to be made by the committee, and whether or not the committee chooses to make that public will be known at some future time.

MR. LEA: The minister is withholding judgment on that until he sees what's in the study, I guess. It's now government policy to look into the Seal Cove closure. Is it government policy now, either on its own initiative or in conjunction with the federal government, to do a study into the groundfish industry as a whole?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I took parts of that question on notice yesterday, and there has been no change since then.

[ Page 7566 ]

FISH HIGH-GRADING

MR. LEA: Still no policy. The province has the authority, through its licensing procedures for shore installations of fish processing, to rectify this problem in the province. In other words, the province can use its licensing procedure to make sure that high-grading doesn't happen. Under the licensing, the province can demand that fish processing plants will process not only the highly profitable fish but the fish that is less profitable. Is it now government policy to use the licensing procedure, as it's authorized to do constitutionally, in order to do away with high-grading in the fishing industry? Is it now government policy that you're against high-grading and you'll use licensing to stop it?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, that determination has not been made. I would like to say that the immediate concern is the closing of the groundfish operation at Seal Cove. The committee has taken action this morning after our meeting with the members from the UFAWU, and I would hope that we're able to see some results as early as the first part of next week.

OAKLAND FISHERIES PLANT CLOSURE

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the same minister. The plant closure of Oakland Fisheries in Victoria is identical to the Seal Cove closure in Prince Rupert. The multinational companies are consolidating their processing capacity to the lower mainland after high-grading the sockeye and the herring. My question is: why haven't you exercised your authority under the system for buying and processing licences to stop the closure at Oakland and require the processing of groundfish, which are taken by the Russian and Polish trollers in the thousands of tons? Last year 25,000 metric tons were processed abroad,

MR. SPEAKER: This could be a lengthy answer, but I'll permit the question.

HON. MR. ROGERS: One British Columbia vessel, between January 1 of this year and the time it went on its ways in Prince Rupert, took in two million pounds.

I could give you a very long answer; it could almost go into my estimates. The vessels processing fish offshore are vessels licensed to process fish because that fish cannot be transported between the fishing grounds and the processing plants on shore because of the parasitic decay that takes place in the fish. That stock of fish is hake.

On the question of the Oakland Fisheries plant, workers from Oakland met with the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and I have jointly written them with a proposal for that particular plant. We are awaiting a response from the UFAWU to our proposal to them. The operations at Seal Cove and Oakland are not similar. In fact, they are almost totally dissimilar. If you took the time to find out the difference between the two — and I'm not suggesting that you haven't tried to do that — you would find there is almost no similarity.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the plant in Victoria is perfectly capable of handling and processing hake. Hake has a survival time of something like 14 or 16 hours. It could be processed here. There are 300 jobs at stake and you just keep passing the buck.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I heard no question. Was the member seeking the floor on a question?

MR. HANSON: Yes. Has he decided to stop passing the buck and secure those 300 jobs here in Victoria?

HON. MR. ROGERS: In view of the fact that the union has asked for more time to consider our requests, we have acceded to their request for more time and therefore — I'm not passing the buck — are awaiting their reply.

Your other question might be more appropriately addressed through the federal House to the minister responsible for Fisheries and Oceans.

STRIKE CONTINGENCY MANUAL

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the confidential strike contingency manual prepared for the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) prior to the Premier's free-time TV announcement of wage control in the public sector?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if he, as the minister responsible for labour, will undertake to obtain a copy of that manual, and to study its 1930 provisions for labour relations in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The questioner is asking for a commitment.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. The Premier's strike manual clearly anticipates a siege by government employees. It counsels excluded employees to stockpile food, bedding and other essentials to withstand a lengthy siege by striking employees. Can the minister explain the reason for this siege mentality by the government prior to commencing collective bargaining?

MR. SPEAKER: It could be a lengthy answer. Is that okay?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for a lengthy answer. The member made several inaccurate observations. He referred to this manual as the "Premier's manual," which is inaccurate. And I think it should be categorically said that any employer engaged in such negotiations would be irresponsible not to lay plans for any eventuality incurred in the future. There is nothing irresponsible in that action.

You made various allegations in terms of the siege-gun mentality of this government. I think we would be more to be criticized, Mr. Speaker, if such a manual were not prepared for the information of all concerned.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the Premier is the first minister of the province of British

[ Page 7567 ]

Columbia, and that the Government Employees Labour Relations Bureau is a government agency. If the Provincial Secretary is saying that the Premier is not in control of the government, so be it.

Can the minister advise why government officials were instructed in the Premier's strike manual to take licence plate numbers and colour photographs of persons found near government offices during a strike?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The manual is there for everyone to see. If the member has concerns about what is in the manual he could address them to me at any time he wishes. It's there as a matter of public information.

MR. KING: I'm glad the Provincial Secretary says it's there for everyone to see, stamped "confidential," stressing inside that it must not be released to the public.

Can the minister advise why government officials are instructed to conduct surveillance of union members, including eavesdropping and recording of conversations with picketers, conversations between picketers, and conversations between picketers and other persons, and why they will be provided with tape-recorders to facilitate this insidious form of espionage?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the member's line of questioning suggests that this government does not have an obligation to maintain services in this province at all times and to take whatever measures are necessary to maintain those services for the benefit of all citizens of this province.

MR. KING: Pardon me, but I was under the impression that working people had a legal, constitutional right to strike in this province. Can the minister explain why non-striking personnel are directed in the manual to use family members to act as strike-breakers?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Once again the member is inaccurate. There are no such instructions.

MR. KING: I will direct the Provincial Secretary's attention to the specific admonition concerning recruitment of family members contained in the strike manual if he is not aware of his own document.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You said "instructions." That's not correct.

MR. KING: It is getting very close to that absolute dictatorship, but it's not quite there yet. Can the Provincial Secretary indicate whether a training program has been developed along with the manual which will include training in the use of surveillance equipment, including the use of concealed recording devices and cameras?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I categorize that as a facetious question, and I don't think it deserves an answer.

MR. KING: Was the Provincial Secretary aware that some ten sections of the Criminal Code are included with the manual, anticipating such violations of the Criminal Code by provincial public servants as: unlawful assembly; riot and punishment of a rioter; punishment for unlawful assembly; possession of a weapon or intimidation; carrying a concealed weapon; disobeying a court order; offences related to a public or peace officer; causing a disturbance; indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.; and common assault, assault with intent or intimidation and mischief? Was the Provincial Secretary aware that his government, under the auspices of the Premier, had this view of the conduct of public servants in this province?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't know if there is a question in there, but my answer is that I have read the document and I am happy that the member has read it.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

On section 9.

MR. KING: We have received no response yet from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) relating to the intention of this section of the bill. What we have, Mr. Chairman, is a conflict between two statements made by the Premier of the province. The first one indicated that guidelines under this particular bill would range between a 10 percent guideline and a possible 4 percent overage for productivity and historical relationships. Subsequent to the introduction of the bill, the Premier made another announcement indicating that the guideline is now 5 percent or perhaps less, and in some cases no increase at all is permissible under this section. Mr. Chairman. the opposition and the public of the province of British Columbia have a right to know. The minister himself yesterday argued that certainly those people affected by this bill — the public service — have a right to know what the guidelines are.

I find it unacceptable that the minister sits mutely in his place and refuses to answer this very simple, straightforward question: what are the guidelines anticipated under this section of the bill? If the minister is prepared to respond, we can get on with the business of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want the impression left with the committee that in the course of debate yesterday.... It would be correct for this morning, because we had a very limited time. In the course of debate yesterday I answered a number of questions with respect to the section presently before the committee. I think that it is correct to say that the announcement made by the Premier on February 18, the statements which were made in the intervening period in the course of second reading and the responses yesterday are appropriate to the member's question. The member, incidentally, has now left the chamber.

MR. BARBER: With due respect, the minister's reply is gibberish. There is an open and public conflict between the statements of the Premier on February 18 and the statements

[ Page 7568 ]

of the Premier in the last two days. The minister is caught in the middle of this conflict, and he's trying desperately and pathetically to escape from the simple, self-evident fact that this government is attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game — a game which was already fixed and rigged in a fundamentally unfair way against public-service employees in this province.

The Premier has taken another poll, no doubt at the advice of his Ontario hacks. The Premier's poll said that within a narrow range of public opinion you can exploit further hysteria and add to that hysteria by attacking the public service again. The Premier now says what the Minister of Finance refuses to talk about: he says that there's some kind of rubber floor and rubber ceiling, and instead of 10 percent to 14 percent, he is now talking about 5 percent.

The Minister of Finance is made to look like a fool by the Premier. The Minister of Finance attempts to fool this committee into thinking that's not so. This committee will not be fooled by the Minister of Finance and his arrogant and insolent silence. This committee has every right to know whether the Premier's statement of February 18 applies, or whether his statement of two days ago applies. The statements are so dissimilar and are so much in conflict with each other, and the law, as provided in section 9 of this bill, is so inexplicit, vague and opaque that there is no other way to obtain a reply than to continue to press the Minister of Finance for it.

The Minister of Finance, like the Premier, attempts to pretend something phony and unsubstantiated. He attempts to pretend that public servants support him, this provision and these wage controls. That is unprovable nonsense. He has no evidence, no proof and not a single fact, name or document; he's offered no evidence and he's given no proof of any order. The Minister of Finance attempts to trick this committee into thinking that public servants support these demonstrably and provably unfair wage controls on the public sector. The Minister of Finance is attempting to persuade this committee of a false thing — that somehow public servants have accepted the inherent unfairness of this section. He cannot do so. He can't name a name, provide a document or offer a single piece of evidence, and neither can the Premier.

Two days ago, in a simply hysterical performance, waving, shouting, red-faced and almost completely incoherent, the Premier attempted to persuade the people of this province that his own law was somehow no longer adequate to his own purpose. In a hysterical performance in the corridor and in this House, a performance which has confused even the ordinary editorial supporters of Social Credit, theVancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun, the Premier clearly made it evident that he attempted then, as he attempts today, to inflame and antagonize labour relations and the labour relations climate in this province in such a way as to provoke an equally hysterical response on the part of the public service.

Fortunately, public servants in this province have a mature, level-headed and sane attitude toward collective bargaining, Fortunately, they will not, I expect, fall victim to the Premier's hysteria and fear-mongering. The public servants at least have a commitment to mature, sophisticated and grown-up collective bargaining. What does the Premier do? He comes in and flails about like a windmill on fire and tries to persuade the people of British Columbia that his own guidelines are no longer suitable to his own purpose.

A couple of days ago the Premier was talking about 5 percent, or a wage freeze or God knows what to serve his devious political purposes. The Minister of Finance has the unhappy job of trying to pilot this unfair section through our committee, and he cannot succeed. His attempt to do so is peculiarly reminiscent of the Premier's attempt to avoid responsibility during the dirty tricks scandals of three years ago.

We witnessed the same behaviour then as we see now. Day after day three years ago the Premier attempted to stonewall during his estimates. Day after day three years ago the Premier, in order to get off the hook of accountability for the dirty tricks squad within the offices of his own government, sat mute, silent, insolent and arrogant, refusing to answer questions. What does the Minister of Finance do now? We ask him to explain what part 9 means. We ask him whether we should accept that the Premier's press conference of February 18 is no longer operative. On February 18 the Premier made it very clear that the wage guidelines would see public servants reimbursed for their efforts at a rate of variously 10 to 14 percent this year. The bill came in and, sure enough, under section 9, the operating section in regard to compensation, it says nothing of the sort. Well, we don't know if the Premier was misleading the public on February 18, but we hope he wasn't. We do know that section 9 clearly does not inform the public, and once again Social Credit is attempting in a very heavy-handed, undemocratic and politically tyrannical way to ask this Legislature to give it power to make decisions in secret without reference to guidelines as laid down by the Legislature itself. This is typically undemocratic and typically Socred. The party of dirty tricks, Gracie's Finger and the scuttling of the agricultural land reserve now brings in section 9, and it's all part of the same mentality, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are on section 9 of this particular bill.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree. We're on section 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will be relevant to section 9, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: What's fundamentally relevant to section 9 is the abhorrent philosophy which it evidences. Section 9 does not inform us whether the guidelines are as the Premier said they would be — 10, 12 or 14 percent. You watched him on TV on February 18. So did we. We watched him and we heard what he said, and then we heard what he said two days ago. The two statements do not coincide; they are completely inconsistent.

Either the Premier has had a change of personality of a profound sort that requires attention in a facility other than the Legislature, or he has another kind of political game going. Either the Premier was telling the truth on February 18 and meant it when he said that the guidelines would provide settlements in the order of 10, 12 or 14 percent based on various criteria, or some other story has been told in the last 48 hours. We certainly know what story the Minister of Finance is telling: it is nothing. The Minister of Finance knows that he is in an impossible position: he cannot reconcile the statements the Premier made 48 hours ago with the statements the Premier made on February 18. They are utterly, provably, clearly at odds. Either the guidelines are to be 12, 14 or 10 percent, or they are to be the 5 percent and

[ Page 7569 ]

whatever that the Premier was threatening in that hysterical speech of his two days ago.

When you read the guidelines as provided in the statute we are now debating, they make no reference whatsoever to a percentage figure — none. When you hear the Minister of Finance, he makes no reference to a percentage figure — none. When you watch the Minister of Finance, you realize how difficult it is for him to defend what the Premier has done to the Minister of Finance's own bill. The Premier is making a fool of the Minister of Finance by saying one thing one day, another the next, and then skipping out of this committee in order to avoid answering any questions at all.

It is consistent with the rules of this committee, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier could be here to answer the questions himself. It is not required that only the Minister of Finance speak on behalf of the government. If the Premier were willing, and if the Minister of Finance were able, the first minister could come into this committee and tell us what the operating rules would be. He could tell us, in the usual Nixonion way in which Social Credit always does these things, whether or not his statement of February 18 is operative. If so, we will discard all those press releases, all of that TV time, all of that press coverage, and we will so advise our own constituents that the Premier was not to be believed on February 18, but rather he was only to be believed on May 12. If he's to be believed on one date or the other, let him at least say so, and we'll know which one we are to accept. If he's to be believed at all, he has to be held accountable for what he said.

If the Minister of Finance is to retain any credibility as the advocate of this bill in committee, if he's to retain any credibility at all — and he doesn't have a lot left to spend — then he owes it to this committee to tell us plainly, frankly and bluntly: does the 5 percent statement of the Premier as of two days ago apply, or does the 10, 12 and 14 percent statement of the Premier of February 18 apply? It cannot be the same — at least, not to a rational person, Mr. Chairman. A rational person realizes there is an inconsistency. A rational person sees the conflict. If there's a problem that has to be treated at another place, let it be treated. But if we're dealing with rational men, then let's get a plain reply. It is not rational to ask anyone to think that the statement of the Premier in February is the same as the statement of the Premier in May. It is simply not logical in any way at all.

The legislation provides no answer; because it does not, we have to rely, for what it's worth, on the statements of the Premier. The statement of February 18 was relatively clear, and we thought we could rely on it. The statement of 48 hours ago suddenly changed the picture completely. The statement of 48 hours ago threatened, in a brutal, stupid and typically Socred way, the possibility of a mature labour-management negotiation around the collective agreement now being bargained between GERB and the BCGEU. That stupid and clumsy statement by the Premier — obviously deliberate — was an obvious attempt to provoke the public-service unions of this province into being equally hysterical, juvenile and irresponsible. Fortunately the public servants are not prepared to behave in an equally hysterical way. They do not ask that the rules be changed in the middle of the game. They only ask that the government play by open and publicly stated rules. That's a fair request. The public servants have not asked the Premier to change his mind in the middle of the event; they've only asked that the Premier apply some consistency. Is it the 5 percent et al statement they are to believe or is it the other statement? To repeat for the umpteenth time, the law provides no evidence of an answer at all.

The minister wonders why we're being mean to him; he seems to think we are being unkind. The minister, who is in some difficulty in his own riding, has public servants who will hold him accountable for what is going on in terms of the prostitution of the law as it formerly applied — the evasions, as this government is offering them, and the simple lack of candour, as evidenced by the Minister of Finance, who has sat there stonewalling for the last many and, I expect, for hours to come until his strategy collapses and he has to give a plain answer. This is a minister who knows he's in trouble on this bill.

This is the government that wants to restrain everyone but itself. The government of $37.50 bottles of wine can provide a figure for its vouchers when it's claiming expenses but refuses to provide a figure here. When it comes to their own expense accounts the Socreds are great at providing figures.

When it comes to answering questions regarding this section they're not so great. Which way is it to be? Are they going to give plain, candid and blunt answers or are they going to continue to provide, instead, completely evasive responses to legitimate questions by legislators in this assembly?

We have read into the record before, and will do so again, the transcript of the Premier's statement of February 18. He didn't talk about 5 percent. He made it clear that he had allegedly been counselled by those who would cut bargaining to the extent that there would be no wage increase at all and therefore no point in bargaining. The Premier said he had rejected that advice. On February 18 the Premier said he wouldn't listen to the experts who wanted to hold bargaining down to 6 percent. Which is it to be? Was the Premier telling the truth on February 18 when he said he had rejected that counsel? There would be no freeze but, instead, 10 percent or 12 percent or 14 percent, depending on the specific criteria that he laid out?

He was pretty plain on the 18th, and that, at least, is helpful. Although the fundamental issue may be the unfairness of singling out public servants and ignoring the rest of the economy, although the fundamental issue may be the hypocrisy of a government devoting itself to wine-guzzling while trying to restrain others, nonetheless, on February 18 at least the rules were clear. Two days ago the Premier came in and started to impose new rules and guidelines. He came in and tried clearly and provocatively to antagonize public servants into behaving as badly as himself, on which issue he no doubt hopes he can go to the people. He certainly can't go to the people on the issue of health care or economic management, but he thinks he can go to the people on the issue of who governs British Columbia — this place or the trade unions? He is going to try to do a Ted Heath. We wish him luck. It didn't work for Mr. Heath, it won't work for Mr. Bennett. However, that obviously is the game plan, and we, for one, don't accept it because it's not democratic and it's not fair.

When you review the statement of February 18 and the statement the Premier made just two days ago, you realize that something has gone wrong with the strategy of Social Credit in regard to wage controls. To the horror of Social Credit, they find hospitals shutting down all over British Columbia — 161 beds at the Royal Jubilee alone. To the horror of the Premier, the trade unions have not behaved like spoiled brats but, rather, have said: "We will negotiate in a sensible, straightforward and traditional way." The trade

[ Page 7570 ]

unions even suggested that they would be prepared to do so really quite openly. They've made it quite clear what their position is. They only ask that the government do the same. Is that such an unfair request?

Everyone knows how Social Credit in the last six, going on seven, years has attempted to lay the heavy hand of state centralism on everything it does. The heavy hand of state centralism, under Social Credit, has done many undemocratic things. What they propose to do here is demonstrably juvenile. It is like the behaviour of a cry-baby who thought, the first time he tried to bully everyone, he would get away with it; and when he discovers he didn't, he comes back and tries again. We have to reject that and any other cry-baby and bullying tactic that the Premier and his minister may attempt to adopt.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're chasing everybody out of the galleries, Charlie.

MR. BARBER: As long as we chase you out of office, we'll be satisfied. Your own incompetence will see to that. We're so concerned about the people of British Columbia that we're trying to defeat you in order to protect them.

The group responsible for the fiasco of the Ministry of Deregulation — they asked us to take their word on that one too, and look what happened — now asks us to take their word that the unspecified guidelines in section 9 will be fair, just and honourable. Is it the statement of February 18 or the statement of two days ago? They are in direct conflict. The Minister of Finance has yet to provide a candid, blunt and truthful answer in every way, telling us what the government's policies are in regard to wage negotiations. They are required to do so because they initiated this debate. They are required to do so because they put this law forward.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Yes, that's right. A couple of days ago the Minister of Finance was asking the opposition to give them a number and tell them what the guidelines are. We ask you in return to give us a number. Tell us what yours are and do so now. Is it that muddle-headed nonsense of 5 percent, or is it the 10, 12 and 14 percent package? In days to come will there be yet another proposal as the result of the failure, the cry-baby and the bully tactics that these guys are trying to impose in British Columbia?

They desperately want to get re-elected. They obviously cannot get re-elected on their record; they have to get re-elected by exploiting some situation or another. They're trying to create that situation now by provoking trade unions to behave in as juvenile a manner as they are. Trade unionists are at least mature and responsible enough not to fall victim to these absurd kindergarten tactics of the Premier: 10, 12 and 14 percent in February; 5 percent or less in May. The Minister of Finance may think he can get away with it in committee, but he certainly cannot in his own riding. He has yet to provide any evidence whatever of the truthfulness of his statement.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Let's reread your statement on the Ganges sewer. Same speech.

MR. BARBER: You're going to be defeated three to one in Ganges in the next election. If the Minister of Finance were a little less worried and a little more candid he would stand up. If he were a little less afraid and a little more honest he would stand up and tell us what the guidelines are now: 10, 12 and 14 percent in that package, or the 5 percent muddle that the Premier flailed about saying two days ago.

Social Credit — the coalition today and its predecessor before, which at least had some principles — has always attempted, as best it can, to antagonize the trade union movement in British Columbia so as to get re-elected in the middle of some public hysteria. They can, if they wish, continue to try to provoke that hysteria by publishing 1930s style simply disgusting documents telling public servants implicitly that they are expected to commit Criminal Code offences, arson, riot, stampede into public buildings and force barricades to be put up.

Mr. Chairman, what sort of government has such a view of its public servants that they would commission a document of that order? They seem to think it is reasonable, appropriate and mature to deal with their own employees in that 1930s union-bashing way. By the 1930s standards of this coalition it may be appropriate, but by the 1980s standards of public servants and of the general public it is totally unacceptable. There is no justification for that. It is clearly part of the same strategy of silence imposed by the minister in regard to this section which led to what we saw in question period today and what we observe again now.

If they have an honest answer, let them give it. If they have no answer and they're just playing bush pilot with these negotiations, hoping to set down somewhere safe, they know not where, in terms of the final outcome, let them at least be candid enough to say so here. But the silence, the refusal to be candid, the refusal to own up to what it is they are doing, and the insolence of such a government is not acceptable to anyone in this committee and not acceptable, I think, to any public servant in this province.

This section gives the executive council power to issue compensation stabilization guidelines. It gives them the power to do so behind the closed doors of cabinet without any further reference to this Legislature and without any accountability to the general public. The secretiveness is unacceptable. What is worse is the attempt to destroy the possibility of reasonable negotiations between a very important employer and a very important group of employees — that is not acceptable. It wasn't so long ago that this government opposite attempted to impose....

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I hardly think it serves the purpose of the committee for the House not to be in order when a member is speaking. I wish you would call the government members to order so we can proceed with the business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order by the Leader of the Opposition is well taken. I would recommend the same to all members of the House.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, this government some years ago attempted to impose Bill 33. It was a stupid, backward attempt to wreck a climate of labour negotiations that could be mature and productive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

[ Page 7571 ]

MR. BARBER: This is in order, Mr. Chairman. What I'm now trying to establish in the mind of the minister is the necessity of providing an answer to these questions. Considering what's gone on before, we can expect the same again, unless such answers are provided. This section makes it quite clear that this government is not prepared to negotiate responsibly and maturely with its own employees. This section makes it quite clear that they are prepared to go back to the stupid old days of Bill 33 and the stupid old days when they would single out one group of employees for particularly punitive and particularly reactionary forms of legislation. It's not acceptable to do that any more.

The Labour Code we currently enjoy provides a much better alternative. This section takes us back to the sixties, fifties, forties and thirties — it's not acceptable. If the government were proud of the posture it was taking in the current negotiations, they would tell us what that posture was. If they were proud of the strategy they are following in those negotiations, they would tell us what the rules are. If they had anything to be proud of, they would answer these questions. But the clear evidence suggests that they cannot and that they will not, and the reason they cannot and will not is that they're not interested in a serious outcome to serious negotiations. They're interested exclusively in provoking such a confrontation as they hope will allow them to sneak back in at a suddenly called provincial general election. That's no way to govern, and that's no way to bargain.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman — and I didn't want to interrupt while the member was speaking — I heard several references to dirty tricks during the speech of the member who has just taken his seat, and I just wondered what he was talking about. Perhaps he could tell me whether it's the dirty tricks of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) setting up a public servant to steal documents or whether it's the fact that several members of the opposition leave early to play golf. I'd just like some clarification on that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a valid point of order. The member will have an opportunity to take his place in debate if he wishes.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I think section 9 here, as I read it, clearly states that the executive council shall issue compensation stabilization guidelines. Somehow or other, the opposition has tried to translate that into some sort of a coverup, into some sort of an evil intent. Although they make many references to what the Premier of British Columbia has said regarding compensation stabilization guidelines, they make many misinterpretations of what the Premier said.

I would like to suggest that on February 18 the Premier did announce certain guidelines, with the terms as follows. He suggested that there would be a limit on government spending of 12 percent. He did not say at any time that the government must spend 12 percent; he said there will be a limit. Now a limit means a top ceiling. As far as wage guidelines were concerned, he again expressed a ceiling of 10 percent in the public sector. I would suggest that there is absolutely no inconsistency in statements made at that time and this time.

Again we've heard the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) talking about the Premier's ranting and raving the other day. I guess it's a point of view, but I thought the Premier made a clear, concise statement of what the compensation guidelines were about. The first member for Victoria says all this is demonstrably juvenile. If anybody has demonstrated juvenile tactics, it's that member trying to divert attention and completely change what was intended. I suggest that he look at those statements and actually read the fine speech given by the Premier in the House the other day. In it he will find no reference to the 5 percent or to any other figures that he seems to be pulling out of the air, and by suggestion attributing them to the Premier's speech in this House. That is not so.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Because those members in the opposition see everything from a political point of view, they refuse to accept the economic realities of this province. And because they're so politically oriented, they have missed the entire point that the Premier made. The Premier made the point that these were limits — top limits between the figures he suggested. I have every reason to believe, when the regulations come down to back this section, the limits will be in terms of what the Premier has promised the people of this province. He did say — and he has said it clearly inside and outside the House — that we also have to look at negotiated settlement in terms of what the economy at this time can stand. That is a point the opposition members have missed altogether. We're involving the public servants and it's a big political hassle. They suggest we are trying to use the public-sector employees as scapegoats, that we are trying to provoke them into some sort of a fight. I would suggest that they are trying to use the public-sector employees of this province as pawns in their political game. They have tried to translate this into strictly political terms when it is really economic.

A reporter asked: "We've done some arithmetic, and if in fact you try to preserve all the jobs and all the programs in this province in a certain field, that could mean only a 5 percent increase." As I recall, the Premier's reply was: "Those are your figures and it could possibly be so." In other words, if the economy will only stand a less than the limit increase, then certainly the settlement might well be less. The Premier did ask school boards, hospital boards and municipalities in this province to look realistically at what their economic conditions will stand, and to negotiate in those terms. He has simply suggested that there is a ceiling, a top limit beyond which they will not be allowed to go. That is a courageous statement, because no one likes to be told to be held down. I would suggest that if we did have that kind of statement from the Premier of this province, spending would still be determined on the basis of desires, rather than on the actual needs in this province. There has to be some sort of limit beyond which people cannot go.

Section 9 says that the executive council will establish compensation guidelines. The opposition, because they try to translate everything into political terms, refuses to recognize that there is another force in our world which should really determine what settlements are negotiated, and that force is the economic conditions of the times. Employees in the private sector and in the public sector might negotiate wage settlements to the point where we destroy our markets. There's plenty of evidence that we have priced ourselves out of the marketplace in this world and our economy depends on what we market elsewhere, manufactured or raw material. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that if we price ourselves out of that market we are in economic difficulties.

[ Page 7572 ]

I would like to suggest that many of the increases in our society have come about not because of any regard for economic realities, but because we have been far too political in this country. It has been political pressures that have increased wages and prices and other things to the point where we are in danger of destroying our own economy. It is political pressure — not economic reality — that has increased services in this province and in this country well beyond the point of what the taxpayers of this country can afford. In that sense, Mr. Chairman, I say we have allowed political expediency and political pressures to determine the situation that we are now facing. We must come back to reality, and I think we're seeing some signs of this in this province. People are realizing that there is no political party that can always promise more, that can always promise twice as much. Sooner or later, the day of reckoning comes. This is a responsible act by this government to say: "Before we go under completely, for goodness' sakes, let's show some restraint in this province."

It is no wonder the public across this country is disenchanted with government, because government has gone too far by moving into the political terms — making all decisions on the basis of politics as to whether or not somebody else will get elected if they don't give as much. So we have the people fed up with government. Somewhere along the line, governments have to say: "Look, you'll have to make your own decision as to how you vote, but if we're going to be responsible, then we have to take some actions in responsible terms related to the economy, rather than related to the political advantages that may be inherent in any decision that we make."

Mr. Chairman, this act, this section and the policies that have been announced by this government seek to change the attitude of the people. I think the people — the public of this province — are ready to change their attitude. I think they are recognizing it far ahead of the people at the top levels who still haven't caught on to the fact that you can't negotiate settlements beyond what the economy will bear.

The Premier has said.... I don't think there's anything inconsistent — he has said that there are some ceilings. He has also suggested that if the economy so dictates, then the settlements should, perhaps, be even well below those ceilings. I think people have to recognize that.

If I might just refer to this situation where, in the name of solidarity, the unions have suggested that if we all stick together we all benefit.... That has simply meant that the difference between those at the top of the pay scale and those at the bottom of the pay scale has increased. That range has become greater because those people who claim to have a social conscience and who attack people for not considering those at the lower pay levels.... Equality to them seems to mean an equal percentage across the board in order to keep up with economic times. A little bit of simple arithmetic will tell you that that sort of thinking is what has kept the people at the bottom end of the pay scale down too low.

There's only so much money available, and if you take 10 percent across the board in any wage settlement, which the unions have demanded in the name of solidarity, then a person with a $40,000-a-year salary gets an increase of $4,000 per year. A person with a $20,000 salary gets an increase of $2,000 a year. Anybody with a $12,000 salary only gets a $1,200-a-year increase, and that is what has been foisted on their own membership and on the public as being fair. I cannot see that as fair. We could come in with a reasonable settlement in many areas if people would simply recognize.... If they are so socially conscious, why do they not then take $2,000 for the $40,000-a-year person — because surely he can get by on $42,000 — in order to give a $12,000-a-year member $16,000 a year?

It's high time that in this society we took a look at some of those considerations. I would suggest that the opposition members here, in fully supporting and trying to use the members of the unions as pawns in their political games, are doing a disservice to the people at the lower end of the scale. Yet they brag about being supporters of the poor people. Nonsense!

We have to recognize the realities, We have to break out of that straitjacket of thinking that political pressure can bring about any increase that we desire. A promise from a party anywhere in this country with the hopes of getting elected or buying votes will got us nowhere other than into despair and ruin.

I think we should make it very clear that what the opposition has been doing here in this section 9 and in second reading of this bill is that they have been trying to translate — through some histrionics or whatever performance they choose — statements to their political advantage while, at the same time, they completely ignore the economic realities at this time in this province. What good will it do the people in private industry, in the lumber industry, to get a 20 percent increase if that wipes out the lumber industry in this province? Yet we had that sort of political pressure. What good will it do the people in the public sector in this province to get a 30 percent increase or whatever they are asking for if, in effect, it breaks the government and makes it impossible to carry on those services that people need in this province? I am not talking about all the services that people desire. Our desires have gone far beyond reason in many cases because of a good, sound economy, because of the prosperity we have enjoyed. We are not enjoying those prosperous times now, and I think that needs to be recognized. I don't think it is of any help for the NDP, allied with the top union leaders, to then try to turn around and use that union membership in order to attack a sound economic policy that is being put forth by this government,

MR. BARBER: I guess the member for North Peace River hasn't seen tonight's edition of the Vancouver Sun. Wait until you see it. Let me read it into the record briefly, because it turns out that once again a senior official of this government has contradicted the Premier. This is page 3 of tonight's edition of the Vancouver Sun. Do you know who they are quoting?

MR. BRUMMET: If that's your bible, I don't buy it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the member for North Peace River to come to order.

MR. BARBER: The headline of the article is: "Bennett's No-Floor Assertion Contradicted." The byline is Ros Oberlyn; the dateline is Victoria.

"The provincial government's restraint legislation does not give it the power to roll back arbitrated settlements that provide for wage increases of 8 percent or less, a senior government official said Wednesday.

[ Page 7573 ]

"The information, from an architect of the proposed Compensation Stabilization Act, contradicts Premier Bill Bennett's insistence Monday that 'There is no floor' — meaning no minimum wage increase — under the program for employees in hospitals and schools and in municipal and provincial government departments.

"Bennett said he will back the restraint program with tougher legislative measures to make sure that wage settlements in the public sector do not cost any jobs or programs. However, he has not detailed what action he will take or when he will act to stop layoffs and reductions in service that have already occurred.

"In an interview Wednesday, the official, who did not want to be named, insisted that compensation stabilization commissioner Ed Peck will not have any authority to touch an arbitrated settlement that falls below the guidelines for wage increases that will be set out in regulations when the stabilization act is proclaimed."

MR. BRUMMET: Who is arguing with that?

MR. BARBER: Your own Premier did just two days ago. The Premier has made one assertion about what this bill can do and one of his own senior advisers has plainly contradicted him.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Who was that?

MR. BARBER: I am sure you will be making your usual inquiries to find out who Ros Oberlyn talked to. According to the Vancouver Sun it was a senior government official who didn't wish to be named. Do you accuse the Vancouver Sun of concocting that, as one of your employees concocted phony letters to the editor?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, just asking.

MR. BARBER: Just asking. I'm sure you'll be just asking, as this government always does every time there is a leak.

This government's wage-control program is in disarray. This government's political strategy is in disarray. The attempt of the Premier, in that sickening fashion.... They're trying to exploit the magnificent Vancouver Canucks. We know they'll try to exploit anything, even someone else's success. It's yet another attempt to exploit a narrow band of public opinion which, in their view, hates workers so much it'll go along with any attempt, no matter how monstrous and unfair, to penalize them as public servants — a penalty imposed by a government, as has been said before, of wine-guzzlers, that tries to restrain everyone but itself.

The Vancouver Sun tonight makes it quite clear that what the Premier said just two days ago is patent nonsense. The Premier's claim as to the authority of this legislation is nonsense, according to this senior government official. Later on in the debate we may try a few initials out to see if they add up: C.T. and J.M. come to mind. We'll see soon enough, Mr. Chairman, because I trust the article in tonight's edition of the Vancouver Sun will provoke some sort of reply from the government. They have to answer to what this says. If they don't, the Premier is once again made out to be like his government has proven to be in the last six years: utterly incompetent to manage the affairs of this province and utterly incompetent to conduct those affairs in a serious, knowledgeable and fair-minded way.

The member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) asked what dirty tricks I was referring to. Let me answer briefly. That was in order. I know this will be, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it was ruled out of order.

MR. BARBER: Oh, it was in order. He was allowed to say it. Therefore it must have been in order. The Chair is fair and even-handed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will be fair, of course, whether or not the members comments were in order. The Chair is not aware of that. If we can remain relevant to the section, then all debate is in order. The member knows that.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, it's the same Chair, applying the same rules. When they were applied to the member for Langley, I thought that was okay. I only ask that they be applied to me too. Is that okay?

MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as the member is relevant to the section we're debating in committee, that's fine with the Chair.

MR. BARBER: The member for Langley asked what dirty tricks I was referring to. I will list them briefly: Gracie's Finger, the Eckardt commission, the forged signatures on the fake letters to the editor, the resignations and mass firings, the $1,000 bills and the illegal campaign contributions of Social Credit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That does not deal with section 9.

MR. BARBER: If it doesn't, I'm not sure how then the member for Langley, a Socred, was allowed to make his statement, and I, a New Democrat, am not allowed to make mine on the same subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the member for Langley, if he mentioned that, was called to order by the Chair.

MR. BARBER: As a matter of fact, he wasn't, Mr. Chairman. But I know you might not want to believe me, so perhaps you could look at the Blues. However, that's not the principal argument we make. Social Credit's duplicity in the dirty tricks scandal is well known. It doesn't need repeating, except perhaps at the next election.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) to come to order.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if at meetings of the principals' association the member for North Peace made the same statement that he just made now. We're familiar with Two-Story-Jack. Whether or not Two-Story-Tony is going to become another phenomenon here, we'll soon find out. I guess we'll have to ask.

What we're asking is for the Minister of Finance to come clean with the committee and tell us whether or not the 5

[ Page 7574 ]

percent statement of the Premier and the February 18 statement of the Premier — two statements in utter contradiction — can both be operative at the same time. To a rational person they could not be; to a rational person that's not conceivable. I suppose a person who has other dilemmas could accept it, but we don't accept it at all. We want a plain and simple answer to a plain and simple question. What are the guidelines? Is it 10, 12 and 14 percent as earlier stated, or is it 5 percent and whatever as recently stated? That's all. We're entitled to know. We have to vote on the money that will be spent as a result of this. The taxpayers have to come up with that money. The Minister of Finance is obliged to say. If he's not prepared to say, we may just have to keep trying a little while longer.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: I hoped that perhaps at this point in debate the Minister of Finance would be prepared to answer the question that has been posed in many ways by several members on this side of the House. It's a question which I'm sure, if the minister found himself on this side of the House, he would be asking. It's a question that he would want answered before he decided whether or not he could support this particular clause.

What do we have in this province? Do we have legislation and government by this Legislature, or do we have legislation and government by the media, TV and announcements in the corridor? It certainly would seem that the latter is the direction in which we're going.

My colleague from Victoria has read statements in tonight's press regarding what the intent of the legislation was. Obviously on February 18 the intent was that there would be some maximums, and those minimums did in fact become maximums — there was no right to roll back below those maximums. But I'm not at all sure that once the regulations are drafted that will still apply, Mr. Chairman. I think the Premier is going to have those regulations drafted at his whim, and whatever happens to be on his mind the day those regulations are drafted will go into those regulations. It's not the first time the Premier has gone back on his word. We've had all kinds of announcements and promises from the Premier and from this government previously, and they haven't always been carried out.

I feel rather sorry for the Minister of Finance: he's in a very awkward position.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, if you're not in an awkward position, Mr. Minister, why don't you get up and tell us what it is?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have — twice, three times.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, will you do it just once more? I don't believe you have done it since the Premier made his statement in the hall. If you're responsible for this act, then you get up and tell us what this act is doing. If you're responsible for these guidelines, you get up and tell us what they are. Let's not have you sitting here in utter silence while the Premier is drafting new guidelines in the hall. Which are we going by? Are we going by statements in this Legislature or are we going by statements to the press? We certainly can't go by the act; we can't go by this section, because this section says nothing; it just says there shall be guidelines.

The Premier told us on February 18 what those guidelines were going to be; you told us what those guidelines were going to be; now the Premier has told us something else. He hasn't told us here in the Legislature. He just said he reluctantly supported this, and he made a lot of statements which the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) seemed to understand. I guess he's one up on you and on the rest of us, because obviously you don't understand what the Premier said either, or you'd be up supporting it now. There has been no statement since then from you. There was a statement from the member for North Peace River that seemed to indicate that maybe these guidelines didn't have anything to do with percent increases at all, that maybe the guidelines were going to be across-the-board raises. Well now, that would be an interesting concept to discuss. It's my understanding that the present negotiations going on with the BCGEU and the government's negotiators incorporate something of that idea.

Are those the guidelines we're going to have? Is it going to be across the board? We know nothing of what you're proposing, Mr. Minister, just that there are going to be guidelines. If you are prepared to stand now in your place and tell us that this is it, final, lasting and firm — 8 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent, 14 percent, 5 percent, nothing, whatever it is — let's have it.

You must recognize, Mr. Minister, that there is a tremendous amount of conflict and discrepancy in the statements that have been made both inside and outside this House. You have a responsibility as Minister of Finance to clarify that, not just for members of this Legislature but for all the citizens of British Columbia, not least of which are the citizens who reside in your own constituency, many of whom work in the public service. You have a responsibility to clarify what you're talking about in section 9.

This is one of the pitfalls we get into when we have this kind of all-encompassing, wide-open legislation. And once again I find myself here saying this very same thing, that this is government by cabinet — closed government — everything by regulation, nothing in the legislation. Again and again it happens with this government.

I'm surprised at that Minister of Finance. I had a lot of respect for him when he sat on this side of the House. Certainly I had a lot of respect for him when he was the mayor of Saanich; he was a responsible, community-minded individual. I find it very surprising to have him sit so quietly and refuse to answer. Has he been told not to answer? Is the Premier going to come up with another idea? Perhaps he's afraid to answer; perhaps at the time he's answering here telling us one thing, the Premier is out in the hall saying something else. Is that where they're at? Is that the situation? Is the minister going to get up and tell us once and for all what the guidelines are, and settle this confusion? When he tells us that, then we'll be prepared to move on to another section of this bill.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, at one point the minister said he had answered the question that I asked yesterday, but he has not answered the question. So I'm just going to ask him one or two simple questions at this time, because I hope that he will be forthcoming with the committee — meagre as the committee appears to be at the present time.

[ Page 7575 ]

The sequence of events was a telecast by the Premier on February 18, and we'll leave that by itself. Then we had the introduction of Bill 28, and on second reading, the Minister of Finance gave a very neat description of the guidelines. It has been read into the record, and it is in the record. He was very forthcoming and fair with the House. He said: "There will be free collective bargaining, but at a certain point, which could be between 10 and 14 percent, there could be rollbacks as a result of the guidelines we are promulgating."

The day before the Minister of Finance wound up the second reading debate, the Premier intervened with a speech which talked about the guidelines in the House, and which was totally at variance with what the Minister of Finance was saying. He made it more confusing for the people of this province by speaking in the corridor where he mentioned the 5 percent in public.

As if nothing had happened whatsoever, the Minister of Finance wound up the second reading debate on Bill 28 the next morning, and he repeated in that speech that we had guidelines — in fact, he challenged the opposition, and said: "Well, what are your guidelines? We have been fair and forthcoming with the people of the province. What are your guidelines?"

I'm asking the Minister of Finance whether he will stand up in the committee and tell us whether the statements that he made as Minister of Finance, in charge of the bill, opening second reading and closing second reading debate are still operative. Can the people that are concerned — and there may be some 200,000 people, not to mention the whole public of the province — rely on the words of the Minister of Finance when he was opening and closing the second reading debate? Are those words still operative? Mr. Minister of Finance, do you stand by what you said in that debate? I wonder if you heard my question? It's a very simple one. Do you still stand by those words that you used in the opening and closing of the debate?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the matter has been very thoroughly canvassed in second reading as the member observed — and I thank him for his kind remarks with respect to the statements which were made. I may not have answered the question to the political satisfaction of some members opposite, but I have answered the question on a number of occasions yesterday and today. If it's necessary, I'm in no hurry. If you want to take longer with section 9....

MR. MACDONALD: Do you stand by your words?

HON. MR. CURTIS: If you want to take longer with this particular section than is usually the case, that's fine. We've been through that before. I have attempted to assist the committee to the best of my ability — not only the House in second reading, but the committee in prior discussion. The one point that does disturb me is the inference that I'm sitting here absolutely mute, Mr. Chairman, because I'm not. One member of the official opposition who has not been in the House since, as a matter of fact — the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) — put some questions to me, and I answered them in the kind of interchange which usually occurs in committees. I don't know how often I have to say that which was said earlier.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Finance of the province of British Columbia has got to his feet.... I asked him a very simple question — can the people rely on what he said in the opening and closing of the debate on second reading of this bill? — and he's refused to answer the question of whether those words still can be relied upon by the public-sector employees and by the people of the province.

MR. HOWARD: Why do you refuse to answer?

MR. MACDONALD: The minister says he is answering questions, but you've seen a particular example, in terms of a very simple question, of where the minister refused to answer my question. He skipped all around it. I think it's a.... I don't want to raise my voice and get excited about it, but my goodness, is there a breakdown in government in the province of British Columbia?

The Minister of Finance talks about Allan MacEachen. He has had a lot of trouble with the budget. It self-destructed in the course of its way through the House of Commons. But this bill that is being introduced by the Minister of Finance is self-destructing. He has had the Premier wing in — obviously, I suppose, without consulting his own Minister of Finance, his political operatives who come from Ontario, his polls, the flight of birds and the viscera of animals or whatever else he consults — and humiliates and repudiates the Minister of Finance. We disagree with what the Minister of Finance was saying about his 10 to 14 percent and how he had expressed these guidelines: "Free collective bargaining up to that point, but after that be careful. There will be restraint." We disagree with that. We were going to vote against the bill, but for the minister to be repudiated, as he has been, by the Premier of the province.... Is what you said still operative? Can the people rely upon it? We are still debating the same bill in the same legislature. He refuses to answer. Not only will the Minister of Finance not express what the Premier has said and say he agrees with that, but he won't even answer whether people can still rely on his words.

I ask you again, Mr. Minister of Finance: can the people of the province of British Columbia rely upon the words you yourself used in the second reading debate on this bill? It is a very simple question and if you answer that then we are away. Can they rely on what you said? Is that the situation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Is the hon. member inferring otherwise? That is the inference.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Then the hon. member is accusing me of misleading the House in earlier debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the minister rising on a point of order regarding the statement of the second member for Vancouver East?

MR. MACDONALD: I wonder if we have ever had a situation where a Minister of Finance — who is supposed to know what he is doing and also is supposed to not be interfered with by the Premier in the course of his introduction of an important bill, with financial implications for 200,000 employees and the public generally — refuses to answer the simple question as to whether his words can be relied upon, the words he used which are transcribed in Hansard. He won't answer because he is being interfered with by the

[ Page 7576 ]

Premier. I find that a most extraordinary situation in a democracy. If the Minister of Finance said, after the Premier's statement, "I'm now going to amend what I said on second reading," we would say, "That proves you don't know what you were doing," but at least we would have answers. But the Minister of Finance hasn't said that. I think we have to go out into the province and tell people that they've got a government out of control and in disarray, and that when you ask them in the committee stage of a bill whether what they've said in second reading can be relied upon there is no answer forthcoming.

The minister has been saying in this debate that he has been answering these very simple questions. That is simply not true. I've looked at the Blues, and I've listened to his answers today. It is simply not true. On an important financial bill the Minister of Finance refuses to answer simple questions in committee. He dodges them. He is figure-skating all around them, but he doesn't answer the simple question. I've made mine one that could scarcely be expressed more simply: can the people rely on what you said on second reading? No answer to that very simple question. That minister should resign. I think he presented the bill in good faith, but he has been repudiated and humiliated by the Premier of the province, who is playing the worst kind of confrontation politics with labour. The Minister of Finance, if he has any respect for his very distinguished position.... Ministers of Finance like Jones, long ago in the province of British Columbia, would not have taken that kind of thing. They would have said: "No, this is my bill. I'm not going to be forced into the humiliating position where I can't even answer simple questions as to whether the words I used can be relied upon." You should not take that kind of thing. If you cannot answer those simple questions you have no right to be Minister of Finance in the province of British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to ask the minister a question: by what authority does he decide that he has the right to refuse to answer questions in committee? I wonder if the minister could advise the committee what his authority is for refusing to answer questions in the committee.

There's another refusal to answer the question.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order with you now about this blatant refusal to respond to legitimate questions in the House and use, if I could, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia by one George MacMinn. In this book, which was produced this past year, Mr. MacMinn points out that under standing order 47.... This is the first edition, under page 69, chapter 4, "Questions, Standing Order 47." I have to read the whole thing to get my point of order across to you, Mr. Chairman. It says:

"(1) Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; and from other members relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any such question no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any fact stated. And in answering such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated, and the substance of all replies made by ministers of the Crown to questions put to them shall be in writing and handed to the Clerk of the House, and entered in the journals of the session."

Part 2 says that if in the opinion of Mr. Speaker one of these written questions is of such a nature to require a lengthy reply, he can do certain things. Part 3 says that if the question is of such a nature that in the opinion of the minister it requires a return, he can do that.

Further down on that page, after the quotation of standing order 47, Mr. MacMinn refers to certain rules applicable to questions with respect to standing order 25 — and that's the oral question period. Following on pages 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75, there is a whole list of positions with respect to the asking and the answering of questions, all of which relate to standing order 47, which confines itself specifically to questions on the order paper. No reference whatever is made in standing order 47 or in any other standing order or in any rules.... The rulings that are cited relate to standing order 47, and there is no opportunity in committee on a bill, especially a finance bill, for the minister to refuse to answer. I submit that it's within the authority of the Chair, given what I have put forward to you now, for the Chair to order the minister to answer those questions, and I ask you to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The submission made by the member is an interesting one.

However, it would be very difficult for the Chair, under standing order 47, which the member refers to in dealing with questions on the order paper, to transfer that same responsibility or authority to our committee, during which time any member has the right to ask a question of a minister of the Crown, but there is nothing that compels the minister to respond to that particular question if the member being asked the question decides not to answer.

MR. HOWARD: Well, you and I disagree, Mr. Chairman. Standing order 47 is the one I referred to. Standing order 25 relates to oral question period. Nowhere in our standing orders is there a provision which permits the minister, in committee on a bill, to refuse to answer a question. That's the point I'm making, and the minister is refusing. The rulings that are contained in the MacMinn edition of our proceedings, with respect to that opportunity for a minister to refuse to answer a question, are all under standing order 47 and all relate to written questions. I submit that that is the only force that exists behind which a minister can hide and refuse to answer a question. I submit to you that he is required — he's obligated — to answer questions put to him in committee on a bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To put the matter to rest, hon. member, the Chair will rule that the minister cannot be required by the Chair or by any standing order to answer a question in committee. It has been a long-standing practice of this House that questions may be taken.... Confusing this with question period, for example, or questions on the order paper, the minister has the same responsibility as at that time, and he may or may not answer the questions which are placed on the order paper. The Chair cannot compel an hon. member to answer a question from another hon. member in the House.

MR. HOWARD: Then obviously I consider your ruling to be completely contrary to what the standing orders say, and it must be challenged.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is challenging the ruling of the Chair. There is no debate, hon. members.

[ Page 7577 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee the ruling of the Chair was challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 21

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

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

On section 9.

MR. HOWARD: We have just witnessed complete denial of democracy today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member clearly is reflecting on a vote in the House, and I would ask him to return to section 9.

MR. HOWARD: Not the vote, Mr. Chairman, because if I were to do that I would follow it up with a motion to rescind it. I am sure we would lose that because of the arrogance of this government over here. That is what I am talking about: a government and a Minister of Finance not content to bring in one of the most insidious pieces of dictatorship legislation that this Legislature has ever seen has just now stood up and supported his right to refuse to answer questions about it. It is a heinous thing to do.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Order!

MR. HOWARD: What is the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations gargling about? Did we interrupt your afternoon siesta?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We are on section 9.

MR. HOWARD: That is exactly what I was talking about, Mr. Chairman — section 9. Let's look at what it says. A member on the government's side obviously didn't have the foggiest idea what this section was all about when he talked about regulations, because this section, which is the nuts and bolts of this particular piece of dictatorship legislation, doesn't talk about regulations at all. This is not the normal piece of order-in-council stuff. This is not the opportunity to make law. This is an executive council decision. It doesn't have to be published. It doesn't have to be gazetted as orders-in-council have to. It doesn't have to be written down and documented anywhere. as regulations have to be under the Regulation Act. It doesn't have to be put in any form whatever where the general public can see what has happened.

An executive council decision, under this section, was engaged in and made the other day by the Premier outside in the corridor. He is the president of the executive council. The Premier didn't even have the common decency and courtesy of normal human beings to come in the House and make the statement. Instead, in his hysteria, outside in the corridor for some ulterior purpose, he made an executive council decision. He issued the guidelines outside, and now the poor Minister of Finance has been caught in the position of misleading this House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the member opposite who has just taken his seat is accusing me of having misled the House, and I would ask him to withdraw.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please hon. members. We are on a point of order. The minister has found a remark made by the member for Skeena to be offensive to the minister, and I would ask the member for Skeena if he would withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. Somehow or other that eggshell sensitivity of the minister is so fragile that he can afford and enjoy being trampled all over by the Premier, but upset at the very mild suggestion that the Premier put him in the position of saying something in this House, on his honour as a gentleman, which the Premier outside in the corridor repudiated. That's what happened exactly, and the minister feels upset about that. If he didn't mislead the House, what did he do? He told this House something on his honour as a gentleman, and the House accepted it. He stood in his place in this House and said a certain thing, and the House, under the rules, is obliged to accept his statement as being correct and factual. When I tried to use a word to describe that statement of the minister, he got so excited about it that he wanted me to withdraw. He felt it was incorrect and I did. But the person he should be asking to withdraw statements is the Premier. He shouldn't be coming into this House and asking hon. members here to withdraw statements about misleading. If anybody has misled anybody, it's the Premier — outside the House. He has not even the courage, the intestinal integrity, to come in here and make the comment where he could be questioned about it.

Interjection.

[ Page 7578 ]

MR. HOWARD: Well, he didn't come in for the vote. He ducked the vote, the Premier did. That's his choice, if he doesn't carry out his responsibilities in that way.

The point I want to get to, Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Finance's absolute refusal to pay attention to one of the basic tenets of democracy in the Legislature. He's clearly asking this Legislature to give him some authority, to give the minister and the executive council some authority. He won't tell us what authority he wants. He wants the blank-cheque approach. He tells us it's 10 percent. The Premier, outside, says no, it's 5 percent or less. Somebody in the public service, a high government official, says today "Oh, no, it's not 5 percent or 10 percent. It's somewhere between 8 and 14 percent."

With those three conflicting statements, Mr. Chairman, I would submit to you that the Minister of Finance, if he had any perception and understanding of the dignity of our history in this parliamentary system, would forthwith toss in the towel, quit and hand in his resignation. For any minister to be so denigrated and humiliated by his own Premier, the hit-and-run driver who runs out in the corridor to humiliate the minister, because he doesn't want to stand by him and see the embarrassment.... The minister sits here, gentle and calm, proceeding along as if nothing had happened, making a mockery out of the history we have in this Legislature, out of our parliamentary system — a parliamentary system that people in another land fought for and died for over the centuries, a parliamentary system that we inherited without turning a wheel to do it, without struggling to attain anything. Maybe that force of history and the depth of the integrity of those people in the past is beyond the minister's comprehension. If they were within it, he wouldn't have stood for a moment to have his first minister go outside the House and humiliate the minister himself.

What more can one say? He refuses to answer questions. He wants supreme authority to issue guidelines, if he hasn't done it already, not by way of regulation or order-in-council or by the force of law, but simply by a telephone call or a whispered conference in the corridor — telling nobody what they are or what they are likely to be. He's asking for powers and authorities awesome in nature.

Never before in the history of this Legislature, so long as the province of B.C. has been in existence, has a government come to the House and asked for such authority and power, for such dictatorship authority. I used a word the other day describing a political philosophy that was espoused and enunciated by the late Benito Mussolini as being applicable to this particular piece of legislation. I can not do otherwise than to say the same thing today. I can see the minister sitting, chortling and enjoying it all. I suppose if one enjoys the prospect of being a czar or a commissar with authority over people in the public service to do with them as he wishes, then that's fitting for someone who sold out his own party a few years ago. It doesn't improve the stature of the minister in this House; it doesn't improve the stature of the minister or his government in the eyes of the public to use the feeble excuse of an election ploy developed by the Kinsella-Heal crowd for the February 18 television broadcast, and then transform it into a power grab — not to deal with the public service, but simply to take unto itself greater and greater authority. It's a most disgusting piece of legislation, and section 9 is the most disgusting part of it.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I find it absolutely incredible that the minister is so insensitive and so contemptuous of the rules of parliament that he sits in stunned silence and refuses to answer and explain the legislation which he has the duty to pilot through this Legislature. If the minister is not prepared to answer, then the Legislature becomes a redundant instrument; indeed democracy is tarnished to the point that it's redundant for citizens throughout the length and breadth of this province to elect representatives to come down here and debate the wisdom or the weakness of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, that aspect has already been canvassed in committee, and whether the minister is or is not replying is a matter which has already been dealt with. I must ask the member to return to the specifics of section 9.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not reflecting on the vote; I am simply trying to persuade the minister that he has an obligation to be forthright and forthcoming with the Legislature. I'm quite aware of what the ruling was, and although I violently disagree, I'm not reflecting on that aspect at all. I am simply doing my best to persuade the minister that in the best traditions of both democracy and parliamentary precedent he take some notice of the need to explain the government's intentions rather than simply ask for carte blanche, for blank-cheque legislation which gives unrestricted power to the cabinet to sit in secrecy and to develop guidelines which will then be enforced on a wide sector of people in the province of British Columbia without debate, without any intimation to those affected by it of what those guidelines may be, how they're developed. This just smacks of the worst kind of tinpot dictatorship, Mr. Chairman. I certainly am not prepared to allow the minister to sit there and try to outwait the opposition in the hope that we will tire and this kind of unacceptable, blatant dictatorship-oriented legislation will pass the House.

Mr. Chairman, maybe in an attempt to pry loose the minister's tongue I can ask him this question: what is the minister's view of the applicability of section 9 in the event that an arbitrated settlement of any collective agreement in the public sector takes place? Is it the minister's intention that section 9 will give the cabinet and their commissioner the legal power to override an arbitrator's ruling in this respect? I'd appreciate that answer from the minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I've not been on my feet for some little time. I indicated earlier that I had answered generally the same question on a number of occasions — and I think Hansard will show that — commencing with the member for Vancouver East earlier.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not true.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, a member across interjects, "Not true," but I have answered the question. I was asked earlier if the remarks made in second reading were still valid. I pointed out that if they were not I certainly would not be here, because I would have been misleading the House.

Mr. Chairman, I may not be answering the questions posed in this committee by the members of the New Democratic Party to their political satisfaction, but I am attempting to assist the committee and answer those questions which are appropriate to this section. We've heard some rhetoric on the

[ Page 7579 ]

other side. We've heard the usual personal attacks. I want to stay on section 9 for as long as is necessary, but I will not be bullied into answering questions which have been answered before in this committee.

MR. HOWARD: Poor little fellow!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Not poor little fellow at all. But bully tactics won't work in this chamber. God save us if they ever did, Mr. Chairman. You speak about democracy. You speak about accountability. One speaks about a variety of things. I'm not satisfying them politically, but I am here to serve the committee, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bullying works in cabinet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. If one member speaks at a time it does permit us to enter into a reasonable debate in this chamber.

MR. KING: I was always under the impression that parliament had as its objective free, democratic debate, certainly with a conflict and a clash of ideas. That's the whole essence of parliament. But for the minister to construe from that flow of free, democratic debate that he is being bullied further displays the bunker mentality of this government. This government is demanding unassailable powers in this bill without explanation. They are demanding the right to preside over the economic destiny of workers in this province without debate and without public scrutiny and in the secrecy of a cabinet room. The minister has not answered the questions pertaining to what his intentions are. What are the levels of the guidelines? Is this bill going to override arbitrated settlements? They're pure and simple questions. If the minister feels that they are politically dangerous, that's not my fault.

The reason I asked the last question regarding whether section 9 overrides arbitrated settlements is for a specific purpose. I'll explain it to the minister. In his speech here the other day the Premier indicated and, in fact, appealed to arbitrators to be cognizant of the government s restraint program. A principle of industrial relations has always been that governments do not attempt to interfere with the impartiality of arbitrators or referees who are making adjudications. The Premier said: "Mr. Arbitrator, you listen to the government. You arbitrate according to our guidelines and our philosophy or else!"

What kind of heavy-handed, all-embracing dictatorship do we have here to make these kinds of statements outside the Legislature — and inside as the Premier did — in total conflict with what we were told was the purpose of this bill and the guidelines set? Then to sit there and stonewall in mute, dumb silence is an insult to the Legislature and to every citizen in this province.

Mr. Chairman, one of the members down there who likes to think of himself as somewhat of a maverick previously told the Premier to pull up his socks and start listening to the people of the province or he might be impelled to leave that coalition and sit as an independent. I respected the member for that. It took some courage. If ever there was a time that the Premier and this particular minister should pull up their socks and develop some sensitivity to the people's interests and needs, to the traditions of parliament and to ministerial responsibility to be accountable, now is the time.

We're not trying to bully the minister. I have nothing personal against the minister — in fact, I seldom think of him. I have some feeling for him. I know that he's embarrassed. I know that it's embarrassing and I know that it's demeaning and I know that it's tough on one's self-image when he is cut down from the lips of his own leader. When his own leader — the president of the executive council, the Premier of the province — cuts the ground out from under his Minister of Finance by appearing to give the lie to the purpose and the intent of the bill, that must be pretty traumatic. The minister's first obligation, above his partisan politics, is to his ministerial responsibility and to the rules of Parliament. He should be accountable, and he should answer the questions that are put to him in good faith. They're not very difficult questions, Mr. Minister, not very difficult at all.

What are the guidelines? Are they, as the Premier stated on February 18, a basic 10 percent with provisions for escalation of 2 percent for productivity and an additional 2 percent for historic relationships? Those were the original criteria. That was the basis upon which this bill was introduced into the Legislature. After its introduction, the Premier said: "No, the ground rules have changed. The provisions will now be 5 percent, and in some cases less. In some cases, those guidelines will result in a cut in existing salary standards." The question is not whether we agree or disagree with those standards. The question is simply: What are your intentions? What are the provisions?

When the Social Credit Party was in opposition it would never have stood for the New Democratic Party's passing blank-cheque legislation — never! And they shouldn't have. The New Democratic Party government in the early seventies never came before the House with a bill like this. It's a blank cheque, an attempt to assume the most awesome, far-reaching powers imaginable. It's a blank cheque to write their own ticket in the secrecy of the cabinet chamber.

The issue is not whether we agree or disagree with whatever level they establish. We debated that in second reading. The issue is the right of people to know. It's ironic that the minister himself got up yesterday and said that in fact the parties to the bargaining have a right to know what the guidelines are. It was uttered from his own mouth yesterday. Follow up, give effect and give truth to your stated position, and answer the questions. That's all we're asking. Perhaps the minister feels bullied by that; if he can't stand the heat, he had better get out of the kitchen. I suppose the radio didn't talk back to him too much when he was on radio. Maybe he finds this institution, which has its origins in the clash of ideas, not to his liking. That smacks of someone who doesn't understand or relate to democratic free exchanges of debate in the Legislature. Maybe he doesn't like it, Mr. Chairman, but we're not prepared to surrender the traditions of this Legislature to the whim of that minister or anyone else.

MR. LEGGATT: I want to take the minister back again to section 9: "The executive council shall issue compensation stabilization guidelines to stabilize the compensation plans of the public-sector employers and public-sector employees." Under (a), it says: "a period of time, not to exceed 24 consecutive months, when the limitations on increases in compensation are to apply...." Can the minister give us the dates of expiry for the existing collective agreements on those employees who are affected by this particular piece of legislation? I would hope the minister has that information available. It would be useful for the House to know how long

[ Page 7580 ]

this 24-month period is going to be. It could be a very long time if, for example, a negotiated settlement has just taken place in any of these bargaining units contemplated by the statute. Could the minister give us some idea as to the dates of expiry with regard to collective agreements covered under the provisions of the act?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't have those readily at hand, although obviously members would know of some. It is July 31 in the case of the BCGEU. I can bring them to the committee. The rest would be a matter of public record. I simply don't have them immediately available to me. We could produce those within a relatively short space of time.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd appreciate seeing the dates, because I think there's a misunderstanding on the part of the public that somehow this is a 24-month restraint bill. In fact, it could be a very much longer restraint bill than 24 months. As I understand it — and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — the 24 months only applies to the expiry of an existing contract; in other words, to "the period of time, not to exceed 24 consecutive months, when the limitations on increases are to apply to a public-sector employee or group of public-sector employees; and (b) methods for determining the dates when the period referred to in paragraph (2) is to commence in relation to a particular public sector employee or group of public sector employees." For example, if you had any one of these groups — there are hundreds of groups under the definition section — with their contracts just expiring now, before the guidelines are issued and the legislation is passed, then their new contract will not be negotiated. Let's make an assumption that we had a two-year contract negotiated and settled prior to the passage of the act. This bill can have the effect of not coming into force for two years from now, and therefore will apply over the next four-year period. In other words, when you have a contract that has been negotiated and settled at this point, is my interpretation correct that it is feasible that we could see this bill still attempting to control wages in that particular bargaining unit three and four years down the line?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: We are intruding to a certain extent into another section of the bill which comes later on. I would point out, however, under section 9 that the guidelines will apply to groups for no more than 24 consecutive months. The member may have recognized that in his remarks just concluded. Certainly they will not be in for more than 24 consecutive months. The trigger date varies, of course. The balance of the question really relates to another section of the bill before the committee.

MR. LEGGATT: The trigger date is at the discretion of the executive council, according to this section. I assume this is in there so that the trigger date can apply at the expiration of an existing contract, which means that you don't have a two-year bill. You have a bill that could be as long as four years to apply to any contract that may have expired. I don't have the list of the contracts. That is why I asked the minister to provide us with a list with those agreements that are about to expire or have expired so that we have some idea.

Again, I will put this scenario to you. If the municipal employees of my constituency came to a collective agreement last week and that collective agreement was for two years, those same employees are going to be under control not for two years but for four years, because they've got an agreement that will be legal — this is not retroactive legislation — and this agreement will trigger a further two years down the road. They're not looking at a two-year restraint program. They're really looking at a four-year restraint program. What we are really talking about is a four-year wage control bill against those particular employees. If I am wrong I would be happy to sit and listen to the minister explain where I've misinterpreted the section, but section 9(1)(b) says: "Methods for determining the dates when the period referred to in paragraph (2) is to commence in relation to a particular public-sector employee or group of public-sector employees."

This bill doesn't start on any specific date. This bill gives the executive council the power to trigger wage controls at whatever date in the future they wish. Not now, but at some day in the future, because any existing collective agreement will not be impacted until its expiry date. We're not looking at anything temporary. We're looking at a wage-control bill that can go on ad infinitum. Remember how easy it will be for this government — if it is still in office, which is very doubtful — to extend the two-year provisions in this bill. It doesn't all expire at the same date. The expiry dates, as I read the bill, are going to vary. There is no political pressure that will build up on the expiration of the bill. It will mean they've chipped one off against another, so that when one group's collective agreement expires, suddenly they're all alone and the bill's triggered against them. Then, instead of there being an expiry date two years down the road, you are going to see different expiry dates in all these little collective agreements that are all over the province. We are talking about hospital workers, municipal workers, school-board workers and all of them.

The major inequity in this bill is that it's permanent. It's not a temporary bill. This bill is designed to be permanent, because it doesn't have a single expiry date. If I've misinterpreted it, I'll be happy to sit down and be corrected. We are dealing with a discretionary section, a discretionary triggering mechanism for the executive council. They don't have to trigger that bill until they want to trigger it, and when they do trigger it, it's for 24 months.

What we really have is not a temporary restraint bill, but a permanent wage- control bill against the public sector. It isn't a temporary end to collective bargaining in the public sector. It's a permanent end to collective bargaining in the public sector and it has been deliberately manipulated under the terms of this bill to make sure that the expiry date of the controls program doesn't come down on any particular date. So every time a collective agreement expires — it may be a different date for various groups — they are then caught.

Take one example, the BCGEU. We all know this one expires on the 31st. Bargaining has now commenced in regard to the BCGEU. They'll trigger the bill on July 31 against the BCGEU only, and they'll trigger that bill against the BCGEU for two years. So that will go to July 31, 1984. But if you had a group of hospital workers who signed a contract last week, and that contract was for two years, that contract goes on until 1984 and then the bill gets triggered for another two years. So you're into 1986 and this wage control bill is still oppressing public-service workers in 1986. Is that what you want? Is that the intention of the bill? You want to

[ Page 7581 ]

control wages permanently. Do I hear you right? You want wage controls in the province of British Columbia.

I haven't heard the minister try to correct my interpretation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You haven't sat down yet, Stu.

MR. LEGGATT: I will. I'll be happy to hear your interpretation. I can't read it as anything else but a flexible triggering provision.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I can't respond when another member is on his feet, as all members know.

Speaking specifically to section 9, which is before the committee: again, the guidelines will apply to any group for no longer than 24 consecutive months. So it can't be a four-year or longer period. I reassure the member.... He did ask that if he was incorrect would I please let him know. I do so at this point.

The bill may stay on the books, Mr. Chairman, but it becomes redundant for any particular group after having been applied once under this section. I think the member spoke of civic workers in his constituency.

MR. LEGGATT: As an example.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As an example, of course. Whenever they come under section 9 — and we're speaking only of section 9 in this respect — they are affected by it for those 24 months. The legislation may remain, but it can't trigger again for the same group, under the same conditions or terms.

If I have not satisfactorily answered the member's question, I'll be happy to attempt to take it a little further.

Obviously what applies in the bill now applies in terms of the collective bargaining process as we know it. Because there are always going to be trigger dates — expiry of contracts — so it would be impossible to.... At least in all the discussions we held in preparing this legislation, and the many discussions which took place, you can't select a single day in a single year and say: this is it for all groups. That, I think, is an important point. So yes, we will have various groups of employees and employers moving through the effects of the legislation over a considerable length of time.

MR. LEGGATT: What the minister is really describing is a scenario for chaos in terms of bargaining between various units. You're going to have some groups of employees who are under the control mechanism and some who are not. And the period will be a long period. The idea that everybody's suddenly facing a 24-month control just isn't there. The result will be that you're going to have municipal workers, perhaps having signed a contract, suddenly cut back two years from now, or a year and a half from now. With inflation, God knows what's going to happen then. But you're not talking about a two-year program. You're talking about a program that will influence bargaining right up until at least the expiry of the contract. It goes seven years. It depends on which bargaining unit you are talking about. You are opening an unnecessary Pandora's box. We've had a good deal to say about the way labour relations is being poisoned in this province as a result of this bill. It is not just being poisoned; it is being made totally chaotic to those who try to bring some rationalism and some order into the bargaining process.

The surprising thing for many of us is this document called the "Strike Contingency Manual," prepared on February 9, 1982. It is not long, and I assume it was prepared at approximately the same time a decision was made by the executive council and by the Premier to bring in this wage control program. I know the minister is going to say: "This is simply a case of trying to meet every contingency." This document says a lot more than that. This document tells us a lot about the attitude of this government toward labour relations. I think that the most significant thing is that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) himself didn't have his sensibilities exposed to this document. I guess they thought it was a bit too rough for the Minister of Labour to even glance through what was planned in the event of a public-service strike. I do think it is worthwhile to examine an attitude — I would say an anti-worker bias — displayed throughout this document. I might have expected to see this from some of the more primitive cotton mill owners in the southern United States. What is the name of the outfit? J.P. Stevens might have authored this. I wouldn't have been surprised to see J.P. Stevens having authored this document. But for a government that purports to represent all the people of the province, that has a responsibility to all the people of the province, to produce this kind of document speaks volumes about its attitude to labour relations and to the workers of the province. It is a sad day.

We all mutually worry about the atmosphere of confrontation that may have developed in the past. A good many of us were welcoming a slight change, hoping that maybe there was a climate in labour relations that was improving. There was a maturing process going on. This bill and this strike contingency manual instruction will set labour relations back a long way. Let's just read a bit of this. It makes very interesting reading.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the committee still must remind all members that we are on section 9. If the member can relate the comments to section 9 the committee will be well served.

MR. LEGGATT: I will be happy to. Section 9 is the key section in the Compensation Stabilization Act, and in the event that the guidelines — that apparently we don't know yet, or aren't official yet, or we don't have any information about yet — are so ruthless that they result in a strike in the public sector, there is nothing more relevant to this section than the "Strike Contingency Manual." The two are completely connected.

We are looking at the development of what they call "communications and reporting structure." On page 12: "To accomplish this it is necessary to establish a bureau operation centre and for each ministry a headquarters operation centre and, depending on the size of an organization, a number of regional and local work-site operation centres." Get this, under (b): "to be equipped with telephones and, where possible, a conference telephone and other means of communication such as Telex." The communications setup is ready to go for strikebreaking. "(c) Maintain a list of names, home and office telephone numbers and addresses of all the excluded employees manning the operations."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, we are on section 9. We are in committee. Debate must be relevant to the section before us.

[ Page 7582 ]

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I find it hard not to find this relevant to section 9(1). Surely when we're debating the detail of section 9(1), which is the guideline section, and what the guidelines are to be, that's completely related to the question of whether or not we're going to have labour peace. We are now told that the guidelines could be as low as 5 percent. But if the guidelines come in at those kinds of figures, we are talking about what we do in the event of a public-service strike. We know what this government is going to do in the event of a public-service strike. They put it in black and white: they're going to do what they can to break that strike. That's related to section 9.

I don't know whether you made a ruling on this, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to abide by your ruling, but I think you've just given a couple of warnings to me that I am perhaps straying away from section 9(1). I'm not arguing with the Chair; I'm just suggesting to the Chair that the two are completely related. I would be very surprised if you ruled that I was unable to refer to the strike contingency manual in debating the provisions of section 9(1),

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not mentioned in this section.

MR. LEGGATT: Guidelines?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The guidelines are, of course. We must be relevant to the section the committee is debating. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of the rules of committee debate.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other questions I'd like to ask the minister. I'm wondering, in developing the guidelines — and surely the minister was consulted somewhere down the line as to what the ultimate guidelines were going to be — whether any study was done as to the impact in terms of the public-sector unions of the guidelines that were being brought down. Was expert advice sought in the labour relations field to determine whether the guidelines would promote labour peace, and were recommendations made as to which guidelines would and which wouldn't? In other words, was there a relationship between attempting to prevent a public-service strike...? Was the consultation and advice simply on the basis of what we can do with the numbers financially? I want to know whether any study was done in relation to labour peace.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of his remarks in this latest exchange, I believe the hon. member used the phrase, "If this is what you propose to do, you're setting the stage for chaos," or "It's a chaos scenario," or something such as that. In order to answer him more effectively, I would have to ask the member if he is suggesting that we interfere with existing agreements, because that is clearly the alternative. Mr. Chairman, I have some difficulty with that. The member may want to elaborate when he again takes his place in debate.

I think that one point which has not been mentioned and which would certainly be relevant to section 9 is that we undertook extensive consultation after February 18. We invited any group or individual which felt itself affected or likely to be affected by the Premier's announcement on this topic to submit briefs. We did not receive a large volume of briefs, but we received a good number. The precise number escapes my memory at the moment, but it was something just in excess of 30. Many of them were very well thought out, and they were from all parts of the province and from both sides of the question in terms of employers and employee groups. Those briefs were then taken into account in the preparation of the legislation. We heard from trade unions, from municipalities through the Union of B.C. Municipalities, from hospital employers and employee groups, from academics and from those who are in industrial relations.

The member has raised some interesting points this afternoon, but I suggest that unless I have misunderstood him, the alternative to the course of action which we selected with respect to the guidelines, and therefore with respect to a number of other parts of the legislation, would indeed produce chaos and, I think, would produce labour war. We did not seek that, and we do not seek that now. We certainly did not want to interfere with existing agreements and contracts. If I've misunderstood the member, then I will happily acknowledge that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, the minister hasn't misunderstood. I have to repeat the point that was made yesterday: by unnecessarily interfering in the free collective bargaining process, he is creating chaos. He would probably have been more honest to do his chaos all at once and lay the hammer down and be honest about it, instead of dropping the torture as the contracts expire one at a time. He's interfering with the free collective bargaining process, anyway. So he might as well do it with the contracts as they exist rather than when they expire, because it is going to have the same impact on labour relations.

The rationale, of course — and I know the minister is not going to listen very hard to this — is that he's got an unnecessary piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that is politically inspired, has no impact on inflation and is not going to make any significant difference. He could have simply had the good judgment to persuade the Premier to withdraw this bill — take it away. It's a bill that will corrode labour relations for the next 20 years in this province. He could have had the bill withdrawn, and the courage, if he thought there was going to be some slight imbalance in this budget, to present a budget to this House which would have met the costs of government. It isn't a complicated question; it's a simple question. But this government and this minister decided not to take the courageous step and the right step, and balance his budget on the basis of reasonable projections for the public service. Instead, they have decided to ride it out on the backs of public servants. So it simply isn't logical for the minister to rise in his place and accuse people on this side of the House of suggesting that this bill would be even more chaotic if it came down all at once.

Our position is very clear. We think the bill shouldn't be in front of the House; we think the bill should be withdrawn. The minister has the problem as to how he imposes the bill, but I don't want him to mislead the province of British Columbia that somehow the impact of this bill is only for two years. It's going to be for four years and more from the date that this House has the bill rammed down its throat, which is what's going to happen. We're talking a long way down the road. This bill is not a two-year bill. This is a bill which will see public-sector employees — your friends, your neighbours — under wage controls for the foreseeable future.

[ Page 7583 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I've indicated that there was material available with respect to the expiry of contracts and I indicated also that this is public information. The usual calendar from the Ministry of Labour has been published. It may assist the committee if I just touch briefly on some collective agreements which expire in 1982. I would give just a few; I don't propose to go through a long list — if you deem this relevant under this section, and I believe it is, Mr. Chairman.

These are for 500 employees or more; these are the larger ones. This document is dealing with all of 1982: B.C. Buildings Corporation, with 1,095 — July 31; the BCGEU master and its components we spoke of and all know; provincial government professional employees, with some 1,100 — December 31; B.C. nurses and registered psychiatric nurses, with some 2,776 — December 31, 1982; British Columbia Railway's council of trade unions, with 2,048 — January 31, 1982; school trustees, with almost 30,000 teachers, would be well known to all members of the committee; Health Labour Relations, we're aware of, with some 11,779 nurses — March 31. Then simply moving down the list to give the member a feeling for others: under long-term care, the Health Labour Relations Association with HEU, Local 180, some 500 — March 31; Okanagan Mainline Municipal Labour Relations Association with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 900, 620 employees....

There are a number of school districts — not with respect to teachers but with respect to non-teaching workers under CUPE: School Districts 15, 21, 22, 23, 72 and 89, 950 employees — June 30; School District 43, Coquitlam, CUPE local 561, 584 employees — December 31; Simon Fraser University, 600 employees — March 31; another local of AUCE, 500 employees — April 30; a similar agreement with the University of British Columbia, 1,400 employees — March 31; Vancouver Parks with the VMREU local, 1,514 employees — December 31; Vancouver Police Board, with the police officers; and Workers' Compensation Board with the WCB Employees Union, 1,200 employees — March 31. I do not promise that that is a complete list of over 500 employees, Mr. Chairman, but I trust that's the kind of information that the member sought.

MR. LEGGATT: I appreciate the information. There is one item that the minister presented: B.C. Rail, expiring on January 31, 1982. They will not be caught by these guidelines. B.C. Rail, in fact, will be faced with these guidelines two years hence. Their competitors in the CPR and CN will be negotiating an uncontrolled contract. The argument that this legislation was just the fine hand of Trudeau was never clearer than when you see the impact of the collective bargaining for CN and CP employees being done by this government opposed to BCR employees. That's the impact of this legislation. The expiry date is clear. The control dates are going to be way down the line if hi date of January 31, 1982 is correct. There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that the charge that this is a Trudeau bill is never more valid than when you look at what happens to the B.C. Rail employees being under control. Therefore he's doing Trudeau's dirty work on the federal employees through this bill when you look at the federal jurisdiction on rail workers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we've of course dealt in other sittings with the tiresome and completely inaccurate charge that this is orchestrated out of Ottawa. That was tried by the Leader of the Opposition, and it failed.

However, back to section 9. It is correct, Mr. Member; it is a matter of how one expresses it, however. You've indicated that B.C. Rail employees' council of trade unions, some 2,048, will be under this for four years. The fact is that they are under it for something just under two years. Let's be completely frank and accurate with each other. If the expiry date is correct, and I am reading from the document January 31, 1982, well then fair enough; that obviously is prior to February 18, 1982. If the member has some feeling for what the situation is going to be in British Columbia, in other provinces and in Canada as a whole as of January 31, 1984, well then I congratulate him, Mr. Chairman, because I don't know what circumstances will apply. It is not correct to say that this is a cloud hanging over a particular trade union or group of trade unions for a period of four years. They have their agreement. We're not interfering with that, Mr. Member, through you Mr. Chairman. It doesn't trigger in then until January 31, 1984.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a couple of questions of the minister.

Mr. Minister, as I understand this legislation, this is to be a signal to the public employers' sector, and employees through their unions. This is to be the guidelines for the employees when they are negotiating through their union. If I were a union executive officer and I was going into negotiations, is this the section that I would deal with in terms of when I set my negotiations from?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the member had taken his seat. He usually asks questions and remains on his feet, and it's difficult to respond when that occurs. Would the member mind repeating the question?

MR. BARRETT: I waited while you were talking before, because I don't want to bully you. I want to be very polite. I'll repeat my question. This section on the guidelines — I'm not bullying you, am I? — is to be the section that guides the negotiators for the trade unions. If I were to advise — or you were to advise — a trade union negotiator how this law is to be applied through this section, what would be the figures that you would tell him to negotiate around, so as not to violate this section?

HON. MR. CURTIS: We've canvassed that at length repeatedly in committee, and we've certainly dealt with it in second reading.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: I'm not bullying the minister, am I? I'm being very polite. Perhaps somebody out there in the public is interested, such as union negotiations that are going on. They are decent citizens who work for a living to pay their bills and their taxes, which you collect. They come to the minister and they come to me — I don't want to have to repeat the question, because if I repeat it I'll be accused of bullying — and they say: "Mr. Minister, I want to obey the law. Please tell me how I obey the law. What figure can I negotiate around to stay within the guidelines?"

The essence of this bill is wage guidelines for restraint. This section sets out the guidelines. This bill is ordering people to negotiate within a certain frame, or this law will be applied. This legislation, as I understand it, order people to

[ Page 7584 ]

negotiate within certain guidelines; to quote the minister, either they jump or they'll be pushed. Those were your words.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, wrong.

MR. BARRETT: Did you not say that in Hansard during second reading?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, no. Take your seat and I'll answer.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you want to explain? Thank you.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The point may be lost on members opposite but I clearly recall what I said in second reading, and that was: "Jump safely or be pushed." Giggles and guffaws from the other side, but in all the statements that were read back, of course the word "safely" was conveniently overlooked. The word is an important one; in the context of section 9, it's a very important one.

I say again, the guidelines are voluntary and they have a flexibility. In many respects this legislation does not resemble the AIB of the seventies, but in some ways it has a resemblance. Certainly it is our expectation that the majority of agreements between employee groups and employers will fall under guidelines rather than under the stricter regulations. We're only speaking of guidelines in this particular section. The members opposite can, for their own purposes, dismiss the word "safely," but it was a very important word in a short sentence: jump into the program safely or, if necessary — and I think in the minority — then unfortunately we will have to push you into the program. We say that and we don't attempt in any way to avoid that alternative, but I think it will be used most infrequently.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister. Am I correct then in saying jump safely.... We can proceed with this fairly quickly. I just want to stick strictly to your words "jump safely," which you say are important in this section. I accept that. I understand that. "Jump safely or be pushed." What is the "safely" figure? If unions are negotiating out there and they don't want to be pushed — they want to do it voluntarily — can you tell us what the "safely" figure is before they're pushed, so they don't break the law? They want to obey the law. Just tell us what the maximum "safely" figure is so they won't be pushed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Again, I think we've dealt with those figures. I dealt with them in second reading, and they've been dealt with in previous discussion in committee. We're back to a question which, insofar as some members of the opposition are concerned, has not been answered to their political satisfaction. But I feel I've discharged my duty to the committee in answering the question.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member says: "Not true."

MR. BARRETT: I'm not bullying you. I didn't say what he said. I am just dealing with your words.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you dissociate yourself from him?

MR. BARRETT: No, no. He has his opinion, which may be valid. I'll know that after I've finished.

You've told me "safely or be pushed." You stressed "safely." We don't disagree on that. I'm following your words. As I understand it, the original "safely" figure was 10, 12 and 14 percent. Can you tell me why? Which figure is it? Is it the Premier's 5 percent or less? Is that the "safely" figure, or is it the 10, 12 and 14 percent? Is that the "safely" figure?

You're political; I'm political. Mr. Chairman, you are neutral. I will put aside my politics. I am asking the minister to put aside his politics and answer this question. You can put aside your politics. I know you can. You work very hard. If someone stops you on the street and says: "I am the union negotiator and you're the minister, and I want to start negotiating under this section. What figures do I apply? Do I apply the 10, 12 and 14 percent formula as announced by you and the Premier or do I apply the 5 percent or less formula as announced by the Premier?" That is an honest question that any union negotiator has the right to ask in order to obey the law in the province of British Columbia. What will your answer be to him?

You yourself just told us: "Jump safely or be pushed." That is a threat with a safety valve. "Do it my way or you'll be pushed into this thing." Does a citizen not have the right to ask: "What is the safely figure to jump at?" Does a citizen not have the right to ask what the safely figure is that you jump at? It's the ministerial prerogative to make the statement which I quoted and you repeated. You emphasized the word "safely." You did, not me. You said the "jump safely" that I was leaving out. I didn't leave it out with any ulterior motive. I appreciate being corrected. I am thankful that I am quoting you correctly. I would not want to misquote you, because I might be charged with bullying. If a trade union negotiator stops you on the street and says, "Mr. Minister, I want to obey this law; I do not want to be pushed; I want to jump safely; what is the figure that I can jump safely at," what is the answer to that question? What is the figure that I can jump safely at? Is that fair to ask?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Through second reading and through earlier debate on this section in committee — not this morning, because it was a very limited span of time, but certainly this afternoon — I think the matter has been quite thoroughly canvassed, perhaps not to the satisfaction of the Leader of the Opposition for reasons known to himself, but I can say no more with respect to the numbers which the member, in his very quiet way at this particular point in the debate on section 9, continues to seek. I think the numbers are there.

MR. BARRETT: I am very quiet because I don't want to bully you. Some of my colleagues may not be sensitive enough to your tender nature, but I'm very delicate. After all, a minister of the Crown must be treated delicately. You could end this debate as far as I'm concerned.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, just so quiet and so gentle. I love you, Mr. Member. I'll come over and give you a big buss.

[ Page 7585 ]

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Don't Christians do that with each other?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, is it not a nice thing to do to share affection with other human beings, Mr. Chairman? Are we not our brother's keepers?

MR. HALL: Only under certain guidelines.

MR. BARRETT: What are those guidelines? That's the whole point. Look, you say: "Jump safely or be pushed." Now, you haven't given us a number at which to jump safely. Just tell us the numbers that people go in to negotiate for, that's all. What are those numbers? Are they the 10 percent, the 12 percent, the 14 percent or are they the 5 percent? You want people to obey the law; you want people to take this Legislature seriously; you want people to respect government; you want people out there to understand that this government is dealing with a very difficult problem at a time of economic recession. You want them to believe all of those things. You want them to jump safely, but you don't tell them what the numbers are. What is it that you want them to negotiate on? Can you tell us that, please? Can you just tell us the top figure that is underneath the borderline of what you define as safety? Is there a number? Would you answer this question, then: is there a number that is a safety number before they're pushed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I have answered the question on a number of occasions.

MR. BARRETT: Just name the figure. It will only take a second.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, one member interjects and cites a reference. I have answered the question. I offered the information in second reading, Mr. Member. I've made the statement since on a number of occasions. I can assist the member no further on whatever he is pursuing.

MR. BARRETT: Are 10, 12 and 14 the numbers? To the minister: are numbers 10, 12 and 14 the formula? Are they? Can you just say yes or no to that? That's all I'm asking. Are the numbers 10, 12 and 14? I'll sit down. Just say yes or no.

You know what this debate is all about, don't you? This debate is trying to get a simple answer to a simple question as to what the guidelines are under this bill. You're bringing in a law. You're spending tens of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money to enshrine a law through the democratic process. You're telling hard-working people out there — police, nurses, prison guards, everything else — that they've got to jump safely. You emphasized the word "safely," but you won't tell them what the "safely" jump line is.

I've seen a lot of legislation go through this place. I've authored some; I've opposed some. But you're asking us to support a section in a bill when you're threatening people. In your own words, this is the threat: "Jump safely or be pushed." Are those your words, Mr. Minister? Yes, they are.

It's a threat. It's not an idle threat, because the minister is not an idle person. Jump safely or be pushed.

Mr. Chairman, I want you to tell me when I reach the point of being bullying. If I am in any way bullying or offensive or insulting to the minister....

I'd like your attention, because it could be over very quickly. Would you just tell me what the numbers are? Are they the 10, 12 and 14? If they are, that's all I want to know.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: They're not in the Blues.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition knows that I was on my feet. He had taken his seat and you have not....

MR. BARRETT: That's not a point of order. I was recognized by the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear the point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The point of order is that I have risen in my place. The member standing should be recognized. The Leader of the Opposition had taken his chair and had finished his debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If fault lies anywhere it would lie with the Chair for not recognizing the member. However, the Leader of the Opposition has been recognized and has the floor. I apologize for not seeing the member prior to that.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to bully the minister, but it would be worthwhile reading standing orders. Facetious points of order only detract from expeditious use of the House's business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. We are on section 9.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am oh, so gentle and oh, so polite because I don't want to bully the minister. I'll do anything the Chair tells me, especially when the Chair recognized me and said: "Speak on." That is what I am doing.

Mr. Minister, I know why you are embarrassed, but we're not here, as I understand it, to protect our embarrassment. We are here to pass legislation that is to believed by the citizens. It is my understanding that governments want to be believed and understood by the citizens so that they can obey the laws. How can they obey a law when they don't know what the law is?

MR. KING: It is like posting a speed limit, restricting speed, without saying what it is.

MR. BARRETT: It is exactly that, my good friend. It is like putting up a sign on the highway saying: "There is a speed limit on this highway, and you'd better drive safely. You'd better jump safely, or you're going to be pushed. We're not going to tell you what the speed limit is, but if you keep on driving down there and if you trigger the magic number we're going to grab you."

[ Page 7586 ]

Damon Runyon once wrote a very interesting story about the fellow who came into a crap game. He was bigger than anyone else, so he made his own rules. What he did is that he scooped up the dice — I don't know how the game is played, but I just read the story — and he stood up over everybody and he threw the dice in a hat, shook the hat and called out the numbers. Everybody was too scared to look into the hat. Here it is again. Here's Big Louie. Big Louie's holding the hat and calling out the numbers. "Craps! Oh, no, it isn't. What is it in there? Oh, well, the numbers.... Just a minute, the dice are still rolling. I've got to talk to Bill because he might have said something in the corridor that makes the numbers different."

Change all the signs on the highways — from now on the slogan is going to be: "Jump safely or be pushed." That's the rule. You know how ridiculous a position you've been placed in by the Premier. Are you willing to stake your whole image and prestige on sitting there foolishly in silence, simply because the Premier got you in trouble by announcing 5 percent or less? Or are you going to be the person who authored this bill and say that, regardless of anything else said outside of this chamber, the rules for this bill will be the 10, 12 and 14 percent? If they are not the rules, then you have the responsibility to tell the citizens of this province, the hard-working civil servants, who do go to union meetings, who do want to talk to their union leadership and instruct them. The rank and file that the Premier so frequently talks about want to know when to stand up in a meeting and say: "Don't you negotiate beyond this point, because that's the safety line." Are you taking them all for fools out there? Are you taking them all for frightened sheep?

They want to obey the law. Thank goodness 99.9 percent of the people are law-abiding citizens. All they want to know is: what is the law? You won't tell them, and the reason you won't tell them is that the Premier scuppered your statement out there by saying it is 5 percent or less. Now what is it? What is it that the law-abiding citizens who are sitting down at their supper table tonight, coming off shift from working in a jail or in a mental hospital or cleaning up the corridors of the ministerial offices, or looking after or running after every one of you...? Whatever their humble job is, they just want to know what its conditions are. This bill affects the conditions of their job, and you won't tell them. You just say: "Jump safely or be pushed." It's a threat.

Just tell us the numbers, that's all — either the Premier's numbers or your numbers. That's all we're asking. Now will you tell us those numbers, please, so I can assist you in interpreting this bill?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't take anyone in this province for a fool or anyone who would be affected by this legislation for a fool, so let's put that to rest.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, good. Now tell them what the rules are.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now, just a moment, Mr. Member. You've been in this House for a long time, but you keep interjecting, and some people are getting the same bad habit from you. You know, they're always interjecting.

MR. BARRETT: Speak to the Chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: However, through you, Mr. Chairman, I don't feel foolish about section 9. I want to assure the member, because he's been concerned about me in the last little while, through the Chair — yes, through you, Mr. Chairman.... Please, would you help me in assuring the Leader of the Opposition, who is virtually the dean of this place now, that I don't feel foolish.

MR. BARBER: You sure look foolish.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I can't afford the suits that some people can afford.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am not embarrassed. With respect to section 9, the Leader of the Opposition and one or two other members of the official opposition have said that I must be embarrassed. Mr. Chairman, you can't answer the question. Do I look embarrassed?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was asking the Chair. You interjected. That is not fair, Mr. Member; that's not right. You see, you've been here longer than I.

MR. BARRETT: Speak to the Chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, through you to that member, he has been there longer than I. He should know. If you're here ten years, you know ten years' worth of rules. If you've been here 26 years, you know 26 years' worth of rules — or even 18 or 12 or 22 years, whatever it may be. I know when you came. I know when he came, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, you cannot answer, but since there's been so much discussion about corridors today and yesterday, the member might — you wouldn't know about this, because you're in the chair, Mr. Chairman — tell me in the corridor that, in fact, I didn't look embarrassed. If he told me I did, then I'm sorry, but he's wrong, Mr. Chairman.

We've been over this ground a great deal, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HANSON: The numbers — or resign.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think I've been threatened.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We have had very few interruptions in the past few moments, and in courtesy to the member who now has the floor, it would be appreciated if members would afford him the same courtesy that was afforded to the Leader of the Opposition while he was speaking.

MR. BARRETT: The minister does not look embarrassed to me. I want to get rid of everything that is extemporaneous. I just want to come down to the one question: what are the numbers? Is it the 5 percent or is it the 10, 12 and 14? Would you answer that question?

I have been described as the dean of the House. I have a new-found aura around me. I ignore offensive remarks, because I am the dean of the House. I am trying to be the dean of the House. I am just asking the minister quietly: what are the

[ Page 7587 ]

numbers? The 5 percent that the Premier says or the 10, 12 and 14 of February 18? That is all. Could you answer that specific little question?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In second reading and in committee we have discussed this. We have discussed this a number of times and I think that that is sufficient. It may not be sufficient to the purposes of one or two of the excitable members opposite, but it has been mentioned and it has been identified, and I think that is as far as I can assist the member who is now conducting the questioning on behalf of the NDP.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Can I read what you have told us in this committee? The Hon. Mr. Curtis, on section 9:

I think the government and 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 them 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.

Okay, that is the number. Do you agree? Is that the number? I thank the minister for reminding me of what he said yesterday — 10 plus 2 or minus 2. Is that correct? Do I have every reason to believe that your statement is an honest, correct statement? It's okay, just say yes or no. I believe I have every reason to believe that your statement is correct. You said yesterday: "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." That is your statement, and I believe that you, as an hon. member, mean this statement.

Can you explain to me, then, what the Premier means when he announces to the world that it is 5 percent or less? Do you know anything about that? Are you doing something that perhaps I've missed that is far more courageous in your character than I've been able to detect? Have you been subtly telling the Premier to stuff it? Mr. Chairman, have you been telling the Premier here to stuff it — that as far as you're concerned, it's 10 plus 2 or minus 2, no matter what the Premier says in the corridor? You, my friends, have been misreading how tough this guy is.

I'm fed up, Mr. Chairman, with any more catcalls against this minister. We have discovered that he's not going to be pushed around by Bill Bennett in the corridor, no matter if Bill says it's 5 or less. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, if I abused you, bullied you, gave you a bad time, or did anything else to hurt your feelings. If I could make it happen, I'd make things grow again.

But I've discovered here today that in his own quiet way, this tough minister has told the Premier to stuff it. That's right. No one could pay attention to Premier Bill Bennett when he says in the corridor that it's 5 percent or less, because regardless of what Bill Bennett says, the Minister of Finance says the guideline is not changed.

The fallout from this, Mr. Chairman, is this: he's got guts. He's told the Premier to stuff it. The Premier of all British Columbia says it's 5 percent. That means the Premier, according to that minister, is not telling the truth. If you want to carry this argument to its logical conclusion, that minister is calling the Premier a liar, and I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he is. Is it not correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the use of that word is becoming rather a frequent occurrence in this chamber, and I must caution all members that it is not only unparliamentary, it borders on violating our standing orders on orderly conduct. I would caution all members that certainly in the limitless vocabulary at our command, we can find other words to use that are more in keeping with the long-standing parliamentary traditions of this House.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw the word. I'm going to refer here in private to this political dictionary, and I'm sure I'll come up with another word. I don't intend to refer to it at this moment.

I withdraw the use of the word, but we do have a contradiction here. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I admire you now. I wasn't able to see through the message you were getting to me. You were delicately stickhandling an unfortunate experience that you were confronted with. You had set out the 10, 2 and 2. You had made it clear, but unbeknownst to you the rules had been changed by the Premier without consulting you. Being the fine person that he is, the minister stuck to where he was, and he was torpedoed by the Premier. I understand politics. Rather than have a conflict with the Premier in public, rather than say to the press that the Premier doesn't know what he's talking about, because it's still 10, 2 less or 2 more.... Rather than have that kind of political clash, you've beautifully handled yourself for the last two days by referring to your position. I just figured it out. You told us all along that the figures haven't changed, that it is 10 plus 2 or minus 2.

But that leaves us with this question: what are you going to do about the Premier telling you that it's going to be 5 or less? Denounce the Premier? Is that the recommendation of the jury? I ask you to take another vote. What can the minister do to redeem himself from this difficult position that the Premier has put him in?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: My hon. associate from Vancouver East says that most people in the British parliamentary system resign when they're faced with this position. The minister has not offered his resignation, so he's thinking of some other form of protest to the Premier. Would you tell us what the other form of protest is? Will you tell the Premier to stuff it? Do you know what's been created here by his loud popping-off in the corridors? A mess. And you are the most responsible, most respected Conservative in this chamber. You don't fool us with the Social Credit label. You'd never stoop to adopting that label. We know that you're still a Tory, and we respect you for it. As a Tory you've stuck by your guns and said: "It's 10 percent plus or minus 2 percent." I'm proud of you, and every Tory in British Columbia is proud of you. We know that the Socred label doesn't mean anything.

[ Page 7588 ]

You stuck to your principles and you stuck to the figures, and now the Premier has stuck it to you.

Now what are you going to do when a guy comes up to you on the street and says: "I want to go to my union meeting. I want to ask the negotiator to negotiate for me. What is the safety figure — the one you've set at 10 percent plus 2 percent, or 10 percent minus 2 percent, or Bill Bennett's figure of 5 percent or less?" What are you going to answer him? Whose figure is it — yours or Bill's? That's what I'd like to know.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't quite know how to say this. We've been here a long time — through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Leader of the Opposition, the member who has just taken his seat — and I have to change position now. I do so with reluctance, recognizing that a number of people will be very distressed. Mr. Chairman, I have to ask the member if he would please return to bullying me, because I cannot stand the flattery.

Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, in front of this committee and the press — look at them, the galleries are jammed again — I said that I didn't feel foolish, and I didn't — then. I said I wasn't embarrassed, and I wasn't — then. I said that I was comfortable; now I'm uncomfortable. If that member is praising me in this chamber, what might he do around the province, Mr. Chairman? I could be destroyed by that member going around the province. Please, Mr. Member! You've threatened before. You and your colleagues have said: "Don't make us tell this around the province; don't make us take this out of this chamber." I ask you, as an hon. member to another hon. member: don't let this one out, please. Let's hope the press are getting ready for the hockey game. I can take your criticism, Mr. Member; I can't take your praise.

MR. BARRETT: First of all, Mr. Chairman, he looked up in the gallery and he said: "I hope they're all getting ready for the hockey game." So I have to look up too, because I want to respond to what he said — it's only fair.

I'll tell you what, Mr. Chairman. I promise not tell them that I praise you. I promise not to the tell them that I respect you. But I can't promise not to tell them that you've been hosed. That's what hurts me.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's the old Dave. Now I'm comfortable.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if he was comfortable he'd sit still. He's jumping.... I have never seen the minister so confused. When I was talking to you before, I was being nice to you and you said I was bullying you. When I was bullying you, you accused me of being nice to you.

You know, Mr. Minister, you're in trouble and I didn't do it to you. I would like to put you in trouble, because I'm a politician and you are too. I know you've got trouble in your riding. They want you to spend more time at home. I understand that. You're a busy cabinet minister with serious, heavy duties. You can't spend 24 hours a day in the riding. Those people that are bugging you out there have got to understand that you're putting in a full day's work here. You just cannot chase every little story, every little sewer, every local constituency problem. You're above that. But when it comes to this section, what are you going to say when a constituent comes up and says: "I know you're too busy to look after us here at home. I know you don't like the complaints that you're too busy to took after constituency problems. I know you think that the seat is safe, so you don't have to worry about those constituency problems." But the problem they're going to ask you about.... Mr. Chairman, I'm bullying him again.

What are you going to say to the lowly constituent, the one the Premier referred to this morning in a conversation, as I understand it, when he was asked why there was only an 8 percent limit for MLAs when some of them are millionaires? He answered by saying: "Some of the civil servants are millionaires too." On behalf of all those janitors, nurses and jail guards who are millionaires, what are you going to tell them when they ask you in your constituency: "What guidelines do I tell my union leader to go for? Bill Bennett's 5 percent or less, or yours, Mr. Minister, of 10 with 2 above or 2 below?" What will you tell that millionaire janitor when he asks you? Is it Bennett who is telling what it is, or are you? Which one counts? That is what I want to know. There may even be somebody not watching the hockey game. There may be somebody who'll pick up Hansard and read it and say: "This is where we are going. It is either Bill Bennett's 5 or less or the Minister of Finance's 10 plus 2 or 10 minus 2." What is the law going to be? What is the safety valve? Yours or the Premier's? Is it you or the Premier who is telling the truth? What is the truth? Who is telling the truth? You or the Premier? Would you like to answer?

I would like the minister to rest on that question tonight. Who is telling the truth about these numbers? The Premier or the Minister of Finance? To allow him to think about that overnight, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.